|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
With Jonathan's consent, I am forwarding a message from Jonathan Coulter,
originally sent to the Economic Opportunity theme, but also relevant to
discussions in other themes.
Colin Poulton
-----Original Message-----
From: <address removed> on behalf of Jonathan Coulter
Sent: Sun 09/05/2004 07:44
To: <address removed>
Cc:
Subject: Knowing what we can and cannot achieve
One thing that stands out on reading the contributions
to the Economic Opportunity theme is that Britain has
many well-informed commentators on southern
agriculture. We are a very earnest breed, and we
sometimes search for new insights and solutions, even
where problems are intractable and there may simply be
no near-term solution. I sense this in calls for
price support for grains, a subject I discuss in my
other email.
Looking at it from the viewpoint of UK Ltd., I feel we
should try to distinguish between what our country can
and canât achieve in the development field. For this
reason I am uneasy about our setting targets for
policy reduction; the prime responsibility for poverty
reduction rests with the people and governments of
southern countries themselves, and we canât set
meaningful targets for what they will do. In the
world of personnel management it is considered wise to
set targets in areas which are under the control of
the staff member concerned. Isnât the same true in
setting targets for nations, or even for the
âinternational communityâ?
By contrast, I do feel we have some very important
responsibilities, such as:
a) avoiding taking actions that harm developing
countries
b) using our diplomatic leverage to prevent other
northern countries doing harm, and
c) ensuring that any assistance we provide, directly
and indirectly, is of good quality.
Let me mention a couple of examples of what I mean
here:
1. Agricultural protectionism always comes to mind
when discussing potentially harmful actions. I believe
the most damaging of these are northern cotton
subsidies, mainly those of the United States, though
EU subsidies to Greece and Spainâs small cotton
industries are particularly high. Europe is a âbit
playerâ in this case, so the main focus must be on
USA, whose subsidies were well exposed in Oxfamâs
report âCultivating Poverty - - .
It is hard to overstate the damage done by these
subsidies, as they hit Africa where it hurts most.
During the past three decades when continent
experienced stagnating production, cotton production
boomed. Notably, the production of ten francophone
countries has grown six times in the last thirty
years, and they are now, collectively, the second
largest exporter after the United States. Africa has
great comparative advantage due to low labour costs
and an abundance of suitable land not needing
irrigation. There are moreover few commercial
alternatives for using this land.
Cotton is also, believe it or not, a magnificent food
security crop. Quality studies by staff and students
of Michigan State University (funded by USAID) have
highlighted the synergy between cotton and food
production. In the francophone cotton industry, even
parastatal companies have had a charmed life,
sometimes performing tolerably well, or less badly
than parastatals in other industries and their cotton
counterparts in other countries.
I acknowledge our Governmentâs commitment to Africa
and its support for the European position in the
Cancun negotiations, but I feel that the stakes are so
high that it justifies putting considerable pressure
on our transatlantic ally.
2. I feel there is scope for the UK to get better
value out of our contributions to multilateral bodies,
large and small alike. I do not pretend to be
all-seeing in this area, but can suggest a few areas
of endeavour. In the case of the major IFIs, one
might seek to improve the balance in recruitment,
increasing the proportion of people with practical
on-the-ground experience vis-a-vis academic high
flyers. One might look for ways to reduce the
ever-increasing burden of reporting requirements
placed upon developing country governments. In some
cases, one might ask some hard questions such as: are
the approaches these institutions adopt really leading
to sustainable outputs? Or, is their effectiveness
compromised by (a) pressure to disburse, and the need
keep (b) local politicians and bureaucracies on board
at all costs? In relation to this point, I can
understand Brian Cooksey when he talks of big loan
project from multilaterals âwhich aim ostensibly to
improve credit availability and marketing,
recapitalise soils, strengthen research and extension,
but in fact serve mainly to empower the politicians
and bureaucrats and politicians who run them - - -â.
In short, I am concerned that in focusing on
âdevelopment targetsâ we can get into some
philosophical confusion, where we hold ourselves
responsible for things beyond our control, while our
eyes stray from things that are to some degree under
our control. By default, we can end up taking the path
of least resistance. With too much focus on the big
picture, we may forget that âthe devil is in the
detailâ.
Jonathan Coulter
from Arusha, Tanzania
=====
Jonathan Coulter
Work address: Natural Resources Institute
Chatham Maritime, Chatham ME4 4TB
Tel (44)-1634-883070, fax 883706
Home address: 21 Stanstead Close, Bromley, Kent, BR2 9DS
Home tel UK(44)-20-8402-0217
Email - for all emails please write to <address removed>
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
=============================================================
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 economic-opportunity <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.