Memorandum submitted by Dr Michel Pimbert,
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
[12]
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[13]
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, centralisation, 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,
decentralisation and democracy.
PARTNERSHIPS AND
SOCIAL INCLUSION
The extent to which DFID's programme in AP is
focusing its activities on the most vulnerable and marginalised
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 marginalised 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 organisation 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 organisational 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
12 The views presented here are the author's and do
not necessarily reflect those of the IIED as a whole. Back
13
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
|
