The workshop was opened by H.E. Adel Safar, Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, H.E. Laura Mirachian, Ambassador of Italy to Syria, and H.E. Mahmood Taher, FAO Representative in Syria. They thanked the organizers of the Workshop and reiterated the importance of institution building for agricultural policies in a globalising context.
Situation, issues and prospects for food and agricultural policies in the Near East
Dr. Dyaa Abdou, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Near East Regional Office, presented the situation, issues and prospects for food and agricultural policies in the Near East Region. He described the Region as a vast zone of generally diverse climatic conditions, with very low and highly variable annual rainfall and high degree of aridity. He discussed the main types of farming systems prevailing in the Region and presented evidence on the significance of agriculture in many countries in terms of its contribution to GDP, employment creation and generation of foreign exchange earnings. Dr. Abdou gave particular emphasis to the critical current and emerging policy issues for the agriculture and food sector in the Region, such as: natural resources use and management including sustainability and environmental issues; rural poverty; food security; policy reforms and liberalization; trade liberalization and market development; comparative advantages and competitiveness of agriculture; institutional reform; good governance and decentralization; food safety issues; market niches/organic farming; agricultural safety net programmes, trade facilitation/regionalism and post-Cancun reflections on agriculture policy analysis.
Challenges and critical policy domains
Participants shared the view that, although the countries of the Near East Region have made great improvements in reforming their economies and in creating a more favourable enabling environment for economic and social prosperity, they still face several challenges for achieving the goals of sustainable rural and agricultural development. The ensuing discussions supported the views that natural resources management, increased investments in agriculture, rural poverty reduction, food security, participatory approaches, regional integration and world trade negotiations are critical policy domains for which well functioning policy institutions and capable policy analysts are required.
Institutional requirements and approaches for policy analysis
Prof. Luca Salvatici, FAO Consultant, reviewed institutional requirements and approaches for the development of food and agricultural policy analysis emphasizing the relationship between policy and research and the modes of operation in relation with performance. Policy analysis entails prediction and prescription; its role and characteristics are related to the extent of policy dialogue between the state and different stakeholders. Attention was drawn to the performance of policy analysis, based on relevance, quality and communication. The value of separating analysis and implementation was illustrated. Following recent thinking on the issue, the linear rational model (from objectives to decision) was contrasted with the bargaining model which more adequately reflects the existence of multiple interests in society. Investment in policy analysis is generally insufficient due to the difficulty of demonstrating the benefits of policy analysis outcomes, while costs are immediately perceived.
The discussion helped to clarify the difference and relations between planning and policy analysis. While planning is characterized by politically determined objectives and orientation, with usually an important role for public action in the economic sphere, policy analysis emphasizes the market determined orientations of a strategy. However, the existence of socially determined objectives and values, the identification of opportunities and constraints, and the use of behaviour determined prediction, are present in all instances. The example of Cyprus was given where incentives are introduced in the set up for policy research. Even though in many countries the policy environment is strongly conditioned by international agreements and integrated in the international context, the need for appropriately shaped impact analysis of domestic policies creates a high need for autonomous policy analysis capacity. Change is also a cause for policy analysis. It was underlined that agriculture policy cannot be separated from other sectors: there is need for interrelation with other sectors and to mitigate the separation of policy analysis from sectoral implementation agencies.
The National Agricultural Policy Center in Damascus
At the end of the first day, the participants were given the chance to visit the National Agricultural Policy Centre (NAPC) in Damascus. Mr Atieh El Hindi (Director of NAPC) and Mr Ciro Fiorillo (Chief Technical Adviser, Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA)[1] presented the Syrian experience in institution building for agricultural policy analysis, illustrating how the Centre was established with the technical support of FAO and the generous financial assistance of the Italian Government. Both Mr El Hindi and Mr Fiorillo characterized the NAPC experience as a long term endeavour. This involved synergic efforts in developing technical capacities through intensive and diversified training activities; defining, experimenting and adopting conducive working and management practices; promoting active involvement of policy makers and other stakeholders through appropriate and diversified communication means and a varied set of institutional linkages. Last, but not least, it has involved producing outputs adequate in quality and applicability to justify and motivate the substantial investments involved in an institution building undertaking. Indeed, in the Syrian case, almost three years of intensive training were required before completing the formal establishment and initiating staffing of the NAPC in 2001. During this period international expertise also provided a substantial complement to the national capacity to support the policy analysis process, demonstrating the potential usefulness of the institution being established. An additional period of three years has been necessary for completing NAPC staffing and providing substantial further training, initiating research and analytical activities, establishing adequate practices for the dissemination of results and involvement of stakeholders, and defining the organizational structure, management practices and work plan of the NAPC. Three more years are presently envisaged in order to achieve the sustainable consolidation of NAPC capacity to deliver policy analysis and advice as required by the Syrian Government to support agricultural development in a changing economic environment. This is characterized by a rapidly growing population and the need to modernize the public administration, to promote the role of the private sector and to open to international markets, while ensuring sustainable use of the national resource base.
The presentation was followed by a reception during which participants had the opportunity to informally exchange views and experiences. They were invited to visit a poster exhibition to learn more details regarding the Syrian experience; they were also provided with copies of NAPC studies and other publications, such as the Syrian Agriculture Database on CD-ROM. The participants noted the close and effective collaboration between the NAPC and the FAO Project GCP/SYR/006/ITA.
Capacity development for policy analysis
Ms Quieti, FAO Senior Agricultural Policy Support Officer, presented the paper on capacity development for policy analysis. She illustrated the different functions ranging from policy research to policy analysis and the associated capacity requirements. In addition to sound analytical capability, appropriate communication of research results was shown as a critical dimension for the effectiveness of policy analysis. Hence, the need to develop capacities of policy researchers and policy analysts, but also of supporting expertise, such as 'research editors', and of intermediaries between policy researchers, analysts and the general public such as journalists, media specialists and other stakeholders (producers' associations and NGOs). The role of regional and international cooperation was illustrated, with a series of examples of capacity development experiences and approaches including institution building (exemplified by the case of the Syrian National Agricultural Policy Center), human capacity development at national or regional levels, through various modalities involving also distance learning.
The discussion, which took into account the visit and presentation of NAPC, examined the mechanism through which a specialized centre, such as NAPC, ensures appropriate bridging with policy making and implementing departments. It underlined the attention to be given to sustainability after the phasing out of international assistance. It was also made clear that the choice of a specialized institution must be country specific; every country must assess its own specific institutional situation and conditions. The newly established Near East and North Africa Network for Agricultural Policies (NENARNAP) will be instrumental in facilitating the continuation of such discussions and exchanges in the Region.
Individual countries' presentations
The individual countries' presentations provided the opportunity to share experiences and views on the challenges being faced by countries in the Near East Region in achieving the goals of sustainable rural and agricultural development through appropriate policies.
Organizations for agricultural policy analysis
Presentations included features of the agriculture sector in each participating country as well as information on the institutional setting to support the process of agricultural policies formulation and analysis as well as planning. In most countries of the Region, the governance of the agricultural sector is guaranteed by more than one ministry. While problems of duplication and overlapping were mentioned explicitly by some participants, it was also clear that in the majority of countries coordination mechanisms were in place, working more or less effectively. In the case of Cyprus, policy analysis is carried out by a dedicated institution such as the Agricultural Research Institute, with the final decisions prepared by a Policy Management Team. This Team does not perform policy analysis, but is able to use the results provided by the staff of the Agricultural Research Institute. The case of Cyprus was highlighted for its interest from an internal management point of view; policy analysis is carried out through team work without a hierarchical organization and staff members are encouraged to bid for research funds through monetary and career incentives.
In several cases (Yemen, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey) the body in charge of agricultural policy analysis is embedded in the structure of the Ministry of Agriculture. In the case of Kyrgyzstan the Ministry of Agriculture also covers the agro-processing sector. In Egypt, day-to-day policy analysis is carried out by the Economic Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, while longer term policies are under the responsibility of the Agricultural Economic Research Institute, one of the institutions of the network managed the Agricultural Research Center. In Iran, the Agricultural Planning and Economic Research Institute deals with policy analysis within the overall agricultural planning system. In the same vein, the Agricultural Research Center of Libya works in collaboration with the office of planning.
Some governments rely upon a plurality of organizations for policy analysis. In Morocco and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the department dealing with the economic issues within the Ministry of Agriculture, there are private research institutions bidding for competitive projects, and joint ventures with international organizations such as the FAO. This is also the case in Lebanon, where in addition to the Ministry of Agriculture, there is an Agricultural Research Institute and a Higher Agriculture Council which review policies. In the case of Tunisia, the work carried out by the General Establishment of Peasant Studies is supplemented by the "strategic plans" prepared by private research bodies according to public tenders. In Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia regular recourse is also made to expertise from universities.
The combination of policy analysis and planning functions seemed to be common to most countries, the emphasis on the planning system being much more pronounced in countries such as Iran, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. It was remarked that there cannot be policies without planning nor planning without policies.
The following planning and policy objectives appeared to be shared by several countries:
Common planning and policy objectives
The notable absence of trade policies in the ambit of agriculture-focused policy analysis and policy-making was remarked as, in many countries, the Ministry of Agriculture has little influence on trade policies.
Problem areas
Many participants mentioned the existence of capacity development programmes in their country and their being connected to regional or international institutions. Yet, many of them highlighted the persistence of problems due to insufficient technical skills, lack of transparency of the policy-making process leading to weak linkages between policy analysts and policy makers, poor dissemination of policy analysis results, ineffective evaluation mechanisms in order to ensure accountability and weak coordination among different policy analysis institutions.
Policy process: stakeholders, communication, bridging analysis with implementation, M & E
Additional remarks mentioned the importance of considering the participatory dimensions of policy formulation and of involving producers' associations and civil society organizations at large in the policy process. It was also recalled to pay due attention to the communication dimensions of the policy analysis work and to efforts to be made in bridging policy analysis with implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies.
|
[1] GCP/SYR/006/ITA
‘Assistance for Capacity Building through Enhancing Operations of the
National Agricultural Policy Center’. |
