//  How to get an encouraging climate for rural investment

—by Steve Wiggins, Overseas Development Institute

Busan was not about agricultural and rural development. Indeed it was not much about any sector, as a read of the outcome document shows. So what did the forum hold for those of us working on ARD?

There was always the danger that ARD could have lost out to a particular paradigm: a strong focus on the delivery of public goods, predictably programmed, with rigorous measurement of inputs, output and impact. Think education and health where the state is usually the main provider, where plans for services can be made with considerable precision, where inputs can be recorded, immediate outputs documented, and impacts subsequently evaluated. Such a focus would have marginalised some of our major concerns, such as how to get an encouraging climate for rural investment, or how to protect the rights of the poor. Since it is difficult to programme agricultural development with certainty, because private actions are as important as public investment, a managerial approach leaves agriculture looking, to be blunt, unprofessional.

//  Partnerships

Fortunately competing visions were prominent in Busan, two with great relevance for agricultural and rural development. One was that of partnerships, bringing in a wider range of actors for ARD, above all the private sector. The potential for large formal enterprises to invest in agriculture, generate growth and jobs was repeatedly emphasised — an enthusiasm closely related to the post-2007 rise in food and commodity prices that makes returns to agricultural investment more promising than they have been for some time.

//  Rights and participation in development decisions by the poor

This was the other vision. While this is not specific to ARD, it just so happens that most of the poor live in rural areas and it is there that some of the worst abuses of the economic and social rights of the poor take place, most notably when lands used by poor people are grabbed by the rich and powerful.

These two visions remind us that development in general and ARD in particular are not something that can be reduced to an exercise in public planning with tight management of public spending. Development is the outcome of the actions of a broad range of actors, in which government has demanding challenges in creating conditions to allow investment and innovation to take place, guiding these towards good social outcomes, while defending the rights of those lacking money and influence against abuse. These are not issues that can readily be reduced to the language and practice of managerialism: nor should anyone attempt that. The outcome document does us a service by stating the diversity of issues faced by government, donors, private enterprise and civil society — most of which are reflected in aspects of ARD.

//  ARD agenda after Busan?

Four things stand out:

1. Agriculture is likely to continue to attract the interest of large corporations for the foreseeable future. Questions that then arise include the structure of production and the value chains: who will produce on the land— small farmers, larger but still family farms, or much larger commercial farms? If small or family farms dominate production, then how will they link to larger firms in processing and distribution? Answers to these questions are in part matters of efficiency, where technical analysis can provide guidance, but they are not only technical as the next point shows.
2. Rights: agriculture has become a battleground for differing views on what is desirable and possible in development. At one extreme there is the view of those who believe that the challenges of producing food for nine billion people by 2050, and affordable food, means that productivity has to be maximised. If that means the land be worked on larger scales by farm managers using the best that biotechnology can produce in intensive systems, then so be it. At the other end of the spectrum are those defending the inviolable rights of current land users, who prefer localised food systems using technology built on longstanding local skills and knowledge that minimise use of external inputs and sustain the environment.
   At the poles, these views are so distant it seems impossible to reconcile them. In practice, ways forward exist — so long as we have credible and feasible technical and economic options to feed into debates over values and rights. Biofuels, for example, can be saints or sinners: it depends on how they are allowed to develop. It is thus up to us as technologists and economists to present options that allow political answers to form.
3. Even if Busan eschewed the worst excesses of managerialism, a focus on results emerged as one of the four principles set out. And if results, then measurement: 'This [a focus on results] involves better managing for results, monitoring, evaluating and communicating progress ... ' Agriculture thus needs to come up with a few indicators that can be measured, readily interpreted and that capture what we think of as success.
   Can we do better than the two indicators that CAADP sets: the agricultural budget as an input, the growth rate as an output? While both can be measured, questions arise over what should be considered part of the agricultural budget, the data are often poor, the results consequently a rough guide. The diametric alternative can be found in the sustainability criteria being devised for biofuels: an interminable list of social, economic and environmental desiderata. These may make sense as criteria to assess individual projects, but they are too cumbersome to constitute a ready measure of agricultural progress.
4. Busan was selective in taking forward the principles from Paris and Accra. Ownership, managing for results and accountability have been picked out: harmonisation and alignment have taken a back seat. For ARD, this is good news. As the studies on policy coherence argue, the letter of harmonisation and alignment can be a distraction from the spirit of these three fundamental issues. That ownership is the first Busan principle is especially pleasing, since lack of ownership can be seen as the main problem arising from current donor practice in ARD. It will not be simple to get better ownership, but the pathway is clear: it means acknowledging political decisions for what they are, communicating with different actors, recognising rights and values other than efficiency, and helping provide the technical knowledge and resources to allow productive and progressive coalitions to realise their dreams.

//  The Platform at Busan - participating & reporting

Two staff from the secretariat went to Busan together with Platform co-chair Brian Baldwin and other members (WFP, FAO). This included distribution of the Platform's "evidence" paper, knowledge pieces and other basic Platform documentation. Specially designed 'roll-up screens' were prepared and used to provide information and targeted 'messages' to participants. They supported the organisation of the IFAD/OECD/WFP side event co-hosted by the Platform as well as two mini-debates and reported on the proceedings of ARD-focussed side events as well as on other content relevant to you.

//  ARD at HLF-4

Overall, side events and mini debates with a direct ARD-focus – especially the one co-organised by the Platform and by IFAD (together with OECD & WFP) – were well attended and included donors, civil society, private sector and partner countries. Attendances, according to informal feedback from OECD colleagues, were above average for the respective events. The large number of concurrent events, plus the plenary sessions, prevented greater attendance. Themes and messages were well articulated and should give the basis for more focussed messaging in the near future as well as contributing to discussions on what topics need specific follow up. The ARD community displayed itself as united behind its main messages. In side events with foci on subjects other than ARD, ARD still was mentioned a number of times. Attendees agreed on throughout that ARD is a subject of highest priority for achieving MDG 1.

From this perspective the ARD community did a good job with its attempt to get better recognition. However, the outcome document and the speeches in the opening ceremony did not mention ARD. Speakers highlighted health, women's rights and education as primary concerns for development. However, the outcome document text was always intended to be on a political level with a focus on the Paris processes. What did get emphasised was – and this is particularly relevant for ARD – the importance and nature of partnership between ARD stakeholders. This was stressed by Homi Kharas, who chaired the panel in the final plenary and introduced a specific discussion on the need for a "Global Partnership for Agriculture".

//  Relevance of Outcome Document for ARD

Informal feedback indicates that while the outcome document represents an important consensual document – insofar as it is endorsed by donors, partner countries, civil society, emerging economies and private sector – it has required sections that are caveated. So one could say, at least with this slight frustration the ARD community was not alone. Nevertheless some constituencies managed to get a paragraph with their special interest into the document – for example 'Statistics for Results' with para 18c. This will have important consequences for the work currently underway on agricultural statistics.

//  Downloads

Busan Partnership Agreement_English

Busan Partnership Agreement_French

Platform Evidence Paper

Platform Knowledge Pieces

Targeted Platform poster for Busan

Opening ceremony speeches

 //  If you don't measure it, you cant manage it

The claim that the Busan Action Plan for Statistics actually had been given special attention in Busan is underpinned by its mentioning in the outcome document (see paragraph 18c)

The new action plan would build on successes after the Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics (MAPS), said Shaida >surname, title, affil>, which had brought about that 71 countries now had strategic plans for stats and 60 percent fo them agreed to increase their funding for implementation. However, the biggest remaining tasks were better donor coordination and to fill the large gaps in agricultural stats, which were tremendously important for poverty reduction.

Goes on Shaida, it had been in this light that the Busan objectives for stats for results had come about. They were
• a move away from a still very supply-driven approach to the generation of stats towards being more demand-driven
• an improvement of stat literacy
• promotion of public accessibility to data

// Comments from the floor

• Do not lose sight of the qualitative aspects of data collection. It is simply not good enough to count schools
• National level data are too aggregated, we need provincial level data
• We need to promote open data in development cooperation . It is simply not understandable that we have all sorts of open information acts in our countries but foreign aid data are often not disclosed.
• Do not waste time with trying to interest the professionals of development cooperation in the subject of stats as such. People are only interested in stats when it comes to the application of them in their particular area of work 

//  Transparency in ARD

In a step that could be exemplary for the ARD sector in which aid flows often lack transparency, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Side disclose when, to whom and why money was spent. Available on openaid.se, a site open to all, the transparency guarantee for development cooperation aims to apply the accountability and transparency that donors expect from partner countries to Sweden’s own participation in development projects.

//  Q&A session

It was pointed out here, that data on results was missing — despite possibly being the information of highest interests for users of the website. This underlined a point made by Sida earlier during the presentation: that the available data was not tailored to fit under specific categories with results seldom being listed separately in documents. The issue of presenting the available data in a comprehensive way is therefore one of the biggest challenges the institutions in charge face.

Up to now 40 000 documents have been disclosed, covering projects from 1973 till 2011. Until March 2011, the aim is to have published data covering 100% of Swedish aid allocation.

Gregory Adams, Yukiko Omura, Ernest Ruzindaza, Beverly Oda, Josette Sheeran, Jan O’Sullivan, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, Eunice Musiime

Josette Sheeran, Jan O'Sullivan, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, Raj Shah, Eunice Musiime

Ernest Ruzindaza, Beverly Oda, Josette Sheeran, Jan O’Sullivan

//  Agricultural productivity alone is not enough

Focussing on agricultural productivity was of little use and doomed to fail, emphasized Ernest Ruzindaza, Permanent Secretary of the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture. A raise in productivity needed to be combined with improved market access. Utilizing the example of Rwanda’s successful implementation of the Purchase for Progress (P4P) programme, he outlined how a parallel focus on productivity, quality, market information and access could encourage a circular development process in the agricultural sector.

//  The necessity of political value chains

Ruzindaza’s point was picked up by Gregory Adams of Oxfam, who introduced what he called the necessity to improve not only agricultural but also ‘political value chains’. He called to attention that it was real value that was being wasted when missing links between different spheres of rural development were not properly addressed. There were not only economic value chains but also political value chains. Disregarding them was a typical mistake causing not only political damage but also very tangible immense economic losses. If for example a road was built without consulting the local communities to establish their interests, this could mean the failure of a project, causing immense economic costs. According to Adams, the ARD community needed to get used to not just focusding on the technical attributes of agriculture but also on political attributes — and relay these considerations into fora such as the HLF.

A possible solution to imperfect political value chains was presented by Canada with the example provided by Beverly Oda, Minister for International Cooperation. Donors had to help bridge the gaps that made ARD such a fragmented area and seek to cooperate with all ministries involved in ARD. Too often, she stated, ARD got lost between departments.

//  Increased aid flows in ARD

Representing both the Global Donor Platform and IFAD, the Vice President of IFAD Yukiko Omura highlighted the chances and opportunities that were retained in ARD, thereby emphasizing the necessity for increased aid flows. No other sector, she underlined, offered higher returns for investment or offered comparable chances for poverty reduction. For these opportunities to take full hold however, she called on donors to avoid competition and repetition for the sake of more effective aid in ARD.

The challenge of allocating more resources to a sector that tends to fall behind defence, education and health when it comes to government priorities was further addressed by Eunice Musiime from a Ugandan CSO. She stressed however that agreements and partnerships such as CAADP — which Uganda had joined — could contribute to increase governments’ attention to ARD.

//   Food security on the ARD agenda

Increasing attention to ARD was also at the heart of the statement of Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, Finance Minister of Bangladesh. Despite its continuous importance for ARD, attention to food security was coming and going, he noted. Long term, sustainable programmes however, could only be implemented in an environment where food security did not repeatedly slip from the agenda.

//  Getting the results in ARD

Raj Shah of USAID called to attention that ARD did indeed present high challenges for finding the right indicators, measuring results and aggregating data, but that it was possible to do so. “We can no longer hide behind the excuse that it is too difficult to collect data in a complex field like ARD“, he argued.

It was highlighted by the represented donors, that a change of mindset was slowly emerging towards more comprehensive models of ARD and the overdue focus on getting the results. As Josette Sheeran, moderator of the debate and WFP Chair stressed “we cannot expect better results if we do not change the way we do things“. The panel left no doubt that ARD, with its unique potential but also unique challenges, was the sector where there was a dire need to improve approaches and to focus on aid effectiveness.

Jan O’Sullivan, closed with the statement that “this meeting is surely one of the most important we could attend here at Busan”

//  Ernest Ruzindaza and Katarina Eriksson on the private sector in ARD

Ernest Ruzindaza, Permanent Secretary of the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture

To ensure food security, it is essential to invest in primary production, Ruzindaza acknowledged. But, he added, no project would become sustainable and provide results reliably if it did not expand beyond questions of production. To incorporate the whole value chain of agricultural products into development efforts was the only way to eventually make aid redundant and create self-sustained agricultural production. To capture the interest of the private sector — often deterred by high investment risks and a resulting difficulty in finding loans — however remained a key challenge to such comprehensive projects, Ruzindaza stated. It must also be kept in mind, he pointed out, that the task did not end with having integrated all stakeholders in a value chain. An inclusive negotiating process to arrive at a concept based on mutual agreement was the foundation for a successful partnership, predetermining whether a project would be successful or not.

Katarina Eriksson, Senior Analyst at Tetra Laval

The private sector is increasingly keen to take on its role in development cooperation but has difficulties being accepted as a partner since it is not a traditional development actor. Given its work in the agricultural sector and with its presence on rural markets however, the private sector can contribute valuable expertise and go beyond the usual provision of supplies. Sustainable business strategies can help develop sustainable development strategies. Donors should strive towards renewing the relationship with the private sector towards more cooperation in development projects and not leave this opportunity unused.

//  Organizers

Rwanda, Aquila Food IG, OECD, IFAD, WFP