What role for ministries of agriculture? Narratives and policy space*

1. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org What role for ministries of agriculture?Narratives and policy space* * based on FAC paper by Lídia Cabral and Ian Scoones (www.future-agricultures.org) and fieldwork in Mozambique for FAO study on Sector Wide Approaches in agriculture Lídia CabralOverseas Development Institute

2. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

3. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 • Most research on African agriculture is irrelevant because overlooks importance of the policy process (Omamo 2004) • Need to look at institutional structures, political context to understand the ‘political feasibility of policies’ (Birner & Resnick 2005) • We propose to unpack different narratives about agricultural policies pushed by different actors: What role for ministries of agriculture in the 21st century?

4. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 • Disconnect between policy narratives and realities on the ground • MoA no longer the key driver of agricultural policies and policy reform  leaving aVOID relative to the coordinated investment effort required to address current challenges to pro-poor agricultural growth, particularly in remote and underdeveloped rural areas

5. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org Three overlaping concepts 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 • Narratives / discourse • Actors / networks • Politics / interests Narratives/ discourse Actors/ networks Politics/ Interests ‘policy space’ or ‘room for manouvre’ Keeley and Scoones (1999, 2003)

6. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org • Analysis at three levels • Intellectual debates on role of the state and implications for MoA • Donor agency narratives on agricultural policy and implications for MoA • MoA realities on the ground, as determined by: • aid framework (MDGs, PRSs, SWAps...) • resources flows • institutional setting and capacity • political context 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

7. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org • Intellectual debate: state in agriculture • perceptions of market vs government failure driving agricultural policy reform • 1970-1980s: state-led agricultural development... yet govt failure (‘urban bias’) • 1980-1990s: market liberalisation... yet market failure (↓ input use and pc production...) • PWC: impasse or compromise? • partial reform: complete liberalisation, focus on public goods, limited role for MoA • coordination failure: significance of market failures, state should ‘establish the basics’ and ‘kick-start markets’, important role for MoA 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings(1) 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

8. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org • Donor agency narratives • Differences in agency position not always clear and some provide rather mixed messages • World Bank: implementation of unfinished market reforms, MoA no longer key player • DFID: wider scope for state intervention (and MoA), in ‘kick-starting’ markets, specially in remote areas where coordination failures high • OECD: middle-of-the road view, highlighting need for innovative public-private partnership and potential of NGOs and CSOs in service provision and market coordination • USAID: virtually silent about role of the state 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings(2) 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

9. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org • MoA’s policy space • MoA’s capacity & agency undermined by: • reduction in aid and public spending in ag over last two decades – even in areas of consensus (rural infrastructures and R&D) • drainage of technical expertise to central ministries and private sector • limited attention by PRSPs and MDGs • difficulty in building consensus • And... internal resistance to MoA institutional reform (streamlining) which would further undermine their influence – incentive to retain fragmental sectoral focus and paternalistic attitude towards agriculture 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings(3) 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

10. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org • Mozambique: MoA trajectory through a Sector Wide Approach (PROAGRI) Pre-SWAp: • Independence and civil wars – migration • SAPs – privatisation, state withdrawal • ∆- MoA funding/investment and skilled HR • fragmentation of aid operations in agriculture • private sector failing to emerge • gaps in agric services (less favoured areas) SWAp aims: • common vision for agrarian development • more effective use of public resources • institutional transformation of MoA 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example (1) 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

11. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org PROAGRI I • narrative: revitalise, capacitate, modernise • widespread donor support, important driver, basic principles agreed with govt • reforms (5 years of investment - $200 million): mainly focused on process of absorbing resources rather than policy objectives • impact: little evidence, dissatisfaction, NGOs moving in to fill some gaps (but localised) PROAGRI II • narrative: broader sector definition, sector-wide coordination, streamlining the MoA, core functions, demand-driven services, outsourcing • but… dissent, internal and across donors • lack of political backing… proposal shelved 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example (2) 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

12. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org Beyond PROAGRI and towards…? 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example (3) 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 • new government and new lay out for MoA - back to ‘core’ agricultural remit but with heavier bureaucracy • emphasis on rural space and acting locally and urge to show quick agric production results • episodes of ad-hoc direct policy interventions in the search for quick wins (seed, fertiliser and credit distribution to selected farmers without clear targeting approach) • donors confused, divided and loosing influence at sector level, MoA institutionally weak and fragmented, no clear policy strategy but strong political backing from the President who seems to be pushing for the ‘peasantrification’ of the poor

13. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 Ambivalence of narratives and mismatch with realities… …combined with local interests and resistance to change… …are generating MoAs which are neither capable of delivering on conventional roles nor have the capacity to act as the new-style regulator and facilitator/coordinator

14. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org “Realignment of the relative roles of the market (and the private sector), the state, and civil society” (p.6); “The ‘new agriculture’ is market-driven, state-assisted, and civil society-influenced” (p.7) more in theory than in practice “proliferation and empowerment of civil society organizations, taking on a wide range of forms and functions, helping compensate for some market failures, and beginning to provide the farm constituency with voice and influence over political affairs and the delivery of public services” (p.7) CSOs still very localised and there are unresolved issues regarding accountability, elite capture, sustainability and interfaces with public and private sectors 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008

15. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org Key messages for WDR 2008 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 Evolution of policy debates in academic & donor circles have gone further than what is politically feasible to deliver on the ground • easier to back ideological positionings on paper than before highly diverse and often disagreeing constituencies Rationale for the state clear in textbooks but day-to-day local realities call for pragmatism • fill vacuum – private sector absent and NGOs/CSOs localised, have own agendas and unaccountable • domestic constituencies – pressure to deliver quick results, political cycle driving policy choices • MoA internal politics – resistance to downsizing as implied by new facilitator role

16. WDR 2008 Brighton Jan 2007 www.future-agricultures.org Bottom line dilemma 1. Problem 2. Hypotheses 3. Concepts 4. Approach 5. Findings 6. Example 7. Conclusion 8. WDR 2008 How to bridge the gap between the muddled realm of politics and the neat realm of policy storylines and prescriptions? ?