Food Security and Poverty, Downloads December 2008 - July 2009: 10,

Food Security II Faculty

English

Research Papers in Economics

Page 1
Global Bureau
Office of Sustainable
Development
   Country Missions
Office of West Africa
Affairs
Sahel Regional Program
POLICY SYNTHESIS
for Cooperating USAID Offices and Country
Missions
Number 17 March 1996
FACILITATING EFFECTIVE
FOOD SECURITY POLICY REFORM
By
Food Security II Cooperative Agreement
 between
 U.S. Agency for International Development, Global Bureau, Economic Growth
Center, Office of Agriculture and Food Security
 and
 Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University 
WHAT’S BEEN DONE:  Stimulating Both De-
mand for and Supply of Information Relevant to
Food Security Policy Reform. 
Many existing food security policies are based on strategies for coping with short-term emergencies;
incorrect  information  and  conventional  wisdom. and the limits imposed by technological constraints.”
Often, decision makers do not respond to research
findings, especially when research does not directly The FSA evaluation concluded that, “overall, the
address development needs. Thus a significant food project has been highly successful in combining ap-
security policy challenge is to discover how to plied  research;  networking  of  researchers, donors and
increase both the demand for and the supply of policy makers; and training in-country researchers
policy-relevant research, and to encourage its use. and users of research to achieve the goal of improv-
As one way of meeting this challenge, USAID has donor  policies.” Through the current FS-II
been very successful in facilitating effective food se- Cooperative Agreement, these collaborative efforts
curity policy reforms in Africa through careful focus continue, focusing on helping African governments
on both policy substance and process in the Food
Security in Africa (FSA) and Food Security II (FS-II)
Cooperative Agreements with the Department of
Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University
(MSU). Global and Africa Bureaus, along with se-
lected African USAIDs, collaborate with host-
country research organizations and MSU in this
project. The overall project goal is to increase food
security as part of a broad-based, market-oriented both the local demand for and the supply of em-
sustainable economic growth strategy. 
 
As stated in an external evaluation, “the FSA project
has made major contributions in empirically
unmasking incorrect ‘conventional wisdom’ about WHERE IT WORKS:  Examples of Contribu-
rural households, informal local and regional tions to Key Policy Changes. 
markets, and the capability of farmers, traders and
government managers to respond to policy reforms,
institutional changes and technological improve-
ments. It has shown how policy reform can become
more directly attuned to food security issues by better
understanding household consumption patterns; rural
trade patterns; informal regional trade flows; internal
marketing institutions;  the diversity of household
ing food security by improving government and
and donors strengthen their capacity to design and
implement improved food policies. The project con-
tinues to demonstrate that paying careful attention to
the linkages between applied research, capacity
building  and policy dialogue is crucial in order to
increase simultaneously the demand for and the sup-
ply of policy-relevant information. Experience shows
that without such a joint and iterative build-up of
pirically based  policy analyses, local involvement
and follow-up on current policy reforms is difficult to
sustain.
Through a combination of mission add-ons and cen-
trally funded activities, this policy research and
dialogue approach has made significant and timely
contributions in several African countries: 
FS II Policy Synthesis No. 17 
Page 2
Mali: The head tax was removed, benefitting many
food security vulnerable rural households. Re-
duced marketing margins and better market
information have improved food access.
Zimbabwe: Restrictions on intra-rural grain trade
were removed, lowering cereal prices paid by
grain-deficit households. Rural and urban con-
sumers gained access to low-priced whole maize
meal. 
Mozambique:  Monetized food aid (yellow maize)
is better programmed and priced to benefit both
producers and consumers.
Southern and Eastern Africa:  Basic changes in
market regulations to allow private traders ac-
cess to grain and to allow small hammer mills to
compete with industrial mills provided opportun-
ities for low-income consumers to improve their
diets and real income and generated increased
employment in milling. 
Africa-Wide:  Local decision makers and donors are
aware of the high rates of return to investment in
agricultural research, of the key factors which in-
fluence the payoff to such research, and of the
contributions to consumers of investments in
new technology.
HOW IT’S DONE:  Determinants of Effective-
ness.  
Key methods used by this project are:
g a “joint product/interim report” approach to ap-
plied research, which treats capacity-building
and research results as joint objectives, and uses
working papers and periodic briefings to ensure
timely availability of research findings. FSA and
FS-II activities have involved African policy
makers and researchers not just in defining the
research problem, but as active collaborators
throughout the research process. This builds lo-
cal analytic capacity, improves research quality
and credibility, and creates greater demand by
policy makers for the results.
g systematic and cost-effective field research, fo-
cusing on careful definition of the research ques-
tions and collection of only the minimum necess-
ary data.
g use of a food-systems perspective in assessing
the impact of changes in technologies, institu-
tions and policies on production, income genera-
tion and food consumption.
g a commitment to go beyond existing macro-level
data to analyze critical food security issues. The
project emphasizes collecting and analyzing
household, firm and market-level primary data to
evaluate the people-level impacts of various
measures taken to stimulate economic growth
and foster food security.
g diffusion of research results to inform the policy
debate, through presentations and distribution of
publications in strategic meetings and national
and Africa-wide conferences.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND BACK-
STOPPING ISSUES: What Helps Make the
Difference in This Approach. 
Several key management and institutional backstop-
ping actions help make this Cooperative Agreement
productive:
USAID Washington Actions:  Project managers
contribute to updating the research agenda, as well as
well as to monitoring project implementation. They
focus especially on identifying cross-country and
other general policy lessons. 
USAID Country Mission Actions: Mission staff
interact with local policy makers and researchers to
help shape the policy dialogue agenda. Management
attention is placed on helping to deliver quality
outputs, not just controlling project inputs.
Host Country Actions:  Local researchers and pol-
icy makers are interested in improving empirically
based policy analysis capabilities, and in undertaking
innovative policy dissemination activities. Local
counterpart organizations start and maintain working
paper series and other measures for promoting policy
dialogue.
Michigan State University Actions:  MSU main-
tains a critical mass of experienced tenure-stream
and temporary staff, attracts outstanding foreign and
domestic graduate students to participate in the re-
search, and has a efficient business office to back-
stop in-country activities. African counterparts are
heavily involved in project design, in-service training
and long-term training. For tenure and promotion de-
cisions, MSU rewards its staff for implementing the
“joint product/interim report approach” in conduct-
ing research and policy outreach activities.
*Work for this summary was conducted under the Food Security II
Cooperative Agreement Between AID/Global Bureau, Office of
Agriculture and Food Security, and the Department of Agricultural
Economics at Michigan State University. The views expressed in this
document are exclusively those of the authors.

Facilitating Effective Food Security Policy Reform

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics