Review of trends and the challenges of monitoring progress
Significance of DAC non-agricultural codes
Download 1.41 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Bilateral Donors
- Multilateral Donors
Significance of DAC non-agricultural codesThe mutually exclusive methodology employed by the DAC may create inaccuracies beyond the assessment of agricultural purpose codes. Agricultural flows may be lost if a programme is considered primarily a multi-sectoral activity. Additionally, there are other sectors, managed by different agencies that impact on the agricultural economy. These are considered below. Figure 11: Agricultural and non-agricultural flows (total) 
Rural Development Rural development is a multi-sector DAC purpose code that captures integrated rural development projects (IRDPs), including a range of activities such as regional development planning, coordination and management. IRDPs constituted a popular agricultural development model during the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, focusing on coordinated, direct assistance to the rural poor. They were, in many cases, considered ultimately unsuccessful due to poor multi-sectoral co-ordination and overambitious design. However, it is very likely that other coordinated rural activities continue to be captured by this DAC category, incorporating an important agricultural / food security component. Aid to rural development is currently just over 20% of all agricultural assistance at USD 1.1bn (2005-08 average). This is less than 2000-03 when it was 35%, and has fallen by some USD 251m over the period in real terms. This fall is seen across all regions with the exception of SSA, Central South Asia and Oceania where small increases are evident. North Africa has seen a dramatic drop over the period, falling from 52% to just 3% of agricultural aid volumes. However, it remains relatively important in Central America (49%) and East Asia (38%). The UK (USD 163m), Germany (USD 130m) and Japan (USD 73m) are the largest bilateral contributors to rural development, with the Netherlands and Spain each contributing over USD 40m (2005-08 annual averages). These five donors constitute just under 60% of aid to the area. Relative to agriculture, UK rural development aid is particularly significant – 0.8 times the amount of agricultural aid (see table below).18 This may reflect a broader UK agricultural policy given that bilateral agricultural aid is relatively small (see below). Smaller donors, including Finland, Luxemburg, Austria and New Zealand have rural development aid flows 90%-190% higher than that of agriculture.. Multilateral rural development aid is declining, but still constitutes a significant proportion. Relative to agriculture, rural development accounts for: African Development Fund (49%), Asian Development Fund (51%), EC (53%), and IFAD (18%).
Total flows to General Budget Support are approximately 93% those to agriculture (USD 4.9bn 2005-08 average), witnessing small increases (15%) since 2000-03. Growth has been particularly high in the sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and Central America. Given that agricultural aid to agricultural ministries has stagnated (see Agricultural policy code above), it is unclear the extent to which this is being re-channelled, or re-coded as budget support. The UK and the Netherlands provide particularly high proportions of GBS relative to agriculture (384% and 441% respectively).19 Both countries have low proportions of ODA going to agriculture as a proportion of total ODA (among the bottom six donors less than 3%). The EC (393%) and the African Development Fund (218%) also provide high levels of GBS relative to agriculture.20 It is extremely difficult to assess the proportion of budget support allocated to agriculture by domestic governments. By the crudest of measures, an assumption of a developing country average of 7% of government expenditure going to agriculture21 suggests an average of over USD 342m of budget support directed to the sector for the 2005-08 period. This also represents an additional 23% over 2000-03 given increases in budget support. However, many donors focus their budget support on a small number of recipient countries rendering such general calculations highly inaccurate. Only a country by country assessment of key donors and recipients of budget support can address this limitation, an exercise that is beyond the current scope of this paper. Table 3: Donors contributions to General Budget Support
Infrastructure and trade Infrastructure - notably transport and storage - represents public goods and services provided by other government agencies that are highly relevant to the agricultural economy. Economic Infrastructure in total22 has grown by 44% over the period – outpacing agriculture – from USD 13.9bn to USD 19.9bn. Within this, aid to transport and storage has grown by 53% to USD 9.1bn (2005-08 average). Africa, Asia and the Middle East have had particularly strong growth in aid to this sector. Similarly aid to agricultural services for all regions has increased for all regions between 2000-03 and 2005-2008. Similarly, aid for trade policies and regulation has increased by over 60% to USD 1.0bn (2005-08 average), equivalent to 20% of all aid to agriculture.
The DAC does not consider aid to agro-industries (food processing activities) as agricultural ODA. Flows are low (USD 87mn over 2005-08). North and Central America, Europe and Oceania have experienced declines in aid to this sector; other regions have only seen small increases. This partly reflects a general shift away from support to parastatals. Short term food aid and broader food security measures Development food aid (the food supply of food under national or international programmes), emergency food aid, basic nutrition and social/ welfare services are not considered as agricultural aid, but have been identified by some donors as areas that may help address short-term food security concerns. As detailed above, these activities are included in assistance made by some of these donors. Combined, such aid has risen by 14% over the 2000-03 to 2005-08 period from USD 5.2bn to USD 6.0bn, some 14% higher than all flows to agriculture. Development food aid recorded by the DAC has fallen by 37% from USD 2.4bn in 2000-03 to USD 1.5bn over 2005-08. All regions have experienced a decrease in aid flows to this sector, apart from sub-Saharan Africa where aid grew by 11% over the period. The United States, EC and Japan were the largest donors to these activities; however, the EC and the United States have decreased their aid to this sector significantly between 2000-03 and 2005-08. Emergency food aid recorded by the DAC has grown by 102% to USD 2.6bn. In sub-Saharan Africa it has grown by over 138% to USD 1.9bn, higher than that of agricultural flows (USD 1.85bn). This has been particularly driven by the US, accounting for just under two-thirds of all bilateral and multilateral food aid over the 2005-08 period. US statements suggesting a transfer of resources from food aid to longer-term agricultural investment means it will be particularly important to monitor 2009 and subsequent US flows. Aid to basic nutrition has also grown over the two periods from USD 173m to USD 221m. Spain (USD 26m), IDA (USD 59m) and UNICEF (16m) provided just under 50% of all ODA to the basic nutrition sector over 2005-08. Social Welfare services represent significant volumes of assistance, witnessing a 19% increase over the two periods from USD 1.4bn to USD 1.7bn. The United States (USD 386m), United Kingdom (USD 170m) and Japan (USD 100m), together with IDA (USD 499m) and the EC (USD 171m) account for 80% of all the aid to social/welfare services in 2005-08. Download 1.41 Mb. Share with your friends:
|