|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear sirs,
May I request you to kindly forward the mail to the
concern e-forum managers.
I will appreciate your help.
regards;
Dr. B C Barah
My reply to the debate goes as:
DFID e forum on New directions for agriculture and
poverty reduction.
The Secretary of State on the occasion of the
launching of a broad-based electronic consultation on
the role of agriculture in growth and poverty
reduction has rightly said ?we need to do more? for
agriculture and poverty. Perhaps it signals the
realisation that agriculture, growth and poverty
reduction dis-jointly exit and the coordinated effort
to synergise them into one whole is weak. There are
examples that this realisation in many places resulted
the new look policy planning emphasis on accelerating
equitable implementation of developmental schemes and
increase efficiency under the broad banner of growth
with equity, self sufficiency and entitlement to poor.
Yet the success and achievements are yet not at a
level as desired. Therefore, approaches need to be
overhauled and appropriate analytical tools to use.
Else, the policy intervention advisory and priority
distort. Often, macro economic derivatives and
averages help providing parameters of overall
situation, but may confound many ingredients,
primarily due to the assumptions underlying these
statistics. As is well known that average works well
if the universe is homogenous. But in a
community/region where there is coexistence of both
billionaires and millions having daily income less
than $ 1, how is the simple average (if un weighted)
depicts the success stories convincingly. Thus the
intention to rethink on the need for upgradation and
improvisation of schemes and programmes is justified
as is planned in case of the DFID policy on
understanding the rural livelihood and poverty
alleviation initiatives.
The views on DFID?s past initiatives as well as the
Rockfeller?s hypothesis I (refer Dick Tinsley)
expressed by the participants appear to be valuable.
Whatever little I know of past and on going
programmes, the initiatives of DFID and its
contribution towards saving the masses from hunger and
death in the lesser development part are extremely
commendable. The continued interest on poverty and
agriculture revisit is relevant and appear to be a
great step forward. Now that DIFD looks for more
consensus and desirous to re-christen its rural
livelihood schema, makes the debate more relevant and
futuristic.
The expert comments ranging from the coverage of
agriculture and poor in Africa (Tanzania, Uganda,
Kenya and Ethiopia etc as refered by Dr. Peacock),
China, Nepal to French are interesting. These speak of
the depth of thinking about the gravity of the problem
and need for addressing it.
In working with the poorest of the poors for decades,
I gathered lots of evidence at grass root to arguing
the need for intervention in equity linked growth or
development in true sense. The answer to Prof.
Duncan?s on the following theme questions will be
interesting to me:
Q1: ?What is the role and contribution of agriculture
within growth and poverty reduction? How might DFID?s
programme and policy best provide support?? (the truth
is that although the share of agriculture income to
total income of the economy decreased (desirable
though) from 61% in 1951 to 24% in 2000s in India),
but agricultural sector continues to play vital role
in the livelihood to the millions. Because, a single
bad monsoon potentially wipes out production and
affect adversely all other sector of the economy leave
alone the poverty. In fact, the poverty question goes
beyond production). and
Q2; ?What are the implications for the types of
intervention that are appropriate at different levels
(global, national and local) by different types of
actors (public, private and civil society)? There are
questions (on the launch paper by Simon Maxwell) in
relation to socio economic dynamics of changes taking
place in rural areas and in agricultural production
systems. But rather than asking questions, I prefer to
express my views that changes are continuously taking
place in agriculture but the narrow mass base of the
desirable changes, is a major concern. Actually, in
order to halt the process of pauperisation and to save
the poor, there is urgent need to give adequate
enabling production environment (including appropriate
technology generation and dissemination), un
interrupted (sustainable) access to information and
support system in more efficient ways.
Q3; If agriculture is so important, why did it fall
off the map ? and how can this (or should it?) be
prevented from happening again??
I find the on-going debate in this e-forum fascinating
and tempted to share few observations. The debate is
relevant and timely. Because, in interacting with the
farmers between the ridge and furrow in their
cultivation fields, one easily finds extreme diversity
and significant range of variation in level of living,
assets acquisition, productivity performances in
agriculture which is the only occupation for providing
the basic needs, and access to support infrastructure.
Let fewer cases of performing farmers and their
spokemanship influencing the public policy decision,
not guide to neglect the millions silently struggling
with their tiny plot of land to try to produce more
from less to meet their sustenance requirements.
Current Literatures support that these low-end groups
are growing fast and the emergence of marginalisation
of agriculture and its small farm orientation sets in.
This obviously drags them to the vicious cycle of low
productivity, worsening poverty, under investment and
hunger etc. This is certainly a global Bad. One finds
many cases of large poor population not only living
below the poverty line (BPL) but far below poverty
line (FBPL). Such deteriorating equation of farm and
household income is alarming.
Do we have any policy weapon to attack these maladies.
A serious retrospection of the past interventions is
needed to build newer pathways for growth and
development programmes. The historical empirics of
Indian planning systems indicate that there is
persistent emphasis on the poverty reduction and
equity linked growth orientation of the development
plans. But the success in achieving the target is yet
not as desired. One reason may be that the findings of
the analysis of data from secondary sources often
failed to enlighten (rather camouflage) the ground
truth, which affect the policy planning. The situation
thus needs more concerted attention accompanied by
accelerating investment on public goods like support
infrastructures. I am stressing the point as many of
the public support system including the international
support failed to provide answer to their own FAQ
(including Prof. Duncan? outlined theme questions).
The interventions, at a time, generate success stories
and perhaps the model. But there are always problem of
replication calling for soul searching. The experience
shows that goods always suffer repeatability, while
the bads multiply rapidly. A reversal of the
phenomenon requires a different stream of thought and
implementable action. I guess the current realisation
of this fact in opportune time, is a most welcome
development (the consensus seeking, which is in vogue
currently as referred to). I hope in the new look DFID
schema will take into account the possibility of
spreading positive externalities of growth more close
to down to earth. That is to guide translating the
growth in to development more equitably and
differently (not business as ususal). I guess the
lessons derived from the on-going decadal DFID
initiative on rural livelihood implemented in four
Indian stats of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa
and West Bengal will throw more lights and insights
useful for future action.
I look forward for a fruitful outcome of the global
discussion in the e-forum.
Dr. B C Barah
(usual disclaimer apply)
=====
B C Barah
Principal Scientist
National Centre for Agricultural Economics &
Policy Research (ICAR)
New Delhi 110 012, India
email: <address removed>, <address removed>
Tel: (011) 2584 2978, 2584 7628 FAX: (011) 2584 2864
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
=============================================================
To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members,
make sure that you send your reply to <address removed>
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the
message body:
unsubscribe growth-and-poverty <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.