What is the role and contribution of agriculture within growth and poverty reduction? How might DFID’s programme and policy best provide support?

The consultation aims to seek views, opinions and examples of innovative and established practice in order to inform future DFID policy and investment. Your moderator will lead the debate with the short introductory paper below, provide regular summaries and guide the dialogue.

Theme Outline

Contributors are invited to address this theme in whatever way they see fit. However, as an aid to stimulating ideas and to a coherent debate, this note suggests considering three linked questions. Based on a first round of responses, the moderators will identify main strands for further debate.

1. Looking forwards in a changing world to the contribution that agriculture can make to reducing poverty, what are the opportunities and threats?

Subsidiary questions might include:

• How is the context changing?
  
  Simon Maxwell sets out seven statements (pp.1-2 of the launch paper ‘New Directions for Agriculture in Reducing Poverty’) about how the world is changing. Some of these are deep-seated environmental or institutional factors (e.g. global markets) that are only partially under the influence of national governments, whether in the developing or developed world. Others are to do with the ways that governments (and aid agencies) act.
  
  Are Maxwell’s statements right and relevant? Are there other changes that are at least as relevant to agriculture? The threats get much attention: is there a risk of over-emphasising them at the expense of opportunities, whether resulting from technology, markets, or scope for diversification?
  
  
  
• Overall, is the conventional wisdom that ‘agriculture is the primary motor of growth and poverty reduction in the poorest countries’ still valid, and will it remain so? Which aspects of agricultural (or rural) development need emphasis in the coming years?
  
  Because poverty is generally seen as a multidimensional phenomenon (involving income poverty, lack of rights, disempowerment, vulnerability, and so on) it might be useful to think about how different dimensions of poverty are affected by agricultural development, and for whom. What patterns of agricultural development will have most impact? Maxwell’s paper sets out some propositions. Do you agree?
  
  What are the linkages between agriculture, growth and poverty reduction? Is there anything specific about agriculture that makes it more poverty-reducing than are investments in other sectors? What evidence is there from the past about the strengths of these linkages? What types of investments are likely to deliver the greatest benefits in terms of growth and poverty reduction? A whole range of options could be considered including land reform, research and extension, investment in high potential areas or low potential areas, smallholder vs commercial farm strategies, etc. How good is the base of the evidence for any propositions?

2. What are the implications for the types of intervention that are appropriate at different levels (global, national and local) by different types of actors (public, private and civil society)?

• If agriculture is so important, why did it fall off the map – and how can this (or should it?) be prevented from happening again?
  
  Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. One argument is that from around 1980 macro-economic crisis forced attention towards stabilisation and adjustment, and away from projects and even sectors, including agriculture. Another is that the poverty agenda, and PRSPs, have led to the 1970s Tanzania error --- an over-emphasis on unaffordable social services, and a neglect of investments and institutional measures to stimulate economic growth--- compounded by new thinking about the role of the state that constrains the scope for support to agriculture. Yet another is that many interventions around agriculture and rural development failed during the 1970s and 1980s, undermining the case for such spending.
  
  
• What do we know about what works? What are the approaches, and even specific examples, that offer positive lessons?
  
  In a changing context (including market changes, new approaches to development, to public administration and to aid management, and successful developments in many parts of the world) what are the positive lessons that may be drawn for agriculture in those parts of the world where the problems are deepest? Are there approaches (for instance multi-functionality, revisiting the case for subsidies, intergenerational perspectives, environmental credits) that supplement or replace market-led strategies and that should be given more attention?
  
  Or are we wasting time in looking for yet more examples of ‘what’ to do? Are the roots of the problems to be found in power relationships, political and social weakness, and adverse incentives, and to only a limited extent in lack of investments and capacities?
  
  
• What are the main institutional or other weaknesses at the global level that need attention? What positive changes can be proposed?
  
  Relevant institutions include those covering trade, global agricultural research, and intellectual property rights, as well as the governance of multilateral organisations.
  
  Are new institutions or organisations needed?

3. How can DFID be more effective in getting poverty-reducing agriculture going? What should it do, or not do, to support policies, programmes, investments and processes?

• Should DFID give greater priority to agriculture, and, if so, what principles and considerations should guide it?
  
  Or does any such case reflect not so much the evidence, as special pleading by interest groups?
  
  
• How does, or should, DFID relate to those other elements of the international system that have a role in promoting agriculture’s role in poverty reduction and economic growth?
  
  DFID has limited financial and human resources, but the UK government also has other instruments and levers of influence. Some of these relate to aid, others to trade, the environment, and conflict resolution. What strategic choices might DFID, and government more broadly, make over how best to deploy these in support of agriculture?
  
  
• Are there new ways in which DFID might work in priority countries and regions?
  
  In the context of PRSPs, its own Country Assistance Plans, and the range of instruments available (partnerships with the private sector and civil society, direct budget support, public expenditure and administrative reforms, sector programmes, and projects, etc.), are there changes to DFID’s modus operandi that would raise the effectiveness of its support for agricultural development?

Alex Duncan
March 29th, 2004.