Reducing poverty - Mamud.com poverty through agricultural sector strategies in eastern and southern Africa Summary report of a workshop Wageningen, the Netherlands 23–25 November

Reducing povertythrough agricultural sector strategies

in eastern and southern Africa

Summary report of a workshop

Wageningen, the Netherlands23–25 November 1998

Published by:

European CommissionDirectorate General for Development (DG VIII)Rural Development and Food Security Unit (A/1)200 rue de la LoiB-1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel.: (32) 2 299 3224Fax: (32) 2 299 3073

Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA)Postbus 3806700 AJ WageningenThe NetherlandsTel.: (31) 317 467100Fax: (31) 317 460067E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cta.nl

Report prepared by:Dr Paul Mundy, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany

Editorial and production work by:Sayce Publishing, London, UK

Printing by:Ebenezer Baylis & Son Ltd, Worcester, UK

Photographs:CTA (pp. iv and 36); Panos Pictures, London, UK

© EC and CTA 1999

ISBN 92 9081 2079

Contents

FOREWORD iv

CHANGING ENVIRONMENT, CHANGING STRATEGIES 1Poverty and agriculture 2Agricultural sector approaches 3This review 3

POVERTY AND AGRICULTURE 5Patterns of poverty 6Anti-poverty strategies 6Why does agriculture matter? 7Selecting strategies 7Who are the stakeholders? 9Poverty assessment 10

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR STRATEGIES 15The scope for policy 16Sector programmes 16Sector programmes or projects? 19Limitations of the sector approach 19Sector-wide approach 21

POLICIES 23Resource allocation 24Serving the poor 26Decentralisation 28Privatisation 30

INSTITUTIONS 37Agricultural research and extension 40Information and documentation 41Microfinance 42Monitoring 43Donors 44

PREPARING SECTOR PROGRAMMES 45

APPENDICES 48References and further reading 48List of participants 49

iv Reducing poverty through agricultural sector strategies

Foreword

Poverty pervades much of rural Africa. The pattern of this poverty is changing, andnew anti-poverty strategies are being conceived in response to these changes. Sectorprogrammes which embrace the entire agricultural sector are being developed bygovernments and donors; what opportunities do they present for addressing poverty?

For most ACP countries, the centrepiece of any poverty-reduction strategy is toestablish a thriving rural sector. This entails empowering individuals and communitiesby facilitating their access to resources, markets and services, so that they canparticipate fully in both agricultural and non-agricultural economic growth. In the rightcircumstances and with the right approaches, sector programmes can contributesubstantially to these objectives. The challenge to the European Commission, and toothers, is to work with governments and civil society to increase the effectiveness ofsuch contributions.

In common with many other organisations, the European Commission has becomeincreasingly sharply focused on sustainable poverty reduction in its developmentactivities. The EU Member States and the ACP Group of States both agree that povertyalleviation, together with ACP capacity building, should henceforth be the cornerstoneof their relationship.

As part of their contribution to the goal offormulating strategies that will enable theagricultural sector to address rural poverty moreeffectively, CTA and DG VIII co-organised aworkshop on reducing poverty through agriculturalsector strategies in eastern and southern Africa,which was held in Wageningen, the Netherlands, in November 1998. Participants included senior policy-makers from Kenya, Lesotho, Uganda,Zimbabwe, several European countries and theEuropean Commission. CTA staff and specialistconsultants also attended.

The aims of the workshop were to explore theconditions under which sector approaches in

agriculture can best be used to reduce poverty, and to identify means by which this canbe achieved. Experience was drawn from the lessons learnt from the emergent sectorstrategies and investment programmes in Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda inparticular.

The meeting concluded that whilst growth is necessary to reduce poverty, it may bypasssubstantial numbers of poor people, or even disadvantage them further, unless specificmeasures are taken to ensure that the growth process is pro-poor and that poor farmershave access to productive resources, markets and services. To this end, agriculturalsector programmes should make poverty reduction an explicit objective – and sectorstrategies should take on board poverty concerns that need to be mainstreamed acrossthe policy, budget and institutional frameworks – in order to generate outputs andservices that promote the income and competitivity of smallholder farmers.

In March 2000 it is expected that new ACP-EU cooperation arrangements will becomeeffective. We believe that the distilled thoughts of this three-day reflection will providevaluable ideas and guidance to all those involved in poverty-reduction policies andindeed to the negotiations concerning the successor to the Lomé Convention.

R.D. Cooke U. WerblowDirector Head of Rural Development and Technical Centre for Agricultural Food Security Unit (A/1)and Rural Cooperation (CTA) Directorate General for Development

(DG VIII), European Commission

Foreword v

Changing environment,

changing strategies

Poverty and agriculture

Agricultural sector approaches

This review

2 Reducing poverty through agricultural sector strategies

Eastern and southern Africa are undergoing massive change. As part of a globaltrend, governments are becoming more democratic and answerable to theirpeoples. Power is being devolved from the central government to provinces, andfrom provinces to districts. Several countries are recovering from dictatorship or

war. Powered by the end of the Cold War, there is a new emphasis on, andfaith in, the market as the engine of development. Apartheid no longer casts

its shadow over the region. Trends such as privatisation and the increasingimportance of non-government organisations (NGOs) influence government thinking.

Not all is positive. Economic instability rocks markets andcurrencies. There is worrying political instability on the borders of

the region. Governments are faced with declining overall levels ofassistance from donors. The natural environment continues to be

degraded while populations rise. Natural disasters such asdrought and floods continue to take their toll. And poverty persists.

Within this broader context, governments and donor agencies arerethinking their development strategies. There is a trend towards

greater coordination among donors, and between donors andgovernments. Governments are reducing their direct involvement in the

economy, privatising institutions and services, and reforming policies andinstitutions to make them more effective and efficient. Pressure on government

budgets is forcing them to review all public spending, with a view to improving thequality of programmes.

Poverty and agricultureAgriculture has a key role in helping to reduce poverty in the region. A consensushas emerged in Europe that new post-Lomé cooperation agreements (between the 71 African–Caribbean–Pacific [ACP] states and the 15 member states of the EuropeanUnion) should ensure that poverty alleviation is the cornerstone of the newpartnership. Similarly, ACP capacity-building is destined to become one of the maininfluences on the choice of practical arrangements for aid. The Libreville Declaration,adopted by the first Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government in November1997, specifically referred to the need to reinforce human capacity in the agriculturalsector in view of its key role in reducing poverty and promoting socio-economicdevelopment.

Both the World Bank and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)stress the importance of the agricultural sector in rural development, and theparamount role of the market. According to this view, agricultural growth shouldoccur through improved technology and productivity. It should be supported by anenabling political and macro-economic environment and investment in infrastructureand human capital, and with attention given to gender, land tenure andenvironmental issues. Farming should become competitive and market-oriented, andpublic and private institutions must take on new roles to facilitate investment inagriculture and to overcome poverty.

1 Angola2 Botswana3 Comoros4 Djibouti5 Eritrea6 Ethiopia7 Kenya8 Lesotho9 Madagascar10 Malawi11 Mauritius12 Mozambique13 Namibia14 Seychelles15 Somalia16 South Africa17 Sudan18 Swaziland19 Tanzania20 Uganda21 Zambia22 Zimbabwe

1

13 2

168

18

9 11

14

21

22 12

10

19

207

15

6

175

4

3

Agricultural sector approachesIn order to deal with the changes outlined above, governments and donors havebegun to design programmes to cover the entire agricultural sector. These“agricultural sector programmes” provide a way of restructuring public expenditureand institutions, revise policies, and channel donor resources into particular areas.They also aim to create an enabling policy environment for private sector growth.

These sector programmes have much to commend them. But despite their newness,they have also drawn criticism in that they tend to emphasise growth and neglectefforts to combat poverty. Nevertheless, because they encompass public spending inthe entire agricultural sector, they do offer the potential of reconciling the policydifferences between devoting resources towards stimulating growth or towardscombating poverty.

This reviewThis review discusses poverty in eastern and southern Africa and how agriculturalsector strategies can contribute to combating it. The review takes a criticalperspective, identifying weaknesses in the sector strategies and suggesting ways inwhich they might be strengthened. It is based on a workshop sponsored by CTA andthe European Commission in November 1998 (see box “Wageningen workshop”).

The first part of the review discusses poverty and the role of agriculture in reducingit. The second part describes agricultural sector strategies, their strengths andweaknesses. The review then looks at the policy and institutional changes needed inorder to make the sector approach effective. The final part outlines the steps inpreparing and implementing agricultural sector programmes. The appendices list keyreferences, as well as the participants in the November workshop.

Changing environment, changing strategies 3

Wageningen workshop

This review is the result of a workshop on “Agricultural sector strategies for poverty reduction in eastern and southernAfrica”, held on 23–25 November 1998 in Wageningen, the Netherlands, and sponsored by the Technical Centre forAgricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) and the Directorate General for Development (DG VIII) of the EuropeanCommission (EC). The participants included senior policy-makers from Kenya, Lesotho, Uganda, Zimbabwe, severalEuropean countries and the EC. Specialist consultants and CTA staff also attended (see pp. 49–50).

The review summarises the presentations and discussions at the workshop. It draws heavily on papers and presentations byJoseph Kariuki and Benson King’oo (Kenya); M.R. Otim and Robert Sabiiti (Uganda); Philip Mikos (EC); Uwe Werblow andGareth Williams (EC); Simon Maxwell (Overseas Development Institute, UK); Sean Conlin (EC) and Jeremy Stickings (NaturalResources Institute, UK); and Rodney Cooke (CTA). It also draws on the report of a previous series of CTA/EC seminars onthe EC’s food security strategies and the ACP countries, held in Brussels in October–December 1997.

Poverty

and agriculture

Patterns of poverty

Anti-poverty strategies

Why does agriculture matter?

Selecting strategies

Who are the stakeholders?

Poverty assessment


Patterns of povertyThe statistics are far from perfect, but they show that poverty in Africa is pervasive,and predominantly rural. Some 40% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa livesbelow the international poverty line of $US 1 per day (in 1985 purchasing-powerdollars), and this figure has risen slightly since the mid-1980s. This figure understatesthe vulnerability of many to the shocks of drought and war.

The pattern of poverty is changing. The numbers of poor are rising in the cities, indry areas and areas with poor soils, in war-affected regions, and among women, the landless and the elderly. These changes will call for a major rethinking of anti-poverty strategies. As poverty becomes more and more urban, for example,policy-makers will have to design approaches that provide low-cost food at stableprices. Policies to do this are likely to be very different from those currently beingpursued.

Anti-poverty strategiesAfrican governments’ agricultural strategies must be strongly linked to theirstrategies in other areas, such as health, education and transport. Ideally, theseshould all be part of an overall strategy to fight poverty. The International FoodPolicy Research Institute identifies two vital elements in poverty reduction: growth, and the distribution of its benefits.

• Growth is fundamental to combating poverty: standards of living cannot risewithout new wealth generated through economic activity. An anti-poverty strategy must seek ways to generate wealth by revising investment, wagestructures, terms of trade and other factors.

• Distribution is also key. Wealth must not stay in the hands of a few. Policies must ensure that its benefits are distributed widely. Relevant policies include land reform, taxation, infrastructure development and the provision of services.

Once a broad anti-poverty strategy has been agreed, it provides a vision and aframework for sector strategies that fill in the details for agriculture (and for othersectors). The sector strategies will consist of a series of interventions to improvemarkets, institutions and policies. A social safety-net will also be needed to deal withemergencies and to protect the “excluded” – groups that do not benefit from thesegrowth and wealth-distribution measures.

“To eradicate poverty, hunger, malnutrition and unemployment through the developmentof agriculture’s full potential” – Zimbabwe’s vision for its agricultural sector

Why does agriculture matter?Policy-makers in Africa lay special emphasis on agriculture for two reasons. One isits importance. It produces food: despite rising imports and headlines on droughtand famine, African farmers produce by far the greatest part of the food that Africanseat. It is the most important source of livelihood, generating employment for overtwo-thirds of the labour force in sub-Saharan Africa. Because of this, it has a majorimpact on the economy as a whole. It provides a market for other sectors: directly forinputs and equipment, and indirectly because of the income earned by farm workers.It provides raw materials for industry, and the exported output generates foreignexchange. It also generates a surplus that can be saved and invested, and thatcontributes to the government’s tax base.

Poverty and agriculture 7

The second reason to stress the importance of agriculture is that it is seen as havingunder-performed. In the 1990s its growth rate has averaged only 1.5% – less than halfthat achieved in East and South Asia, where farming plays a comparable role. Over alonger period, food production per person in Africa has fallen – by about a quartersince 1970 – though it has risen elsewhere. Food supplies have been very volatile, asshown by repeated famines. Comparison with other regions of the world implies thatthere is substantial room for improvement.

Selecting strategiesAgricultural policy-makers are faced with a set of choices and trade-offs. Should theyaim for rapid growth in agriculture, and hope that the benefits trickle down to thepoor? Should they sacrifice growth in order to overcome immediate food shortages?Or should they attack poverty directly? Each of these strategies has differentimplications:

• A growth-first strategy would probably concentrate investment, research andextension on high-potential areas, where returns are highest. Within these areas, it would focus on the crops with a comparative advantage, which may (or maynot) be food crops. It would strive to ensure a favourable climate for agriculturalinvestment and to facilitate agricultural marketing.

• A food-first strategy would also concentrate on maximising output, mostly inhigh-potential areas, but with a marked bias towards food production. Thiswould mean directing public investment, research and extension to food crops,even if they do not necessarily have a short- or long-term comparative advantage.For example, cereals might be favoured at the expense of coffee or tea, leaving thelatter to finance their own research and infrastructure development.

African farmers produce by far the greatest part of the food that Africans eat

By contrast, a food-first strategy would reduce food imports and might also increasecommercial imports, but at the price of lower growth. It might have little effect onpoverty if the extra food were produced on capital-intensive farms in high-potentialareas. A poverty-first strategy should reduce poverty and cut the need for emergencyrelief, though it might also bring lower growth rates.

The worst of the three approaches would seem to be food-first, since it would have a very limited effect on poverty. Perhaps the best approach is a combination of theother two – growth and poverty-reduction – since this would not only produce thewealth needed to raise the overall standard of living, but would also relieve theburden on the poorer sections of society (see box “Walking on two legs…”).

The best choices depend on local conditions (see box “Choices in agriculturalstrategy”). In a country where poverty is predominantly urban, the main priority willbe to guarantee a supply of cheap food. Where poverty is concentrated amongsmallholders, then the strategy should allow farmers to maximise returns to thescarce resource – land. If poverty among landless people is the problem, then thegovernment should pursue policies to increase labour absorption and enable thelandless to find alternative sources of income.


• A poverty-first strategy would aim to improve the ability of poor people toacquire food by production, purchase, exchange or gift – in other words, to focuson food entitlement rather than food production. It would direct a greaterproportion of spending to low-potential areas, towards damping fluctuations inprices and output, and to crops that increase income, regardless of whether theseproduce food or other products.

Each strategy would contribute in different ways to the government’s objectives(Table 1). In the medium term, a growth-first strategy would spur growth most, but itmight have less impact on reducing poverty and food imports. In some cases, agrowth-first strategy might actually increase poverty, by focusing on capital-intensiveproduction methods that create unemployment and by starving other investmentopportunities of funds.

Table 1 Strategies for agricultural development

Impact on*

Poverty Food import Commercial Reduction inStrategy Growth reduction reduction import capacity food aid need

Growth-first High Medium Medium High MediumFood-first Medium Low High Medium LowPoverty-first Low High Low Low High

* Entries are conjectural


Walking on two legs…

A growth-first strategy would focus on investments in the high-potential areas. This would spur growth, though it might have a limited effect on food security. Combining it with a poverty-first strategy of investment in the low-potential areas wouldcompensate for this shortcoming.

…but with one leg longer than the other

The investment strategy required is one with a foot in both the high-potential areas and the low-potential areas. It should beeasier, however, to stimulate private investment in the high-potential areas, and people here might be expected to be able tohelp themselves more. Policy-makers should therefore consider putting more emphasis on the low-potential areas, whereprivate investment is less likely and fewer resources are available to use in creating wealth. This solution is what SimonMaxwell (1996) calls “walking on two legs, but with one leg longer than the other”.

Choices in agricultural strategy

Large or small farms? Food crops or cash crops? Free market or state control?Extensive or intensive? High- or low-potential areas? High produce prices, or low food prices?Capital-intensive or labour-intensive? Growth, or risk aversion? Male or female oriented?High- or low-input levels? Trade or self-sufficiency?

Who are the stakeholders?Stakeholders in the agricultural sector can include a very wide range of institutionsand individuals – so wide, in fact, that it is sometimes unclear who the stakeholdersare. When designing policies and interventions, it is important to identify those whoare relevant, consult with as many as possible, and understand their points of view(see box “Stakeholders in agriculture” overleaf).

Each stakeholder holds a “stake” – an interest – in farming,its inputs or products. These interests may conflict withone another: farmers may want to keep prices high, whileconsumers would like to see them fall. People in one partof the country may want price supports, while those inanother part would prefer an open market. These conflictsmake it hard to get all stakeholders to agree on a particularpolicy change.

It may be difficult to get stakeholders with differentinterests to focus on agricultural problems: even gettingrepresentatives to attend meetings can be hard. Theministry of education, for example, may not place high


priority on changes in the agricultural education curriculum. The ministry of financeis likely to look askance at a suggested tax break. Involving such stakeholders andgetting their full commitment to an intervention can be a challenge – often a politicalone.

Poverty assessmentFew would argue with the need to base anti-poverty policies on a good understandingof the nature of poverty in the country. But the data available are patchy in terms ofboth quality and coverage. Even basic information on numbers of people and theirincome is suspect, or absent. The data that do exist are all too often poorly analysed.To compound matters, many policy-makers come from urban areas, so lack direct, in-depth experience of rural areas and rural people. Bad data lead to bad policies andbad decisions, yet data collection and analysis often have low priority.

Three steps are necessary when gathering information about poverty: deciding whatinformation is needed (see box “Types of information required”), collecting the data,and analysing them to find out what they mean. In the rush to plan and funddevelopment programmes, these steps may be cut short.

Quantitative or qualitative?Useful data-collection techniques include remote sensing, surveys and participatoryappraisal. The most appropriate method depends on several questions, includingwhy the data are needed and the type and quality of information required (see box“Questions when deciding how to collect data”).

Stakeholders in agriculture

• Government ministries: agriculture, education, industry, trade, health, interior, public works,finance, environment

• Local governments: province, district and lower levels • Civil society: international and national NGOs, community-based organisations,

farmers’ associations, cooperatives, churches, women’s and youth groups, political parties, consumers’ associations

• Private sector: multinational corporations, parastatal companies, small and mediumenterprises in various industries (input supply, agri-processing, marketing), industryassociations

• Traditional authorities: village chiefs, informal leaders• Scientific institutions: universities, national and international agricultural research

institutes, research networks• Donors: multilateral, bilateral, non-government• Banks and credit institutions• Individuals: farmers, traders, consumers, landlords, landless, villagers, town-dwellers

Types ofinformationrequired

• Institutional• Infrastructural• Agro-economic• Socio-cultural• Farming systems and

environmental

Surveys, if they are done at all, tend to be large, costly and time-consuming. All toooften, they produce thick volumes that are difficult to analyse or to translate intopolicy decisions. Unable to wait for the results, donors and governments may makeplans without the understanding that the analysis may bring. The result ismisconceived strategies, inappropriate policies, misallocated resources and little long-lasting impact on poverty.

In an attempt to summarise their findings, many poverty surveys result in a measurebased on a “poverty line”: for example, “x” number of people live below the povertyline of $US 1 a day. There are several alternative poverty lines, including “hardcorepoverty” and “absolute poverty”, each reflecting different degrees of destitution.While they are useful summaries of poverty, these quantitative measures give thepolicy-maker few clues as to what to do about it. This is where qualitativeapproaches such as participatory rural appraisal and participatory povertyassessment can help.

Used by the World Bank, the latter approach asks disadvantaged people what theythink would be most effective to improve their standard of living. Unlike a povertyline, this method gives a guide for possible action, since local people often have avery clear idea of the constraints they face and how they might be overcome. Inmany remote areas, for example, participatory poverty assessments call for improvedroads so villagers can market their produce (see box “Levels of intervention”).


Questions when deciding how to collect data

Why are the data needed? Do the data already exist somewhere else?What types of data are needed? When should they be collected, and how often?What quality (coverage, accuracy, detail) of data is required? How much does collecting the data cost?

Levels of intervention

A poverty assessment may point out the need for interventions at different levels. Taking pastoralists as an example:participatory poverty assessments with this important group reveal that one of their main needs is access to animal healthservices (access to water is the other). Providing these services has multiple benefits: it not only increases the pastoralists’incomes, but also improves their own health (more meat and milk means better nutrition) and reduces conflicts among them.

Improving access to animal health services requires interventions at several levels:

• In the community: encouraging community paraveterinarians and effective, indigenous veterinary practices• Within the veterinary profession: persuading professional veterinarians to cooperate with paraveterinarians and to allow

greater access to drugs• Nationally: changing policies to allow paraveterinarians to practise (in some countries they are banned from doing so),

developing institutions to train them, and adjusting laws to allow them to dispense drugs• Internationally: collaborating with neighbouring countries and international organisations to fight diseases such as

rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease and contagious pleuropneumonia


Participatory assessments are not enough on their own, however. Without thespecialist knowledge or different perspective of outsiders such as researchers orinvestors, local people may fail to see promising opportunities. And quantitativemeasures are needed to compare one area with another, so that planners can channelresources to the most appropriate places.

Filling the gapsIf some information already exists, an entirely new survey may generate relativelylittle extra value. Instead, it is more appropriate to identify existing studies, find outwhere the gaps in the data are, and fill them by collecting only those bits ofinformation that are needed. Such data can be gathered quickly and can be analysedmore easily than the results of a blockbuster survey. Such data collection can also beincluded in the programme’s regular monitoring and evaluation procedures.

Analysing povertyStrategies to combat poverty call for more than just a good knowledge of who is poorand how to improve their lot (see box “Understanding the poor”). They must also bebased on an understanding of what causes poverty, the roles of various institutions incombating (and creating) it, and an analysis of the advisability of various options fordealing with it. Only then can effective, long-term strategies to combat poverty bedesigned.

This analysis is so often lacking. It must draw on both quantitative and qualitativeinformation on poverty, as well as on an understanding of such macro-level aspectsas the legal and taxation systems and international markets for produce. It shouldinclude an evaluation of the various policy options, with a simulation of their effects.Geographical information systems are a useful way of collating, analysing andpresenting information gathered. Economic modelling tools, such as growthaccounting, can be used to identify the sources of growth and to trace their impact ongrowth. Models can forecast the possible impact of interventions on growth,distribution, employment and other factors.

Understanding the poor

The poor are not a homogeneous group. People are poor for different reasons: they have no land, they are sick orhandicapped, victims of drought, AIDS orphans, members of female-headed households, and so forth. Many people sufferfrom multiple deprivations, and are effectively excluded from society, forever unable to climb out of poverty.

This has important implications for anti-poverty programmes. A policy that encourages smallholders to intensify cropping maydo little to help the landless, or single mothers who have no spare time to do the extra planting and weeding needed.Understanding the diversity of poverty is important if policies are to achieve their targets, and this is possible only if povertyprofiles are established on a disaggregated basis.

It is important, too, to understand the relationship between the poor and the institutions that are supposed to serve them.How much benefit do the poorest get from extension services, credit institutions and subsidised inputs? By accident ordesign, the benefits of many such programmes go to the not-so-poor, leaving the poorest without any support.

The tasks of policy analysis and modelling require specialist skills and good data.Both are scarce within government agencies. These tasks could be done in two ways:

• By the ministry itself. Ministries in some countries already have policy-analysisunits; in others, such units are non-existent. Those that do exist could bestrengthened, for example, by hiring additional economists and socio-economists(though this would be difficult in an era of downsizing) or by retraining existingstaff.

• Through contracts with outside bodies, such as private think-tanks, universities orregional research agencies, supplemented where necessary by foreign expertise.

While there is an undeniable need to strengthen the government’s own capacity, anti-poverty programmes must also have an immediate impact on the ground if theyare to retain support. Contracting out at least part of the policy-analysis work maytherefore be the quickest and most cost-effective method. It would also have thebenefit of strengthening local capacity to perform this task, without burdening thegovernment with additional permanent costs.

There are two dangers in this approach to policy analysis:

• Over-generalisation. Priorities can be set at too high a level. Each district within acountry has different agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions, so will havea different set of priorities. Aggregating these to a national level may result inmeaningless generalisations, or could impose inappropriate measures on manydistricts. Decentralisation is thus vital.

• Imposing solutions from above. It would be easy to decide on priorities based onmodels and data, and to ignore the views of the people concerned. Whenprioritising interventions, policy-makers must take into account the views of awide range of stakeholders. The stakeholders should be involved in defining theobjectives and impacts of proposed policies in terms of the stakeholders’resources, constraints and needs, the interactions among the different groups,potential conflicts among them, and their priorities and expectations. Empoweringlocal people and organisations, and ensuring widespread participation in policyformulation, are key to doing this.

With decentralisation, a similar problem of analysing and choosing among policyoptions arises at the district level. This analysis will be less sophisticated and will besmaller in scope. District staff are already familiar with local problems, and are usedto allocating resources. Given adequate training and a planning framework, and with support from a strong central unit, they should be able to handle the types ofanalysis needed. If local authorities are fully responsible for planning andimplementing their own district plans, they will be committed to making them asuccess. There is a clear need for information exchange on how best to make choiceswithin a decentralised, participatory system.


Agricultural sector

strategies

The scope for policy

Sector programmes

Sector programmes or projects?

Limitations of the sector approach

Sector-wide approach


The scope for policyThere is now less scope for policy interventions than in the past. Parallel exchangerates, exchange controls, directed investment, quotas, agricultural parastatals, statefarms – all these are out of fashion. Structural adjustment in sub-Saharan Africa hasbrought large-scale liberalisation and a reduced role for the state. Market-determinedprices and private sector operations are “in”.

But policy remains important. Governments set the incentive and regulatoryframework within which producers make production decisions; examples are landtenure reform, legislation governing cooperatives, and investment codes regulatingforeign multinationals. Governments can also influence the economic environmentthrough the judicious use of the budget for agricultural research, seed production,extension, support to infrastructure and marketing, and sometimes subsidies forinputs or outputs.

Sector programmesDonors and governments in several countries in eastern and southern Africa havedesigned, or are in the process of designing, programmes to cover the entire

agricultural sector (see map, and boxes on Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda).

Agricultural sector programmes attempt to organise all public expenditureand aid flowing through government channels into a single programme to

support an agreed strategy and set of policies, institutionalreforms and activities. They are usually based on consultationswith beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the sector, and coverall the activities of the ministry of agriculture over the medium

term (4–5 years).

This is an ambitious approach. It requires governments to take the leadin formulating objectives, priorities and strategies; governments and

donors must coordinate closely in the funding of the programme.

Experience has shown that one of the main shortcomings of development activities hitherto has been their inability to address broad strategic andpolicy issues. Agricultural sector programmes aim to overcome this problem.

Because they cover an entire sector, they can tackle the overall quality of thegovernment’s spending and its consistency with national objectives, such as

poverty reduction, decentralisation and privatisation. They allow governmentspending to be assessed against agreed objectives and priorities. In an era of

declining government expenditures, they force policy-makers to choose amongalternative strategies.

Growth alone is not sufficient…. It ought to be possible to designprogrammes that promote growth, but also have a large impact on poverty

Countries in eastern and southernAfrica implementing or planningagricultural sector programmes

1 Kenya 5 Uganda2 Lesotho 6 Zambia3 Malawi 7 Zimbabwe4 Mozambique

51

6

3

7

4

2

It may be argued that maximising growth is the best way to reduce poverty in thelong run, and that targeting resources at poor farmers is unproductive and restrictsgrowth. But rising inequality and deepening impoverishment of some sections ofsociety have shown that growth alone is not sufficient to reduce poverty. It ought tobe possible to design programmes that not only promote growth, but also have a largeimpact on poverty. A sector approach allows these poverty concerns to bemainstreamed into the policy and institutional framework of agricultural programmes.

Agricultural sector strategies 17

Kenya’s agricultural sector investment programme

Kenya is in the process of launching its Agricultural Sector Investment Programme. This provides an organisational andfinancial framework for the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing. The budget (not yet finalised) will be $US 120–130 million per year for phase one, covering the period 1999–2002. About one-quarterof the funding will be provided by donors, mainly the World Bank, the European Commission and the German developmentagency, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

The overall goal of the programme is to contribute to growth and poverty reduction in the country. It plans to do this byintensifying production systems in medium- and high-potential areas. It will promote such productivity improvements by:

• The increased use of quality inputs (including water for irrigation)• The replacement of low-value commodities with high-value ones• The commercialisation of smallholder production• Strengthening links with other sectors of the economy

The first phase will support these transformations by increasing the effectiveness of public service delivery. The role of theministry will be redefined, and it will withdraw from many activities, confining itself to delivering services with a ”publicgood” character in 10 core areas:

• General administration and planning• Formulation and monitoring of policy and appropriate legislation• Contribution to research priority-setting• Regulatory management of inputs and outputs• Promotion of private sector development• Facilitation and supply of appropriate extension services and research liaison• Information management• Monitoring and management of food security• Pest and disease control• Protection of the natural resource base

The main priorities under the first phase will be:

• Reform of extension• Privatisation of animal health services• Decentralisation of decision-making and programme management to district authorities• Improved information management, performance monitoring and evaluation• Environmental impact assessments• Gender issues


Mozambique’s agricultural sector investment programme

PROAGRI is the framework programme for Mozambique’s Ministry of Agriculture andFisheries for the period 1999–2003. Its budget for this period is $US 202 million, 90% ofwhich will be funded by donors. The programme will become the main channel for donorfunding in agriculture, and most individual donor-managed projects will be phased out.

The PROAGRI programme will restructure the ministry according to core functions with a“public good” character, and introduce reforms in service delivery, including decentralisedmanagement, public/private partnerships, and stakeholder participation. The ministry’sactivities will be substantially reduced from levels in the past, when it was heavily involved ininput provision, market intervention and the direct management of natural resources. This isreflected in the budget, which is 45% less than the ministry’s expenditure in 1992–1996.

In future, the ministry will restrict itself to the following core functions:

• Identifying market constraints and policy responses• Ensuring equitable access and security of land and water rights• Providing regulation, standardisation and quality control for agricultural inputs• Providing agreed core agricultural services• Providing an enabling environment for private sector development• Ensuring efficient management of natural resources

The basic principles of PROAGRI, common to all components of the programme, include:

• Decentralisation of management and decision-making to provincial authorities (which willcontrol 59% of the budget)

• Stakeholder participation in the design and monitoring of programmes• Environmental impact assessments and mitigating measures• Gender concerns mainstreamed into the programme design• Capacity building• Annual review• Improved information systems• Improved financial management and reporting

Uganda’s agricultural modernisation strategy

The Ugandan government believes agricultural modernisation has a key role in the country’s development programme. Ruraldevelopment (especially agricultural and small-enterprise development) is one of four main components of the PovertyEradication Action Plan (the others are infrastructure development, human resources development and governance). TheMedium-Term Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture, 1998–2004, aims to accelerate agricultural growth, with agriculturebecoming competitive, modern, diversified, export-oriented and productive (in terms of both land and labour).

The following areas will be given priority: improving research, extension and farmer links; developing market infrastructure;targeting commercial agricultural production; improving access to and availability of credit in rural areas; and promoting thedevelopment of agro-based rural enterprises.

Sector programmes or projects?Until recently, much donor assistance has been channelled through stand-aloneprojects. Sector programmes have emerged in part because of the failings of thisapproach. These programmes aim to overcome several disadvantages of projects:

• Rational structure. Projects tend to proliferate, and each has its own objectives andmanagement procedures. This multiplicity severely strains the government’sadministrative capacity. Sector programmes aim to replace this cacophony with arational structure.

• Sustainability. Projects are often driven by donors rather than by the government.The government’s lack of ownership is accentuated because separate units, outsidethe ministry structure, manage most projects. These units, and the activities theyimplement, are hard to integrate into the government structure at the end of theproject. Sector programmes, by contrast, aim to reorient the ministry’s activities asa whole, rather than to tack on extra bits.

• Focus and scope. Projects often rely on additional resources, but these may bediverted to fulfil needs elsewhere. Project planning can be piecemeal, and thefocus on discrete investments makes it impossible for donors and governments toaddress broader policy and institutional weaknesses. Sector programmes try toovercome these problems by surveying the whole sector and allocating resourcesaccording to a set of overall priorities and objectives. This may include changes inpolicy or institutions outside the reach of an individual project.

Limitations of the sector approachDespite their advantages, agricultural sector programmes have several drawbacks:

• Complexity. In trying to cover all aspects of the sector, agricultural sectorstrategies may prove to be unwieldy. They are complex to formulate, implementand monitor. They need high levels of leadership and management skills. They call for continuous dialogue with many different actors, both within government and outside. Sector programmes may become too top-down, data-intensive, time-consuming and organisationally complex – features handicapping manyintegrated rural development projects and multi-sectoral nutrition programmes inthe 1970s and 1980s.

• Narrowness. Given the preceding paragraph, it may seem paradoxical to suggestthat agricultural sector strategies may be too narrow. Yet they are primarily publicexpenditure programmes, confined to the budget of the ministry of agriculture.They must be coordinated with the programmes of other ministries (health,education, roads, etc.) to take advantage of synergies among them, but withoutcreating a new level of cross-sectoral institutions. And because they are publicsector initiatives, it may be difficult to mobilise the wholehearted support ofstakeholders such as NGOs and the private sector.



• Vision. Even with the most participatory programme design, there are likely to bedisagreements over the directions a sector programme should take. Competingconcerns are normal in a democratic society. Yet they may be difficult to incorporateinto a holistic sector programme: a focus on growth, for example, may ignore theimportant issues of poverty reduction, environmental sustainability and genderequity. Even in a democracy, the poor have the smallest voice: their concerns andneeds may not be heard. And the political process remains supreme: a change ofminister or of government can derail the most meticulously prepared plans.

• Neglect of poverty. Over the past decade, restructuring has attempted to makegovernment smaller and to turn services over to the private sector. The results havebeen patchy. In many instances, private firms have not grown up to replace thegovernment services that have been withdrawn; predictably, they have focused onplaces where money can be made: cash and export crops, high-potential areas, andthe rich. The poor have been left without the few services they once enjoyed. Withtheir focus on growth, agricultural sector strategies may repeat these mistakes.

• Centralisation. The complexity of sector strategies and their concomitant need forskilled management may result in the centralisation of decision-making in thehands of a few in the central ministry. Yet this would be at odds with thewidespread trend toward decentralisation and the declared aim of several sectorprogrammes to promote decentralisation and the participation of local people.

• Ownership. The initiative in promoting sector programmes often lies not withnational governments, but with outsiders, especially major donors such as theWorld Bank. It may be difficult for staff in national ministries to develop a sense ofownership for such programmes. Efforts are needed to stimulate local capacity todevelop programme initiatives.

• Pace of reform. Sector strategies call for fundamental reforms within all levels ofgovernment, as well as within the wider economy. These reforms – privatisation,decentralisation, reorientation from a command to a service function, changed staffattitudes, new financial and administrative procedures – depend on many factorsoutside the control of the ministry of agriculture. Lack of progress could stall thesector programme.

• Sensitivity to external factors. The external economic environment for agricultureis changing rapidly with the implementation of international agreements such asthose embodied by the World Trade Organisation, the reform of the EU’s CommonAgricultural Policy, and the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention. These changeswill have major impacts on prices and markets, but they are largely outside thecontrol of national policy-makers in Africa, and are hard to predict. Climatic shockssuch as floods and drought, as well as political instability, have similar effects andare similarly unpredictable. A sector strategy built on assumptions about a keymarket or normal rainfall may founder if these assumptions prove false.

• Downsizing. Agricultural sector “investment” programmes may really be“disinvestment” programmes, since they reflect a reduction in the total amount ofgovernment funding for the sector (in line with restructuring). Many problems areassociated with this, including the downsizing of staff, loss of the most able staff,poor morale, and the danger that funds earmarked for improvements may be usedto support ongoing activities.

• Donor autonomy. Individual donors have their own priorities and procedures,and mount their own planning and appraisal missions. Donors that disagree with the direction of the sector strategies, question the government’s abilities inmacro-economic management or fear corruption may choose to fund otherinitiatives. They may be unwilling to change their own working procedures to fitthose of the sector programme. Skill will be required to ensure that donors’aspirations are satisfied by the roles they play in the sector programme. At thesame time, a programme that is overly dependent on donor support may besusceptible if donors fail to live up to their assurances of funding.

Sector-wide approachAlone, government support for agricultural development is unlikely to improve thelot of the poor significantly. Rather, it should be part of a larger, sector-wide strategyon the part of both government and donors (see box “Sector programme or a sector-wide approach?”). For the government, an agricultural sector programme should bea key element in its overall rural development and anti-poverty strategies.

Donors should also adopt a sector-wide approach, encompassing their support forthe government’s agricultural sector programme, as well as their direct support forthe private sector and NGOs. A donor’s support for an NGO’s work in a particulararea, for example, should complement the government’s sector programme efforts.

Implementing a sector-wide approach presents numerous challenges in coordination:

• Within the government, cross-ministry consultative groups on poverty reductionare needed to ensure that activities and policies are coordinated. Suchcoordination mechanisms are also necessary at the local level.

• Donors must take care to ensure that sector-wide programmes are wellcoordinated with the government’s efforts. Their direct support to non-publicinstitutions must not undermine the government’s ownership of sector objectives,nor the government’s responsibility to support private sector development andcivil society.


Sector programme or a sector-wide approach?

A “sector programme” is a public expenditure programme to support an agreed sector strategy and set of policies,institutional reforms and activities. For agriculture, the sector generally includes only those areas covered by the ministry ofagriculture: crop and livestock production and related services (such as research, extension and veterinary services). A sector programme is funded jointly by the government and donors. Examples are the agricultural sector investmentprogrammes of Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda (see boxes pp. 17–18).

A “sector-wide approach” (or “SWAP”) is broader. It covers support not only to the ministry of agriculture, but also toNGOs, private companies and other bodies working in the sector.

Policies

Resource allocation

Serving the poor

Decentralisation

Privatisation


Resource allocation As noted earlier, the poor do not necessarily benefit unless development effortsspecifically target poverty. Growth is necessary to reduce poverty, but it is notsufficient: without specific measures to ensure the distribution of income, it maybypass substantial numbers of poor people, or even disadvantage them further.

Looking at how resources are allocated reveals a government’s priorities, and is vitalwhen planning expenditures. Policy-makers can look at the overall size of theagricultural sector’s budget, as well as how it is broken down by function, region andeconomic activity (Table 2).

Without specific measures to ensure the distribution of income, growth may bypasssubstantial numbers of poor people

Table 2 Resource allocation: questions for policy-makers

Overall spending Is enough (or too much) money being spent on agriculture, relativeon agriculture to other economic sectors?

Given the level of planned spending, can farming be expected to achieve the targets set?

Functional Does each activity match programme objectives?Is the activity cost-effective? Are there cheaper or more effective

alternatives?What is the activity’s impact on poverty?Does it provide a public good or a private one? Should it be

transferred to the private sector?

Geographical In what parts of the country is spending concentrated? Is there a balance between high- and low-potential areas?Are there profitable investment opportunities in low-potential

areas? How can the agro-ecological potential of these areas be raised? How can low-potential areas be integrated into national markets?

Economic Is there an appropriate allocation of resources into salaries, capitalexpenditures, operations and maintenance?

Do budgets for capital investments cover their recurrent costs?

Public expenditure Does actual spending match the budgeted allocations?management Are financial management systems adequate?

Overall budget sizeThe overall size of the agricultural sector’s budget reveals the priority given tofarming in government thinking. The agricultural sector programmes in Kenya andMozambique have relatively modest budgets: $US 120 million per year ($US 4 perperson) in Kenya, and $US 40 million ($US 2 per person) in Mozambique.

The small size of these sums means that the programmes are likely to have only alimited direct impact on poverty. The indirect effect may be larger, though, as reformsin public services should stimulate economic activity by the private sector. Indeed,allocating larger sums might reduce the pressure for reforms and draw resourcesaway from other sectors with a greater impact on poverty.

Functional breakdown

Spending should reflect the costs and benefits of activities and their impact onpoverty. Funds should support the provision of “public goods”; the supply of othergoods and services should be transferred to the private sector.

In much of Africa, large sums are spent on providing agricultural extension services,justified by the wide differences in yields obtained on experiment farms and thoseharvested by farmers. Yet extension is often ineffective (some would argue this isbecause not enough is spent on it). There may be cheaper or more effective options,such as farmer field-schools or radio, which would have a greater impact on poverty.

Many government services provide what are called “private goods”: they benefit anindividual rather than society as a whole (see the discussion later on “Public vs.private goods”. These services – farm inputs, marketing, specialist advice, etc. – canoften be provided more cheaply and effectively by the private sector.

Geographical breakdown

Paradoxically, most agricultural services are concentrated in regions with the lowestincidence of poverty. Large areas – remote, dry and with poor soils – are neglected,even though they contain higher proportions of poor people.

By definition, the high-potential areas yield greater returns on investment. They havehigher population densities, perhaps with larger numbers of poor people overall thanin the sparsely populated low-potential areas. It therefore makes sense to devoteresources to these areas, in line with the “growth-first” strategy outlined earlier.

Yet the low-potential areas should not be neglected. There are at least four reasons forthis:

• With the right investment, they can be transformed into high-potential areas: a road from central to western Sudan, for example, would open up a hugehinterland of potentially productive agricultural land.

• There are always pockets of land with high potential, even in poorer areas – thevalley bottoms, the wadis, the south-facing slopes, the lands with better soils.

Policies 25


• By helping prevent social discontent and famine, investing in low-potential areassaves on relief costs, which can be substantial.

• Investment in low-potential areas can help conserve forests, soil and water,preventing environmental problems and reducing the future cost of rectifyingdegradation.

Investment in these low-potential areas is closely associated with the “poverty-first”strategy outlined earlier. Low-input agricultural production methods that recyclenutrients and conserve the environment should be developed and promoted in theseareas.

Economic breakdown

Budgets are often dominated by salaries and capital expenditures, while insufficientamounts are devoted to operations and maintenance – hence the phenomena ofbroken equipment and of extension workers unable to visit the field because theyhave no fuel. There is a need to reorient expenditures towards non-wage recurrentcosts, and to build these costs into future budgets when planning new investments.

Public expenditure management

Actual spending often differs markedly from the budgeted amounts because of weakmanagement of public expenditure. Critical expenditures may be squeezed byunexpected revenue shortfalls and by demands for unbudgeted items elsewhere.Policy-makers should examine the actual spending in relation to the budget, andminimise off-budget outlays. Improved financial management systems may beneeded to do this.

Serving the poorMany agricultural services are currently biased towards the rich. Wealthier peoplefind it easier to get credit and extension advice, and researchers tend to focus oncrops grown mainly by larger farmers. There is comparatively little research andextension effort devoted to the complex, diverse and risk-prone areas where many ofthe poor live.

Agricultural sector programmes in eastern and southern Africa contain someelements of a pro-poor strategy. In Mozambique, for example, agricultural researchpriorities will be reoriented towards small farmer and women-farmer issues. Greaterattention will be given to small livestock such as sheep and goats, which are morecommon among the poor than cattle.

Many agricultural services are biased towards the rich... more must be done if the poor are to benefit

Nevertheless, more must be done if the poor are to benefit from agricultural sector programmes. In general, prices for services should not be subsidised, as this is unsustainable and often does not benefit the poorest anyway. Rather, efforts tocombat poverty should be aimed at improving poor people’s (and especiallywomen’s) access to resources and at providing the following services cost-effectively:

• Extension services need to be reoriented towards the poor. They should focus oncrops and livestock of interest to the poor, and on bringing thepoor into the market economy. There is great scope forimproving the dissemination of information through the media (especially radio) and for using new electronictechnologies such as CD-ROMs to provide extension staff with large amounts of appropriate information. Trainingschemes need to be adapted to the needs of the poor, and ways found to enable them to participate.

• Research efforts should be shifted towards non-commercialcrops grown by poorer farmers and towards adaptingtechnologies for lower levels of farm inputs and riskierenvironments. This can be done through participatory, on-farm research approaches and by giving beneficiaries a say in the direction of the research agenda.

• Veterinary services, too, should be reoriented towards thepoor. Approaches such as using paraveterinarians and promoting effectiveindigenous treatments can markedly improve the health of livestock in remoteareas.

The above three types of service tend to be given the most attention and money. Butimprovements in other services can also have a major impact on poverty withoutinvolving the government in major new expenditures.

• Land titling. Guaranteed tenure is a major incentive for farmers to invest in theirland (for example, by building structures to conserve soil and water).

• Financial services. The availability of small amounts of credit enables smallfarmers to invest and grow enough to sell. Microfinance institutions have shownthat credit for the poor is viable and can be self-sustaining. Traditional institutionsmay have a role to play in providing such credit. Insurance services can helpoffset the losses caused by accidents, illness or crop loss. Innovative inputs fromthe private sector are needed here.

• Market access. Governments can do much to help farmers sell surplus produce.Constructing farm-to-market roads and market infrastructure (which can bemanaged by a private company) is one way. Providing market information isanother: if they know the current market price, farmers can better plan theirplanting and harvesting, and seek out the best deals for selling their produce.Governments can work with the private sector to develop marketing channels andcan provide a regulation regime (for example, to ensure the quality of exportedproduce).

Policies 27


• Access to water. This is a major constraint in many areas. Small-scale irrigationschemes can extend the growing season and reduce vulnerability to drought.Governments can provide advice and incentives to farmers to develop water-harvesting and conservation schemes.

• Access to policy-making and institutions. Small farmers are powerless unlessthey are organised. The government can support local initiatives to form farmers’associations and community-based organisations, but should take care not torepeat the mistake of imposing cooperatives from above. There is a large toolboxof approaches to stimulate the emergence of such organisations, includingparticipatory appraisal, participatory poverty assessment and communityorganising. Government agencies can use these to ensure that their policies aregrounded in the needs of local people.

Monitoring the effectiveness of service providers is vital to ensure that they do in factserve the poor. A similar set of tools to those mentioned above is useful for doingthis.

The private sector has a clear role to play in reducing poverty. The government canstimulate the emergence of new businesses, and encourage existing ones to expand indisadvantaged areas by such affirmative measures as tax breaks.

Despite these efforts, problems will remain. Safety nets will still be required for thedestitute and to cope with emergencies.

DecentralisationSeveral eastern African countries are currently decentralising their governmentfunctions, both in managing service delivery and in planning, decision-making andresource allocation. Agricultural sector programmes are part of this trend: in Kenya,decentralisation will occur initially in 16 pilot districts (out of 66), while inMozambique provincial offices of the Ministry of Agriculture command almost 60%of the agricultural sector programme budget.

Potential benefits from decentralisation include:

• Local solutions for local problems. The size and diversity of most Africancountries means that interventions designed nationally are unlikely to be useful inall areas. Decentralisation avoids this problem by having solutions decided uponin each district.

• Better response to needs. Local governments are closer to rural clients than is thecentral government. They should be in a better position to respond to the needs ofthe poor and to manage partnerships with other service providers.

• Participation. Local control opens the possibility for stakeholder participation inidentifying local priorities, organising work plans and evaluating programmeperformance.

However, some important constraints may counteract these advantages:

• Lack of administrative capacity. Local authorities lack the skilled staff, equipmentand working methods needed to implement complex programmes efficiently.Starved of funds for many years, local decision-makers lack skills in designing andmanaging interventions. There is a danger that they are given new tasks withoutany guidance on how to manage them.

• Transfer of responsibility but not of power. Central governments are unused toceding power to others, and may be unwilling to do so. Conflicts may arisebetween national priorities (defined by central policy-makers) and programmesdecided upon locally. The increased funding received by local authorities may notmatch the flood of new responsibilities handed to them.

• Inflexible bureaucracy. Governments typically have top-down commandstructures, which are difficult to adapt to more client-oriented, localised andbottom-up approaches. Administrative (especially financial) procedures are oftenhighly centralised, so may be inappropriate for managing local programmes.

• Lack of accountability. There is no guarantee that local governments will be anymore accountable to their clients than are central ministries. Local authorities aredifficult to monitor and audit, and, like central government, they are subject tocorruption. Programmes may be hijacked by powerful local interest groups. Thepoor may have least influence because they are poorly organised and lack politicalpower.

Overcoming these constraints requires several reforms:

• Increasing the capacity of local government. This will involve the provision ofequipment, staff training and transfers, and the development of management anddecision-making systems.

• Local/national government coordination. The roles andresponsibilities of local and national government bodies need tobe clarified. Mechanisms to coordinate policies amonggovernment units and to resolve disagreements need to bedeveloped.

• Change in orientation and procedures. A change from acommand to a service orientation will require staff retraining anda redesign of tasks and procedures. Financial and otheradministrative procedures may need revision to enable localcontrol.

• Improved accountability. Ways to organise stakeholderparticipation and democratic inputs should be devised andintegrated into the management process. Groups of poor farmersand women should be fostered so that they can provide inputs into theconsultative process. Streamlined payments and stronger auditing, as well as localoversight, will help prevent corruption.

Policies 29

Agricultural sector programmes are redefining the role of government and the “non-public sector” (which covers private companies, NGOs and community-basedorganisations) in service delivery. They aim to trim government expenditures onunproductive and pro-rich services by transferring them to the private sector orNGOs. In general, non-public organisations are seen as being more cost-effective,efficient and responsive to clients than is the government. Private companies have theprofit motive to ensure they cater to their clients’ needs. Farmers’ associations canprovide effective extension, input provision and product marketing for poor farmers.And NGOs can be highly responsive to the poor by virtue of their bottom-up,participatory working methods; they are also capable of working in remote areaswhere there are few public or private services.

The privatisation tide now rising in Africa began in the developed world. There is a clear danger of copying models from Europe that are inappropriate in Africa. Yet much can also be learned from the privatisation experience in Europe. Forexample, veterinary services have been very difficult to privatise: long transitionalperiods with guaranteed incomes for vets have proved necessary in the UnitedKingdom. African policy-makers should study experiences in both the developed and the developing worlds to design policies appropriate for their own countries’situations.

Private vs. public goods

Which services should be turned over to the non-public sector? One way of decidingthis is to determine who benefits from each service (see box “Public, mixed andprivate goods”).

Providing public goods, along with combating poverty, is seen as a core function ofthe government. Agricultural sector programmes attempt to strengthen these serviceswhere necessary (for example, to regulate markets more efficiently and fairly, or toimprove the quality of farm inputs). The provision of public goods can be contractedout, but will require close regulation to ensure equitable delivery.

Economic theory calls for governments to withdraw from providing most types ofprivate goods, leaving this task to others. Where the government provides such


PrivatisationGovernments are deeply involved in providing a wide range of services to farmers.Too deeply: public servants vaccinate cattle, advise on growing crops, managemarkets and import fertilisers. These services are often expensive and poorly run, andthey often fail to reach rural clients, especially the poor. Richer farmers capture manyof the benefits: subsidised inputs, cheap credit and extension visits. Short of money,the state can no longer afford to provide such services.

Agricultural sector programmes are redefining the role of government

Policies 31

Public, mixed and private goods

Private goods: Goods or services that benefit only the individual receiving them. Artificial insemination is an example: onlythe livestock owner gains from the calf produced. Other examples include dipping of cattle against parasites, and treatmentsfor sick animals.

Public goods: Other services benefit many people; they are more public in character. Daily radio broadcasts giving marketprices are an example: anyone with a radio can receive the information.

Mixed goods: Many services have both private and public elements. A disease may infect an individual farmer’s animals,but it may kill the neighbours’ stock, too. Vaccination to control such diseases is therefore in both the individual owner’sinterest and the public interest. Agricultural extension and meat inspection are other examples.

In economic jargon, pure public goods are “non-excludable” and “non-subtractable”. Non-excludability means that everyonecan use these goods without paying for them: anyone with a radio can listen to a broadcast. Non-subtractability means thatif one person uses the goods, they are still available for others: if one person listens to the radio programme, for example,others can still tune in.

Pure private goods do not have these characteristics. Only the farmer whose cows are treated against ticks benefits from theimproved milk output. And dipping one farmer’s animals uses up chemicals and a technician’s time, meaning that someoneelse’s cattle may go untreated.

In practice, many goods have both private and public attributes. Artificial insemination, described above as a private good,benefits the public by improving the general genetic level of the country’s livestock. (In economic jargon, it has “positiveexternalities”.) It can be very difficult to disentangle the private and public features of each service, and so to decide if, andhow, it should be privatised.

Public goods Mixed goods Private goods

Examples Regulation and quality Vaccination Livestock dippingcontrol of input markets

Livestock extension Clinical services Market information provision

Meat inspection Artificial inseminationControl of contagious diseases

Sample testing Policy analysis

Management of holding groundsProvision of secure land tenure

Strategy Maintain as government service, Commercialise by contracting Privatisestrengthen as required out or introducing element

of cost recovery Ensure competitionContract out, with close regulation Ensure access by poor Ensure access by poor


services for free, the private sector is reluctant to invest in providing the same service. Ministries should ensure that these services are transferred smoothly – by encouraging private companies to take them over, or by privatising those arms ofthe government (such as veterinary clinics) that provide the services. Problems ariseif the government monopoly is replaced by a private one, and if the poor are not ableto afford the prices charged by the private sector.

Problems also arise with mixed goods, because leaving them to the private sector may not ensure that the public benefits. For example, it is in the public interest to have all animals vaccinated, not just those owned by farmers who can afford to pay for the service. Agricultural sector programmes deal with this by contracting suchservices out to NGOs or private operators, or by introducing an element of cost recovery into them.

Public/non-public partnershipsAgricultural sector programmes are mainly public sector instruments. While theyemphasise the need for the government, private companies and NGOs all to beinvolved in providing services, there is a risk that this will not happen. This is because, ultimately, central government ministries retain control over funds anddecision-making. They have little reason to devolve some of this power to otherbodies. The incentive system for civil servants does not reward results, so fails toencourage the development of external partnerships.

This has important implications for poverty reduction because, as noted earlier, non-public service providers are often more capable of reaching poor farmers.

There is a need to develop constructive partnerships between public and non-publicinstitutions that are based on their respective advantages in tackling poverty. Forexample, states could contract NGOs or farmers’ associations to provide services in remote areas. Partnerships could be forged with private companies to develop infrastructure and information services, and to ensure effective regulation. Suchpartnerships increase the leverage of public resources and ensure that services arecomplementary.

Many questions remain. How should partners be identified? How should contracts beawarded, funds allocated and disbursed, and performance monitored? How canaccountability be assured? These details still need to be worked out, though there arean increasing number of experiments in this area throughout the continent.

Fostering the private sectorThe private sector is still very weak, or even non-existent, in many areas and servicetypes. Fostering it will require carefully honed government policies:

• Regulations to prevent or govern monopolies, so as to avoid replacing agovernment monopoly with a private one.

• Simpler rules (for example, to make it easier to register a new company or open abank account).

• Clear, consistent policies, enforced fairly and honestly.

• A tax and legal structure that encourages companies to expand into local servicesand stimulates (rather than hinders) the birth of new companies.

• A stable macro-economic environment that encourages investment.

• An openness to foreign investment in hitherto protected areas of the economy.

Responsibility for many of these policies lies outside the ministry of agriculture.Deciding on tax incentives, for example, is the fief of the ministry of finance, whilerelaxing legal rules (for example, making it easier to open a bank account or establisha cooperative) may need decisions by the national parliament. Close consultationwith other ministries and government bodies, as well as with the private sector, willbe necessary to achieve the necessary reforms.

Safeguarding the poorPrivatisation is a complex process, with many potential pitfalls. Hiving off services tothe private sector significantly reduces the level of public services. This saves money,but may hurt the poor in several ways:

• The poor may not be able to afford the new charges for services.

• They may lack the information they need to take advantage of the revised services.

• High costs and the lack of effective demand may mean that private sector servicesdo not develop in remote areas where many poor people live.

• Newly privatised services may turn out to be unprofitable. A bankrupt companycannot serve anyone, rich or poor.

• Only one company may provide the service in a particular area. The lack ofcompetition may mean it can charge high prices.

The poor may also benefit from privatisation:

• The costs saved from cutting back on government services mayallow pro-poor expenditures elsewhere.

• More efficient services should benefit all rural people in the long run.

Overall, the impact of the reforms is not necessarily pro-poor orpro-rich. The impacts will vary from place to place and fordifferent types of services. In some places, and for some types ofservices, the poor may suffer significantly.

Some agricultural sector programmes do not seem to take this intoaccount. Governments should plan the provision of services not

Policies 33


only by assessing public and private benefits, but alsoaccording to their impact on poverty. The government canchoose from several options to safeguard services for thepoor:

• Continuing to provide the services directly in some areas.

• Encouraging private operators and NGOs byguaranteeing their earnings in the first few years, orthrough subsidies or tax breaks.

• Promoting the development of the private sector byimproving infrastructure or providing information, or byencouraging private companies to do so.

• Encouraging farmers to develop their own services (forexample, in microfinance, paraveterinary services orvillage cereal banks).

Cost recoveryAgricultural sector programmes frequently impose fees for certain services, such ascharging for medicines previously provided free-of-charge, or by imposing fees forland registration and other services. There are three reasons for introducing fees:

• Ministries can raise some of their income by charging for services. Such feescurrently account for very little of most agriculture ministries’ budgets: the Kenyanministry gets only 1% of its revenue from this source.

• Services should become more responsive to the users’ needs. Farmers will not payfor services they do not want, but are often prepared to pay for those they findvaluable. The revenue from fees tells the service providers what the users want.

Recovering from war

Many of the poorest people in Africa live in areas affected by war or recovering from war.War is a major shock to the agricultural system. It disrupts agricultural input, production and marketing systems. It destroys families, communities, institutions and infrastructure. Ituproots farming communities and creates refugees. It destroys human capital and distorts the supply of labour by reducing the number of male workers. It diverts investment fromlong-term growth to short-term survival. It redirects resources away from production and intodestruction.

Special measures may be needed to rebuild the physical, human or social capital in war-affected regions. The speed of recovery depends on many factors: the initial levels ofhuman and other forms of capital, the extent of destruction, and the resources available forrebuilding.

• Imposing charges opens the possibility for private companies to provide similarservices for a fee. Introducing competition should stimulate improvements in therange and quality of the services.

While charging for services may bring general benefits, the poorest farmers may beunable to pay for them. The effects on poor farmers of imposing charges should beconsidered carefully, and steps taken to safeguard their access to services. Suchmeasures may include:

• Waiving fees for the poorest farmers (for example, not charging for land titles forless than 1 ha).

• Waiving fees for basic services, such as extension advice for staple crops.

• Charging reduced or no fees in the poorest areas.

• Introducing fees gradually. Users may object to paying fees for services they havepreviously received free-of-charge. To begin with in Kenya, for example, chargesfor extension advice are being levied only for specialist advice on cash crops.

Policies 35

Institutions

Agricultural research and extension

Information and documentation

Microfinance

Monitoring

Donors


Agricultural sector strategies require fundamental changes in the institutions thatdevelop policies and deliver services. All types of institutions – central ministries,local authorities, NGOs, donors and private companies – will be affected to somedegree (Table 3).

Institutions have failed to deliver in several ways:

• Failure to understand the needs of the poor. There is insufficient information onthe extent and nature of poverty, and on the views of the poor themselves. This isparticularly so in the case of women, who form a disproportionate number of thepoor and produce most of Africa’s food, while policies and services continue tofavour men. Poverty assessment methods need to be improved to improve theunderstanding of the poor and the design of interventions to combat poverty (see the discussion under “Poverty assessment” earlier).

• Policy reversals. Development goes through fashions, each with its own emphases and institutional formats. Since the 1980s, the trend has been away frompublic sector service provision and towards the private sector. But this has resulted in significant disadvantages for the poor. Recently, it has been recognisedthat the state does, after all, have an important role to play in the economy and in serving the poor.

• Institutional incompatibilities. The key players – central and local government,private companies, donors, NGOs and indigenous institutions – have differentgoals and cultures. Forging working relationships among them can be verydifficult. Efforts are needed to clarify their roles, identify those areas where certaintypes of organisation have comparative advantages, and improve collaborationand coordination.

• Design and implementation failures. Institutions and activities may be ineffective or inefficient, or may not even cater for the poor. Bureaucracies may not be appropriate for reducing poverty; NGOs or community organisations maybe more effective, but even these may not reach the very poorest. A reorientationtowards serving the poor is needed, along with revisions in the types of servicesprovided and in the way they are delivered (see the discussion under “Serving the poor” earlier).

• Lack of capacity. National and local governments lack skilled staff specialised inkey areas, lack appropriate equipment (computers, vehicles) and workingprocedures, and have to work within insufficient and poorly balanced budgets.Their staff are poorly motivated, and reward systems do not encourage them togive their best. This concern has led to agricultural sector strategies beingintroduced in phases, with the first phase being mainly concerned with capacitybuilding and improved management.

Agricultural sector strategies require fundamental changes in institutions

Institutions 39

Table 3 Improving institutional effectiveness*

Actions Examples

Within an Capacity building Needs assessmentinstitution Equipment purchase

TrainingSupport for field activitiesManagement information system

Approach and attitude change Use poverty- and gender-related language

Become a “learning organisation”Create poverty/gender units

Reward system Salary increasesPerformance bonusesPromotionOfficial recognitionReprimand, demotion, dismissalTransfer

Among Policy coordination Defining limits to activities funded insitutions Direct or indirect funding

Harmonising activities

Implementation coordination Clear delineation and sharing of responsibility

Joint planningClear reporting and messages

* Five areas of action to improve the effectiveness of institutions, proposed by Griffith et al. (1998)

• Lack of accountability. Many organisations, both government and non-government, are not accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. Theylack a culture of serving their clients. Control flows from top to bottom, and thereare few mechanisms to enable participation by clients and other stakeholders indecision-making. At the same time, measures aimed at controlling corruption areinappropriate and easily side-stepped, yet lead to a lack of flexibility in usingresources to tackle problems. Initiatives are needed to increase participation and toimprove financial management.


Agricultural research and extensionSub-Saharan Africa inherited research and extension institutions that emphasisedcash crops for export. Their focus remains on the high-value commodities, rather thanon crops, livestock and environments of greater relevance to the poor. The research

agenda is set by scientists, who may prefer solving scientificproblems to addressing those faced by farmers, and are rewardedby their output of journal articles rather than the impact of theirtechnologies.

A part of the research and extension budget should continue to be devoted to promoting growth, so should remain focused onhigh-value commodities and markets. It is not unreasonable toexpect producers – who can expect to benefit from this work – to contribute to it.

Another part of the research and extension budget should befocused on the problems of poverty: staple crops (or those cashcrops that can be grown by small farmers), small livestock, poorsoils, risky environments and low levels of inputs. The research andextension process can be made more poverty-oriented by increasingthe influence of stakeholders in research planning, implementation,extension and monitoring.

• Research planning. When setting the research agenda, at a minimum there should be consultation with the poor and with those who serve them (such asextension workers and NGO personnel). A bolder step would be to give thebeneficiaries control over a portion of the research, allowing them (rather than, or along with, the scientists) to decide what problems to tackle. Changes in theincentive system to reward scientists according to the impact of the technologiesthey develop would also help reorient the research agenda in a more practicaldirection.

• Research implementation. A whole range of participatory research tools isavailable, from on-farm trials managed by researchers to experiments planned andmanaged by the farmers themselves.

• Extension. Extension systems must be more closely related to research, to ensurethat the findings are disseminated widely. Research findings must be translatedrapidly into a form that extensionists and farmers can access, such asdemonstration plots, simple manuals and radio programmes. At the same time,extension workers can play a key role in facilitating experiments anddemonstrations by farmers themselves, using such approaches as farmer-to-farmerextension and farmer field-schools. Increasing local control over extension servicesis one way of making these services more responsive to farmers’ needs.

• Monitoring systems. Monitoring systems must measure whether the newtechnologies are adopted, seek reasons for non-adoption, and feed back thisinformation into the research-planning process as a basis for revising thetechnologies to improve adoption rates.

Information and documentationInformation is increasingly recognised as a critical resource in development. Yet, asnoted earlier, appropriate information is scarce. African ministries of agriculture,research institutions and extension agencies must be flexible enough to deal with therapid changes taking place – in the environment, production systems, productiontechnologies, information technologies, and within their own organisations.

Institutions 41

Information is a critical resource in development

These changes present these institutions with a wide range of informationrequirements. They need to gain a better understanding of farmers’ needs so as to beable to design effective responses. Actors in the national agricultural system mustwork together more closely to ensure the quality and effectiveness of agriculturalpolicies. This may involve consortia of government organisations, research anduniversity centres, NGOs and the private sector, both nationally internationally.There should be more effective communication between these actors and thedecision-makers who set the political agenda, and partnerships with national,regional and international sources of expertise.

Three types of information flow in particular need to be strengthened: on thepolitical and socio-economic context of the organisation; with national, regional andinternational collaborators (partnership and networking); and two-way, responsivecommunication with intermediate and end-users or beneficiaries.

Role of policy research

Research plays a key role in generating, managing and disseminating information foragricultural policy decisions. The institutional capacity to do these tasks needs to bestrengthened (for example, by improving information flows and throughcomputerisation). The capacity for policy research should also be developed, topromote decentralised information systems using modern technologies and tostrengthen cooperation among African countries on agricultural policy analysis.

Information and communication technologies

Computers and telecommunications have the potential to transform informationexchange and institutional management (in such areas as financial control,programme monitoring and reporting). Rural telephones, the Internet and CD-ROMscan provide users with instant access to a wide range of information. They can alsomake market and other information more readily available to local people and canimprove communication among ordinary people. NGOs and other organisationsthroughout Africa are testing various approaches, and the technologies areadvancing and getting cheaper all the time. It is possible that, soon, communicatingwith physically remote locations will no longer be difficult. This will have majorimplications for development in these areas.

Most formal financial institutions, both private and government-owned, do not targetthe poor. Fearing that the poor are a bad risk, banks typically require more collateralthan poor people have. Government-run credit schemes are sometimes slow andbureaucratic. Some integrated development projects provide credit, but this service isoften unsustainable: it ends when the project does.

A new breed of microfinance institutions shows how institutions might be adapted toserve the needs of the rural poor better. They lend very small sums to local people,who must repay them with interest. The repayments are scheduled to suit the client.The loans are often secured with “social collateral”, where a group of, say, fiveborrowers promises to repay a loan if one of them defaults. Social pressures from thegroup ensure that the would-be defaulter pays up.

The success of microfinance institutions has shown that the poor are highly bankable.Many of these institutions target women, both for social reasons and because womenhave better repayment records than men. Repayment rates are as high as 98%, betterthan most commercial credit operations dealing with richer borrowers.

Microfinance can reach many excluded groups – the poor, women, young people, thedisabled and the elderly – but not the very poorest. It may be difficult to extend


Managing information

Improved communication technologies raise important policy questions about whocontrols access to information. Politicians and private companies alike are sensitive towhat they see as too much information of the wrong type. Embarrassing informationis suppressed or distorted. The free flow of information can do harm as well as good: it can inflame tensions as well as ease them. And a culture of secrecy, whereinformation is power, is slow to change to one where the ready exchange ofinformation is the norm.

Managing information and using it appropriately is a challenge, and will becomemore so as the sheer amount of information available increases. It is necessary to linkthe demand for information with its supply, and to ensure that existing information isused before collecting new data. An effective information-flow system will be onethat serves its clients.

MicrofinanceAccess to credit is a major problem for small-scale entrepreneurs. Without workingcapital, they cannot start a business. Without a cushion to absorb risk, they cannotmaintain it through hard times.

The poor are highly bankable

Institutions 43

services to remote areas or hard-to-reach groups unless the microfinance institutionhas already built up a strong financial base.

Microfinance institutions do more than give credit. They also accept savings depositsand can expand into other financial services, such as providing insurance, financialadvice and other services that their clients demand.

Should microfinance institutions charge the full market interest rate so as to covertheir full operating costs, or should they subsidise their lending? On the whole, thepoor are willing to pay for financial services: they often pay exorbitant interest ratesto moneylenders. Experience shows that microfinance institutions should charge thefull cost of operations, but that their overhead costs should be kept as low aspossible. Charging the full cost ensures that the microfinance institution is financiallyviable and sustainable in the longer term.

MonitoringThe monitoring of programme interventions is typically weak, both in terms of datagathering and analysis and of translating the results of the analysis into revisedpolicies. Capabilities may need to be strengthened to cover the physicalimplementation of the programme, expenditures, staff performance, beneficiaryassessments and client satisfaction, and overall sector performance.

The chosen performance measures must be relevant to poverty reduction. Otherwise,staff will focus on different areas of performance, and the poverty objective will belost.

There is a need for better and more regularmonitoring of the overall incidence of poverty inorder to evaluate overall performance, and to setpriorities and identify areas for targeting. At the local level, planners need detailed information on the participation of the poor in agriculturalprogrammes and the benefits they derive. Beneficiaryassessments and client-satisfaction surveys couldprove useful in this respect. It is also important tolearn about poor people not reached by agriculturalprogrammes; this will require wider surveys of therural population.

Both survey and participatory techniques should beused in monitoring. Participatory monitoringapproaches can be especially useful: not only do they generate useful information, but they can also bea valuable way of giving local people andorganisations a say in decisions about interventionsthat affect them.


DonorsPerhaps the largest innovation of agricultural sector programmes is in their effect ondonors. Major changes may be required in such areas as:

• Focus. Support for independent projects will become more difficult as fundingmoves towards a programme basis. The programme focus may require donors tocommit for longer periods to investing in a country and its agricultural sector.

• Priorities. Each donor has a different set of priorities. Sector programmes willrequire donors to ensure that their priorities are in harmony with governmentgoals. Some favourite priorities may fall outside the sector programme; in suchcases, the donor will have to decide whether to revise its approach or to supportinitiatives by non-public groups such as NGOs or private companies.

• Procedures. Donors supporting the same type of activity may have to use the sameassessment and monitoring procedures. Accounting methods will have to beharmonised within the sector. Evaluation missions may have to coincide.

• Coordination. Closer coordination among donors and between donors and thegovernment will be needed if sector programmes are to work.

There is as yet little evidence on how donors are performing in face of these challenges.Studies are required to find out how they are faring.

Perhaps the largest innovation of sector programmes is in their effect on donors

Preparing sector

programmes


Preparing an agricultural sector programme is a long and complex process. In orderfor the programme to address poverty adequately, it must be firmly based on athorough understanding of poverty and set within the country’s overall anti-povertystrategy. The design process should be iterative, and priorities should be re-examinedon the basis of continual monitoring and consultation.

It is possible, however, to break the design process into several steps. Table 4highlights these steps, emphasising the implications for institutional capacity.

Table 4 Steps in preparing and implementing agricultural sector programmes

Individuals/groups Implications for Step Details involved institutional capacity

A DESIGN OVERALL ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY

1 Understand poverty and Qualitative and quantitative Government or subcontract Use local expertise needs studies

Involve government staff Develop local abilityExamine existing services, to assess povertypolicies, etc.

2 Choose sectors Coordination requirements Government or subcontract Information management (agriculture, infrastructure, and analysisindustry, a combination?) Institutional analysis Politicians

Consult with stakeholders

B DESIGN AGRICULTURAL STRATEGY

3 Consult with stakeholders Identify and consult with Local and national Facilitate and articulatestakeholders government, NGOs, “voice of the poor”

community organisations Check especially feasibility Build capacity ofof cost recovery Committee to represent grassroots organisations

wide constituency to enable participation

4 Prioritise needs and Must reflect stakeholder views Committee + input from Develop capacity ofinterventions experts ministry policy unit

Coherent across sectors

5 Consult with donors Seek consensus among donors Committee + donors Ease task of coordinatingmultiple donors and

Initiative (and ownership) activitiesfrom government

6 Review changes needed Phase-out, restructuring, Government, donors, Use local expertisein existing programmes retraining, etc. implementing agencies

Draw on strengths ofexisting programmes

Preparing sector programmes 47

Individuals/groups Implications for Step Details involved institutional capacity

7 Design programme Use management and design Government + other Include measures to tools expertise strengthen existing

institutions where Set poverty reduction targets appropriate

Identify investment programmes

Determine constraints

Analyse benefits and costs of interventions

Assemble budget, fix level of aid needed

Match to financial resources

8 Programme approval Cabinet, parliament, committees

C IMPLEMENTATION

9 Implement pilot Start small to learn from Subcontract? Pilots build capacity of experience, correct as implementing agenciesrequired Pilot-district staff

Share information Government staffon best practices

10 Implement Draw on services in Local people Training, funding, facilities,programme non-public sector where management systems, etc.

appropriate Implementing agencies

Local government

11 Monitor and Define indicators early on Beneficiaries Management informationevaluate systems

Determine value added Implementing agenciesCapacity building

Revise targets (poverty as Local governmentas moving target)

Include assessment of impact on beneficiaries


Appendices

References and further reading

This report draws on the following papers presented at the workshop on “Agricultural sector strategies for povertyreduction in eastern and southern Africa”, 23–25 November 1998, sponsored by CTA and the EC Directorate General for Development (DG VIII):

Conlin, S. and Stickings, J. “Institutional development and poverty focus”.Cooke, R.D. “Introduction, ACP agricultural development and poverty reduction”.Kariuki, J.G. and King’oo, B.M. “Agricultural strategies for poverty reduction: case study Kenya”.Maxwell, S. “Agricultural development and poverty in Africa: some issues”. Otim, M.R. and Sabiiti, R. “Key features of Uganda’s poverty eradication action plan, with particular reference

to agriculture”.Werblow, U. and Williams, G. “Agriculture sector strategies and policies for poverty reduction”.Williams, G. “Kenya case study: summary note”.Williams, G. “Mozambique case study: summary note” (based on contributions by P. Mikos et al.)

The report also draws on the following documents:

Carney, D. 1995. Changing public and private roles in agricultural service provision: a literature survey.Working Paper 81, Overseas Development Institute, London.

DANIDA. 1996. Poverty: implementing the poverty reduction objective of Danish development policy. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen.

EC. 1997. Reducing poverty through agricultural sector strategies. Human & Social Development Issues 3. EC (DG VIII), Brussels.

EC. 1998. Poverty reduction and institutional development. Human & Social Development Issues 3. EC (DG VIII), Brussels.

EC. 1998. Microfinance and poverty reduction. Human & Social Development Issues 11. EC (DG VIII), Brussels.EC and CTA. 1998. The EC’s food security strategy and the ACP countries. Proceedings of seminars,

20–23 October, 24–27 November and 8–11 December 1997, Brussels. EC (DG VIII), Brussels/CTA,Wageningen.

Griffith, G., Kindness, H., Goodland, A. and Gordon, A. 1998. Institutional development and poverty reduction.(draft) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, London.

Maxwell, S. 1996. Walking on two legs, but with one leg longer than the other: a strategy for the World FoodSummit. Forum Valutazione 9: 89–103, CISP, Rome.

Stickings, J., Goodland, A., Janowski, M. and Chinemana, F. 1998. Agriculture sector investment programmeexperience in Africa. (draft) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, London.

List of participants

Africa

KENYA

Dr Joseph Gichugu KariukiPO Box 58895, NairobiFax (254) 2 722424E-mail [email protected]

Mr Benson Mutwa King’ooDevelopment Planning Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Kilimo House, PO Box 30028, NairobiTel. (254) 2 718870Fax (254) 2 722424E-mail [email protected]

Professor Werner von der OheGTZ/ASIP, PO Box 41607, NairobiTel. (254) 2 722419Fax (254) 2 722424E-mail [email protected]

LESOTHO

Mr T.J. RamotsoariDeputy Principal Secretary, Ministry of Development Planning, PO Box 630,Maseru 100Tel. (266) 322599 Fax (266) 310281

UGANDA

Mr M.R. OtimPrincipal Economist, Ministry ofAgriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, PO Box 102, EntebbeTel. (256) 42 20980/3, 20987/820722/3, 20327/8 Fax (256) 42 21047, 21010, 20339 E-mail [email protected]

Mr Robert SabiitiAgricultural Economist, Ministry ofAgriculture, Animal Industry andFisheries, PO Box 102, EntebbeTel. (256) 42 20980/3, 20987/8,20722/3, 20327/8Fax (256) 4 21047, 21010 E-mail [email protected]

Appendices 49

ZIMBABWE

Mr Clemence Taderera BwenjeAgricultural Economist, Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, NgungunyamaBuilding, 1 Borrowdale Road, Private Bag 7701, Causeway, HarareTel. (263) 4 706081/9Fax (263) 4 734646

Dr Ramson MbetuRPM Development Practitioners andAssociates, PO Box BW 1092,Borrowdale, HarareTel. (263) 4 861741Fax (263) 4 860900E-mail [email protected]

Europe

DENMARK

Professor Kaj BruhnAdviser, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 23,DK 1958 Frederiksberg CTel. (45) 35 28 34 30Fax (45) 35 28 34 28E-mail [email protected]

FRANCE

Mr Philippe TrapeBureau de la Production Agricole,Industrielle et des Echanges, Secrétariat à la Coopération età la Francophonie, 20 Rue Monsieur,75700 ParisTel. (33) 1 53 69 31 64Fax (33) 1 53 69 30 43E-mail [email protected]

Dr Betty WampflerCIRAD, TERA-Programme AgriculturesFamiliales, Avenue Agropolis, BP 5035,34032 Montpellier Cedex 1Tel. (33) 4 67 61 57 56Fax (33) 4 67 61 12 23E-mail [email protected]

GERMANY

Dr H. Jochen de HaasFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ),Division 414, Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 40,53113 BonnTel. (49) 228 5353740Fax (49) 228 5353755E-mail [email protected]

Dr Maria TekuelveGTZ, Postfach 5180, 657260 EschbornTel. (49) 6196 791552Fax ( 49) 6196 797177E-mail [email protected]

THE NETHERLANDS

Mrs Ineke DuijvestijnHead, Macro Policy and Agricultural Affairs, Division of the Rural and UrbanDevelopment Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PO Box 20061, 2500 EB The HagueTel. (31) 70 348 5176Fax (31) 70 348 5956E-mail [email protected]

Mr Hugo OvermeerMinistry of Agriculture, Bezuiden-houtseweg 73, 2500 IK The HagueTel. (31) 70 378 4463Fax (31) 70 378 6126

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr Michael ScottHead, Natural Resources Policy andAdvisory Department, DFID, 94 Victoria Street, London SW1E 5JLTel. (44) 171 917 0485Fax (44) 171 917 0624E-mail [email protected]


Regional and internationalorganisations

ASARECA

Professor Geoffrey C. MremaExecutive Secretary, ASARECA, PO Box 765, Entebbe, UgandaTel. (256) 42 20212, 20556, 41 321389, 321314Fax (256) 42 21126, 21070E-mail [email protected]

CTA

Dr Rodney D. CookeDirector, PO Box 380, 6700 AJWageningen, The NetherlandsTel. (31) 317 467130Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Dr Jacques BaldenspergerHead, Seminars and Studies DepartmentTel. (31) 317 467166Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Mrs Dorothy BarasaInformation and Capacity DevelopmentDepartmentTel. (31) 317 467164Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Ms Anne-Claire BonhoureSeminars and Studies DepartmentTel. (31) 317 467146Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Ms Lucia BrunoSeminars and Studies DepartmentTel. (31) 317 467134Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Mr Alan C. JacksonHead, Publications and DisseminationDepartmentTel. (31) 317 467127Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Mrs Marie-Josée JehlDeputy Head, Information and CapacityDevelopment DepartmentTel. (31) 317 467165Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

Dr Ibrahim KhadarDeputy Head, Information, Policies andPartnerships DepartmentTel. (31) 317 467159Fax (31) 317 460067E-mail [email protected]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Mr Sean ConlinEuropean Commission (DG VIII/A/2)Social, Human and Cultural Developmentand Gender Unit, Rue de Genève 12, 1049 Brussels, BelgiumTel. (32) 2 296 5159Fax (32) 2 296 7141E-mail [email protected]

Mr Philip MikosEuropean Commission (DG VIII/A/1) Rural Development and Food Security Unit, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels, BelgiumTel. (32) 2 299 3047Fax (32) 2 299 2908E-mail [email protected]

Mr Uwe WerblowEuropean Commission (DG VIII/A/1) Head of Rural Development and FoodSecurity Unit, Rue de Genève 12, 1049Brussels, BelgiumTel. (32) 2 295 4601Fax (32) 2 299 2908E-mail [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr Shenggen Fan2033 K Street, NW, Washington DC,20006, USATel. (1) 202 862 5677Fax (1) 202 467 4439 E-mail [email protected]

Consultants

Professor Alex DuncanOxford Policy Management, 6 AldatesCourtyard, 38 St Aldates, Oxford OX1 1BN, UKTel. (44) 1865 207300Fax (44) 1865 250580E-mail [email protected]

Dr Simon MaxwellDirector, Overseas Development Institute,Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E 5DP, UKTel. (44) 171 3931600Fax (44) 171 3931699E-mail [email protected]

Dr Paul MundyDevelopment Communication Specialist,Weizenfeld 4, 51467 Bergisch Gladbach,GermanyTel. (49) 2202 932921Fax (49) 2202 932922E-mail [email protected]

Mr Jeremy StickingsECART Executive Secretary, NaturalResources Institute, Central Avenue,Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UKTel. (44) 1634 883084Fax (44) 1634 883937E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Mr Gareth WilliamsIndependent Consultant, Square Gutenberg 18, 1000 Brussels,BelgiumTel. (32) 2 230 0074E-mail [email protected]

European CommissionDirectorate General for Development (DG VIII) Rural Development and Food Security Unit A/1200 rue de la LoiB-1049 BrusselsBelgiumTel.: (32) 2 299 3224Fax: (32) 2 299 3073

Technical Centre for Agricultural and RuralCooperation (CTA)

Postbus 3806700 AJ WageningenThe NetherlandsTel.: (31) 317 467100Fax: (31) 317 460067E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.cta.nl

Reducing poverty - Mamud.com poverty through agricultural sector strategies in eastern and southern Africa Summary report of a workshop Wageningen, the Netherlands 23–25 November

Documents