What's different about agricultural SWAps?

What makes agriculture SWAps different to those of other sectors? What is the impact of agricultural sector wide approaches (SWAps) on livelihoods and poverty? This report for the DFID NRAC conference focuses on the fundamental characteristics of the agricultural sector which make developing and implementing a sector wide approach more difficult than in more homogenous sectors, such as health or education.

The SWAp approach was invented to overcome a number of specific problems in the relationship between government and donor partners (many donor projects, poor policy framework, etc.). The authors research highlights the a number of problems relating to agriculture SWAps, resulting in their limited impact on livelihoods and on poverty.

The document finds that, on the whole, the achievements of agriculture sector programmes have been limited. The differences between agriculture SWAps and those in other sectors help shed light on the difficulties that cause this poor performance:

• the most important government roles in supporting agriculture are not about public expenditure at all, but about influencing exchange rates, trade policy, tax policy and land reform
• the most important public expenditures for supporting agriculture may be in other sectors, such as infrastructure (i.e. road building to improve market access)
• much of what a Ministry of Agriculture does may be better done by the private sector
• agriculture is highly diverse. Hence, unlike health, education or roads, there is no single technology which can be applied across the sector with only minor adaptation
• government is a minor player in the agriculture sector. SWAps have not supported stakeholder participation by private and NGO service providers
• donors do not agree fully amongst themselves, nor with governments, on the role of the State in agriculture.

The sustainable livelihoods approach provides a valuable diagnostic tool, of particular value for local level planning. The problem of how to integrate this approach with sector programmes implemented through parent line ministries is one which requires resolution in the context of the evolving debate on approaches to decentralisation. Due to their short time of operation, there is little evidence of the impact of agriculture SWAps on livelihoods and on poverty. However, evaluations so far show that:

• government expenditures in the agricultural sector have not become more pro-poor. They often continue to be skewed towards central and administrative functions, rather than district level activities and service delivery
• the access of poor people to agricultural services and inputs has in some places declined, with some negative effects on food security. This is because whilst the government role in the sector has reduced, the private sector has not filled the gap. Furthermore, market failures are not being addressed
• it is not clear that sector programmes are an effective vehicle for an agricultural contribution to sustainable livelihoods, because cross-sectoral issues are not addressed at the local level.

The implications of this are:

• given that Ministries of Agriculture are not responsible for most of the things which matter most to agricultural development, reform to the functions, staffing and budget of the inistry should be agreed before the SWAp
• the SL approach needs to be anchored institutionally. The obvious place is local government rather than the agricultural ministry, though questions remain concerning the effectiveness of decentralisation as an approach to poverty reduction
• the general message is one of caution in applying the SWAp approach as a way to work in agriculture, particularly before fundamental questions concerning the role of government in general, and the Ministry of Agriculture in particular have been resolved.