Growth and Poverty Mailing List Archive

["Gareth Williams" <<address removed>>]

This is the second part of my fourth weekly summary of the growth and
poverty discussion group covering the following issues:

3) Trends in agricultural development, including urbanisation and links with
the urban economy, technological innovation and environmental change, and
the livestock revolution.

4) The political dimension of agriculture

5) The priority of agriculture within DFID, and how DFID needs to change.

**************

3)     Trends in agricultural development

3.1     Urbanisation and links with the urban economy

There has been an interesting discussion of the implications of the
displacement of labour from the agricultural sector (see section 1.1).  Most
contributors agree that urbanisation is inevitable.  However, there is a
concern that, if poorly managed, this process could result in social,
environmental and political upheavals.  Vinay Chand (13 May) comments on the
alarming pace of urbanisation and the risk of political instability.  He
suggests that supporting small farmer development offers a means to "win
time" and slow down rural to urban migration.  Dick Tinsley (13 May) makes a
similar point, arguing that "it is our job to recognise and manage the
disruption, rather than to try to totally prevent it."

A theme that has been repeatedly emphasised in the forum is that livelihoods
may not be entirely rural or urban based. David Gibbon (13 May) discusses
the growth of secondary urban centres in rural areas, where people often
pursue a mix of agricultural and non-agricultural livelihoods.  Diana
Lee-Smith (12 and 15 May) has provided additional contributions on the theme
of urban and peri-urban agriculture, which she suggests may involve up 200
million people in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2020.  Jac Smit (13 May) discusses
rural-based industrialisation.  Others have discussed the growing importance
of commuting between rural and urban areas.

Moving the discussion forward.  There seems to be general agreement on the
need for greater recognition of the importance of rural-urban linkages.
Yet, there has been relatively little discussion of what this means in
practice for government and donor policies.  How should donors and
governments support rural-urban linkages?  Is small farmer development an
effective means to manage the pace of urbanisation?  Is there a need for
greater support to urban and peri-urban farming, and if so in what form?
Should donors and governments move towards a regional planning approach as
discussed by Prian Gordon (13 May).  All of these questions imply the need
to take a broad view of agriculture and to recognise its links with non-farm
sectors and the urban economy.

3.2     Technological innovation and environmental change

The discussion of environmental themes has continued with several
contributors considering the linkages between technological change and
environmental protection.  Will Masters (May 8) has contended that
technological innovation is generally good for the environment because yield
increases reduce the pressure to extend cultivation onto marginal lands.
Similarly, James Biscoe (12 May) argues that technology increases the value
of environmental resources and creates incentives for improved natural
resource management.  Leonidas Hitmana (11 May) suggests that improved
technology can result in more sustainable management of marginal
environments, and points to the example of innovations in soil and water
conservation techniques in the Sahel.  However, Richard Wadsworth (11 May)
points to the environmental damage created by high-tech, industrialised
agriculture in the UK.

Moving the discussion forward.  I expect that there is rather more to say
about the complex relationship between technological change and
environmental sustainability.  However, it may be rather difficult to find
clear answers because there are plenty of positive and negative examples of
the environmental impact of technological change.  It may be worth opening
up a discussion on this theme in the science and technology group.

3.3    The livestock revolution

Czech Conroy (11 May) has discussed the implications of the "livestock
revolution".  Projections (made by IFPRI) suggest that by 2020 the livestock
sector will account for more than half of total global agricultural output
in financial terms.  The livestock revolution creates both opportunities and
threats for smallholders.  While livestock are one of the main assets owned
by the poor, most of the growth in the sector has been associated with
large-scale livestock producers.  The key challenge will be to create an
enabling environment for pro-poor livestock development, including
appropriate policies, laws, programmes and livestock services.   He suggests
that in the case of India there is plenty of scope for making the livestock
enabling environment more pro-poor, for example by revisiting the issue of
grazing restrictions and promoting research work on the productivity of
small-scale livestock systems.

In a separate contribution, Czech (13 May) discusses the problems of urban
and peri-urban livestock rearing.  In addition to the issues of zoonooses
and waste management raised by Diana Lee-Smith in an earlier contribution,
he raises the problem of the high demand for water by urban livestock
producers.  There is an important research agenda connected with the need to
find ways of minimising the costs of urban livestock rearing while
maximising its benefits.

4)     The political dimension of agriculture

There have been several responses to Brian Cooksey's earlier contribution on
the political dimension of agriculture.  Vinay Chand (11 May) considers that
pro-agriculture policy change may be blocked because farmers, especially
small farmers, as a voting or lobby group are usually far less influential
than other sectors, such as industry.  A common obstacle to reform is the
power of vested interests.  Vinay suggests that it is usually not fruitful
to tackle vested interests head on.  He cites an example from India where a
parallel market structure has developed alongside official and regulated
markets.  Rather than pushing through difficult reforms in the state managed
structure, it may be easier to promote the growth of parallel structures,
which will increasingly out-compete official structures.

Several other contributors have also addressed this important question of
how to bring about policy change in the face of strong vested interests.
Brian Cooksey (11 May) argues that donors should not limit themselves to
working with government, and should increasingly work with private sector
and civil society organisations.  Lies Craeynest (10 May) highlights the
importance of rural social movements as pressure groups and agents of
change, but suggests that their concerns are rarely taken up or considered
by donors.  Martin Evans (11 May) discusses some fascinating examples of
policy change in China.  A key element of the success of reforms was the
attention that policy makers paid to the motivations of the officials who
would be responsible for bringing about change.  In the case of grain
marketing reforms, state controlled procurement was phased out on a gradual
basis in order to limit opposition from those benefiting from rent-seeking
activities, while creating an expanding space for private operators.  The
assessment of political feasibility has fundamental implications for the
design of reform packages.  As Martin concludes: "Perhaps when we are
contemplating the design of reforms, we sometimes give too much attention to
the ideal outcome or end-result and do not always think carefully enough
about who is actually going to be relied upon to deliver change and how they
can be encouraged to fall in with the plan.  It may mean accepting a less
than ideal situation for some time, but possibly with a greater chance of
getting nearer to something better in the end."

Moving the debate forward.  I sense that discussion on this crucial topic
has only just begun, and I would welcome further contributions over the last
week.  It may be interesting to consider why farmers (or particular types of
farmers) lack political influence.  How can vested interests in the
agricultural sector be tackled?  What are the potential change agents within
rural society that could exert pressure on policy makers for change?  How is
the changing context of farming (e.g. rural-urban linkages, demographic
change, HIV/AIDS, environmental degradation) affecting policy processes?

5)     The priority of agriculture within DFID, and how DFID needs to
change.

There appears to be a widespread concern amongst the participants of the
forum that agriculture has been neglected within DFID and other donors.
Andy Bullock (12 May), for example, examines the content of DFID's Public
Service Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement, and finds very little
reference to agriculture and hunger.  He comments that "the word
'agriculture' does not figure once in the PSA or the SDA", and concludes
that "this all points to a non-existent commitment by UK government to
eradicate hunger, questionable strategic links between agriculture/food
interventions and poverty reduction, health and education, and an ambivalent
commitment to improve trade opportunities in developing countries."  In a
separate contribution Andy Bullock (17 May) discusses the 2003 Performance
Report on the PSA that found progress to be significantly off-track.  He
concludes that "DFID's response to food, agriculture and hunger can not be
one of 'tinkering' within its current policies. It requires a wholesale
re-tailoring."

David Gibbon (13 May) voices similar concerns, stating that "agriculture was
about to officially disappear altogether from DFID's agenda".  However, he
appears to suggest that there may be signs of revival.  Andrew MacMillan (14
May) contrasts the UK government's commitment to the World Fund Summit goal
and the MDG hunger target with the lack of resources directed at these
goals.  He argues that while the debate continues "the clock is ticking
 away", and options for meeting the targets are becoming more limited.

There have been several calls for DFID to restate its support for the food
and agriculture agenda, in particular its commitment to the World Food
Summit goal and the MDG on hunger.  Paul van Gardigen (14 May) argues that
DFID needs to recognise that there are links between agriculture and all of
the MDGs, and that this should be reflected in DFID's Public Service
Agreement.  Andy Bullock (17 May) identifies several entry points for DFID
to renew its focus on food, agriculture and hunger: (i) a restatement of the
WFS goal, (ii) the Commission for Africa, and (iii) the Comprehensive
African Agricultural Development Plan (CAADP) that commits all African Heads
of State under NEPAD to raise expenditure on agriculture to at least 10% of
Government expenditure in the near future.

Several contributors have addressed the issue of how DFID needs to work
differently to promote agricultural development.  David Gibbon (8 May)
expresses concern that resources have been diverted away from small farmer
development to food aid and budgetary support.  Vinay Chand (11 May)
suggests that only of a small proportion of DFID's aid may reach its
ultimate beneficiaries (farmers), and argues that DFID is mainly funding the
"development business" rather than the "development process".  Brian Cooksey
(13 May) proposes that in order to strengthen its support for agriculture,
DFID should: (i) improve coordination with donors, (ii) avoid going too far
towards budget support before governments have fully resolved what they
should and should not be doing in agriculture, (iii) engage with the private
sector and civil society, in addition to government, (iv) encourage an
inclusive debate on agriculture and poverty that rises above sectoral/vested
interests, (v) support evidence based policy making through research, and
(vi) avoid conditionality (but withhold aid where conditions are not right).
Brian argues that one of the main constraints to introducing these changes
is the incentives operating within donor agencies that create an "urge to
lend and spend".  This is a key issue that has been raised by several other
participants.

Moving the debate forward.  I propose that during the final week we should
try to focus more on DFID.  We need to think more about what it needs to do
to take account of the issues raised by this discussion group.  I will
shortly issue a note giving some thoughts on how we might organise the
debate.

Gareth Williams

Rue des Pâquis 15
1201 Geneva
Switzerland

tel: 0041 22 732 2372
mob: 0041 78 611 8589

email: <address removed>
web: www.garethwilliams.info

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Williams;Gareth;;Mr
FN:Gareth Williams
TEL;HOME;VOICE:0041 22 732 2372
TEL;CELL;VOICE:0078 611 8589
ADR;HOME:;;Rue des Paquis, 15;Geneva;;1201;Switzerland
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Rue des Paquis, 15=0D=0AGeneva 1201=0D=0ASwitzerland
URL;HOME:http://www.garethwilliams.info
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:<address removed>
REV:20040520T165221Z
END:VCARD