Policy Processes

Central to the work of the consortium will be an understanding of policy processes surrounding agriculture in the regional/country settings where we will work. This requires a look at how agriculture and farming is understood in policy circles and what bureaucratic, political, budgetary and other processes either prioritise or downplay agriculture. Such policy processes are important not only at a national level; they connect to regional interactions (across borders and through regional economic/political integration) and global connections (notably in relation to trade, and the implications of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, as well as standards, and trade barriers of various sorts). Key questions we will be addressing under this theme include:

• What are the politics of agricultural policy processes in different national settings? How do regional and international processes impinge?
• How is agriculture treated in specific policy processes, such as public expenditure reviews, budgetary processes, PRSPs, CAP formulation, MDG implementation?
• What is the contemporary role for and position of Ministeries of Agriculture? How does this affect the organisation and perception of the sector?
• How are farmers' perspectives articulated in policy? Through what organisations, forums and political processes?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progress report:

Phase 1 of Future Agricultures theme work on policy processes has concentrated on analysing the roles of ministries of agriculture in the current context of agricultural governance. Key findings from this phase include the following:

• The literature offers at least two different views on the role of the state in agriculture with very different implications for the profile of a Ministry of Agriculture and the way it relates with other actors. One argues for the completion of market liberalisation reform and overcoming government failures, whereas the other – although generally supportive of liberalisation - argues that in certain conditions market failures can only be overcome through direct state intervention in market coordination. This view suggests a more extensive mandate for MoA as providers of insurance, credit, extension, input subsidies, market intermediation, etc.
• Donor agencies have assembled these various views and put forward an often confusing narrative on the role of the state (and implicitly, of MoA). Although the liberalisation paradigm dominates (in PRSPs and in public sector reform initiatives) there has been also a trend towards re-centralisation of diplomacy around the state despite the participation/decentralisation rhetoric.
• In this messy state of affairs MoA are no longer seen as the architects of agricultural policy formulation and implementation – the locus of power seems to be shifting to new locations. But there has been resistance to this change and agricultural policies emerging seem to be the product of a compromise between these conflicting perspectives on the role of the state and future agricultural scenarios. As a result MoA are neither performing their classical supporting role (extension and research) nor are prepared to take on the new regulatory, enabling, coordinating even, functions.

The discussions at the Future Agricultures Consortium workshop (March 2006) pointed at least to three types of important issues to pusue:

• Understand what MoA actually do and fill the data gap on what MoA trends and patterns are – for example, what are the perceived and actual roles of staff from permanent secretaries to field worker?
• Ask deeper and wider questions about what organisational structure should play the required coordinating role in the agriculture sector and what this implies in terms of roles of other players in agriculture
• Understand processes of policy change – Where are the main constraints and challenges? What can be learnt from experiences from other sectors and from other countries.

Although work in Phase 1 was essentially based on reviews of literatures, Phase 2 will make a step forward by zooming into the day-to-day realities of MoA in Ethiopia , Kenya and Malawi, aiming to fill the data gap on agriculture sector governance institutional and operational practices.

The programme of work for Phase 2 is made of two interrelated components: (i) agricultural policy structures and (ii) the management of policy change. Following on from Phase 1, the analysis will concentrate on the organisational structure of the ministry of agriculture in agricultural governance. Two overarching questions will guide the work:

• What are ministries of agriculture in Ethiopia , Kenya and Malawi ?
• What can ministries of agriculture learn from (successful) experiences of policy reform from other sectors and other countries?
  
  

Theme news / further reading

NEW!

Presentations and Workshop Report:
Future Agricultures/World Bank discussion workshop on the 2008 World Development Report

The main purpose of this workshop was to engage with the World Development Report 2008 process and offer contributions on how to incorporate a political economy dimension into the report.

The workshop was attended by members of the WDR 2008 team, DFID representatives and FAC consortium members. The workshop consisted of presentations (WB on the WDR and FAC on ongoing work), plenary discussions and brainstorming sessions. Emerging out of these fruitful exchanges was the undisputed message that politics matter and are a key determinant of processes of policy generation and change.