|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Vinay's comments apply to the situation in West Africa. I support the view that
microcredit and market information never get to majority of the farmers who
need this support. Due to serious problems with research-extension-farmer
linkages appropriate technologies never get to the remote and rural poor.
I have experience in which a 3-year grant of GBf15, 000 resulted in significant
forest conservation, bush fire management and higher community participation in
natural resource conservation than GBf (millions) for public sector forestry
interventions in northern Ghana. Resources meant for poor families can be
misused or mismanaged. If donors are not vigilant, implementing staff develop
"fixed projects" with relatives, friends and "willing collaborators" and
receive back some funds for personal use. The general notion where corruption
is high is that "everybody chops from their work". Only effective and regular
monitoring can minimise such manipulations my implementing agencies.
John Atibila
COMFORD (Communication for Research & Development)
Box 520
Bolgatanga, UER, Ghana
Vinay Chand <<address removed>> wrote:
In the way of introduction, I am Vinay Chand, a Marketing Economist and for the
past 28 years a Consultant mainly working on agricultural, agribusiness and
agro-processing projects.
There are two very good reasons for focussing on the agricultural sectors in
the poorest countries, one being that the small farmers and landless labourers
are amongst the poorest in the world and therefore those whom taxpayers in
developed countries would most like their help to reach. The other is that
usually there is no way of developing the poorest countries except through the
agricultural sector. In countries where there is strong economic growth, it is
often uneven and agriculture gets left behind. This retards the rate of
possible growth most clearly demonstrated by the positive impact on growth
rates in India when there has been a good monsoon and is in any case socially
and politically unacceptable.
On paper, assistance directed at small farmers and landless meets most criteria
set by development agencies. It also corresponds to priorities being set by all
developing countries. Multilaterals, NGOs, bilaterals, national Governments in
developing countries and regional authorities all appeal for public money to
allow these clearly desirable objectives to be accomplished. More money is the
universal institutional demand. Yet small farmers are probably the most
difficult to help in the development process. This is illustrated by the
reference that Berthold Siebert makes in his contribution to the difficulty of
organising farmers. My own field experience is that although much is claimed in
the name of the farmer, very little actually reaches them. We don?t have to
worry about the desirability of subsidies, microcredit and market information,
most of it never gets to the intended.
One of the most alarming aspects for me is the gap between things like
agricultural research organised at a global level or even substantial research
establishments as Universities as in India rarely percolates its way down to
small farmers at the local level. It is frankly alarming how little essential
local work such as adaptability, extending seasons and selection takes place at
the local level and by local it can be large localities in Asian countries.
Public sector ability to provide such services has become very depleted as have
extension services in too many developing countries. It now looks as though
there is no realistic alternative but to provide such services through the
private sector but there remains the problem of who will pay. Small farmers are
reluctant to invest in increasing productivity, diversification or post harvest
facilities because most of them are in weak market situations. Urban consumers
are accustomed in these countries to getting low cost produce in
variable condition, often with very inefficient and wasteful and in the end
poor value for money distribution systems. Higher incomes should change that
but there is a time gap during which export markets become very attractive. I
leave considerations about global trade to the appropriate discussion group
except to observe that shifting supply curves referred to by Simon Maxwell
apply to most soft commodities where real value stagnates or declines.
I have had the good fortune of looking at success stories. One was an
evaluation of an EU grant financed Agrarian Reform Support Project in Southern
Philippines which organised farmers in groups, provided access to roads, water,
microcredits, some machinery and diversification and all this resulted in a
more than doubling of farmer incomes in a five year period. In contrast I was
on a TA where $600,000 of Trust funds channelled through a multilateral led to
around $200,000 in direct costs and a total waste of opportunity. My experience
makes me strongly favour emphasis on management, control and responsibility. We
don't need more money half as much as we need better targeting, management,
control and accountability. Above all, if we intend to help the small farmers,
we must develop techniques of reaching them and giving effective assistance. To
do this help needs to go through as near the ground as possible in contrast to
paper allocations to global programmes which are often too
general or removed to be truly useful. When carrying water in a very leaky
bucket it is better to minimise the distance you have to carry it. There are so
many reasons why assistance can be wrongly targeted, poorly transmitted,
misused or managed, DFID would be well advised to strengthen its technical
ability to implement programmes or evaluate use of funds when channelled
through multilaterals.
This does require avoiding fixed opinions and a flexible focussing on pilot
projects with follow up to promote replication of successful lessons. I would
urge DFID to rethink their attitudes towards bilateralism and multilateralism
because surrendering control often also leads to surrendering responsibility.
This does not mean that I think multilateralism does not work-I have experience
within the UN and EU system where money has been very well used as in the case
of ITC promoting jute fibre for 20 years and thus buying precious time for the
industry in Bangladesh and India to adjust to its reduced and changing role.
Best wishes,
Vinay Chand,
230, Finchley Road,
London NW3 6DJ, UK
Tel: 44-20-7794 5977
Fax: 44-20-7431 5715
<address removed>
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.