|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
-----Original Message-----
From: tadreg [mailto:<address removed>
Sent: Wed 12/05/2004 08:55
To: Poulton, Colin D
Cc:
Subject: DFID: be more diffident!
How DFID might best deploy its efforts to unlock the potential of
African agriculture:
A Tanzanian perspective
My comments on this topic follow from my concern that by ignoring the
political and ideological underpinnings of African agriculture, the majority of
aid-inspired interventions will continue to fail to have a significant,
sustainable impact on African smallholder family income and poverty levels. To
begin, let me say what DFID should NOT try to do.
1. Do not try to 'go it alone.' Diverse, ad hoc, unco-ordinated
donor interventions continue to be part of the problem. The debate on African
agriculture and poverty reduction needs to be inclusive for both donors and aid
reciepients. Do not underestimate the power of vested interests in continuing
with big, loan-funded projects despite their deplorable track-record.
2. Do not think that basket funding of an agricultural sector programme
(to get away from projects) is the main 'way to go'. What the state should be
doing/not doing needs to be sorted out before donors commit to investment in
public goods. There is a case to be made for state intervention to address
'market failures': the trouble is that much current state intervention
exacerbates rather than attenuates market failure (through patronage,
inefficiency, and corruption).
3. Do not limit the discussion to the government/donor duopoly. What
the 'private sector' does in terms of investing in market development is
crucial, and donors need to focus much more on encouraging reform in
institutions and tax regimes that serve to improve the environment for doing
business.
The above issues constitute major challenges, but need to be addressed
if DFID aid is to become more effective. I would not advise DFID to put big
money into agriculture without seeing major progress on the above issues.
Things for DFID to do, therefore, include the following:
1. Encourage an inclusive debate on agriculture and poverty that rises
above sectoral/vested interests on both sides of the aid divide. I believe J
Coulter mentioned Mali as a case where donor-government dialogue yielded
positive results in terms of pushing policy in the 'good' direction. The debate
should involve government, donors, the private sector and civil society actors.
2. The debate should be open-ended and evidence-based, implying the
need to do specific pieces of research, building on what we know. For example,
livelihoods research such as Frank Ellis' LADDER project has highlighted the
devastating impact of local government taxation and regulation practices on
farmers and traders. The World Bank has been examining the functioning of
Tanzanian export crop boards (where's the report guys???). Aid effectiveness
should be part of the debate.
3. Conditionalities are out. Donors are currently reinventing the SAP
wheel under PRSP. EG they are demanding that the Tanzanian export crop boards
should be shorn of their market-intervention role as part of the current round
of general budget support. These bodies should indeed be reformed because it
makes good sense, not because donors say so. The best conditionality is to
withhold the aid while the debate continues. This, of course, donors are
reluctant to do. Again, this is an enormous challenge, given the urge to lend
and spend.
Summary: encourage an open, inclusive, policy debate before committing
major resources to smallholder agriculture. Front-load the debate with evidence
from strategic research. To achieve this, DFID may need to look around for
additional technical capacity: people who understand, politics, markets and the
private sector.
The above reflects my experience in heavily aid dependent African
countries.
Let me leave it there, and thanks for your attention.
Brian COOKSEY
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.