Here is my second summary on this e-consultation on agriculture.  I have tried to keep it as short as possible.

The Process:

The timetable: For a range of reasons, not least the Easter and upcoming UK May breaks and the fact that 25% of the current cohort of participants have registered in the last week, we have decided to extend the consultation period by two weeks to 28 May and the wrap up to 7 June, 2004.

The numbers: For your information, some 450 people have registered to take part in this e-forum.  Growth and Poverty, and, Economic Opportunity Themes have to date attracted the highest level of registration followed closely by Risk and Vulnerability.  Now those of you who are following the debate and watching the archives of other themes (don’t forget you can read all the submissions on the website without being registered), you will see that the level of discussion has been somewhat slow to get started on the Risk and Vulnerability, Global Trade, and, Science and Technology Themes.  Even for Public Policy and Expenditure – possibly one of the key themes when it comes to the financial bottom line and public investment and accountability – there are over 150 people registered – so please let DFID hear your views and ideas.

Managing the process: You will have seen my recent announcement and our decision to move parts (i.e. extension and farmer organisations) of the debate from the Growth and Poverty Theme to more appropriate Themes.  We hope this will help to focus the debate and get the best from your contributions.  Please stay with us on these moves and continue offering your welcome contributions.

Following the threads:  We do ask that you try to keep consistency on the subject headers, in particular when you are taking forward a particular thread of discussion with others. This helps all the readers including the moderators.  If you have two issues – why not send two separate emails with the different thread subject header?

Summaries and archives:  All Theme moderators have posted their first summaries – this is the best insight into the debate to date. The second summaries are due in the next few days and these will be posted on both the Theme archive and the Theme summary section.

The Objectives:

Let us take a moment to refresh our thinking.  Hilary Benn spoke for the whole of the DFID when he said (paraphrased) … “that DFID needs to be more effective, improve the quality of work, find new approaches, seek practical and replicable ways to connect people to markets, tackle vulnerability and risk and enable the voice of the poor to be heard”….

Alex Duncan in his welcome had three broad questions which we might like to apply to all themes: what are the issues, opportunities and threats: what are the implications including what works; and finally what should DFID do – principles, processes, etc. 

Most of the groups have thus far focussed on the first two questions – although overall specific examples of what is working well where and why have been fairly limited in number – let us hear more of them.  Most importantly as we move to the middle of this consultation is for the Themes to start to think about the UK Department for International Development’s (DFID) comparative advantage, what would you like to see DFID do more or less of at international, regional and country level – on its own as a bilateral donor and or in partnership with others. You may wish to look through the two DFID strategy and policy papers (2002 and 2003) posted on the introduction page of this website. Your comments can and will inform future DFID policy and investment – both directly and in the manner in which follow up consultations takes place.  So feel free to continue to offer your views, experiences and advice.

The Content thus far:

Agriculture matters but should be integrated into the wider poverty reduction strategies and patterns of growth, recognizing multiple income sources of households and the need to see agriculture from a systems perspective. Understanding engines of growth at sub-national level is felt to be important. Linking the rural economy with the urban economy is also noted as is the importance of urban agriculture.  One author goes further in asking that urban policies complement agriculture policies.  Examples of multi-sectoral approaches are offered from Latin America, Nepal and the Philippines. Better means (institutional, policy, investment) to support these diverse and multi-sectoral approaches should be sought.  One writer emphasised the importance of tacking key underlying policies e.g. land reform, water use strategies, etc., at an early stage in the process.

One size does not fit all: There is  a need for differing models and scenario assessment which take into account the differing national and local perspectives including a realistic assessment of what agriculture can – in that context offer.  Importance of local understanding has been emphasised, as well as the recognition that regional, national and global agriculture and markets are highly dynamic at this time. There is a need to monitor and review the impact of policies and investments in real time i.e. a view from a number of writers that we (donors, governments) need to get on with investment and action in support of agriculture and not delay with continuous debate.

There is a role for sustainable intensification of smallholder agriculture - very specific actions and interventions have been offered, but local level constraints need to be understood including opportunity costs to labour. BUT can we rise to the challenges set by Michael Lipton (28 April)?  If I read him correctly, he challenges DFID (with EC and the WB) to set targets for supporting small-farm, labour intensive agriculture. Will targets for support to agriculture and farm research deliver sustained outcomes? Can the consultation participants “bite the bullet and offer out-of-the-box thinking” on this?  Is there space in development thinking for Lipton’s Plan A?  Will the impacts of OECD export subsidies over-ride any gains (see Global Trade)? -  Is there a case to support some form of “adjustment” until global trade is more equitable?

Build exit strategies specifically targeted at marginal producers or high risk agriculturally dependant communities where external factors (markets) will impact on future livelihoods.

Recognize and seek means to support the strengthening of supply chains and value addition – good examples are being shared (Global Trade).

Self-provisioning and its importance to food security and nutrition.  Can a case be made for differing and strategic policies and interventions that support self-provisioning in view of its importance?   Should securing household food intake be a goal in itself? It may raise the question on how to address multiple expected contributions of agriculture to poverty, nutrition, and growth - how can these be managed at country level and within international and donor policy?  That said, there was a plea that such self-provisioning policy/understanding go hand-in-hand with rural income generation and growth, as well as environmental investment.

Is the true contribution of agriculture recognised?  See some interesting commentary (Mark Meassick) on means to measure agriculture’s contribution to GDP.  Also views from others on social, health, environmental etc measures that may require/imply new means of valuing agriculture.  Concern that data sources camouflage the reality, that income poverty hides deprivation of non monetary poverty – tracking variations in e.g. stunting may be a useful supplement to inform policy and intervention.   I thank Andy Bullock (28 April) for putting together his thoughts on the evidence base concerning agriculture and economic growth – can others build on this?

The challenge of the institutional structures: many threads of discussion on the roles of the public sector are implied but not yet elaborated - do we have further thoughts on the structures of public agencies?  One author emphasises the importance of understanding and working with existing institutions raising the importance of building sustainable institutions.  The weak voice on agriculture at national level and weak capacities of Ministries of Agriculture (and their partner international agencies) to make the case for agricultural investment (see Archives on Public Policy and Expenditure) is noted. What is needed to help?

Deep concern that with already low levels of investment in agriculture through national budgets and donor projects that this could further decline with the growing interest by Government and donor agencies in budgetary support including credits aligned to PRSPs.  What are the implications to agriculture of the demise of the sector specific investments projects?  What are the implications to DFID? There is some debate developing in the Public Policy and Expenditure Theme – you may wish to add to this debate.

There are differing views on the opportunities and capacities of cooperatives and farmer organizations. Views shared on the experiences of pastoralist association models (Andy Catley) are welcome case studies. There is a call to take a fresh look at farmer organizations.   Do we have examples that support the premise that farmer and similar associations are a vehicle for the voice of the rural poor?

Making science and technology (S&T) accessible to and appropriate for the needs of the poorest. General view that more should be done in generating appropriate technology in particular for the poor and in developing new models for extension and knowledge management including better use of the private sector. The demise of S&T including human capacity at country level is raised by a number of authors.  The need to bring good economics to S&T and to extension provision was noted but that this needs sustained efforts in capacity building possibly through N:S distance learning and S:S sharing.

Endorse importance and commitment to research and S&T at the highest levels within development agencies and at the country level. This is rarely done and DFID could take a lead. The entire process of knowledge generation – application - dissemination – uptake needs serious thought in terms of institutional players, time frame, resource allocation, and human capacity.  Concern is noted on the demise of the UK capacity in light of its historical contribution and future potential role. The importance of good practice sharing is noted by many. Maintaining models of multi-institutional research at all levels is commended.  Meeting the S&T needs of small countries may need particular attention.

Integrate environment into agricultural planning. There was a call for the environment agenda to be mainstreamed within the agriculture and rural agendas and not as was often seen to be the case for this to be marginalized – would others like to elaborate? There was mention made of multi-functionality? Are there good practices people wish to share?  - Economic Development Theme

What DFID can do and DFID’s comparative advantage – some emerging points (not withstanding issues to be derived from above): build on conceptualization including cross sectoral approaches, empirical testing of interventions, validating contexts and modalities, evidence based policy and support to scaling-up. Learning lessons from the past in particular the issues of institutional development and sustainability.   A plea from South Africa (where funding was not seen as the limiting factor) for support to develop new methodologies that help provide more structured delivery of extension inputs.  Proposal that DFID set up a data base of success stories drawing on a range of DFID and non-DFID sources.  Provide support to countries on trade policy and capacity building for trade negotiations.  Importance of effective and regular monitoring of the use and impact of donor and public funds. Strengthen impact assessment methods. Project and programme interventions need to be built on a strong local understanding.

One writer called for a transparent and long term commitment by DFID to agriculture including S&T.   This is a point on which we might all agree.

Please do feed any comments on this through the appropriate Theme.

Thanks everyone.

Felicity Proctor
Process Coordinator
30 April, 2004