|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Please note that this summary and all other summaries relating to the Risk and Vulnerability theme can be found on the web site at http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org/theme3/summaries.htm Third Summary from the Process Moderator. 11 May 2004 The Process: Our numbers have risen to over 500 people subscribed to the e- forum. For those who are wondering whether or not to enter the debate ? it is not too late ? your contribution however modest will be most welcome. There are one or two people, we understand who are still having technical problems ? please do get in touch with our help team at contech@gre.ac.uk. The team is ready to assist you. One housekeeping issue, we have had a number of complaints about writers who are attaching earlier emails to their contribution ? this is not necessary and is not welcome by the many who have a restricted amount of space in their mail boxes, have poor connections that take a long time to download or have to pay for material down loading etc. Please set up a new email when offering a contribution and if you are following a particular thread of debate ? just use the same subject header. The Objectives: I would like to take this opportunity to remind the consultation group of where this e-forum rests within the DFID and wider UK government processes. The DFID policy paper of 2003 entitled Agriculture and poverty reduction: unlocking the potential (a copy can be found on the front page of this website) specifically called for wide public consultation ? this e-forum is an essential part of that process. In addition the UK parliamentary International Development Committee, who themselves are monitoring this e-forum process and the material presented, are holding a series of evidence sessions on agriculture in international development. Their internet site is: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/international_develop ment.cfm The next evidence sessions are to be held in London on the Wednesday 12 May and Tuesday 25 May. The public are very welcome to attend these sessions ? please go to the website for further information. Also relevant to this agenda and in particular to the theme of Science and Technology is the Parliamentary Committee which is currently in session addressing the use of science in UK International Development Policy. Their internet site is: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee.cfm There have been a number of evidence sessions held to date and information is available on their website. The Clerk of that Committee is also following this e-form and their office has offered a contribution to this e-forum by way of an update which is posted today on the Science and Technology Theme archive. Please be assured that your voices and views will be heard both within DFID and through these Parliamentary Committees. In my last summary, I reiterated the objectives and I will not do so again this week but would like to encourage contributors to focus your effort and energies in the last three weeks to guide DFID on how best it might deploy its efforts to unlock the potential of agriculture. We have received a wealth of commentary on key issues, and examples of innovation, good practice and lessons from practical experience. Can we build upon these to reflect two questions: firstly, what are the key big issues for the future and have these been ade quately captured in the resource papers and contributions to date? (these may cut across a number of Themes but please don't hesitate to raise them within the nearest or most appropriate theme), and secondly, what do you consider to be DFID's comparative advantage in taken the agenda forward? If choices have to be made what do you feel should be DFID?s priorities. On the second question, what specifically would you like to see more or less of in terms of how DFID (and the UK government more widely) operates at the international level, with its interaction with the International Financial Institutions, UN agencies and other bilateral agencies, other UK agencies, the various inter-government bodies and processes; at the regional levels ? through its interaction with organizations such as NEPAD; at the national level; and the local level? In what ways could DFID strengthen its relationship with the private sector, organizations of civil society, academia both the north and in the south to address the needs of agriculture to meet growth and poverty reduction objectives? Finally, we have a debate emerging on the political dimensions of agricultural reform (see Growth and Poverty Theme) ? let us build on this as well as strengthen the debate on the underlying issues, to explore how DFID can get smarter in tackling political economy issues both in the UK and in its support and interaction with international and national partners including what this means to its own organization and how it functions. The Content: Growth and Poverty We have received an excellent third summary from the Theme moderator. I would just like to draw other readers attention to this summary (see Summary section under each Theme for the latest) and to the emerging five topics which the group have been invited to focus on in the coming week: the political dimension of agricultural reform; the contribution of agribusiness including some specific new ideas on DFID action; the need for recognitio n of the diversity of the smallholder sector; the changing context of agriculture; and environmental monitoring. I encourage you to read this summary and it is not too late to join the group and contribute to the debate. Late entrants are welcome. Economic Opportunity Two summaries of this debate have been completed by the moderator ? 28 April and the 5 May, a third is due shortly. This theme is enjoying a lively debate on key issues ranging from water, farmer organizations, price policy, to contract farming and following the moderators call for examples of emerging practice and experience many further contributions have been added. There is emerging a rich debate on the focus of rural, peri-urban and urban agriculture, which perhaps raises the question of how national agricultural policy and intervention can best be differentiated to serve the range of needs? I would further like to draw the group?s attention to the debate under Risk and Vulnerability Theme and ask how and whether efforts should be made of support agriculture in less favoured areas. Perhaps in the context of servicing differentiated needs in addressing economic opportunity this group could also address managing risk in the changing and dynamic processes of urbanization and globalization. This Theme also raises the question of the voice of rural people in particular those in less favour ed or remote area (a point raised by James Biscoe, 8 May) and further developed by Colin Poulton in his contribution on the Political Dimension (7 May). How can we get the voice of the farmer better heard within the policy dialogue and decision taking process? And finally there was a plea from Jonathan Coulter (9 May) for governments and donors to commit to the long term in particular to foster stronger marketing systems at country and regional levels. Risk and Vulnerability The Moderator team have done a valiant job in trying to stimulate debate under this theme ? the debate is now beginning to develop and I would encourage the 280 people who have registered on this theme to take courage and enter the debate. What are ideas and thoughts on addressing missing markets in particular to replace the functions of the parastatals? (See this question asked by Dirk Bezemer 5 May). Should new approaches be developed to foster the private sector in support to less favoured areas or more disadvantaged producers? If so what and how might these best be managed? What might be the link with social protection programmes, or other social transfers? What are the associated risks and what might be the long term implications and impacts on sustainable outcomes? Global Trade The last moderators? summary of May 2, brought together the key emerging debate and perhaps asked more questions than can be answered through this process but let us continue to try to get the key issues identified. There are some worrying comments on donors/NGOs identifying key niche commodities and promoting these widely with a potential for oversupply and ?failed projects?? How should or might this best be avoided and who should carry the responsibility? The moderator ended his summary by asking what you see as DFID?s comparative advantage. I would tighten this up and ask if there were just two or three interventions or actions that DFID or the UK more widely should focus upon ? in the light of a highly dynamic and changing global and national trade agenda for agriculture ? what would these be? Science and Technology A number of themes are running through this debate. The importance of a continued but reformed public provision of extension and advisory services is noted by many contributors ? and a recognition that there is a need for new models which bring in other partnerships e.g. with the NGO community, the private sector, etc. The need for the public extension services to be able to adapt to the changing agricultural economy and to network is recognized and this calls for both a new generation of service providers and a system which is set within the wider national agricultural strategy. Suggestions are also emerging on both the importance of and opportunity to foster local level innovation and technological entrepreneurship (Moses Ochieng 2 May). The need for a high level commitment to S&T and a reversal of the decline in funding is noted by many as is the imperative to address the declining human capacity in both the north and the south. A debate on new structures and alliances within the international-national research architecture has begun noting the importance of linkages between different players from the CGIAR to national institutions. There is a call for lessons of process and structures that have worked to be shared and or ideas on new and innovative approaches to be offered. There is a noted concern by a number of writers on the CGIAR and progress on its renewal. I would draw your attention to the contribution by Jill Lenne (6 May) who provides both examples of what has worked as well as emphasising the importance of institutional linkages and the need to work along the development continuum from research through to problem solving and application. The importance of livestock and the recognition of pastoralists within the rural economy has been noted both in this and other Themes. There is a call for a better understanding of the role of livestock in poverty reduction (Ade Freeman, 3 May). Debates on contract farming, land reform and common property management and access are moving forward within this Theme. Whilst not strictly a topic for this S&T theme, they raise the importance of the topics within the wider agriculture and rural sector planning and policy processes. Public Policy and Expenditure The debate has been somewhat slow to get started. I would draw you attention to the moderators? summary (4 May) and the call for thoughts on: ? Coherence between local level planning for agriculture and national processes ? do we have some first hand experiences to guide policy and practice? ? The decentralization of agriculture and rural planning and what this means to budget allocations? ? Accountability and reform of Ministries of Agriculture ? do we have some first hand experiences to guide policy and practice? I would also draw you attention to the contribution by Michael Wales (27 April) on Direct Budgetary Support (DBS) and his call for ideas how development agencies such as DFID might best respond to this current shift away from traditional projects to DBS in the context of securing public investment for agriculture and rural development. One might add to that request, a call for your thoughts on any wider implications of such a change to the agriculture and poverty reduction agenda. Felicity Proctor Process Moderator 11 May 2004 ============================================================= 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 risk-and-vulnerability <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.