Michael Scott
Ex-head of DFID Rural Livelihoods Division,
now retired but acting as maternity cover in DFID Pretoria
Thank you for the Pretoria "think piece". I think it is very good.
Personally, I would have welcomed a summary of the recommendations. I can
understand, given the status of the meeting, why you felt that a list of
recommendations would be inappropriate. They are all there in the text, but
you have to hunt for them.
Over the past couple of months, I have been exposed to the land question in
Namibia and South Africa, and therefore qualify for the cynic's definition
of an expert. I was criticised by a wide range of people in Namibia for
emphasising the huge dangers of talking radically but doing little. Namibia
is different from Zimbabwe I was told. SWAPO has no opposition which might
put pressure on the Government. Sam Nujoma is different to Robert Mugabe,
and only 1% of people polled think that the land issue should be a
Government priority. I say this only to emphasise how much work is needed
to lift the land issue up the agenda. An expression linked to ostriches
springs to mind.
In South Africa there is a view that urban land reform, or lack of it, is
more likely to lead to civil unrest than slow progress on rural land
redistribution. This I do not accept, with more than 30% of the population
living in communal areas covering 13% of the land surface. However, it does
support the emphasis on urban land issues in the report.
The polarisation between those advocating economic growth per se and those
emphasising equity and improved livelihoods for the poor, lies at the heart
of the debate in South Africa and Namibia. Conventional economic theory has
difficulty modelling for large poor countries living uneasily in small rich
countries, which describes South Africa much better than "middle income"
country. What are the trade-offs between economic growth and poverty
reduction in such countries and what polices are optimal? Short-term policy
objectives compound the felony by failing to take account of the
longer-term risks of doing little or nothing, such as social disorder.
You are, I think, a little hard on donors; I am amazed by their willingness
to remain involved given the risks. They have made mistakes and you
highlight some of them. Unfortunately, the Germans may repeat some of these
mistakes in Namibia.
Yes, NGOs have an important role to play, but it must be a constructive
role. The boundary between advocacy and destructive criticism is a narrow
one and to stay on the right side requires real diplomatic and
interpersonal skills, which not all NGO representatives, or representatives
of donor agencies for that matter, possess.
All in all I like the paper,which is an excellent synthesis of where we are
at, how we got here, and what needs to happen next. I hope it receives the
widest distribution.
I would also like to receive the newsletters coming out of the group.
|
