Food Security -- A Regional Issue

Ensuring that all people have access at all times to enough food for a healthy and active life is a preoccupation of governments, international organisations, non-government organisations, and researchers in West Africa. Notwithstanding all this effort, analysis in West Africa shows that the underlying trends in permanent local food availability and access are deteriorating, or at best stagnating, in most countries. Decisive action over time by practitioners and policy makers is needed to improve the situation.

In the short term, day-to-day management of the food system requires production, storage, and market information, effective instruments for food procurement and distribution, and ways to deal with shortages and surpluses when and if they occur. In the medium term, structural adjustment, the changing role of government, the involvement of the civil society, and issues of sustainable food production and income generation are central policy issues. None of these issues can be dealt with adequately by individual countries -- food security in West Africa is a regional issue that needs cooperation and coordination among countries to be effective (Egg and Igué, 1993). In other words, it is a national problem that is best dealt with in a regional context.

A review of the lessons from past work on food policy management shows that issues of institutional capacity have often been overlooked (ECDPM, 1989). At the national and sub-national levels for example, the nature of food security policy management requires inter-ministerial and inter- sectoral coordination mechanisms to resolve potential institutional conflicts and differences in approaches and priorities. However, these mechanisms hardly exist, and if they do, they have limited capacity to become effective (World Bank, 1986).

Coordination within a country is not the only institutional problem. Regular communication and consultation at the regional and sub-regional levels are also needed to formulate regional policies, and to prepare the decisions at the national level that are necessary to implement them. Communication among policy makers and between them and members of civil society and the private sector can be a problem; the apparent gap in understanding between researchers and policy makers further hampers the formulation of policies based on the best available data and expertise.

Consultation, coordination, and communication are important policy management tasks for which enhanced capacity is required if institutions are to operate effectively. However, in the present environment of structural adjustment in which institutional reforms are taking place, and in which a new role for government is emerging, increasing pressures are being placed on the management capacity of these institutions. Faced with these pressures, institutional developments that make better use of existing capacities are needed to help reverse the decline in food security.

Critical in this process are mechanisms for policy makers and researchers to collaborate and communicate on food security problems that require both of their efforts. The mechanisms are necessary both at the national level where dialogue and complementarity is most needed, and between countries in a region where synergy is attainable.

Linking Policy Makers and Researchers

In the past, there have been many attempts to disseminate research results to national and regional policy makers, largely through mixed meetings of inter-governmental organisations, policy makers, donor representatives, and researchers. However, few changes in policies seem to have been the result of these meetings. There still remaines a wide gap between the researchers and the bureaucrats, largely as a the result of the poor communication between them, and differences in organisational culture. Attempts at dialogue often tend to become confrontations in which neither side achieves its aims.

Given this problem, ECDPM and its partners in West Africa are looking for effective ways to bring policy makers and researchers together to discuss common food security concerns. Their response has been to create a regional network on food security in West Africa -- the SADAOC network. ECDPM manages, administers, and facilitates the overall SADAOC programme and, as part of the programme, it also manages a programme on food policy management in the central sub-region of West Africa that involves mainly policy makers from Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, and Togo.

The SADAOC Network

The SADAOC network (Sécurité Alimentaire Durable en Afrique de l'Ouest Centrale) is a multidisciplinary alliance of research institutes, universities and government institutions working on food security issues in West Africa. The aim of the network is to bring researchers and policy makers together to jointly address food security issues. Its objectives are:

• to enhance national capacity for policy-relevant research on food security issues;
• to involve researchers and policy makers in a dialogue that improves food security policy formulation;
• to enhance regional cooperation through collaborative research on food security policy, and by regular mutual consultation;
• to produce high-quality research results that can be used in policy making.

A Sub-Regional Network on Food Policy Management

Contrary to other purely research programmes of SADAOC, the Food Policy Management (FPM) programme is not research based. It works with policy makers to bridge the gap between researchers and policy makers. It enhances national policy consultation processes in each of the countries; it initiates institutional development for policy management at the sub-regional level; it promotes sub-regional consultation among policy makers, and between policy makers and researchers; and it aims to focus greater attention to institutional provisions at national and regional levels.

The FPM programme envisaged two main activities. The first was to enhance the process of consultation between policy makers and the different research networks in the countries of the central sub-region of West Africa. The second was to develop a small network of government officials interested in food security in each of the five countries of the central sub-region. The approach used to achieve these objectives is process and institution oriented, focusing more on the process of policy formulation and implementation, than on policy content.

This paper builds on the experience of this network to illustrate how a bottom-up approach can be effective in strengthening regional cooperation in the field of food security. In this case, the bottom- up approach is based on networks at the national level that have linkages with other national networks in the sub-region; and joint participation by national researchers and policy makers in regional research activities and discussions. Regional cooperation in this programme is seen by the participants as a way to reinforce national efforts aimed at solving local problems. The following section outlines the process used by network participants to determine national and sub-regional food security priorities, without at the same time investing in costly and often top-heavy supra- national institutions or structures.

Setting Sub-regional Priorities for Research on Food Security

The activities and processes used in the central countries drew on past experience of ECDPM, the Club du Sahel, and national collaborators in the western countries of the region (ECDPM, 1991).

The first activity of the programme concerned the participants in the five national networks. These are high-level civil servants; a typical FPM team has members drawn from several institutions and ministries (such as agriculture, trade, or finance) that are involved in food policy management. Since the participants are normally designated by their ministers, the teams form what are in effect inter- ministerial delegations that represent institutional viewpoints as well as their own personal experiences. The CILSS was invited to designate a representative as an associate member to each of the national teams, thus providing a link to a major regional organisation involved in agriculture in the Sahel.

The first task of each team was to prepare a preliminary "baseline" paper on the food security situation, associated policies, and institutional provisions for food security in each country. The papers covered the institutional framework for food policy management at the different levels (central and local government, private sector, civil society, universities, and research) and reviewed policy questions that needed to be discussed with neighbouring countries. Two major issues addressed by each team were the impact of customs regulations on cereal trade in the region, and the basic information that was required in the formulation of national food policies that take into account the influence of external factors from neighbouring countries. The teams also presented their views on food security policy priorities at the national and regional levels.

These preliminary national papers were reviewed at a sub-regional workshop held in Ghana in October 1992. They were used to identify an agenda for discussion and future action by the national teams in the sub-region. On the basis of these priorities, the national teams returned to their countries to take a more in-depth look at some of the problems discussed in the Ghana meeting. Revised versions of the baseline papers were produced by each team, and they, together with a synthesis report, formed the basis for discussion at a second sub-regional workshop held in Burkina Faso in September 1993. The second workshop aimed to have more detailed discussions on the priority issues and once more to refine the action programme for the national level. There were four main outputs from this meeting.

First, the networks began a process of decentralisation and devolution in which the national networks became more independent in their administration and management, and they took responsibility for chairing the overall network.

Second, the participants identified access to information and data as a crucial input to their activities. They could hardly decide on priorities and evaluate specific activities in the absence of reliable information about the situation in each country, and for the region as a whole. They decided that they themselves were often the people best placed to locate and share this information and, as a result, the national networks are now working to define the categories of information that they need, and how they can best get access to it. As part of this process, they are testing a matrix approach in which common data is collected in each of the five countries for maize production, consumption, and use. The methodology will be reviewed and adapted if necessary at a meeting in Côte d'Ivoire in March 1994.

Third, and this follows from the need to exchange information, participants agreed to investigate the possibility that individuals could undertake study missions to other networks in an effort to benefit more directly from their experience.

Fourth, since the conclusions reached at the meeting would affect policies in the participating countries, a series of national workshops were to be organised in each country. By consulting more widely with national colleagues, and especially with representatives of the private sector, the national teams aimed to generate support and consensus for their activities among the wider national communities. So far, these national consultations have been held in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, and Mali.

The process outlined above is based on a series of discussions and consultations that have involved a relatively small number of policy makers in each of the five participating countries. The aim has been to achieve consensus on food security policy options and directions (through review and debate), and then to identify practical sub-regional or regional measures to improve the situation, at both the national and regional levels.

To ensure that regional and national priorities were compatible, the country teams had extensive discussions at sub-regional workshops, and they used this experience to re-evaluate and re-assess national policy priorities. In this iterative process, national priorities first determined the scope of regional programmes; the preliminary regional priorities in turn were used to re-define national activities; and in the final step, the re-defined national priorities are to be fed back into another round of regional priority-setting. The end result will be:

• regional priorities that have been developed from practical national needs;

• national priorities that reflect national needs as well as what is happening in neighbouring countries;

• an established consultation process used by policy makers and researchers to review and define their activities.

Is Bottom-up Regional Cooperation Feasible?

What has the programme achieved so far? At the national level, progress has been made in enhancing the policy consultation process. Inter-ministerial teams have been formed and through regular meetings national coordination has been strengthened. In each country, a small network of government officials involved in food security has been formed. These networks are the basis for national information-exchange on short-term policies and plans. As participants become more familiar with each other and discover common areas of interest, the contacts are becoming more institutionalised; perhaps this is the most interesting achievement of the programme.

At the regional level, the programme has had some success in promoting regional consultation among policy makers, and between policy makers and researchers from the different countries. There have been several meetings of the national teams to set the agendas for consultation, policy preparation, and action at the regional level.

So far (the programme has not yet reached its mid point), most progress can be seen at the national level. However, this could be expected from a programme in which regional cooperation activities were designed to be built on solid national foundations. As time progresses, and as the national teams get more experience in working with one another, the regional elements of the various programmes will become more concrete.

Key Elements in the Bottom-Up Approach

Progress and achievements in the programme can be attributed to several key factors or conditions: the commitment and motivation of participants; the degree to which they own the process and the outputs; the emphasis on developing clear and focused agendas with implementable activities; and, especially for the regional dimension, a common awareness and perception among countries of the problems to be addressed, and how to tackle them.

1. Incentives and Commitment. Regional cooperation depends on the levels of involvement and interest shown by participating countries, institutions, and individuals in specific activities. The motivations of participants are closely linked to the incentives, material or other, that can be realised by participating in the programme. Participants in national activities are often motivated by the availability of opportunities for regional consultation and travel.

2. Ownership and Responsibility. Of course, the sustainability of a cooperative venture is threatened when motivation to participate depends on the availability of rewards. It is therefore essential that participants come to 'own' the programme and its activities, and that they invest time and energy in it. Ownership has been developed through devolved responsibilities; it has also grown out from the emerging informal networks themselves. Shared purpose, as well as the increasingly strong (although informal) relationships between members of the network have helped to keep the levels of involvement high.

   Moving from participation to ownership is not easy, even where, as in this programme, the process of consultation was designed to facilitate the transition. From the start, participants were encouraged to establish their own contacts, to identify their own problems, to set their own priorities, to join in regional negotiations, and to identify feasible projects that they themselves could implement. All this took place with minimal involvement of outside experts from development and bilateral agencies (although of course, finance was provided from a bilateral agency). Giving responsibility for programme content and priorities to local teams has been an effective way to ensure that the 'recipients' own the results and outputs of the programme.

3. Focused and Implementable Agendas. One characteristic of the programme has been its adoption of a step by step approach in which small teams deal with a relatively limited agenda. Starting small and unambitious and concentrating on reachable targets allowed the teams to make progress while gradually expanding their activities in line with their capacities and confidence.

   The process of getting to focused regional agendas also played an important part. Initial wide- ranging agendas for research developed by national teams were reduced by participants in regional meetings to national portfolios of activities that were implementable with the resources available. Perhaps as important, the regional priority-setting process was sufficiently clear and transparent, so that country representatives could understand the reasoning and arguments behind decision that were taken.

4. Awareness and Common Purpose. The three conditions noted above relate as much to national cooperation as regional cooperation. One feature of the programme that was especially important at the regional level was the remarkable commonality of purpose shared by the participating countries and policy makers. In this case, research over many years showed that cross- border trade in food grains and cereals was the single most significant factor contributing to food security deficiencies in the region. This common starting point provided the necessary focus for consultation and negotiation, and, once the solutions to the problem were recognised to require trans-national cooperation, the door was open for regional and sub-regional initiatives. The role of donor-sponsored research over a long period in raising awareness also needs to be emphasised -- widespread awareness was necessary to ensure that policy makers in each country knew the scale of the problem, its causes, and what they could do about it.

Bibliography

Bonnefond, P. and J.-J. Gabas. 1991. Echanges d'information, échanges régionaux et sécurité alimentaire: Propositions d'un système d'échanges d'informations pour le sous-espace ouest. Paris: Club du Sahel.

Brah, M., J.-M. Pradelle and V. D'Agostino. 1993. Coopération et intégration régionales en Afrique de l'Ouest. Abidjan: CINERGIE.

Club du Sahel. 1990. Espaces céréaliers régionaux en Afrique de l'Ouest: Principales conclusions de la Séminaire de Lomé, Togo, 6-11 Novembre 1989. Paris: Club du Sahel.

Club du Sahel. l991. Principales conclusions de la Rencontre de Bamako sur l'interaction des politiques céréalières dans le sous-espace ouest. Paris: Club du Sahel.

Diene, M. and E. de Rijk. 1992. Etude pour la création d'une cellule interministérielle de coordination de l'information pour la maitrise de la sécurité alimentaire. Dakar: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

ECDPM. 1987. The Interaction of Food Security and Structural Adjustment Policies: Institutional Issues for Development Policy Management. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

ECDPM. 1989. Workshop "The End of Cereals Marketing Boards?": Policies and institutional issues regarding food security and restructuring of cereals markets in Africa, Maastricht, February 1989. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

ECDPM. 1991. Coordination de la gestion des politiques céréalières dans le sous- espace ouest. Paris: Club du Sahel.

Egg, J. and J. Igué, J. 1993. L'intégration par les marchés dans le Sous-espace Est: l'impact du Nigéria sur ses voisins immédiats. Paris: Club du Sahel.

Huddleston, B. 1990. FAO's Overall Approach and Methodology for Formulating National Food Security Programmes in Developing Countries. IDS Bulletin 21(3): 72-80.

Kennes, W. 1990. The European Community and Food Security. IDS Bulletin 21(3): 67-71.

Laan, L. van der and W. van Haaren. 1990. African Marketing Boards under Structural Adjustment: The experience of Sub-saharan Africa during the 1980s. ASC Working Paper No. 13. Leiden: Africa Studies Centre.

Réseau de Recherche SADAOC. 1992. Inception Report: Sustainable Food Security in Central West Africa 1992 - 1995. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

Sijm, J. 1993. Food Security and Policy Interventions in Ghana. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.

Sijm, J. 1992. Food Security and Policy Interventions in Mali. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.

Staatz, J., J. Dioné and N.N. Dembélé. 1989. Cereals Market Liberalisation in Mali. World Development 17(5): 703 -718.

White, G. 1993. Towards a Political Analysis of Markets. IDS Bulletin 24(3): 4-11.

World Bank. 1986. Poverty and Hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing countries. Washington DC: World Bank.