|
Page 3 of 5
Philip Mikos
Head of the Environment and Rural Development Unit, DG DEV, European Commission, Brussels
Good M&E and reliable data remain elusive
Nater: So after the first three years, PROAGRI almost collapsed. What happened next?
Mikos: The World Bank and European Commission people came up with a suggestion that said, in essence, “Instead of discussing programme details, why don’t we agree on some basic principles that government must respect, sign a five-year contract with them and then regularly monitor the programme and agree on budgets year on year?” Sixteen donor organisations, some of whom had started from very different positions, gradually came together in this common vision. We thrashed out the new system with government during a two-day marathon meeting in 1998 and PROAGRI was finally launched.
In retrospect, I think that all the donors involved shared a feeling that they were doing something new. They made a real impact on government decentralisation, for example. For our part, the European Commission was the first to finance PROAGRI with budget support. We defined the basics of the common implementation system. We organised the first outsourcing operations for agricultural services. We also provided a technical team to improve accounting, auditing and financial management. Internally, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Mozambique has benefited enormously, in terms of morale and overall professionalism.
“There’s a huge role for government to play in agriculture.”
How has PROAGRI improved the lives of Mozambican farmers?
That’s the big question mark still hanging over the entire undertaking: how to measure the impact on the farmer and on the rural poor? One of the major stumbling blocks with PROAGRI Phase I was finding agreement with government on a system of proper, independent monitoring and evaluation, and on the provision of data on which government could base its decisions. I believe that PROAGRI Phase II, which got underway in 2004, focuses more strongly on the field. But the reasons for the initial resistance to monitoring may have included government fear of donor interference and also an old central-planning mindset that said, “We don’t need data. We know what’s best for the farmer.”
Some say governments can play only a minor role in agriculture, given that it’s essentially a private-sector undertaking.
I disagree. Governments fail to promote agriculture because they haven’t understood their proper role. It’s not just about providing fertiliser, extension and veterinary services. It’s not just about inputs and marketing boards. There’s a huge role for government to play in other fields, from encouraging research through education and information campaigns to ensuring production norms and quality standards. Too many ministries of agriculture are stuck in old-fashioned thinking, and aren’t playing this forward-looking role. Of course, little can happen without the private sector, but I believe that governments have a vital role in steering agriculture towards where its future lies.
|
