Comments

Thank you Linda. I am wholly in agreement more can be done to link smallholder agriculture with the tourism sector in Pacific island countries - particularly in Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa and the Solomon Islands. I note that a fair bit of work is going on in Fiji at the moment trying to link vegetable growers in the Sigatoka Valley with hotels on the Coral Coast and elsewhere. This work is supported by the Pacific Agribusiness Research for Development Initiative (PARDI).

I share the consensus that in the long run trade (and I would add investment) reduces poverty. I am sure that a genuinely independent assessment of the relative benefits of increased trade and aid, would score the former higher. Much depends, of course, on national policy and administrative capacity as well as physical infrastructure in recipient countries and I suggest that support in these three areas are a vital comconmitant for aid for trade programs.

Joel, thanks for the post. I share your concerns regarding the unclear link between the ‘aid for trade’ agenda and poverty reduction (which is also very difficult to measure). That said, I feel that in many areas the impact of pursuing aid for trade will be limited. In regards to infrastructure development for example, ‘aid for trade’ really does appear to be a case of rebranding existing development assistance for road construction etc. Time will tell, of course, as this government’s definition/interpretation of aid for trade becomes clearer. One issue that I think does warrant greater attention, given Bishop’s emphasis on aid for trade in the Pacific, is the scope for development of exports in smaller Pacific island countries (microstates, like Tuvalu). I would argue that there is very limited scope for exports from microstates to ever be able to compete in international markets. Winters and Martins have argued along similar lines (as in their 2004 paper, available here). Even in niche industries, which Wesley Morgan argues are an avenue that should be pursued by PICs, I can’t see microstates competing with the likes of Fiji or Samoa. Instead, it is in other areas that fall outside the aid for trade agenda, like labour mobility, where these countries have better prospects. The most effective way to facilitate labour mobility from such countries is through changes to Australia’s migration laws; a focus on aid for trade in our aid program would seem to miss the point.

Joel, I think you've been a little misleading with your quote from the OECD. Your quote is a statement of its position on global trade, not a definition of Aid for Trade. A little further down on the page it says: The global Aid-for-Trade Initiative interlocks aid and trade policies in pursuit of raising living standards and reducing poverty. It seeks to complement trade reforms and promote more equitable distribution of global benefits across and within developing countries. It has been designed to help ensure that the benefits of trade policies do materialise, particularly when trade policy reforms on their own are insufficient to deliver the expected benefits from trade expansion. Which might be a more suitable quote to characterise the OECD's approach to Aid for Trade. I'd also note that the OECD-DAC, working with the WTO on the Aid for Trade Initiative, has developed a definition of Aid for Trade, but you've quoted from a presentation - the presentation paraphrases and seems to miss category #5, "other trade-related needs if identified as development priorities in partner countries’ national development strategies." I'm not sure Aid for Trade is terribly hard to define or nebulous, but perhaps I've just read the documentation a little more carefully.

Is the survey for all aid and development workers, or just those involved in humanitarian work? The questions imply the latter.

Sounds like an interesting project will look forward to seeing what eventuates. You might like to link up with Prof Veronica Taylor at ANU (REGnet) who has been doing some similar work with a particular focus on people who work on law and justice within the Australian aid programme.

You've not mentioned the opportunities at home, although Tess alludes to them (I'd note that Carnival is procuring bottled water from Vanuatu and is negotiating on other commodities including coffee and chocolate). Far simpler and more cost effective than exporting agricultural product would be to supply to existing industries, particualrly the tourism industry. However, the quality of produce and regularity of supply invariably means that hotel chains import from Australia. This is a domestic issue to address, and clearly a challenging one - years of aid-funded agricultural strengthening programs don't seem to have had a significant impact on the quality or consistency of supply. Aid for trade isn't, and shouldn't be, just about exports. More can be done to ensure that there is no need for imports from Australia and New Zealand where domestic production is possible - we need to satisfactorily meet demand at home before focusing too strongly on highly competitive and cost-sensitive export markets.

Wesley, thank you for the blog and supporting paper. You’ve comprehensively captured both the challenges and opportunities for agriculture in the Pacific and its fundamental role in the livelihoods of people throughout the region. Developing export pathways for agricultural (including forestry and fisheries) products and addressing the associated quarantine requirements has indeed been a long standing challenge and source of frustration for the region's public and private sector. In recognition of this, the Australian Government began supporting the Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access (PHAMA) program in 2011 to provide technical support and build the capacity of countries in the Pacific region to gain and maintain market access of high value primary products. The program specifically works with both the public and private sectors in target countries to address the regulatory aspects of biosecurity, quarantine and research and development related to market access for high priority fresh and processed primary products. Countries currently targeted within the program are Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. The program also provides specific resources to the Australian Department of Agriculture to increase their capacity to progress requests from the Pacific region for new or improved market access and to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to provide support for biosecurity related market access issues at the regional level. The point raised on the need for greater cooperation between the public and private sector to prioritise market access issues is an important one and real progress is starting to be made. A key component of the PHAMA program has been the establishment of Market Access Working Groups in each of the target countries to provide a practical working partnership between government and the private sector to manage the resolution of market access issues that are to be addressed through the program. These working groups are at different stages of evolution and consideration is now being made on the options for continuation of their functions and mechanism when the current phase of the PHAMA program ends in June 2017. It is also positive to note that the case study you provided on the request by the Government of Fiji for access for fresh ginger into Australia has been progressing in recent months following technical negotiations between the biosecurity authorities of Fiji and Australia. An issue perhaps not fully explored in your paper is the need to increase awareness of the existing market opportunities for agricultural products from the Pacific region and how they can be better utilised. For example, improving awareness of what products can be exported already or with some form of processing; increasing the compliance of products with biosecurity or quality standards; or improving the quality or market niche of products. The work being supported by PHAMA is strongly complemented by the broader efforts being made by the public and private sector in partner countries, through other donor programs and the increasing focus of the Australian Department of Agriculture and New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industry on the region. A real reminder that efforts at one part of the export supply chain can only lead to success if the steps before and after also being addressed in a coordinated way. BRONWYN WISEMAN is Deputy Team Leader on the PHAMA program, which is managed by URS and Kalang on behalf of the Australian government.

Thanks Dev -- I think you do a nice job of summarising the PD argument. My problem is that they (or at least some of them) make it seem like development is all discourse and of no intrinsic merit. I think this is a deeply mistaken position. I also think they also claim far too much power for the developers of this world: villagers in Sumbawa want development, I think, not because they've been duped into it by some Western discourse, but because it actually brings benefits. Thanks again for your comment.

Thanks again Kien -- I agree (for the reasons you raise) that subjective well-being is a somewhat problematic tool for assessing welfare (then again, so are the alternatives). On paternalism, that's a somewhat different issue from measuring subjective welfare, and also from the state providing merit or public goods. Here the issue is people making mistakes, which then lead to worse welfare outcomes for them (either objective or subjective). Now the question is should the state intervene, either to prevent or to nudge people away from the mistakes they would otherwise make. I agree - this is an interesting area.

I think you miss one key point made by much of the post-development thinkers, that 'development' is a powerful discourse; a powerful way or seeing and organising the world, to define developed and undeveloped - a completely Western worldview. Post-development thinkers tend to make a distinction between development as a collection of positive programs, and development as a ideology, a discourse. I found it is primarily the latter they were concerned with. But then again, it's been a while since I've read the material.

Philippa's blog echoes the concerns raised in the context of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement. Mike Finger and Philip Schuler in a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2215" rel="nofollow">1999 paper</a> estimated the large costs that selected developing countries had it incur in implementing 'unprecedented obligations' to put in place institutional structures and laws to regulate technical, sanitary and phytosanitary standards and intellectual property law. They pointed out that imposing these obligations had little bearing on the problems those countries were dealing with,and took no account of capacity. On TRIPS, Finger and Schuler said: 'As to diagnosis, its focus is not on encouraging innovation or protecting endogenous technology in developing countries, it is on industrial country enterprises' collecting for intellectual property on which least developed countries now recognize no obligation to pay. And after the Uruguay Round, successive developing and least developed countries have had to take on similar obligations as a condition of joining the WTO, reinforced by requirements of bilateral and regional trade agreements. What Philippa makes clear is that this has been at best only peripherally about delivering benefits to those countries.