Memorandum submitted by the UK Forum on
Agricultural Research for Development (UKFARD)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission is from the UK Forum on Agricultural
Research for Development (UKFARD), a network of public and private
institutions and individuals in the UK with experience and commitment
in forging partnerships with developing countries in agricultural
research, development, education and skills that help address
poverty, hunger and sustainability.
There is universal recognition that over 70%
of those in extreme poverty in the developing world live in rural
areas and are directly dependent on agriculture. The sector is
thus the key to poverty reduction, as well as representing the
major driver of economic growth in developing countries. Agriculture
underpins most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Despite
this, agriculture had a low and declining profile on DFID's agenda
up to 2003. As a consequence of representations from various groups,
including UKFARD, the International Development Committee (IDC)
held an inquiry into DFID's agriculture policy. This highlighted
many deficiencies and made recommendations on how these could
be addressed. The IDC concluded that DFID had a comparative advantage
in technical assistance, capacity building, and institutional
reform, and that it needed to ensure that its policy of direct
budgetary support emphasised agriculture. Most recommendations
were accepted by DFID, which in 2004 developed a revised agriculture
policy as well as a strategy for research on sustainable agriculture.
However, the DFID 2007 report and other evidence reveal that there
has been only limited progress since then. Research has yet to
be mainstreamed with development in the central and country offices
of DFID, and funding has declined in real terms for the sector
over the past three years. It is remarkable that agriculture barely
rates a mention in the 2007 report chapters on the MDGs, including
those most relevant to the sector. Even more surprising is the
scant treatment of agriculture under "Climate Change".
The same applies to DFID's Country Assistance Plans, and to most
of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes that underpin direct
budgetary support.
Strong representations were made to the IDC
and to an associated inquiry in 2003-04 by the parliamentary Science
& Technology Committee (STC) on the crisis affecting the UK
science base for agricultural development. UK expertise in this
area is world-renowned, and helped build DFID's international
leadership role in research and development. Despite this, DFID's
support has continued to decline in real terms. This has, amongst
other factors, led to a massive reduction in scientific staff,
through closures and restructuring of many major institutions
and units. Furthermore, virtually no young scientists are being
recruited to development. Failure to address this issue will mean
that within a decade there will be no remaining capacity in the
science base for the agricultural sector to assist DFID in fulfilling
its commitments to reducing poverty and hunger in the developing
world. The untying of aid has been a major contributor to this
decline; primarily intended for commercial for-profit enterprises,
there seems to be little logic for it to be applied to public
not-for-profit organisations working to reduce poverty and hunger.
The UK science base has to operate on an "uneven playing
field", in that virtually all other European countries and
indeed most OECD countries, support their national development
science institutions as they are considered essential for the
delivery of effective development programmes. Capacity building,
which is of immense importance, especially in Sub Saharan Africa,
is being most severely affected by the decline in the UK science
base for agricultural development, and the impacts of this are
already evident in lower overseas student numbers. Although the
UK formerly had a unique international reputation, training opportunities
in other European countries are increasingly preferred by students
from Sub Saharan Africa and other regions.
The newly formed Collaborative on Development
Sciences (CDS), a cross-governmental agency, has agreed to review
these problems, but it is hoped that the IDC in its forthcoming
inquiry into DFID's Departmental Report 2007 will flag this and
other key issues raised in this submission.
BACKGROUND
1. The UK Forum on Agricultural Research
for Development: This submission to the International Development
Select Committee (IDC) is from the UK Forum on Agricultural Research
for Development (hereafter termed UKFARD), which is a network
of public and private institutions and individuals in the UK with
experience and commitment in responding to the needs of developing
countries for research, development, education and skills in support
of equitable and sustainable agriculture and natural resources
management. Agriculture is used here in its broadest sense, and
includes agricultural and horticultural crops, livestock, forestry,
fisheries, and wildlife utilisation, with both pre- and post-harvest
issues being considered.
2. Our submission is concerned with research
and development in agriculture, but recognising fully that agriculture
and the health sectors are strongly interdependent in a development
context, as well as with other areas, including the environment,
water and engineering. Emphasis is placed on the unique contribution
of UK scientific research institutions in terms of the basic science,
research for development and services to agriculture provided
to assist/support developing nations
3. International Development Committee
and the status of Agriculture at DFID: Following the inquiry
by the IDC into the 2003 DFID Departmental Report in October 20031,
representations expressing concern at the limited attention to
agriculture in this report were made to the Committee by representatives
from institutions engaged in agricultural research and development,
including most of those participating in the UKFARD. From this
time on and through to 2005, the IDC made a major contribution
to restoring the profile of agricultural research and development
at DFID, following a significant reduction during the tenures
of the two Secretaries for State preceding Hilary Benn. This decline
had occurred despite virtually universal recognition that over
70% of those in extreme poverty in the developing world live and
work in rural areas, and are mostly directly dependent on agriculture.
This figure has been highlighted in all of DFID's major reports
and statements by the Secretary for State in recent years. Agriculture
also underpins many of the Millennium Development goals (MDGs),
in particular MDG1 (halving poverty and hunger) and MDG7 (ensure
environmental sustainability).
4. The IDC's major contribution in getting
agricultural research and development back as a priority on DFID's
agenda involved further discussions between members of the UK
scientific community, and, most significantly, the Committee's
initiative in holding a major inquiry into DFID's agricultural
policy in October 2003. [18]The
raising of parliamentary awareness on the broader issue of science
and technology in the UK's development programmes led to an associated
inquiry by the Science and Technology Select Committee (STC) on
the use of science and technology (S&T) by DFID in its development
activities. [19]Both
these inquiries led also to the creation of the position of Chief
Scientific Adviser at DFID.
5. In its review of DFID's agriculture policy,
the IDC concluded that DFID has a comparative advantage in technical
assistance, capacity building and institutional reform and development,
and that it needed to use leverage in its poverty reduction strategy
to ensure that direct budgetary support emphasised the priority
of agriculture. In this regard, it was argued that it was important
to recognise that ministries of agriculture, especially in Sub
Saharan Africa, were often weak, and that this affected the entire
sector. This issue will be raised again later in the context of
the IDC's forthcoming inquiry into DFID's report for 2007.
6. In terms of agricultural research, the
IDC emphasised the need for DFID to strike the right balance between
funding international research through the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and related institutions,
and the national public and private agricultural research systems
in the south and in the developed world. Particular reference
was made by the Committee for DFID to recognise the contribution
that the UK science base for development could make in many areas,
including capacity building, to national research systems in the
developing world—most especially in Sub Saharan Africa.
7. One significant consequence of the IDC
inquiry was that DFID, after a comprehensive stakeholder consultation,
launched a major paper on its agriculture policy[20]
in December 2005, followed by the launch of its Strategy for Research
on Sustainable Agriculture in early 2006. It is now appropriate
to review the Department's 2007 report to determine what progress
has been made in translating the policies and initiatives highlighted
in these papers into practice, and the extent to which the issues
that the IDC raised in its 2003 inquiry have been addressed.
AGRICULTURE AND
DFID'S DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT 2007
8. Overall, agriculture receives more attention
than it did in the 2003 report that triggered the IDC inquiry.
Having said this, there is still relatively limited explicit mention
of agriculture in the report considering its universally acknowledged
role as the engine of economic growth in virtually all developing
countries. Additionally, there is no reference to the interdependence
of agriculture with health, water and any other areas. However,
it is revealing that the issue of interdependence is flagged in
the report by extracts from a statement by Tony Blair in the preface
to the chapter on Africa:... "...everything is connected,
there is no single solution... ...so we need a comprehensive approach...
... ...."
(Prime Minister
Tony Blair 26 June 2006).
9. In the introductory chapters of the 2007
report, climate change is highlighted as arguably the greatest
challenge for DFID, and it is noted, albeit briefly, that agriculture
will be particularly affected and that the proposed doubling of
funding in research for development will contribute towards developing
new technologies to address predicted problems, as well as getting
research into use.
10. There is virtually no reference to agriculture
in the introductory chapter of the 2007 report where reference
is made to the ways that DFID is addressing the MDGs. For MDG1
on halving poverty and hunger, it is pointed out that DFID provides
inputs cash, food, seeds and fertilisers to rural communities,
but there is no reference to the long-standing major investment
of the Department in agricultural research and innovation, as
well as in capacity building. Agriculture is also not referred
in MDG3 on the empowerment of women, despite the fact they represent
the largest proportion of the developing world's farmers. Likewise
no mention of agriculture under MDG4 (reduce child mortality),
where it is well documented that, for example, in Sub Saharan
Africa more children die through malnutrition than all so-called
killer diseases combined. The same applies to MDG5 (improve maternal
health), where there is no reference to malnutrition.
11. Perhaps even more remarkably, there
is no reference to agriculture in the introductory piece on MDG7
(ensure environmental sustainability), despite strong evidence
to show that agriculture (in its broadest sense) is one, if not
the most important influences on sustainable development and environmental
change in the developing world. The introduction confines its
description of DFID's contribution to this MDG largely to the
provision of safe water, with some reference to management of
water resources. It is somewhat reassuring to see reference to
agriculture in Chapter 8 of the report that deals more specifically
with environment, climate change and natural resources. Climate
change receives the greatest attention, and there are also sections,
albeit somewhat brief, on the management of forestry and fisheries
resources. Not unexpectedly, agriculture is mentioned most frequently
in the context of DFID's activities in the areas of markets and
international trade policies.
12. Although agricultural research and development
do not receive particular emphasis, Chapter 9 of the report does
draw attention to DFID's support for science and technology more
generally, where this targets development issues. This is in response
to the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiries by the IDC
and the STC referred to earlier. The report indicates that DFID
has yet to produce its long-awaited science and innovation strategy,
but that it has helped to establish a new entity, the UK Collaborative
on Development Sciences (UK-CDS), which is chaired by DFID's Chief
Scientific Adviser—a position that was created as a consequence
of the earlier parliamentary inquiries referred to above, as was
the CDS itself (with its precursor referred to as the Development
Sciences Research Board).
13. The UK-CDS is of particular relevance
to the activities of the UKFARD as its mandate is to bring together
the main UK funders, research providers and others, and provide
opportunities for greater coordination in development-related
activities amongst members of the UK science base in all sectors,
including agriculture. It is unclear what its role will be in
terms of addressing the funding issues needed to sustain the UK
base of expertise to support development referred to earlier,
but this should become clearer now that a director has been appointed.
14. The DFID report for 2007 refers to the
issue of untied aid in Chapter 5. We feel that it is important
to bring this issue to your attention as its implications represent
a particular concern of UKFARD. We will expand upon this issue
below.
CURRENT STATUS
OF THE
UK SCIENCE BASE
FOR AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
15. Background: Acknowledging that
the IDC is seeking feedback on a number of selected key issues
(which we will do later in this submission), we nevertheless wish
to raise with the IDC a number of major concerns relating to the
current status of the UK science base. Our reason for doing so
is that the UK's ability to contribute to most of the specific
priority issues to be raised by the IDC in its forthcoming inquiry
is strongly influenced by the health of the UK science base.
16. As agricultural research is an integral
part of development, we will later in this submission comment
also on the extent to which we perceive DFID to have committed
itself to agricultural development—including responding
to those recommendations of the 2003 IDC inquiry that are development—rather
than directly research-oriented. It has been estimated conservatively
that for every GB£ invested in research, between GB£5
and GB£10 are needed to achieve widespread adoption of the
technologies produced by that research.
17. Reputation of UK science base for
development: The reputation of UK science researchers has
been instrumental in building DFID's international leadership
role in its research and development work. The UK science base
is rightly proud of its international excellence in science in
many areas, including agriculture, sustainable land-use and risk
analysis. The UK expertise in science is unique and complements
well the more traditional approaches of the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and most national
programmes.
18. Decline in support for UK science
base: As a result of the major reduction in funding for services
in agriculture by DFID and other governments globally over the
past decade, UK institutions undertaking agricultural science
in the area of development have been in contraction, whereby relatively
small organisations are in competition with each other and fear
that the consequences of competition could be elimination. UK
institutes in this sector have far fewer staff than previously
and rely heavily on short-term and usually variable funding. For
example, at the time of privatisation in 1996, the Natural Resources
Institute employed about 500 people; while today it employs about
100 people of whom around 65 are scientists. A significant number
of UK units and institutes have been closed or restructured with
loss of staff. Some examples of world-leading organisations that
have been affected in this way (there are numerous others) include
the Oxford Forestry Institute, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Silsoe Research Institute, and the Tropical Weeds Research Unit.
19. It has been particularly serious that
very few young UK scientists have been recruited to the field
of development science, as evidenced, for example, by the diminishing
number of UK students applying for a year's work experience overseas
through the Tropical Agriculture Award Fund scheme. There are
also very few skilled UK agricultural project managers available
to UK consultancy firms working overseas. As a consequence, most
UK scientists remaining in international development are middle-aged
or older.
20. In terms of capacity building, there
is a strong body of evidence to show that, despite access to UK
funding, overseas students look to other European countries for
relevant training, even where there are language barriers. The
main reason for this is that students applying are becoming less
familiar with UK Universities and other institutions as a result
of the decrease in networks with organisations overseas (previously
sustained, for example, through DFID-funded research and development
projects).Yet, agricultural education in Africa and other poorer
countries is in desperate need of the potential contribution that
UK organisations can undoubtedly make to upgrading their skills
and capacity.
21. There is a great demand from the developing
world for training and S&T capacity building, and particularly
from African countries (as seen, for example, from the DFID-BBSRC
SARID programme and the Rothamsted International African Fellows
Programme). Because of the UK's reputation for quality S&T,
traditionally such expertise has been sought from this country.
This is now moving to other countries (see 20). Furthermore, there
is considerable rhetoric currently up to the highest levels of
government in the UK on the need to respond to this demand. However,
few mechanisms exist to allow UK scientists to respond and build
on this opportunity, which over the longer-term would be of considerable
advantage also to the UK in a variety of ways, eg furthering international
science; building strategic partnerships; and contributing to
foreign policy. The UKFARD considers that it is critically important
that a variety of support mechanisms be developed. These should
include support for small-medium sized projects that allow early
partnerships to be strengthened and built upon over a period of
time, as these are the platforms upon which large development
projects will depend.
22. The impact of untying aid: Untying
aid is an admirable ethical act, particularly intended to target
commercial for-profit enterprises, but failing to fund UK agricultural
science undertaken by public not-for-profit organisations for
the long term to address poverty, hunger and sustainability denies
valuable assistance to those in need in the developing world where
the contribution of our scientific workers is highly esteemed
(most recently illustrated, for example, by communications from
Prof Richard Mkandawire, Chief Agricultural Adviser to the African
Union and NEPAD).
23. There is overwhelming documented evidence
to show that UK science base has to operate in an uneven "playing
field". This because all other European countries, and indeed
OECD nations more generally, maintain the national infrastructure
of science for development that they need to assist in their development
policies through appropriately directed funding. Closer scrutiny
of the International Development Act 2002[21]
suggests that not-for-profit organisations providing research
capacity could be excluded from the rule under the various caveats
for exemption. The Treasury, in its Science and Investment Framework
2000-14, sees the crucial importance of science to the future
of the UK and more broadly to sustainable development throughout
the developing- as well as the developed world.
24. It is revealing that in contrast to
support for agricultural research and development, there appears
to be high level government recognition of the value of the UK
science base in the health sector. This is illustrated by a recent
report on the role of the UK in global health partnerships. [22]The
background statement to this report points out that it was prepared
in response to an invitation from the Prime Minister and the Secretaries
of State for Health and International Development to look at how
UK experience and expertise in health could be used to best effect
to help improve health in developing countries.
25. We believe that failure to address the
plight of the UK science base for agricultural development will
mean that there will literally be no remaining UK capacity in
this sector within the decade. This will in turn severely reduce
DFID's ability to contribute to the reduction of poverty and hunger,
and other major development goals in the developing world. As
noted earlier, the UK used to lead the world in this field. Unless
serious, early action is taken, an important UK national asset
which could help the UK to fulfil the promises of the Commission
for Africa and the Gleneagles G8 and take forward DFID policies
and strategies for agricultural research and development will
continue to decline in strength.
CURRENT COMMITMENT
OF DFID FOR
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
26. Our submission has so far focussed primarily
on agricultural research for development, as this is the principal
remit of the UKFARD. However, we recognise that research is an
integral part of the development process and as mentioned earlier
(see 16), it takes an estimated GB£5 to GB£10 and often
more to get GB£1 worth of research translated into technologies
with widespread adoption by the poor. This requires "joined
up thinking" where research becomes part of DFID's mainstream
development programmes in both its country and central programmes.
We argue that there is still little evidence of this happening.
The Research into Use Programme is a first step in this direction,
but even this is very modest in scale in the context of DFID's
mainstream development activities.
27. DFID's support for agriculture and livelihoods
is largely provided to national governments through Poverty Reduction
Budget Support (PRBS). However, there is little evidence, especially
in Sub Saharan Africa (where the need is greatest) of any significant
commitment of funds to agriculture—despite the Maputo Declaration
of 2003 in which virtually all African countries committed themselves
to providing 10% of their mational budgets to agriculture in view
of its importance. However, it has become clear that what funding
is made available locally covers only salaries and assocated costs,
and not research, extension and marketing—which provide
high and sustainable returns on investment. In some cases other
donors, in contrast to DFID have recognised this problem and are
providing appropriate funding, eg the Canadian International Development
Agency in Nigeria.
28. In real terms, DFID's support for agriculture
and livelihoods, including that for Africa, has been steadily
declining over the last five years. The greatest emphasis in the
Department's Country Assistance Plans (CAPs) is on health, education,
governance and management—agriculture receives scant treatment.
There is clearly a need to highlight agriculture in CAPs as is
already done for the health and education sectors. Our concerns
reflect closely those of major UK-based NGOs enaged in agricultural
development programmes in the developing world.
CONCLUSIONS (WITH
UKFARD POINTS FOR
ACTION)
29. The IDC has made a significant contribution
to raising the profile of agriculture in UK development policy
through its 2003 inquiry into DFID's agriculture policy. This
highlighted the lack of support for agriculture in DFID's agenda,
despite universal recognition of the overriding importance of
the sector for poverty reduction—with over 70% of those
in extreme poverty being directly dependent on it.
30. DFID responded to the recommendations
of the IDC, as well as those of the associated inquiry by the
Select Committee on Science & Technology (STC). The Department
accepted most of the recommendations of the IDC and STC, and launched
a major new policy on agriculture on the basis that the sector
was "the key to poverty reduction". The overarching
importance of agriculture was also reflected in the statements
of the then Prime Minister and other world leaders at the G8 Gleneagles
Summit, and the report of the Commission for Africa.
31. The IDC and STC flagged also the vital
importance of the UK science base for development, and the major
problems that this was facing through reduced financial support—and
lack of joined-up thinking within DFID in terms of mainstreaming
research with development. DFID launched its Strategy for Research
on Sustainable Agriculture (SRSA) in 2006, which, however, remains
de-linked from mainstream development within DFID's central and
country offices. UKFARD urges that DFID treat research as an integral
part of mainstream development, so that amongst many other advantages,
new technologies and other research outcomes can benefit the poor
at national and regional rather than just local levels.
32. Despite major ministerial statements
and policy changes to reflect the overarching importance of agriculture,
DFID funding for agricultural development has continued to decline
in real terms. This lowering of profile is reflected in the Department's
2007 report now being reviewed by the IDC, where agriculture barely
rates a mention, even in the chapters on climate change and environmental
sustainability. The same situation prevails in DFID's Country
Assistance Plans and in most of the Poverty Reduction Strategies
that underpin direct budgetary support. UKFARD considers that
DFID has failed to translate into actions its widely-stated high
level commitments to agriculture "as the key to poverty reduction".
It is now crucially important that the sector receive the attention
and funding required, recognising also its interdependence with
health and other sectors. This includes ensuring that agriculture
is accorded high priority in the implementation of Poverty Reduction
Strategies funded through direct budgetary support.
33. The crisis faced by UK scientists engaged
in agricultural research for development has been highlighted
in submissions to both parliamentary committees in 2003 and 2004,
and acknowledged by them. DFID has responded by developing the
SRSA (see 39), but this has had little impact on the continuing
major erosion of the UK's world-renowned capacity in agricultural
research for development. There is now virtually no recruitment
of young scientists to the area. Failure to address this crisis
will severely impair DFID's ability to meet its commitments to
reduce poverty and hunger in the developing world, including the
immensely important area of capacity building partnerships. UKFARD
urges DFID as a matter of the highest priority to seek ways of
reversing the continuing heavy losses of staff through closures
and restructuring of internationally-renowned UK institutes and
units engaged in agricultural development. Failure to do so will
mean that there will be literally no capacity in UK science for
agricultural development within a decade.
34. Lastly, the issue of untied aid is raised,
as this has undoubtedly been a major contributor to the crisis
in UK agricultural science for development. UKFARD argues that
the untying of aid is entirely justified on ethical grounds, but
that the policy should target commercial for-profit enterprises,
and not public non-profit research organisations working to reduce
poverty and hunger in the developing world. It is further argued
that there are existing caveats in the International Development
Act that would allow for this. DFID should be urged to revisit
this issue as a matter of urgency.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
ON WHICH
THE IDC SEEKS
COMMENTS
35. The remainder of this submission will
address several of the specific issues for which the IDC invites
submissions. The UKFARD's comments will be brief and most are
associated to issues raised already in the main body of this submission.
— Balancing DFID's rising budget with
the requirement to reduce its staffing levels ("doing more
with less"): how does this affect the choice of countries
in which DFID operates; the programmes it pursues; and the way
it channels funding.
36. In terms of agricultural research and
development, UKFARD believes that there is clear evidence that
the dramatic reduction in numbers of staff with knowledge of agricultural
development, including in-country natural resource advisers, has
had a detrimental effect on DFID's ability to fulfil its commitments
in this area. This is compounded by the decline in the UK science
base that has long provided advice and practical support to DFID.
The Department's research funding for all sectors will double
in the next three years despite the continued reductions in staff.
One trend that has already emerged as a consequence of this situation
is that of directing funding to large programmes that require
little or no "intelligent" management by DFID. Such
programmes may involve direct budgetary support or, for example,
unrestricted ("core") funding to the international agricultural
research centres within the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
— Budget support: what impact does
budget support have on recipient countries and on DFID's effectiveness
and structure?
37. We have already alluded to the adverse
impacts of PRBS and the related issue of untying of aid in paragraphs
22-23 and 27-28.
— The coherence of DFID's policies
and practices with those of other Government departments: the
International Development (Transparency and Accountability) Act
2006 requires DFID to report on the UK Government's combined efforts
to achieve policy coherence for development (Chapter 9 of the
Departmental Report).
38. The UKFARD welcomes the setting up of
the Collaborative on Development Sciences (CDS), referred to earlier
(see 12-13) and sees this as an important means of achieving greater
coherence between government departments in supporting and utilising
the UK science base for development. The UKFARD also welcomes
the creation of the new Department of Innovation, Universities
and Skills (DIUS), which it is hoped will further enhance linkages
across government, and additionally notes that DFID is forging
links with the new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform.
39. The collaboration between DFID and the
Research Councils that stemmed from the earlier parliamentary
inquiries has been an important development. There has, for example,
been an overwhelming response in terms of high quality proposals
from many UK institutions to the call from the Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), although the level
of financial support for this initiative remains relatively modest,
and a long-term strategy has still to be developed. In a further
example, the Department of Education and Skills (DFES) has established
the England-Africa Partnerships (EAP) scheme for higher education
partnerships between England and sub-Saharan Africa, which aims
to help develop and strengthen capacity in African higher education.
This is a good initiative, but support has been provided for one
year only.
— Climate Change: How effectively is
DFID responding to the challenge of climate change in its programmes,
staffing structures and use of resources.
40. UKFARD considers that climate change
presents a real need for coherence between government departments.
It notes that DFID is a member of the Office of Climate Change,
which it is hoped will help achieve such coherence DFID's focus
on adaptation would suggest a need for more focus on agricultural
research and capacity building. Current initiatives to respond
to the challenge of climate change seem to be European or globally
focused. UKFARD believes that it is crucially important that agriculture
receives high priority in the climate change; as noted earlier,
but notes that the sector receives scant attention in the chapter
on climate change in DFID's Departmental Report 2007.
— Governance: DFID identified this
as a key area for its future work in the 2006 White Paper Eliminating
World Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor; what changes
has DFID made in its programmes, funding and staffing to reflect
this increased priority?
41. Much of the work of local governments
is concerned with agriculture and the environment. Funding agriculture
within the priorities of local governments may help these authorities
to become more effective in addressing the needs of the poor.
— Gender: what are the implications
of the recently published Gender Action Plan for effective mainstreaming
of gender issues across DFID's policies and programmes?
42. Over 70% of the world's poor are engaged
in agriculture and at least half, often more, of the farmers in
the developing world are women. If gender is to be mainstreamed
in DFID as proposed, then it is clearly important for the Department
to flag its importance in terms of the agriculture sector.
18 International Development Committee. DFID's Agricultural
Policy. 7th Report of Session 2003-2004. House of Commons,
15 September 2004. Back
19
Science and Technology Committee. The Use of Science in UK
Development Policy. 13th Report of Session 2003-2004. House
of Commons. 26 October 2004. Back
20
Growth and poverty reduction: the role of agriculture: A DFID
policy paper DFID. December 2005. Back
21
Act of Parliament clause on exemptions to untying aid. Back
22
Global health partnerships: The UK contribution to health in
developing countries. 13 February 2007. Lord Crisp (Nigel
Crisp). Back
| 
