|
|
E-discussions: Uptake
Pathways into Food Security Policy
This page contains all the e-mail messages exchanged during
the electronic discussion on Uptake Pathways into Food Security
Policy.
| Date |
Author |
Subject |
Message |
| 04/07/03 |
Ina Mentz |
HIV/AIDS's Challenge to Food
Security |
Did we (adequately) cover
the issue of "labour-saving technologies" in
the
discussions on food security, in the context of HIV/AIDS?
See below for information from this
angle, please (message from Carol Lombard).
Meeting the HIV/AIDS Challenge to Food
Security: the role of labour-saving technologies in
farm households
The acute labour shortage created by
HIV/AIDS and its severe consequences for agriculture
production and food security of rural households has
been well documented. One of the promising strategies
for response from the agriculture sector to the impacts
on labour is to identify the roles for labour saving
technologies (LSTs) not only in mitigation, but also
as part of prevention. Such issues are gaining practical
importance because the connection between malnutrition,
hunger, famine and HIV/AIDS is now beginning to be made.
The drama is emerging at national levels, but is also
played out, often invisibly, in a multitude of farm
households in which widows, grandparents and children
suddenly take on roles they are unprepared for. Strategies
for effective action are urgent.
FAO/SDWP commissioned a paper on the
issue of LSTs for the meeting 'African Asian Agricultures
Against AIDS', held in Bangkok from 11 to 13 December
2002, jointly organised by UNDP South East Asia HIV
and Development Programme and FAO. The paper was discussed
at the meeting and subsequently revised. At the meeting,
very concrete examples of LSTs were also presented and
will be published in a companion paper. As the meeting
confirmed the promising role of LSTs as one of the major
responses of the agriculture sector against HIV/AIDS
as well as the role South-South cooperation can play
in this area, the paper is being brought to the attention
of a wider audience working in the fields of agriculture,
HIV/AIDS or, more generally, of development.
The paper focuses on the various types
and levels of constraints faced by farm households as
a production and reproduction system within a farming
system, such as time and energy limitations created
by HIV/AIDS provoked shortages. The paper highlights
the contributions various LSTs could provide while also
stressing the conditions, including gender ones, which
have to be met in order to introduce LSTs successfully.
LSTs are a partial solution to HIV/AIDS problems, but
also represent a challenge to the way agriculture is
practiced and to common policies in both agriculture
and HIV/AIDS. The focus on LSTs is a fertile field for
cooperation between sectors, between public and private
institutions, North-South and South-South cooperation.
Top
|
| 03/07/03 |
Elizabeth Cromwell
|
The need to unite politically
desirable and economically desirable policy outcomes |
Reading the unpacking of Southern African
food security issues over the last 4 weeks has been
fascinating. An over-arching question that has struck
me is, aren't we talking a lot of the time about the
need to unite politically desirable and economically
desirable policy outcomes?
At the moment, we have political processes
in Southern Africa responding to one set of pressures
(short term concerns of particular groups), whilst another
set of pressures (supporting sustainable access to food
by the poor majority) remain off the radar. In the rush
to liberalise, we seem to have overlooked that this
is a pretty standard outcome in liberalised economies
without developed checks and balances (i.e. vibrant
media and so on). One very important lesson from the
recent crisis in Southern Africa seems to be that we
need to pay much more attention to the development of
the institutions and systems providing these checks
and balances before we can hope for lasting implementation
of the many technical policy changes that are required
to strengthen food security. Strengthening accountability
in food sector institutions; building analytical capacity
on food issues in government, civil society organisations,
and the media; campaigns for the poor and vulnerable
informing them of their options and rights ~ there is
lots that could be done in this direction. But most
of all, shouldn't researchers, analysts and development
partners embrace the realities of the politics of access
to food in "liberal" economies, rather than
seek a return to a possibly mythical era of benevolent
paternalism in food security policy-making?
Top
|
| 03/07/03 |
Ina Mentz
|
Response to questions |
To save time, I will just
add my responses to some of the issues below after each
question. However, before I submit some remarks on the
questions below, just one more remark on your line above:
"The fundamental causes of food insecturity in Sub-Saharan
Africa lie in political, social and economic factors rather
than agricultural or climatic factors or the HIVAIDS pandemic."
I watched the national SABC TV news broadcast last night
- the headline was that food production in southern Africa
has decreased to such an extent that the situation has
proved to be critical at this stage. Specific mention
was made of the severe drought and changing climatical
conditions in many southern African countries, the severe
impact of HIV/AIDS and diminishing productivity of rural
men and women, complicated by the social implications
of increasing AIDS deaths, the dire consequences of political
instability in Zimbabwe and decreasing food production
due to that government's land policy, etc. My sense was
really that the situation is actually falling apart in
this part of the world, and that climatic factors and
the HIV/AIDS pandemic cannot be ignored at all (contrary
to your emphasis above). If I remember well I've emphasised
before in this discussion that "the face of southern
Africa has changed dramatically during the past decades",
and I really doubt whether traditional/conventional thinking
about solving poverty and food insecurity in this region
will be adequate. In fact, my sense is that rapid and
effective action is urgently required to save the region
from complete devastation, if that is still possible at
all.
1) What are the most useful practical
steps the Forum can take to support current and planned
food security policy processes in your country and Southern
Africa as a whole?
The food security situation differs from country to
counry, although there are some commonalities among
countries. This means that while focussing on the region
as a whole, we should also focus on and consult with
individual countries in the region in order to consider
the situation, assess what policies and programmes are
in place, how cost-effective and successful they are
in the context of the socio-economic, political and
cultural situation of the specific country, what lessons
have been learned that can be tapped from, etc. Political
leadership, government policy makers and planners and
civil society should participate in such assessments
in order to ensure their buy-in into the process. So,
I think the suggestion in question 3 below, is something
that could be considered - i.e. country-specific food
security policy discussion seminars for key stakeholders.
2) Are the currently scheduled country
issues papers, theme papers, and policy options papers
the most useful written outputs from the Forum?
No, perhaps not, although such documents could serve
as a useful point of departure for suggested country-specific
discussions. Something must happen beyond the papers
and written outputs - one issue of critical importance
is monitoring & evaluation mechanisms and tools
to continously assess impact and progress and ensure
cost-effectiveness of initiatives. Also, the comprehensive,
integrated, multi-sectoral approach suggested in earlier
discussions on this issue should be purposefully promoted.
3) Would it be useful to contribute
to or organize food security policy discussion seminars
for key stakeholders in countries in the region later
in 2003, to discuss lessons from across the region from
the 2001-03 crisis and how these food security issues
have been tackled elsewhere in the world?
Yes, see my comments and suggestions above.
4) Would a regional seminar also be
useful?
Ditto
5) Will these really change policy,
or is something more ambitious required? If so, what?
To change policy, practice and approach should be the
ultimate objective of the regional and country-specific
discussions and seminars/workshops. The what will have
to be determined by local conditions and what is decided
and implemented during and after the discussions, although
experts in this field should have a "check list"
of major success factors that should be introduced into
the discussions and debates.
Hope my contributions are useful ...?
Top
|
| 02/07/03 |
John Young |
Summary to 2nd July and final
questions |
It's taken a little while,
but Malcolm's just raised the big question - what can
WE do to make sure the voices we've heard over the last
few weeks contribute to the changes in policy and practice
necessary for sustainable improvements in food security
in Southern Africa?
A convincing consensus emerged from
the previous discussions. The fundamental causes of
food insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa lie in political,
social and economic factors rather than agricultural
or climatic factors or the HIVAIDS pandemic. Some clear
policy directions are emerging: improved governance
and bureaucratic capacity, making markets work and improving
opportunities for off-farm employment, strengthening
the voice of local expertise, and establishing national
food security agencies which can address these wide-ranging
issues.
This discussion has identified the tendency
of national policy makers and donors to focus on food
production issues rather than more politically sensitive
issues (the starter-packs story), and how policy makers
can even ignore the evidence of their own eyes (land
redistribution in South Africa). One contributor from
an earlier discussion suggested the need for more emphasis
on putting good ideas into practice. Malcolm Blackie,
in this discussion, that we should help politicians
realise there are real possibilities [to improve food
security], but that we have so far failed to make a
convincing case. Ina Mentz suggests we should network
with [other] actors and agents to bring research results
into the policy-making and planning arena. Diana Cammack
suggests we need to change the nature of political power
in the region and the way donors and agencies interact
with African governments. The question is how?
We have 3 days left, and we'd really
value your opinions on this final set of questions:
1) What are the most useful practical
steps the Forum can take to support current and planned
food security policy processes in your country and Southern
Africa as a whole?
2) Are the currently scheduled country
issues papers, theme papers, and policy options papers
[see http://www.odi.org.uk/Food-Security-Forum/Publications.html]
the most useful written outputs from the Forum?
3) Would it be useful to contribute
to or organize food security policy discussion seminars
for key stakeholders in countries in the region later
in 2003, to discuss lessons from across the region from
the 2001-03 crisis and how these food security issues
have been tackled elsewhere in the world?
4) Would a regional seminar also be
useful?
And finally:
5) Will these really change policy,
or is something more ambitious required? If so, what?
Top
|
| 02/07/03 |
Malcolm Blackie
|
Response |
I think this last couple
of interventions is probably the core of what we are trying
to deal with - the multiple agendas which have an interest
in controlling access to food rather than solving the
issues of food security. It would be really good to get
a focused follow up on how this might be addressed using
voices we have heard in this discussion.
Top
|
| 02/07/03 |
Ina Mentz
|
Response |
Yes, this confirms my statement
that "political games" overrule rational thinking
in most cases and in many ways. While claiming to deal
with the sufferings of the poor, politicians promote their
own agendas (which is understandable)without attending
to the sustainability of policies and programmes that
are introduced (including land, food, and such issues).
After some time it is discovered that the situation has
worsened (as is the case with food production and food
security) and very little or nothing has been contributed
to find a sustainable solution. In fact, information on
population trends and dynamics in southern Africa show
that most people in this region are now much worse off
than some decades ago, of course also because of the impact
of HIV/AIDS on these trends and dynamics, and on sustainable
development in general. While we acknowledge some achievements
(including with regard to access to education), it is
evident that poverty conditions have become worse, more
people are jobless, more people die at younger ages, levels
of crime have increased, to mention but a few challenges.
To add to this, climatical changes and shifts in weather
patterns have complicated our struggle for survival. My
question is: What innovative solutions should be offered
to overcome the socio-economic burden (including the accessibility
and availability of food) in southern Africa?
Top
|
| 02/07/03 |
Diana Cammack |
Response from Diana Cammack
to Rachel Slater's message on uptake |
Yes, Rachel's distinction
is good, but the real point of what she said has to be
made explicit.
It is a lot easier for govts and outsiders
to concentrate on production, rather than access, because
[1] the NGOs, donors and media allow
them to get away with it - as they too focus too often
on crises of food production == e.g., blaming the 2001-03
Southern African hunger on 'drought' rather than on
mismanagement and politics. Acts of God make it easier
to 'sell' hunger, to raise funds, in Europe and elsewhere.
Imagine trying to raise funds for food if, say, agencies
and the press said outright that hunger is caused by
political manipulation of food for individual politicians'
own ends! It took a long time for agencies such as WFP
to come around to even mentioning politics and corruption
as causes of this crisis, and even then these are listed
not first or second, but after HIV/AIDS, drought and
floods.
2] Politicians have little interest
in addressing issues of access, because that means they
would really have to come to terms with inequity. The
neopatrimonial system is based on unequal access to
goods/power (denying these to some groups and ensuring
they are available to loyalists), and politicians would
have to deal with that explicitly if they wanted to
ensure that, say, people had access to services, loans,
land, jobs, education, or any other benefit. Its easier
to say to small farmers that they grow the wrong thing,
or that they eat the wrong foods, and that they should
grow more, than to ensure that marketing systems work,
that infrastructure is developed, that technology is
spread and used, that access to land is fair, etc. These
are 'political' issues (in that they require the use
of power to guarantee they are fairly dispensed). And
in the region there is a lot of benefit derived by various
groups in power by the unfair distribution of, say,
land, funds for infrastructure, marketing services,
loans, etc.
To ensure equitable access to the factors
of production will require changing the nature of political
power in the region and the way donors and agencies
interact with African governments. Its easier to concentrate
on growing more food.
Top
|
| 02/07/03 |
Ina Mentz |
Response to E Cromwell message |
I agree, we need to bring
research results into the policy-making and planning arena.
We should network with actors and agents in this regard.
Top
|
| 01/07/03 |
Malcolm Blackie |
Response |
I understand the point that
Ina Mentz makes but think the diagnosis is wrong. Land
redistribution is going to happen - it is sensible in
justice and in terms of building a balanced economy. But,
quite correct, the way it is being implemented just isn't
sensible. The underlying cause - which is central to many
of the issues discussed in this forum overall - is that
there is a general disbelief that smallholder agriculture
can really succeed. The answer, as my ancestors were determined
to prove, was to get smallholders off the best bits of
land and - ideally - into jobs in other sectors of the
economy. Sadly - which remains the case today - the remainder
of the conomy simply doesn't have the jobs and we end
up with a policy which 'parks' people in agriculture as
a default option. We used to call these areas native reserves
- we now call them resettlement areas. But the effect
is the same - the people living there are driven - through
lack of other options - to draw down on the limited reservers
of capital they have. They don't wake up in the morning
and decide which part of the environment they are going
to wreck today, which fences to pull up and sell - these
are obvious symptoms of distress. No one wants to be poor
or to sell off/destroy their capital.
So the policy is to recognise that the
behaviour we see in resettlement areas is the outcome
of lack of opportunity. We need to seek out what the
Tanzanians term KIT options - knowledge, information,
and technology. A strategy based around market opportunities
and technology development. They have some very innovative
thoughts on using a combination of a product chain approach,
combined with their existing national farming systems
efforts - to build a real smallholder friendly support
system to create real opportunities for wealth creation
in depressed smallholder farming areas. ICRISAT have
also used a similar approach - so it can be done.
Let's recognise that politics is the
art of the possible - and help the politicians realise
that there are real possibilities that they haven't
discovered in the real development of smallholder areas.
We need to recognise that we have done a pretty poor
job of creating a convincing case - otherwise they would
all be out there doing things differently. As some friends
in Tanzania said to me the other day when we were talking
about Zimbabwe - what fun is it to be president of a
bankrupt country and a destroyed economy???? There are
some sadly pretty terminal cases in the region right
now but there are also real chances to get sensible
positive discussion into the debate.
Top
|
| 01/07/03 |
Ina Mentz |
Land redistribution |
One of the major issues in
South Africa is land redistribution and the empowerment
of previously disadvantaged groups to own land. Although
this is an acceptable and necessary objective, it is rather
sad to see how much of the redistributed land in previously
very productive areas has not been cultivated and used
to ensure the continuation of economic productivity on
those extended pieces of land. Even the implements such
as tractors and other necessary tools that have been given
to the new land owners are misused and become useless
for the purposes of agricultural production. Fences are
stolen and bushes and trees start to grow on the land,
which makes it impossible even for other farmers to rent
the land to produce crops. In the meantime, more and more
people become dependant on small pieces of land, and large
numbers of jobless sqatters settle on the newly gained
land. They do not contribute anything to productivity
in those areas, which will worsen the already unfavourable
socio-economic situation in rural areas.
The problem is that it is one thing
to give land to people, free, but it is quite another
thing to gain the know-how and skills to cultivate the
area in a productive manner. There should be mechanisms
to ensure that we do not errode our natural resources
in an effort to comply with political objectives. It
is evident that food production in South Africa, as
is the case in so many other southern African countries,
will systematically deteriorate, especially in the light
of unfavourable market and harsh climatical conditions,
which is common in SA where water resources are in any
case limited. At the same time, the dependency rate
has been rising, mainly due to the impact of HIV infection
and AIDS deaths, with tens of thousands of children
and older people who become dependant on the state that
has to provide for their basic needs.
Political agendas often to not provide
for rational thinking .... Watch this situation, in
ten years' time from now we will probably talk about
the same concerns, but I guess they will be much worse
than currently.
Top
|
| 30/06/03 |
Elizabeth Cromwell |
Response |
Rachel poses some very pertinent
questions relating to the apparent barriers to research
feeding into food security policy in Southern Africa.
It would be very interesting to hear the views of others
on how this can be achieved over the coming years in order
to avoid a repetition of the 2001-03 crisis.
Perhaps there is no need for further
research and the emphasis should instead be on promoting
the conclusions from existing data collection and analysis
amongst policy actors? This leads us into the territory
of lobbying legislators, bureaucrats and aid officials.
Should this be a priority activity? This implies a much
closer working relationship between the food security
research community in Southern Africa and organisations
like Oxfam and Malawi Economic Justice Network, to name
but a few.
Top
|
| 30/06/03 |
Rachel Slater |
How can we overcome differences
between government and research/NGO perspectives? |
The GDN case study of Starter
Packs in Malawi that Julius directs us to is useful in
highlighting some of the issues around the ways in which
research is presented to government policy-makers and
whether or not it is taken on board in the policy-making
process. The key argument here is that, whilst the research
into starter packs made a broad series of recommendations,
only those that fit neatly with existing political imperatives
were adopted.
Looking more broadly, I would argue
that one of the problems that we face in tackling food
insecurity in Southern Africa is the disjuncture between
government policy-makers views on the roots of the crisis
and the views of researchers and NGOs.
We can distinguish between food security
as a food availability issue and / or a food access
issue. My experience in Southern Africa is that, whilst
many NGOs and researchers are concerned with entitlements
and household purchasing power (i.e. access issues),
the views of government policy-makers are couched in
increasing food production, ensuring national self sufficiency
(food availability issues). This is a rather crude differentiation
- but do other participants in the e-conference disagree?
Where different stakeholders have different
kinds of frameworks for understanding the problem we
get different analyses of the problem and these are
potential barriers for the effective use of research
in influencing policy.
What do we need to do to try and overcome
these barriers? The work of the RAPID programme suggests
that to feed research into policy we need to use narratives
that are familiar to policy-makers? Given the government
preoccupation with food production, what can NGOs and
researchers develop narratives on food insecurity to
encourage policy-makers to take up food access issues
more seriously? Does anyone have suggestions / experiences
in this regard?
Top
|
| 27/06/03 |
Julius Court
|
Uptake Pathways - Case from
Malawi |
To spur discussion, I thought I would
draw your attention to the GDN case study of Starter
Packs in Malawi.
It highlights a key question of broader
concern: How can we convince government and donors to
adopt policies that reflect the evidence (not just the
components that they like)?
The information below is from the summary.
The summary and full case can be seen at:
www.gdnet.org/subpages/RAPNet/Case_Studies/Case_Study_32_Intro.html
This case study looks at a large-scale
M&E programme undertaken in Malawi over the last
three years (1999-2002) on this issue. The Starter Pack/TIP
M&E programme was designed to answer questions of
vital importance to policymakers. It produced a large
body of evidence on a range of key issues: food security,
safety nets, community targeting, cultural values and
the role of maize, poverty, smallholder livelihoods
and interactions with markets, agricultural extension,
sustainable agriculture and crop diversification. Many
of the findings challenged previous assumptions on these
issues.
The government adopted part of the research
findings - that which supports the argument for a 'universal'
Starter Pack programme, providing a pack of free inputs
for every rural smallholder. Here, the evidence fits
neatly with political imperatives. But the government
has so far ignored the other findings - those which
raise serious questions about the desirability and viability
of current agricultural policies.
The donor community has also ignored
much of the evidence. This is surprising, given that
the research includes the only nationwide survey of
extreme food insecurity in the 2001-02 season. This
evidence could be used to improve estimates of food
aid requirements for the 2002-03 food crisis and to
target food aid more effectively.
Is this situation the same across the
region? Who can be mobilized to push new policy ideas?
What are the constraints and what needs to be done to
overcome these constraints?
* Please note GDNet is restructuring
its whole site on Monday 30th June so if the above link
does not work go to www.gdnet.org and follow the links
for:
- Activities
- RAPNet
- Research
- Studies
- Case Studies
- Case studies collected so far
- Case 32 Starter Packs in Malawi
Top |
Further information on Uptake
Pathways into Food Security Policy theme
Back to full list of themes
|
(14kb) 
