ER ORING PAP K W DOM KING ED NI E UT TH

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

About the Platform Knowledge Piece series

The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development commissioned three comprehensive studies to capture Platform members knowledge on key issues affecting the delivery and impact of aid in ARD: PKP 1 PKP 2 PKP 3 Policy coherence for agriculture and rural development Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security Unpacking aid flows for enhanced effectiveness The strategic role of the private sector in agriculture and rural development

The PKPs are the products of extensive surveys of Platform member head office and field staff, visits to country offices, workshops dedicated to sharing findings and refining messages, and successive rounds of comments on drafts. On the basis of each PKP, separate policy briefs will be published. For more information on the PKPs visit donorplatform.org

This working paper is only available electronically and can be downloaded from the website of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development at: www.donorplatform.org/resources/publications Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, Dahlmannstrasse 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: secretariat@donorplatform.org The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of individual Platform members. All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised, without any prior written permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Coordinator, Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, Dahlmannstrasse 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany, or via email to: secretariat@donorplatform.org. Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 2011

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank DFID staff for their input and guidance. Particular thanks to Kenny Dick, Louise Horner, Iris Krebber, Joanne McFadden, Lorna Simpson, Alastair Wardhaugh and Julia Compton. In addition, the authors would like to thank the ODI team for their thoughtful reflections on the draft, especially Lidia Cabral.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Contents .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of tables and figures.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 ........................................................................................ 7 Institutional framework .............................................................................................................................. 7 Policy framework ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Review of methodologies used for measuring aid flows to ARD&FS .................................................................. 10 Reasons why agencies measure and account for aid ............................................................................. 10 DFID reporting on aid spend and the rise of the transparency agenda ................................................. 10 Methodologies DFID applies to measure and account for aid in general and to ARS&FS ................... 13 Analysis of volume, trends and composition of aid flows to ARD&FS ................................................................. 15 ..................................................................................... 15 ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Summary of volume, trends and composition of aid flows to ARD&FS .............................................................. 25 Summary of the Issues ............................................................................................................................. 25 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Annex 1: Aid codes.................................................................................................................................................. 27

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

List of tables and figures

......................................... 11

million) .................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 1: Total AFSI codes, 2000/01-2009/10 (nominal 000) ............................................................................. 16 Figure 2: AFSI codes, 2000/01-2009/10 (nominal 000) ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: A -2009/10 (nominal 000) ............. 18

Figure 4: Support to the agriculture sector (based on four categorisations) as a percentage of public expenditure on development, 2000/01-2009/10 ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5: Agricultural aid in 1995-2008, comparing three definitions (commitments, constant USD million) 21 Figure 6: Aid to ODI ARD&FS 1995-2008, by component (commitments, constant USD million) ..................... 23 Figure 7: Agricultural aid in 1995-2008 as a share of total ODA, comparing three definitions (commitments, constant USD million)............................................................................................................................................. 24

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

Acronyms and abbreviations

AFF AFF+ AFSI ARD&FS ARIES CDC CRS DAC DFID IATI IRD MDG NGO ODA ODI OECD PRBS SID Commonwealth Development Corporation Creditor Reporting System (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Development Assistance Committee Department for International Development (United Kingdom) International Aid Transparency Initiative integrated rural development Millennium Development Goal non-governmental organisation official development assistance Overseas Development Institute Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development poverty reduction budget support Statistics on International Development agriculture, forestry and fisheries DAC broad definition of agriculture, forestry and fisheries ative agriculture, rural development and food security

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

Introduction
The second Platform Knowledge Piece (PKP) is focused on aid to agriculture, rural development and food security (ARD&FS). By analysing past and present composition and trends in ARD&FS policy the study looks specifically at the quality of aid measurement and investigates the extent to which aid data provide an accurate indication of policy priorities by donors and recipients and a useful basis for planning, accountability and analysis. This study attempts more specifically to answer the following questions: Do available aid data tell us enough about the policy priorities of donors and recipients in ARD&FS? Do they tell us enough about changing spending patterns within the sector? Is there evidence of good practice in measuring, tracking and accounting for aid flows to ARD&FS, in ways that strengthen coherence between policy, planning and resource allocation, and, as a consequence, enhance development effectiveness?

The donor studies are part of this larger study and aim to analyse how well aid reporting reflects donor policies and programmes in the sector and identify best practice in measuring and accounting for aid to ARD&FS. The studies focus on a selection of five donors, of which three are bilateral Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States and two are multilateral the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Bank. In addition to the donor case studies, three countries case studies have been carried out in Malawi, Nicaragua and Vietnam. This report presents the main findings of the case study on the Uni International Development (DFID), based on interviews conducted with DFID and ex-DFID staff in March and April 2010 by John Howell and Heidi Tavakoli. It includes the following sections. The Introduction sets out the rationale for the study and provides an introduction to the report. The second section reviews policy to support ARD&FS and third section reviews methodologies used by DFID to measure and account for aid to ARD&FS. This is followed by an analysis of the volume, trends and composition of DFID aid to ARD&FS. It uses some of the different methodologies DFID applies to measure and account for its aid. The final section summarises the key issues presented in the report.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

ies to support ARD&FS

Institutional framework
Apart from some support provided to international bodies by other government departments, British official development assistance (ODA) is the responsibility of a single agency: the Department for International Development (DFID). The headquarters of DFID is responsible for administering ODA provided to the European Union, the World Bank and multilateral agencies generally (approximately a third of the total in 2009/10). However, the main bulk of bilateral aid is negotiated and administered at the country level by either one of the Development Divisions covering several countries within a region or by country-based officials. Overall ODA policy (including priority country as well as sector allocation) is the responsibility of DFID headquarters, but there is considerable latitude in implementing policy objectives at the country level, reflecting the decentralisation agenda and principles to foster partner-country ownership. The implications of such decentralised decision-making on agricultural aid are noted in an internal review of sector policy in 2009 that found limited evidence that [a 2005 Agricultural Policy statement] had been used to guide strategy and interventions at the country level (Wyeth and Ashley, 2009). ODA policy itself is, of course, strongly influenced by government institutions other than DFID. Commercial and employment benefits to the United Kingdom where formally part of ODA policy until 1997 and United Kingdom foreign and security interests are reflected in country prioritisation. On sectoral priorities, a more recent trend has been towards giving DFID responsibility for actions approved at heads-of-government level (notably HIV/AIDS and education and, less specifically, climate change mitigation), with associated spending targets to meet and report upon.

not straightforward. There are, broadly, four expenditure channels. In the case of multilateral aid, shares spent on agriculture have to be imputed from overall expenditure (except in the case of international agricultural research centres, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) etc.). In the case of most bilateral aid, individual project officers at country level provide sector data, including agricultural sector proportions in multisector interventions (although for the purposes of the Creditor Reporting System [CRS] only the principal sector is reported). At headquarters, Research Division spending includes major grants to agriculture and the sustainable use of natural resources. Also at headquarters, there is a Policy Division department on Food and Nutrition that also has a spending programme.

Policy framework
Whatever the limitations of recording agricultural aid data, the record of decline in aid to ARD&FS recorded by a DFID evaluation in April 2007 (Heath, 2007) clearly indicates a substantial withdrawal from the sector since the mid-1990s. The nature of this withdrawal was, however, influenced less by any strategic decision than by a series of changes in aid policy from the 1980s that impacted upon agricultural aid. Until that time, the United Kingdom aid programme supported a number of United Kingdom-based Scientific Units that specialised in tropical

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

natural resources and initiated a relatively large overseas aid-funded project portfolio covering animal diseases, post-harvest technology, soil and water conservation etc. As part of a broader government programme of divestiture, these Units were merged and eventually privatised (as the Natural Resources Institute). The same broad divestiture programme also influenced the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC). Apart from regular DFID investment in CDC estate agriculture projects had benefitted from partial grant support from DFID country programmes. Policy changes towards CDC removed new DFID investment, but also led to a more commercially-oriented CDC and a gradual decline in its agricultural investment. During this period of highly active DFID interest in agriculture, a relatively large Natural Resources cadre of advisers was established. At headquarters itself, there were specialist advisers many who had served in colonial agricultural service in crops, livestock, agricultural research, forestry, fisheries, agricultural economics, even agricultural cooperatives. The agricultural aid programme therefore had a something of legacy of support to technology-driven, market-oriented projects. However, as the challenge of rural poverty became more prominent among all donors, but especially the World Bank, DFID committed more resources into difficult, agriculturally marginal areas unresponsive to new technology and adopted a multisector approach to integrated rural development (IRD) from the mid-1980s. Many of the IRD projects were deemed unsuccessful, but the poverty-based approach to agricultural development continued with Natural Resource Advisers relabelled (and often replaced by) Rural Livelihoods Advisers. Among donors generally, the 1990s saw a loss of confidence in projects directly supporting agriculture as the case prevailed for macroeconomic (and especially exchange rate) reform as a necessary condition for agricultural growth. The policy conditions attached to World Bank structural adjustment loans, supported by bilateral programme grants from DFID and others, did involve both removal of some price subsidies and reductions in public expenditure on agriculture. Nonetheless, the expected aggregate effect of policy reform was seen as a beneficial to the agriculture sector (through price incentives and market development) and it is not unreasonable to claim that the decline in agricultural aid spending was less a withdrawal from the sector and more a reorientation of approach to the role of aid in agricultural development.

adjustment; it reported a significant decline in agricultural aid in real terms, which was confirmed by DFID statistics produced in 2006 for an internal evaluation (Heath, 2007). As macroeconomic policy conditions were gradually loosened and governments were tasked with devising their own reform programmes, the nature of programme aid in DFID shifted to poverty reduction budget support (PRBS), where there is a much less direct link to aid for agricultural development because of the priority attached to social-sector spending and improved public-sector management generally. This is despite agriculture-related activities forming key parts of many poverty reduction strategies that formed the basis of PRBS. Nonetheless, many DFID country programmes (and regional programmes in Africa) are still concerned with improving the policy environment within which agricultural producers and traders operate and it remains the case that agricultural aid has been reoriented as much as it has been reduced. The particular aspects of the assistance to improve the policy environment are the various private sector challenge funds and the programmes designed to facilitate trade in domestic, regional and international markets. In the case of domestic markets, and occasionally international commodity trade, pro-poor value chains have been the focus; in regional trade the focus has been upon assisting regional economic

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

integration. Agricultural assistance is not, therefore, directly measured, but in economies where agriculture remains a major component of national income the impact of such assistance clearly has to measured, in large part, in agricultural sector activity. The net effect of these different policy directions over the past 20 years has been to broaden the scope and nature of agricultural aid in a way that the original and still current CRS definition fails to capture. The focus on poverty and vulnerability, and hence rural livelihoods, incorporates both non-farm incomes and social protection, for example. Addressing failures in financial and commodity markets, or supporting small business enterprise, impacts upon several sectors even where agriculture dominates the economy. This diffusion of agricultural aid is captured in a review of DFID policy on agriculture and food security in February 2009 (asking if the food price crisis warranted a change in policy direction). It concluded that any new strategy had to clarify the wide range of policy documents produced on different aspects of agriculture (for example, agriculture and growth, agriculture and research, climate change, agriculture and the private sector, markets, infrastructure) as well as the several documents on non-agricultural aspects of food security (nutrition, disaster preparedness and social protection, for example). In terms of policy significance, finding ways of tracking agricultural expenditure has not been important to DFID (unlike, for example, tracking expenditure on HIV/AIDS, education and gender), although the establishment of the AFSI) has initiated new procedures (see below). The more important indicators of performance and expenditure for the bilateral programme are the recently announced five priority pillars.1 All will be subject to results-based scrutiny. Neither agricultural development nor food security figure explicitly in the pillar descriptions, but clearly the profile of agriculture within DFID had been reduced long before the new policy. A lower profile does not mean neglect, however. For country and regional directors, the pillars provide considerable latitude for agricultural aid in at least two of the pillars. There is no change in the importance of the decentralised institutional arrangement described above. The larger concern could be the difficulty of formulating measureable results for agricultural aid, given the number of variables that affect production, the long chain from research station to the field and the difficulty of attributing changes to a single expenditure factor.

The five priority pillars are: wealth creation; direct delivery of the Millennium Development Goals (heath; education; poverty, hunger and vulnerability, and water and sanitation); governance and security; climate change; and humanitarian
1

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

10

Review of methodologies used for measuring aid flows to ARD&FS

Reasons why agencies measure and account for aid
This section explores the different methodologies applied by DFID to respond to different purposes for measuring and accounting for aid to ARD&FS. This section starts from the premise that there are four main reasons why agencies measure and account for their aid (not laid out in order of importance or prioritisation). 1. 2. 3. For internal management and control and to support the internal policy decision process. This includes for analytical purposes, including assessing efficiency and effectiveness of aid. For transparency and accountability vis--vis domestic audiences. To report on international obligations. The main body that coordinates and presents global figures on international development assistance is the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). For the ARD&FS sector, mechanisms are in place to report of the current pledge. For transparency and accountability vis--vis recipient countries, and for partner-country planning and financial management purposes.

4.

DFID, like many agencies, has applied different methodologies to respond to these different purposes for measuring and accounting for its aid, including its support for ARD&FS.

DFID reporting on aid spend and the rise of the transparency agenda
DFID introduced a new integrated financial and project management system (ARIES) in 2007. ARIES covers project planning, implementation, reporting, expenditure and risks. The system was introduced to streamline processes, improve the value for money of procurement and improve system performance.2 Information produced by DFID for internal and external consumption is from ARIES. DFID expenditure is recorded according to input sector codes, which are based on, and hence comparable to, the CRS DAC purpose codes. However, there are minor differences in the numbers and definitions.

Data produced for internal management and control

Reports from ARIES are produced each quarter for the DFID management board. Data are broken down according to the pillars (mentioned above). Historically there has been a greater focus on sectoral spending targets within DFID, particularly under the previous administration. However, over the last year there has been a significant shift within DFID to focus on results. There are now only a few spending targets which, as a consequence, are closely scrutinised. For this study, the results agenda is significant for two reasons. First, ARIES currently does not capture data for results indicators in a consistent

For example, to report accurately and improve corporate performance; improving compliance; increasing availability of real-time budget information. For further information, see: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/audit-committee/papers/aries-benefitsrealisation.pdf
2

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

11

way. Second, ARD&FS programmes are not easily translated into traditional results indicators or, put another way, it is not easy to formulate measureable results for ARD&FS. In addition, ARD&FS programmes are often not adequately reflected in global targets, e.g. ARD&FS is not a Millennium Development Goal (MDG) although MDG 1 is about food availability (as 3 mentioned above).

For transparency and accountability vis--vis domestic audiences

The three following purposes for measuring and accounting for aid relate to improving transparency and accountability for audiences external to DFID. The transparency agenda has gained increased momentum under the present United Kingdom administration transparency commitments have meant that all central-government departments are now required to publish data on their spending including monthly transactional spending, contract and tender documents has been made one of six DFID structural reform priorities and has the largest number of actions of all the structural reform priorities and is allocated a separate transparency section in DFID Business Plan (DFID, 2011) (see Table 1). This builds on efforts made by the previous administration, which introduced the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. As part of this new push for greater transparency, DFID has established an and policies in a way that is comprehensive, accessible, comparable, accurate and timely. Third, and finally, DFID continues to lead the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), launched at Accra, Ghana, in 2008, which aims to encourage the international community to sign up to agreed standards on making information accessible and available. Table 1. second structural reform priority: introduce transparency in aid. make British aid more effective

Actions for structural reform p by improving transparency and value for money

2.1 Increase independent scrutiny by establishing the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and by strengthening evaluation throughout DFID 2.2 Introduce full transparency in aid and publish details of all new United Kingdom aid spending 2.3 Create new mechanism to give British people a direct say in how an element of the aid budget is spent 2.4 Re2.5 Give poor people more power and control over how aid is spent 2.6 Support innovative and effective smaller British non-governmental organisations to deliver results
Source: DFID (2011).

DFID operates under the International Development Act 2002, which establishes the legal basis for United Kingdom development assistance. It means that the Secretary of State for International Development can provide development assistance for sustainable development and welfare provided he or she is satisfied this assistance is likely to contribute to alleviation of poverty. The International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 strengthens the accountability of the United Kingdom Government in delivering its Act requires DFID to report annually to parliament on development policies and programmes, the provision of aid to partner countries and the way it is used (DFID, 2010). The schedule to the Act sets out the statistical reporting that is required. This

Based on discussions with the DFID agriculture team.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

12

information is published each autumn for the preceding fina , Statistics on International Development (SID). This contains a detailed breakdown of development expenditure based on outputs from ARIES. In addition to SID, DFID now has a searchable project database accessible on its website. Produced in 2009

The Annual Report, along with the Autumn Performance Report, provides an overview of DFID's progress. DFID publishes its Annual Report in tandem with the Resource Accounts, before the summer parliamentary recess.4 The Resource Accounts are primary financial statements recording the full costs of activities and and provide information on how resources have been used to meet objectives. In addition to the Annual Report, DFID publishes an Autumn Performance Report which outlines DFID progress against the 2008 2011 Public Service Agreement 29 and DFID objectives. It is a statutory requirement and was laid before parliament on 15 December 2009. The transparency agenda is explicitly linked to making aid more effective and is a means to enable stakeholders to hold DFID to account. Although improving the effectiveness of aid will be beneficial for all stakeholders the primary audience of the transparency actions This is reflected by the fact that beyond IATI there is limited reference to improving transparency to support better partner-country financial planning.

Reporting on international obligations

On an annual basis the government submits its estimation of ODA to DAC. In March provisional data on the previous calendar year are reported to DAC in the Advanced Questionnaire. This information is also published on the DFID website in National Statistics release, Provisional UK ODA as a proportion of GNI. Later in the year the finalised data are reported in the DAC Questionnaire and the CRS. Information on final ODA is published in the DFID National Statistics publication, Statistics on International Development . In addition, DFID is leading the IATI initiative, which is a temporary coalition of donor governments, governments of developing countries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have all agree on a common statement to improve the transparency of international development aid. It has over 19 signatories that together account for approximately half of all global ODA. From the signatories, DFID and one other organisation (the Hewlett Foundation) have started to publish their data according to the IATI specifications. Unlike the annually produced CRS data, the aim of the IATI platform is to allow access to real-time data that includes estimations of future aid commitments (rather than solely the previous financial years). In addition, the IATI platform will house project documentation as well as financial spend. The platform also includes support from non-bilateral donors, e.g. NGOs, and aims to incorporate information on results, not just expenditure trends.

Transparency and accountability vis--vis recipient countries, and for partner-country planning and financial management purposes
IATI also plans to deliver on a better international system to translate donor financial support into information that can be better used for partner-country planning and financial-management purposes.

Following the establishment of a new administration in May 2010, in addition to the 2009 Annual Report, DFID published a 2009 10 annual report (revised in September 2010) that differed from previous years reports, reflecting changes to statutory reporting requirements. The report, DFID in 2009 10 (DFID, 2010) meets the requirements of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, previously included in the DFID Annual Report.
4

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

13

this area is well documented. Donors are criticised for not producing timely data reports in a format that is aligned to partner-country budget classification systems. Beyond discussions through IATI, it appears that DFID has not done as much as it could have in this area. This reflects generally sluggish improvement from all donors in this area. An example of a positive DFID initiative happened last year where DFID Ghana worked with the government to assess donor performance against their commitments.

Methodologies DFID applies to measure and account for aid in general and to ARS&FS DFID aid spend
DFID applies various methodologies to produce information on its aid, including aid to ARS&FS.

Statistics on International Development

DFID expenditure is recorded according in ARIES to sector input codes, which are comparable to CRS DAC purpose codes. Project Officers at the country-office level are responsible for inputting programme spend into ARIES. Anecdotal evidence suggests that concerns about miscoding exist but quality improvements are being made. DFID implements a multisectoral approach; therefore, each project gets recorded across a range of sector input codes, reflecting the distribution of objectives across sectors. For example, if a project is a basic services package providing most support to health (50%), and then equal support education and water and sanitation (25% each), the project coding would reflect this. This methodology for measuring and accounting for aid produces data used for internal management and control, and to support the internal policy decision process. The data is also used for purposes of transparency and accountability vis--vis domestic audiences. Statistics produced for IATI and What we spend web page

What we spend web page (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/DFIDspend/):, DFID has started to publish details of all spend over 25,000 since 12 May 2010 on a monthly basis. This information is based on the methodology used for (SID), with a marginal proportion of expenditure excluded. There is an exclusions policy that outlines what expenditure is excluded. This includes items which are considered to compromise national or personal security, foreign relations or legal obligations, including currently all transactions for Afghanistan.5
This methodology for measuring and accounting for aid produces data used for purposes of transparency and accountability vis--vis domestic audiences, as well as for recipient countries. When a large number of donors start producing data in this way it will also be useful for international comparisons, particularly with donors that are not considered to be the traditional multilateral and bilateral donors, e.g. private foundations etc. International data for DAC For CRS reporting, the ARIES sector input codes and CRS purpose codes are fully automated in ARIES. There are some small but significant differences between data produced for SID and CRS data. First, there are

See for further information on the exclusions, see http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/DFIDspend/

5

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

14

marginal differences between DFID s sector input codes and the CRS purpose codes. Second, and significantly, the CRS does not s that only the principal sector is recorded per project. So, whereas in the ARIES system the basic services package mentioned above would have been only 50% health, because it is the largest share the project is recorded as 100% health for the purposes of CRS recording. Third, and significantly, for SID, budget support is spilt across the sector input codes based on an assumption of expected budget support spend per sector. CRS DAC data treat budget support separately and excludes the information from the figures. Finally, CRS data are produced according to the calendar year, while data recorded in SID are for financial years. This methodology is used by DFID to report on international obligations, as the data produced are based on a methodology that is internationally comparable. It is clear that aid spend, including for ARD&FS, presented according to the three methodologies will range from being marginally different to quite significantly different from each other.

DFID support to ARD&FS

In addition to these differences, there are specific measuring issues related to ARD&FS that have not been mentioned above. First, according to the DFID sector input codes a sector,6 within production sectors. It appears that DFID has historically measured spend to agriculture according to this classification. However, for the purpose of target, and acknowledging that ARD&FS is much broader than solely agriculture, DFID has selected a number of input codes (including those e appropriately and comprehensively measure support to ARS&FS (see Annex 1 for further details).

There are 10 broad sectors, including non-sector allocable.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

15

Analysis of volume, trends and composition of aid flows to ARD&FS

This section compares trends in DFID SID, and DAC data (from AidData). The data are not strictly comparable, for the reasons given in the Box 1. However, we can still analyse and compare changes in DFID support to agriculture and food security over the last 10 15 years. Box 1. D SID data are nominal, given in pounds sterling. CRS data are real (constant for 2000), given in United States dollars (although CRS current prices can be accessed). SID data is for disbursement, while CRS data is on commitments. The categorisation of DFID support to the agriculture sector is different in the SID and CRS sections, e.g. different codes are used to define support to agriculture. Even if the same codes were used, marginal differences between SID and CRS codes prevent strict comparison. SID data are for 2000/01 2009/10 and are al years, e.g. April to March, while CRS data are for 1995 2008 and are recorded according to calendar years.

DFID

Statistics on International Development

Box 2. SID main findings. ector has increased overtime for

This finding is also true for real support to agriculture and food security. In 2009/10 the four largest subsectors of this sector (measured by the sector input codes) were Rural Development, Agriculture Policy and Administrative Management, Food Aid and Food Security Programmes, and Agricultural Development. However, as a percentage of total public expenditure on development, all categorisations of aid to agriculture and food security reflect a negative trend overtime, associated with a steep decline until 2005/06, followed by a levelling out and marginal reversal of the trend, peaking in 2008/09.

Contrary to common perceptions, DFID support to the agriculture and food security sector increased between 2000/01 and 2009/10. This finding is illustrated in Figure 1, which presents total support to AFSI areas, measured by agreed CRS purpose codes. The figure distinguishes between:

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

16

AFSI-agreed codes that DFID pledges money against and AFSI-agreed codes that DFID pledges money against plus AFSI codes that count but which DFID did not pledge money but spends against .7

These categories are explained in Annex 1. According to both categorisations, it is clear from Figure 1 that support to the agriculture and food security sector has increased over time. Between 2000/01 and 2005/06 we see the tail of a downward slope starting a decade or so before, with the lowest level recorded in 2005/06. From then onwards the increase is most likely a reaction to the food price crisis (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. DFID support for AFSI according to two different categorisations, 2000/01 2009/10 (thousands of nominal pounds).

Source: SID 2000/01 2009/10.

Figure 2 breaks the AFSI total into various DFID sector input codes (including 12240, 31210 and 31220). It shows that in 2009/10 the four largest subsectors (measured by the sector input codes) were Rural Development, Agriculture Policy and Administrative Management, Food Aid and Food Security Programmes and Agricultural Development. Rural Development has grown steadily over the last 10 years, with a greater than 10-fold increase over its 2000/01 amount. Agriculture Policy and Administrative Management faced a significant drop from 2000/01 to 2005/06, but has since been steadily increasing but remains lower than 2000/01 levels. As anticipated, support to Food Aid and Food Security Programmes more than doubled over

AFSI also includes 16010: Safety nets/social welfare services, which DFID did not pledge money to and does not spend against. DFID does, however, spend a lot on safety nets, and there are several codes that relate to them, but nothing is coded against this particular one.
7

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

17

the food price crisis (2006/07 2008/09) matched by an increase in Basic Nutrition but in the last year fell back to just above pre-crisis levels. Agricultural Development jumped from just under 5 million in 2007/08 to over 26 million in 2009/10. Two subsectors that historically made up a significant share of support to agriculture, but have since fallen, are Agricultural Land Resources and Renewable Natural Resources Research. Despite some increases year on year there has been a negative trend for both subsectors, with support to Agricultural Land Resources falling quite dramatically.

Figure 2. Support according to different AFSI codes, 2000/01 2009/10 (thousands of nominal pounds).
60 000

52010 Food Aid and Food Security Programmes 50 000 21022 Road Transport: Rural Feeder Roads 31110 Agriculture Policy and Administrative Management 31120 Agricultural Development 40 000 31130 Agricultural Land Resources 31163 Livestock: Agriculture 30 000 31191 Agricultural Services 31310 Fishing Policy and Administrative Management 20 000 31320 Fishery Development 43040 Rural Development 80017 Renewable Natural Resources Research 10 000 80020 Agricultural Research 80022 Fishery Research 12240 Basic Nutrition 2000/01 - 10 000 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 31210 Forestry Policy and Administrative Management 31220 Forestry Development

Source: SID 2000/01 2009/10.

Figure 1 shows that support for the agriculture and food security sector has followed a positive trend over the last 10 years. If we want to examine support to agriculture in a narrower or less broad way, what are the results? This is presented in Figure 3, which shows support to the agriculture sector only, as defined by the conomic . It is assumed that DFID has historically measured support to agriculture in this way. The blue line includes all the AFSI codes that are in conomic broad category. Figure 3 shows that when categorising support to agriculture in this way, despite a fall in support between 2000/01 and 2005/06, there has been an upward, positive trend overtime. The red line paints a slightly different story. This is our most narrow definition of agriculture and only includes the SID sector input codes in the economic broad category that specifically refer to agriculture. It is clear that, despite uneven progress, a negative trend is exhibited over time. Therefore, according to our four categorisations of support to agriculture and food security a positive trend is exhibited over the time period for three of the four categorisations, with only the narrowest definition of agriculture reflecting a negative trend. Although the figure is not included here, it is worth noting that when real data were computed this overall finding remains the same (although the graphs have flatter trend lines).

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

18

Figure 3. Support to agriculture accordi of nominal pounds).

economic broad sector, 2000/01 2009/10 (thousands

Source: SID 2000/01 2009/10.

Although the findings from the above figures paint a more optimistic picture than common perceptions suggest, it is important to emphasise that support to the agriculture and food security sector has fallen as a proportion of total DFID aid. Figure 4 clearly shows that according to our four categorisations of support to the agriculture and food security sector spend as a percentage of total public expenditure on development has fallen from 2000/01 to 2009/10. There was a small increase over the food price crisis, but this has either fallen or levelled off since then.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

19

Figure 4. Support to the agriculture sector (based on four categorisation schemes) as a percentage of public expenditure on development, 2000/01 2009/10.

Source: SID 2000/01 2009/10.

OECD

DAC CRS

Box 3. DAC CRS main findings. the agriculture and food security sector, there has been a positive trend over the time period, but progress is more uneven and lumpy than indicated by SID data. Support to all three components of the categorisation of ARD&FS agricultural production, processing and marketing; emergency relief and welfare; and rural socioeconomic development shows an upward trend between 1995 and 2008, with rural socio-economic development recording the steepest gradient. The overall downward trend in support to the agriculture and food security sector as a percentage of total public expenditure on development is the same for SID and CRS data. However, progress over time recorded in CRS is much more uneven than that in SID.

The data presented here are taken from AidData (www.aiddata.org). It is equivalent to data from the DAC OECD website as all source codes are CRS only. The data are given in United States dollars and in constant 2000 figures. First, the trends for overall support to the agriculture and food security sector mirror those presented in the DFID SID data. As Figure 5 shows, there is a positive upward trend for AFF+, DAC agriculture, forestry and fisheries (AFF), as well as the Overseas Development Insti ) broader definition of support to the ARD&FS . However, the data for the DAC AFF, which reflects

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

20

the narrowest CRS definition of support to the sector, produce a negative trend line. It is worth noting that the latter result changes to a marginally positive trend line when nominal data are used.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

21

Figure 5. Agricultural aid in 1995 2008 according to three definitions of the agricultural sector (commitments, constant US$ million).
800 700 600 500 400 300 200
100 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 240 290 430 606 589 505 522 392 682 624
ODI ARD&FS

643

342 215

DAC AFF+

182

DAC AFF

Source: AidData, CRS source only.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

22

One clear distinction between the SID and CRS data is the uneven progress of support to agriculture and food security recorded in the CRS. This reflects the lumpy nature of aid, as well as the difference between the CRS and SID methodology for measuring and accounting for aid. As mentioned above, SID data are based on a multisectoral approach, where projects are spilt across sector input codes depending on their sectoral focus, whilst CRS data includes only the principal sector for each project. Another important difference and possible explanation for the CRS lumpiness is the fact that projects are recorded in full in the year when the commitment is formalised. A good example to explore the lumpy nature of aid is to examine the increas between 2004 and 2005. From Figure 5, it is clear that the jump is quite dramatic as the total nearly doubles from one year to the next, increasing from US$342 million to US$606 million. This is a difference of US$264 million. Table 2 shows a list of 10 of the largest new projects recorded in 2005. Together these projects account for 89% of the total increase, equating to approximately US$236 million in total. It is worth noting that the SID data showed that support to agriculture and food security was at its lowest in 2005/06. The large increase recorded in the CRS for this calendar year reflects a combination of behaviour in the first four months of 2005 (recorded in CRS but excluded from SID); the differences between the methodologies applied; the differences between commitment and actual expenditure, e.g. new projects approved but not necessarily increasing disbursement/spending, as there are often long gaps between project approval and actual implementation; and the categorisation of support to the agriculture and food security sector.

Table 2. The largest n million).

in 2005 (commitments, constant US$

Recipient name Swaziland Solomon Islands Bangladesh Sudan India Zimbabwe Nigeria China India Ethiopia Total

Component Agricultural production, processing & marketing (including policy and supportive services) Agricultural production, processing & marketing (including policy and supportive services) Rural socio-economic development Emergency relief and welfare Rural socio-economic development Emergency relief and welfare Rural socio-economic development Agricultural production, processing & marketing (including policy and supportive services) Agricultural production, processing & marketing (including policy and supportive services) Rural socio-economic development

Flow Equity Equity Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant Grant

Aid (US$ millions) 9.71 10.25 11.06 14.82 15.16 16.03 27.41 30.52 32.04 68.92 235.92 89%

As a % of the increase in aid to agriculture between 2004 and 2005

Source: AidData, CRS source only.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

23

and marketing; emergency relief and welfare; and rural socio-economic development. It is clear from the trend lines in Figure 6 that all components have faced an upward movement over the time period. The increase was steepest for rural socio-economic development, which in part mirrors the SID data. Uneven progress is noted across all three components. The dramatic increase in agricultural production, processing and marketing in 2008 can primarily be explained by grants for agricultural research, which accounted for 70% of the increase.

Figure 6. Aid to ODI ARD&FS 1995 2008, by component (commitments, constant US$ million).

Source: AidData, CRS source only.

Finally, Figure 7 shows that support to the three categorisations of aid to agriculture and food security as a share of total ODA has decreased since 1995. This is in line with the general results from SID (and remains the case if we delete the first five years). In addition, the overall proportions in both CRS and SID data are largely comparable. That said the trends in Figure 4 and Figure 7 look quite different. Although the series in both figures all increase around 2008, the series in Figure 4 decline between 2000/01 and 2005/06, reflected by year-on-year decreases. However, in Figure 7 the proportion of aid to agriculture increases between 2001 and 2003 and then falls again. This difference in the trends recorded in the CRS and SID data can be explained by a number of factors (e.g. those given in Box 1).

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

24

Figure 7. Agricultural aid in 1995 2008 as a share of total ODA, comparing three definitions (%).

Source: AidData, CRS source only.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

25

Summary of volume, trends and composition of aid flows to ARD&FS

Summary of the Issues
United Kingdom aid to ARD&FS has been subject to decline as much as reorientation. Whereas in the past technology and smallholder development, the 1980s and 1990s saw a sequence of aid policies that impacted negatively on the visible volume of agricultural aid: from structural adjustment to poverty reduction strategic plans and, finally, budgetary support. Over this period, the nature of assistance to ARD&FS changed significantly. No longer concerned exclusively with agricultural production, DFID programmes now focus on value chains, with regional and international trade and private-sector development being of particular interest. The new private sector challenge funds and programmes designed to facilitate trade in domestic, regional and international markets are unlikely to be accounted for in the conventional measures of ARD&FS aid, which tend to capture projects with a direct focus on agriculture and food security. DFID has, however, devised a way of accounting for the relevant shares of projects of multisectoral nature and uses this methodology to track commitments to the AFSI. From the data analysis, it is clear that the trends in overall support to the ARD&FS sector recorded by the CRS methodology mirror those presented in DFID SID data. Over time there has been an upward trend in DAC AFF and AFF+ as well as for three (out of four) DFID SID categorisations of support to ARD&FS. For both methodologies, the narrowest definition of support to the sector by expenditures more broadly classified as ARD&FS. Finally, although this sector has seen some positive real trends over time, when it is assessed against the change in total ODA we can see that the support to ARD&FS has decreased as a proportion of total ODA. Beyond these overarching trends, comparing subsector trends across both data sets becomes more difficult, as the different methodologies and categorisations used mean that comparison at subsector level is more complicated. For SID data, since 2005/06 there has been a large increase in support to ARD&FS. This was probably driven by the food price crisis and is reflected in changes in some the largest subsectors. For example, Rural Development, and Food Aid and Food Security Programmes have increased considerably over the time period examined. One thing that is clear from the DFID case is that transparency is extremely important for the United Kingdom government. Given this, it would be advisable to carefully map out the differences between the different data sets made public, e.g. the methodologies used to calculate the data. Otherwise it may not be clear to the reader why the CRS data do not match the SID data, and what the most realistic picture of actual expenditure actually is. Therefore, DFID should aim to improve the transparency of its methodologies, giving guidelines instructing how to interpret the data, as well as its data sets. In addition, United Kingdom aid will be increasingly subject to results-based scrutiny, where results are becoming considerable more important than analysis of sectoral expenditure trends. The challenge, however, will be to formulate measureable results for agricultural aid, given the number of variables that affect production, the long chain from research station to the field and the difficulty of attributing changes to a single expenditure factor.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

26

References
DFID (Department for International Development) (2010) DFID in 2009 2010. Response to the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006. DFID, London. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/departmentalreport/2010/dfid-in-2009-10-revised-6-sept-2010.pdf DFID (Department for International Development) (2011). DFID http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/DFID-business-plan.pdf Heath Development, London. 2015.

. EVSUM 672. Department for International

Wyeth, J. and Ashley, S. (2009) Agriculture and Food Security: Pre-Evaluation Review of DFID Policy. Agricultural Sector Policy Review. Department for International Development, London.

Platform Knowledge Piece 2: Aid to agriculture, rural development and food security: UK working paper

27

Annex 1: Aid codes

DFID ARIES codes AFSI AFSI excluding 12240; 31210; 31220 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Total agriculture in economic broad sector Agriculture (reference only) in economic broad sector

Codes included in pledge: 21022 Road Transport: Rural Feeder Roads 43040 Rural Development 52010 Food Aid and Food Security Programmes 31110 Agriculture Policy and Administrative Management 31120 Agricultural Development 31130 Agricultural Land Resources 31163 Livestock: Agriculture 31191 Agricultural Services 31310 Fishing Policy and Administrative Management 31320 Fishery Development 80017 Renewable Natural Resources Research 80020 Agricultural Research 80022 Fishery Research 12240 Nutrition 31210 Forestry Policy and Administrative Management 31220 Forestry Development 43040 Rural Development

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Prepared by: Platform Secretariat Published by: Global Donor Platform for Rural Development c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Dahlmannstrae 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany Study conducted by: Overseas Development Institute, London Authors: Heidi Tavakoli and John Howell Photo credits: www.istock.com/Gnter Guni/skyhouse; www.fotolia.com/africa/Ivan Gulei/lul; www,pixelio.de/hjrdis Kozel/Rauner Sturm August 2011