Fourth Summary from the Process Moderator – 21 May, 2004

News on the process and related activities:

For those who are interested in numbers, there are now some 540 people subscribed to this consultation process. The contributions in volume terms differ between Themes - overall there have been over 450 contributions offered to date. Of course quantity is not the only criteria – there are some rich and interesting debates taking place in all the Themes. Please do browse the website http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org – where you will find everything that has been contributed to each Theme under the particular Theme Archive. Since my last progress report of the 11 May, we have had a flurry of activity on some of the Themes in particular Growth and Poverty, Economic Development, and Science and Technology, all of which continue to be popular.

I should remind you that the consultation process ends on the 28 May – so there is still time for new contributions. Whilst all moderators and myself are calling for contributions which might guide DFID in how it does business i.e. what you would like DFID to do more or less of at the international and national levels. How can DFID’s policy influence and financial investment be put to best use? We have lots of ideas and comments coming in – so please do continue to add to these. Contributions on content and case studies of good practice are of course still most welcome.

Let me now tell you what will happen next.   The moderators will draw on the richness of all the contributions to their individual themes, and prepare overall thematic summaries of the key points made through your contributions. They will make every effort to keep these a true reflection of your views as they have done in their regular interim summaries.   These will be posted on the respective Archive Theme site and forwarded to your email address for those registered to a particular Theme by 2 June.    We will collate these summaries adding information on the process, the listing of papers, the geographic spread of the contributors, etc and prepare a Compilation Report.   This too will be posted on the site in the summary archives of each Theme by the 7 June.   We are further proposing, in consultation with your moderators, to prepare a short Messages emerging from the consultation note which draws from the contributions made across all themes and throughout the consultation.  We will advise you through your email addresses when these latter two documents have been posted on the website.

In early June, DFID will outline to this wider stakeholder group, the next stage of the process as they move to further consultation and to the elaboration of their Guidelines for DFID’s future work on Agriculture.   DFID will continue to use this website to keep this stakeholder group and other interested parties up to date on their progress.   This site will remain open until March 2005 and all the contributions offered will continue to be in the public domain and accessible until that date.

Other News .  The Commission for Africa has been launched and we are pleased that they would welcome views of this group on both their future work on the priority theme of natural resources (natural resources, agriculture, food, and the environment) See http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org/africa/index.htm. The Commission will review the contributions made to date through this consultation as they relate to Africabut if you wish to direct any specific points to them – please feel free to do so.   You do not need to be registered to this DFID consultation in order to make an input to the Commission.   Please note however that this is by way of a preliminary brainstorming – so contributions by the 28 May please.   The Commission will in due course put in place a wider and deeper process – so there will be other opportunities to contribute at a later time.

DFID’s Research Funding Framework 2005- 2007 has now been made public and DFID is inviting comments by 9 July to be sent to: researchconsultation@dfid.gov.uk.  This document has been posted to the Science and Technology Theme site (submitted papers) for your information and use.  It is of course particularly relevant to understanding DFID’s current position on Science and Technology for agriculture.

The Content:

Please note that you will find the most recent Thematic Summary on the Summary’s section of the relevant Theme.

Growth and Poverty

The moderators, Gareth Williams and Alex Duncan, have now submitted their fourth summary (Parts 1 and 2 both on 20 May).   There has been an extraordinarily rich debate taking place within this Theme and I have to commend the moderator team for their most recent summary.   They have continued the debate on the broad relationships between agriculture, growth and poverty with particular focus this week on agricultural growth and the displacement of labour recognising that the movement out of agriculture is a normal part of the development process and thus raising the importance of setting agriculture in a wider multiple livelihood context; pro-poor growth raises the question of whether and under what circumstances agricultural growth is indeed pro-poor. The summary offers a definition of pro-poor growth.  The food security and hunger debate has come to the fore this week with forceful contributions calling for a greater focus on these issues and challenges what this may mean for donor and national agricultural policies. A debate on gender dimensions of agriculture, growth and poverty has now commenced.  The team then turn to the debate to alternative strategies for agricultural development and they discuss the pro and cons of a focus on intensification of cereals; small farmers vs large farmers; and, Low External Input Agriculture vs High External Input Agriculture and seek views from contributors on how donors can support such a menu of agricultural options.   The second part of the teams’ summary focuses on trends in agricultural development bringing out the links with the urban economy and the deep concern about the lack of appropriate management structures to support this process. There is a need to recognise the multiple and multi-spatial nature of peoples’ livelihoods whether urban or rural. All contributions challenge donors and national planners to find effective means to put this understanding into development practice.   Other trends addressed are technological and environmental change where an early debate is emerging – perhaps one that the Science and Technology Theme could also take on?    The implications of the livestock revolution are then addressed.  Perhaps one of the most challenging and new threads of discussion to emerge in recent weeks is the political dimension of agriculture. The team summarise the debate to date and I share with them the invitation to all to offer your thoughts on this topic.  Finally, the team focus on the priority of agriculture within DFID and how DFID needs to change summarising the widespread concern that agriculture has been increasingly neglected within DFID and by other donors and raising specific issues that DFID could address urgently.  Specific suggestions are offered to DFID and the team plan to make this topic the foci of the agenda for the final week of the consultation.

Economic Opportunity

The fifth summary of the work of this Theme was posted on the 18 May by your moderator, Colin Poulton.  New additional topics have been added to this debate and these include market information and in particular the rapid advances in technology and its possible implications; credit and in particular the suitability of financial products for smallholder agriculture and the structure of financial intermediation; and finally the debate continues around a range of issues under the thread technology and support services.   Issues surrounding farmer groups’ vs individual entrepreneurs in the context of service provision in particular for productive activities, are debated.  The opportunity for and importance of collective action through farmer groups is noted in particular the importance of self help organisations to women.   There is finally a strong contribution from Action Aid to this debate on the challenges of access to and control over productive assets and how donors might work to empower poor groups (men and women) to address securing such assets.   The moderator has called for the debate to move towards contributions to practical suggestions for DFID and has offered a set of start up questions for the group to consider.   As with the Growth and Poverty Theme, attention is drawn to the need for DFID to clarify its commitment to agriculture and nutrition.

Risk and Vulnerability

The most recent summary was prepared on the 12 May by John Farrington.   In the summary there is a helpful clarification of the definition of risk and vulnerability.    The role of markets and commodity price stabilisation comes through in the debate and questions are raised on the need to find mechanisms through both private (warehousing, credit systems, weather based insurance) and public sectors to reduce market risk – this topic offers much scope for innovation and learning.  There is a call to understand better coping strategies aligned to factors which contribute to vulnerability including gender, age and social exclusion.   The means to secure and accumulate assets is emphasised and in particular the need to understand the importance of and assure the security of traditional assets e.g. access to the commons, customary right of access to trees and their products.   A debate on land is emerging.   Recent contributions include youth and intergenerational vulnerability; the results of a 13 country study offering an assessment of the groups most likely to suffer food insecurity and hunger, and factors which contribute to their vulnerability.   A deep concern is raised on the role of the state towards ensuring that its citizens human rights are fulfilled including the rights of the most marginalized. In this context the impact and arguably responsibility of external (often seen to be negative) influences including aid and financial institutions need to be addressed. The importance of vulnerability analysis as a basis for guiding action is noted, as is the issue of revisiting the interface between food aid and its impact of livelihood sources and food security. Contributors to this Theme are helpfully beginning to draw out specific actions for DFID.

Global Trade

In his summary of 12 May, Duncan Green draws the threads of the debate under three headings: Commodities and Supply Management; Fair Trade; and Environmental Impact.   The latter two themes offer specific proposals for re-enforcing opportunities to increase market share of fair traded goods such as target setting and understanding better the environmental implications of international and regional trade and feeding this into the wider international trade dialogue and policy. On Commodities and Supply Management a debate is evolving indicating a deep concern over the assumptions which underlie current thinking on “globalisation and the poor” and an over optimism of possible positive outcomes and a call for more rigorous analysis.  The assumption that a reform of CAP will enable Africa to succeed in global trade potentially misses the point of understanding the behaviour of global agricultural markets and secondly, assuring that the pre-requisite requirements for success are in place calling for DFID to pay more attention to market obstacles and to understand better the differentiation of impact in likely liberalization scenarios. There is a call for DFID to support increased representation of developing country participants (in particular of farmer representatives) in international regulatory and standards bodies.   The factors leading to success or failure in International Commodity Agreements lead to the conclusion that such supply management does not work in all markets and more nuanced efforts are required.  Whilst there is less consensus, a key point is raised on whether and how to give greater latitude to developing countries to impose agricultural tariffs, not only as a defence against dumped imports but as part of a food security and poverty reduction policy – if not that then may be special and differential treatment over technical barriers to trade can be considered.

Finally, the UK’s position on trade negotiations has been brought to the fore and the question asked as to whether the UK is aligning with the US government or are we acting only where there is mutual interest between UK government and developing countries or is the UK working primarily to the benefit of developing countries – there is a call that this position be clarified.

Science and Technology

George Rothschild, the Theme moderator, has offered a comprehensive summary (19 May) of the evolving debate.   This is very helpful in that it brings together the contributions of recent weeks and lays the foundation for both identifying gaps and will potentially lead towards clear guidance to DFID.  Five key threads are developed: firstly, the question what are the research priorities, offers commentary on the importance of focus on staple food crops but a recognition that a dual or complementary approach is likely to be desirable to address the multiple needs of both commercial (including the entire supply chain) and smallholder agriculture. The importance of the multi-disciplinary dimension including specifically social science is raised.   Many and rich contributions have been offered on specific “technical” areas of focus.  It was generally agreed that DFID should source knowledge from a range of sources and that there is a need to secure and make accessible knowledge acquired to date.   The debate then moved on to the structure of partnerships at international and national levels, raising a number of points including mixed views on the capacity of the CGIAR to deliver, as well as the need for DFID to take a longer term perspective on funding of some of the more complex issues where rapid impact may only be achieved after sustained effort.   The integration of agricultural science and technology within DFID’s mainstream programmes was emphasised and concerns were raised about the structural implications and current capacity within DFID to achieve this. Galvanising and supporting the active participation of beneficiaries within the innovation system was seen as a priority.  Finally, the group emphasised the importance of capacity building and institutional strengthening in both developing countries and internationally.

Public Policy and Expenditure

In his most recent summary of 17 May, Stephen Akroyd, has pulled together the four key threads of the debate, which themselves set the backdrop for guidance to DFID.   These are project vs direct budget support (DBS) where there is disquiet over the implications of the trend towards DBS on agriculture not only in the context of the resource envelope but also in the context of addressing effectively the multiple elements of public support to agriculture and the impact on the necessary supportive institutional arrangements.  Secondly, the political economy and the political dimension, where amongst other issues, there is a call for a renewed discussion on the political dimension of smallholder farming to which political and ideology are pivotal in determining the policy and reform themes. This has implications to the manner in which donors and international financial institutions function and their interaction with the state. Thirdly, comes shaping public policy and widening participation which follows well from the second point and brings concrete suggestions for widening participation and shaping policy e.g. through Citizens Juries.   Finally, the group focussed on coherence and accountability drawing particular attention to the current DFID Public Service Agreement and questions how that is translated into concrete action by DFID for agriculture, food and nutrition. Public accountability of both donors and country governments for action in support of poverty reduction and the elimination of hunger is given emphasis.

Thanks everyone for your contributions to date.   We look forward to your inputs over the last week of this consultation.

Regards

Felicity Proctor