|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear participants,
Firstly thank you for your continued contributions which have not only added to
the existing themes of this debate so far but have seen some new ideas emerging
from our discussions. Ruchi Tripathi from Action Aid has added considerable
volume to our contributions this week with specific
examples of Action Aid and its influence on the public policy and expenditure
arena in its countries of operation. Please remember all contributions can be
read in full by visiting the archives page which is located at:
http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org/maillists/public-policy-and-expenditure/maillist.html
We have just two weeks left for this e-forum so I would like to encourage
continued input from all our past contributors and especially welcome any new
contributions made by late entrants or by those who have yet to share their
experiences and insights
The emerging themes evident so far are:
- Projects VS Direct Budget Support (DBS)
- Political Economy Approach and the Political Dimension
- Shaping Public Policy and Widening Participation
- Shaping DFID Policy- The need for Coherence and Accountability
The emerging themes form the discussions and contributions so far are as
follows:
Projects VS Direct Budget Support (DBS)
Michael Wales commented on the increasing trend to adopting Direct Budget
Support (DBS) which has consequently led to the displacement of funds
previously earmarked for agriculture investment projects and added that this
led to the donors dodging their responsibility in implementing effective
strategies to reduce poverty. It also led to a shift in decision-making
processes and resource allocations as the Ministries of Agriculture were
incapable of securing sufficient funds from the Ministries of Finance.
Adoption of DBS has led to the loss of earmarking investments within the
development budget. As Ministries of Finance are left to resource allocation a
widening gap becomes evident as MoA?s are unable to secure funds and this
hinted at a much larger task of thinking up ways to reform Ministries of
Agriculture.
Added to this were Ana Riviere - Cinnamond?s comments on livestock and the
requirement for a pro-poor focus to funding livestock services. Whilst the
need to place health and education at the top of the priority lists, financial
resources allocated to development of agriculture remains crucial.
Given the increasing trends in livestock production there is need to homogenise
standards and ensure effective and efficient approaches to managing livestock.
This will require sustained funding, Ana reiterated the views of Colin Poulton
and Michael Wales in that the Ministries of Agriculture
must increase their bargaining power if they are to secure resources. Whilst
the livestock sector may occupy a lower place in the list of priorities, it is
nonetheless becoming a formidable area of growth in the agricultural sector and
its sustained growth requires the securing of funds.
However there is a need to recognise that resource generation alone cannot be
equated with improved effectiveness and efficiency.
Political Economy Approach and the Political Dimension
Brian Cooksey and Jonathon Poulter continued with their themes of political
ideologies placing a burden on the effectiveness of instruments as governments
succumbed to pressures of disbursement and the need to keep the local
government and bureaucracy on side. Jonathan Coulter questions the
setting of targets as a viable means to achieving poverty reduction and even
raises questions on the recruitment for development staff, suggesting a shift
away from the hiring of academic high flyers to staff with practical ground
experience.
Brain Cooksey suggests renewed discussion of the political dimension of
small-holder farming to which politics and ideology are pivotal in determining
the policy and reform themes. Colin Poulton?s earlier comments on the need to
reform Ministries of Agriculture to play a more central role in
resource allocation provided grounding to Brian Cooksey?s comments on Tanzania
where there has been a steady backlash to liberalisation in export agriculture.
The ?politics of ownership? (Stefano Ponte) comes into play as the
international investors and multinationals take the place of state-
owned banks and co-operative unions fuelling the case for more state
intervention and less liberalisation in Tanzania. Perhaps provides some food
for thought for the pro-globalisation amongst us?.Invariably it seems that as
long as the major donors serve to empower the bureaucrats and
politicians and provide few incentives to the farmers and investors, money will
continue to fill up that ?proverbial bottomless pit.? Brian calls therefore
for a DFID approach that is not stand-alone and follows coherence through its
programmes. Furthermore he emphasises the role of the state
in correcting market-failures which may be more productive than basket funding
of agricultural sector programmes and finally to not underestimate the role of
the private sector in development.
Shaping Public Policy and Widening Participation
Jock Campbell emphasised the need for a pro-poor policy process, however this
would require capacity building and the necessary instruments to be in place
for the poor to actively participate. Ruchi Tripathi from Action Aid built on
this further by outlining some of the ways Action Aid has
widened participation and shaped public policy. She provided an example of the
Citizen Juries in India and Brazil are effective in enabling poor farmers to
actively participate in debating policy issues of which the results are then
passed onto local/state governments. Other forms of
participation encouraged by Action Aid are participatory video diaries and
participatory assessments. The theme that emerges as a result is the need for
governments to recognise that civil society organisations can offer policy
solutions in addition to their traditional role as implementers.
There is little use for encouraging the participation of marginal groups
however, if little is done to translate these inputs into effective policies.
Shaping DFID Policy- The need for Coherence and Accountability
Andy Bullock raised the issue of hunger in the context of the Public Service
Agreement (PSA). The PSA exerts authority on aid management instruments as
well as DFID policy making over the next 2.5 years. The PSA states as a
primary objective the eradication of poverty and extreme hunger in
developing countries through achieving the MDGs by 2015. However as Andy
Bullock stated, the PSA has no mention of the elimination of hunger anywhere
else in the document, hence whilst it looks to hold as much importance as
poverty eradication, it has been given no priority in the DFID medium-
term strategy and nor does it hold weight in DFID?s mandated business.
Furthermore the word ?agriculture? is also excluded from the PSA and its
relevance in alleviating poverty and affecting key indicators is only implied
indirectly. The entry points for agriculture and food in the PSA document
are indirect at best, the PSA supports the G8 Action Plan for Africa, yet fails
to recognise NEPAD views of agricultural revitalisation being pivotal to the
continent?s revival and prosperity. Andy therefore calls for greater
coherence, recognition, commitment and a shift towards a ?? a more
balanced twin track approach in DFID?s public policy and expenditure?
Ruchi Tripathi?s contribution highlighted the need for DFID to ensure its
policy reached the poorest of the poor and that the policy took into account
gender implications i.e. formulating public policy in agriculture that support
the endeavours of women farmers.
The need for government accountability is central in establishing and
sustaining policy measures and as Ruchi exemplified through Action Aid India.
Their involvement with the Supreme Court of India ensured that the court
ordered the Indian government to implement the Public Distribution System
that ensures meals for school children in addition to the set up of a
monitoring mechanism by the court to ensure the sustaining of this system. In
addition the participatory budget analysis is an effective tool in improving
governance, and in holding governments more accountable for their
actions. The budget is a critical entry point for numerous issues and can
encourage widespread policy dialogues that may subsequently favour and
encourage grass roots ownership to the traditional top-down approach.
That?s it for now and I look forward to your further contributions next week
either adding to the above themes or exploring new areas of thought. However
to move the discussion forward we need to begin to look more specifically to
DFID?s role in policy making given the above constraints and what
need to change if DFID is to succeed working in this given environment.
Stephen Akroyd
=============================================================
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 public-policy-and-expenditure <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.