Memorandum submitted by Dr Michel Pimbert,
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
I shall confine my remarks to DFID's aid to Andhra
Pradesh for food, agriculture and rural livelihoods. The state
of Andhra Pradesh (AP) receives over 60% of the total British
aid to India. AP is an essentially agrarian economy with 70% of
its population engaged in farming (over 80% of these farmers are
small and marginal).
The case for aid to AP
is undisputed. However, serious questions need to be asked about
what kind of aid, for whom and with what consequences? I am particularly
concerned about the validity of DFID's assumptions on food, livelihoods
and farming futures. As currently framed, DFID's aid portfolio
for food, agriculture and supporting infrastructure tends to adopt
pre-formed and generalised economic formulae based on unproven
assumptions about the needs of the poor in rural areas. It is
noteworthy for example that DFID aid portfolios for AP (and India
as a whole) are premised on a view of economic efficiency in which
the number of farmers and farm families engaged in agriculture
rapidly decreases with modernisation. Accordingly, off-farm livelihoods
and capital-intensive infrastructure receive a far greater share
of aid than interventions aimed at regenerating sustainable food
systems, local livelihood assets (natural, human, social, physical,
financial) and more localised economies and regulative institutions.
It is simply assumed that globalisation[2]
and trade are necessary for poverty alleviation. By implicitly
adopting an industrial and market oriented model of food systems,
there is a real risk that DFID's agricultural and related
policies will induce further uniformity, centralization, concentration
and structurally induced coercion in food and farming, - harming
both the poor and the environment. Alternative and more open framing
assumptions are needed for DFID's agricultural related policies,
- ones that resonate more with principles of diversity, dynamic
adaptation, decentralization and democracy.
Partnerships and social inclusion. The
extent to which DFID's programme in AP is focusing its activities
on the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, including through
engagement with civil society, is deeply problematic. The democratic
deficit in framing policies, aid interventions and resource allocation
needs to be addressed in a more pro-active and imaginative manner
by DFID. More specifically, DFID's agricultural policy needs to
show more commitment (in terms of political leadership and resource
allocations) to large scale and systematic participatory
processes of co-learning and action that include women, excluded
and marginalized farmers, food workers and citizens in framing
agri-food policies, setting agendas for social, scientific and
technical research, evaluating technological risks and setting
food and safety standards and regulatory frameworks. Resources
need to be allocated to ensure that independent oversight panels
can guarantee the credibility, trustworthiness and validity of
citizen participation in policy processes on food and farming,
at local, national and international levels. A recent international
initiative on citizen juries/scenario workshops on food and farming
futures in AP offers an example of the potential of such inclusive
participatory approaches (see http://www.iied.org/docs/sarl/lfs_Prajateerpu_Part1AR.pdf).
Many more innovations of this kind have the potential to strengthen
the voices of the poor in decisions on aid allocations and technical
support by DFID India.
Governance and political will. The
outcome of the recent State elections in AP suggest that DFID
has been supporting a model of development (the so called Vision
2020) which the majority of rural people do not want. DFID had
been previously made aware about the perceived mismatch between
its overall aid programme and the needs of the rural poor in AP.
In future, DFID as an organization will need to continue developing
its "listening skills" and processes of two way accountability
(to British tax payers and to aid recipients, particularly
the poor), - rather than deny the validity and relevance of critical
feedback on its performance and priorities (see for example http://www.iied.org/docs/sarl/lfs_Prajateerpu_Part2MPTW.pdf).
DFID's internal governance and organizational culture needs to
be encouraged to be more transparent and receptive to "voices
from below", criticism and suggestions to change course when
needed.
May 2004
2 By globalisation
I mean the ever increasing integration of national economies into
the global economy through trade and investment rules, privatisation
and technological advances, and driven by institutions like the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) and bilateral trade agreements.
Globalisation is very different from the process of "internationalism"
which refers to the positive global flow of ideas, culture, technology
and knowledge, together with growing international understanding
and cooperation. Back
|
