Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Andy Bullock" <<address removed>>]

Science and Technology (#4)I posted the following contribution on the 'Public 
policy and expenditure' theme earlier today, but because of its wider 
relevance, I'll also post it on the other themes (to which I'm subscribed) 
because I feel it may present an over-riding context. With sincere apologies 
for cross-posting to those who have signed up to more than one of the themes ...

One of the policy instruments that control the scope of DFID's interventions
is the Public Service Agreement (PSA). Indeed, as the means by which DFID is
accountable to Treasury Department, this instrument exerts primacy over many
other aid management instruments. The PSA currently in force is for the
period 2003-2006, and is therefore influential over what DFID can and cannot
do over the next 2.5 years. The PSA 2003-2006 creates obvious problems for
DFID's scope to act substantially in agriculture and food if it is not
embedded in the PSA obligations, and so I am very concerned about the slow
start, given the 2015 MDG target date.

For those not familiar with the document, the Aim of the agreement is to
eliminate poverty in poorer countries in particular through achievement by
2015 of the MDGs (these are then stated), but which include "eradication of
extreme poverty and hunger" (I quote that one directly because of its
relevance to the forum), and other MDGs in education, empowerment of women,
reduced child mortality and maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and other
diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and a global partnership
for development.

The PSA 2003-2006 then sets out five objectives to achieve those aims,
namely:
  1.. Reduce poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa
  2.. Reduce poverty in Asia
  3.. Reduce poverty in Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean,
the Middle East and North Africa
  4.. Increase the impact of key multilateral agencies in reducing poverty
and effective response to conflict and humanitarian crises
  5.. Develop evidence-based, innovative approaches to international
development. For each of these objectives, there are set out a number of 
sub-level
targets. This is accompanied by a service delivery agreement (SDA).

Because of its primacy within DFID as governance tool, I wish to make a
number of points relating the PSA to DFID's future action in food and
agriculture.

a)      Beyond the MDG aim to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger (the
opening line of the PSA!), there is not a single mention anywhere else in
the document (at objective level, at target level or in the SDA) of hunger.
QQT-based indicators are set for most of the other targets (especially
poverty, education, infant and maternal health and HIV/AIDS). This suggests
that DFID recognises the eradication of hunger as an aim of equal stature,
it has no priority whatsoever in DFID's medium-term strategy. So, at the
very highest political level in the UK, it can be inferred that the
eradication of hunger does not even figure in DFID's mandated business,
unlike education and health. It is crucial that UK's politicians explain why
they have left the eradication of hunger off the agenda of UK development's
development assistance. This onus falls particularly on the
Secretary-of-State for International Development. While other Ministries
share joint responsibility for the PSA, it would be worth hearing how a
Government can have a high-level aim that is not backed by any lower-level
mandated objective or delivery mechanism.

b)      The word 'agriculture' does not figure once in the PSA or the SDA.
By implication, its contribution (like water and sanitation) is through its
indirect contribution to poverty, health, and education. If so, then DFID
has to be very clear in framing agricultural and food outcomes in those
policy terms, as this carries important policy and monitoring implications
into DFID's discussions with partner Governments. An alternate view is that
agriculture has no significant role to play in these priority objectives
compared with other interventions (eg basic healthcare services). If the
latter view prevails within DFID, then it would be preferable for DFID to
explain this and pull out of agriculture and food all together.

c)      The entry points for agriculture and food at the objective level
are, indirect at best. We see a target of "Effective implementation of the
G8 Action Plan for Africa in support of enhanced partnership at the regional
and country level". It is well known that NePAD see the revitalisation of
agriculture as a key instrument in the continent's revival, and the
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Plan as an instrument to move
that development forward. Yet, bizarrely, there is no mention of the
effective implementation of the G8 Action Plan for Africa in DFID's service
delivery agreement. For every other target there is an action by which to
attain the objective, but not this one.

d)      There are sub-objective level agreements to deliver "sustained
improvements in the climate for foreign investment, local private sector
development and market access for the poor" in all regions. The connection
up through objective, target and aim is there implicitly for poverty
reduction, but it is not there for hunger. Therefore, we should not be
surprised that agriculture has been linked explicitly to economic growth in
this forum (because of the dollar indicator used for poverty), even though
several contributors to this email forum have broken the dependency link
between access to food and economic growth.

e)      There is a specific Target (#4) at the Objective level to "secure
agreement by 2005 to a significant reduction in trade barriers leading to
improved trading opportunities for developing countries". But later, this
same target is written as "secure agreement by 2005 to a significant
reduction in trade barriers leading to improved trading opportunities for
the UK and developing countries". So is DFID pursuing improved trading
opportunities for developing countries only, or are these qualified to only
those opportunities that are mutually beneficial.

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 (perhaps only where this
is also beneficial to the UK). Actually, it is worse than that - UK Governme
nt has an aim to eradicate hunger but seemingly has no plans in place to do
so.

The PSA is not a document of minor significance. Secretary of State and
senior officials need to provide a very clear statement of the UK commitment
to hunger eradication in the 2003-2006 period, ensure that the governance of
DFID is aligned accordingly and is backed by the necessary investment, and
take steps that there is no such ambiguity in the next PSA round.
Secretary-of-State's invovement in the launching of this email consultation
is a promising indication of his willingness to assess the importance of
agriculture. The experience on water and sanitation is quite clear - forget
any prior strategic planning that has gone before within DFID. They carry no
weight without the commitment by Secretary of State. That commitment needs
to be secured first, needs to permeate downwards within the organisation and
the policy-base reconstructed afresh.

The politicians to whom DFID is accountable can play an important role in
making this happen. Sadly, their record in evaluating DFID's performance on
water and sanitation in recent years does not lead to any great optimism
that they will be effective this time round.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that the e-forum contributors to this
consultation are putting forward something entirely novel in their Plan 'A'
to concentrate on small-scale agriculture and hunger as a contribution to
poverty reduction. This is because I find it hard to impossible to believe
that this direction has not been duly considered by DFID advisors and by
their specialist advisory units. The question, therefore, is why has it not
emerged more strongly from within. There must be some hidden and
insurmountable barriers to this policy direction.

I think a part of the answer may lie in a recent independent analysis of
DFID's support to an African developing country. I was very surprised to
read that only 26% of DFID's interventions in that country were assessed as
having a direct poverty reduction focus. This compared to an average of over
70% in the bilateral support from other development partners, and higher
than 90% for some. The evaluation determined that DFID's approach is the
tackling of high-level economic and governance reform. Success in supporting 
the MDGs by these means relies on trickle-down effects into real-world 
outcomes. Is there not room for a more balanced, twin-track approach in DFID's 
public policy and expenditure?

Andy Bullock