Creating the Necessary Policy Context for Progress on the Malabo Declaration: A Review of Food Security and Nutrition Policy Changes in 11 Africa Countries
Creators: name: Hendriks, Sheryl L
name: Nic J.J. Olivier, Elizabeth Mkandawire
name: Nosipho Mabuza
name: Moraka N Makhura
name: Hendriks, Sheryl L
name: Nic J.J. Olivier, Elizabeth Mkandawire
name: Nosipho Mabuza
name: Moraka N Makhura
Publisher: name: Unknown
Year: 2019
Subjects: subject: Agricultural and Food Policy
subject: Environmental Economics and Policy
subject: International Development
subject: Food Security Group
subject: Michigan State University
subject: Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy
subject: Tanzania

description: The Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) sought to identify priority programmes that could drive agricultural growth, reduce poverty and food insecurity and identify and overcome constraining gaps and contradictions across sectors that constrain food security at the national, regional and local level. Apart from the call for the establishment of comprehensive food security policies, CAADP recognised that policy alignment and coherence across sectors was essential to achieve the food security objectives of national visions and development plans in Africa. However, food security policy is complex due to the multi-sectoral nature of the required actions and the multiple players engaged in the process of programme implementation and coordination. Yet, there is no formal guidance on what constitutes a food security policy. Also, there are variable interpretations of what food security includes. Over time the understanding of food security has changed, evolving as food security crises focus, sharpen and expand our understanding. Moreover, since the drafting of the 2003 CAADP Framework, some significant developments have occurred in the conceptualisation of food security, resulting in the strengthening of the emphasis on nutrition and the broadening of terminology to adopting food and nutrition as a more encompassing focus. This calls for the assessment of national policies to determine if national policies align with this evolving understanding of food security and the changing context of international commitments to reducing food insecurity (such as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs). In addition, the long-term neglect of African agricultural policy in the period before the implementation of the CAADP agenda and the rapidly changing domestic, regional and international contexts related to agriculture and food systems, call for policy review and revision. This study set out to investigate the extent of food security policy change between 2010 and 2018 in 11 countries actively engaged in the review and revision of their CAADP National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans (NAIPs) (informed by the Malabo Declaration) and to understand the extent to which these policy changes cover food security policies per se or food security-related policies in agriculture and nutrition. The study evaluated formal policy change in 11 African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Niger and Togo) between 2010 and early 2018 about agriculture, food security and nutrition. We investigated the following research questions: i. What policy change occurred in agriculture, food security and nutrition between 2010 and 2018? ii. How did these changes coincide with international events and changes in the food security context? iii. Do these changes reflect a broader policy goal for food security at the national level? iv. Do the policies reflect a comprehensive understanding of food security? v. What are the implications of the insights gained for the development of the NAIP IIs? The set of countries included in the analysis was limited by the team’s availability and access to NAIP II draft documents sourced through ECOWAS and ReSAKSS. Of the 11 countries, only Benin, Malawi and Niger had signed off the final versions of the NAIPs. The other eight NAIPs were still in draft form. We limited the assessment to episodes of policy change rather than an in-depth analysis of the NAIPs, the policies, strategies and implementation plans for the 11 countries. The work seeks to support the Feed the Future Initiative’s support of national self-sufficiency through country-owned development efforts. The analysis seeks to provide evidence-based policy research to guide the strengthening of national agriculture, food security and nutrition policies and development initiatives. Overall, we found that despite the call from CAADP in both the Maputo, and even more clearly in the Malabo eras, there is little evidence of active policy review, deliberate strategy design and action planning to ensure the implementation of the intended priorities aimed at addressing critical issues such as food security and nutrition to achieve development goals and inclusive growth. A number of international events, the CAADP agenda and the global food price crisis of 2017/8 seem to have had a significant influence in driving policy change and renewal. Four phases of influences are evident from the analysis. The first was between 1993 and 1996 where the World Child Summit and the first International Conference on Nutrition led to many countries developing action plans for nutrition. The second phase (1997 - 2005) was characterised by an emphasis on integrated planning. During this time, the CAADP Maputo Declaration was signed and a number of policies, strategies and plans related to food security and nutrition were developed by the countries investigated. The third phase was between 2006 and 2010 when the world food price crisis drove many revisions of policies strategies and plans. The fourth phase was evident from 2012 and was characterised by attention to nutrition. Many of the recent international and African events played a role in motivating countries to establish food security and nutrition policies. These include the World Health Assembly Targets (WHO, 2012), the London Nutrition for Growth Summit (2013) and the 2014 Second International Conference on Nutrition where the Rome Declaration (FAO, 2014) was signed. The three 2014 Malabo Declarations not only reemphasized CAADP but also placed significant focus on food security and nutrition. Our analysis shows an increasing focus on nutrition at the neglect of other elements of food security. This is reiterated in the outcomes of an analysis of the monitoring and evaluation frameworks of ten of these 11 NAIPs (see Hendriks et al., 2018). We found an absence of sufficient references to and discussion of the role of the international, African and regional and frameworks, as well as constitutional, transversal long-term nation visions and five-year growth and frameworks. We found that surprisingly little agricultural policy change was evident in the period 2010 to August 2018 in the 11 countries reviewed. A striking observation was the differential interpretation of food security itself. Despite being labelled food security or food security and nutrition policies, strategies and plans, many emphasised nutrition at the neglect of a comprehensive reflection of the four core elements of food security (availability, access, nutrition and stability or resilience). This suggests that there may be a limited understanding of the concept and the complex nature of food security. It may also reflect a lack of capacity in the area of food security policy. Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Guinea-Bissau implemented food security and nutrition plans in the early 1990’s. Guinea-Bissau updated this with an agriculture and food security strategy in 2008. Ghana launched a food security and nutrition policy in 2007. Only Malawi has an (outdated 2009) food security policy per se. Benin (2017), Burkina Faso (2013), Liberia (2015) Nigeria (2016) and Togo (2016) introduced or revised their food security/food security and nutrition policies, strategies or plans between 2010 and 2018. Far more nutrition policies, strategies and plans (23) were passed during the period 1993 to 2018, and 12 of these within the period of 2010 – 2018. Nutrition implementation plans predating 2010 were found for all the countries except for Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Liberia and Nigeria. Except for Nigeria, each of these countries has implemented a nutrition policy since the global food price crisis of 2007-2008. Although Nigeria has not passed a nutrition policy, the country launched a nutrition strategy in 2014 and has a relatively well-developed nutrition-sensitive food security and nutrition policy (2016) for the agriculture sector. Ghana passed a nutrition policy in 2015 and Liberia in 2008. Guinea Bissau implemented a nutrition policy and strategy in 2014. Malawi launched a revised nutrition policy and strategy in 2007 and again in 2018. Niger launched a nutrition policy and revised the related implementation plan in 2016. Niger’s innovative 3N strategy (Nigerians Nourishing Nigerians) is an integrated approach to nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Togo has not updated her 1997 nutrition implementation plan with a policy, strategy or plan. The analysis reveals a rather interesting landscape about agriculture, food security and nutrition policy change. Of the 11 countries, only Malawi has an (expired) food security policy per se, but this does not have a corresponding implementation strategy. Nigeria has an agriculture and food security strategy but no policy. Many countries appear to have policies, but these lack corresponding implementation strategies. Many of the strategies and plans were adopted at a high level of government – the Presidency or Cabinet, showing strong commitment. This commitment is reinforced by the establishment of coordination structures for nutrition at the highest level of government but not for other domains, despite the existence of Food Security and Nutrition Councils in some countries. Due to the multi-sectoral nature of the NAIPs and the fact that their ultimate objectives (food security and nutrition) are core elements of national visions and development plans, the custodian of the NAIP should ideally be at a level far higher than a sectoral or line ministry. This can be partially explained by the lack of alignment of the policies assessed with national policy objectives. Six countries’ policy objectives (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia and Malawi) referred to food security and nutrition; two countries (Niger and Togo) to food security; two countries (Niger and Togo) to malnutrition; Benin to food sovereignty; Niger to hunger and Guinea to poverty. Except for Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana NAIPs, all the other country NAIPs appear to align with the goals of the Malabo Declaration. Cote d’Ivoire’s NAIP focuses only on agriculture, neglecting other aspects of food security and making no mention of nutrition. Our findings reveal the complexity of agriculture, food security and nutrition policy contents and emphasise the lack of coherence and poor guidance regarding both what a food security policy should include and cover as well as the lack of guidance and clarification on the role of a policy, an implementation strategy and their concomitant action plans. The increasing emphasis on nutrition at international, African, regional and domestic level, is reflected in the policy-related changes in the 11 countries. However, the increasing dominance of policy attention to nutrition results in food security not (and in some instances no longer) being recognised as a key integrated cross-cutting issue that is fundamental to a significant number of core quality of life matters. Nutrition is being dealt with as a key focus area, distinct from (and not directly related to) the integrated concept of food security and nutrition, yet nutrition is a key component of food security and food security is essential for achieving nutrition goals. There is a huge potential for the NAIP process and documents to stimulate comprehensive and sequenced policy review and reform, resulting in the appropriate updating and alignment of current policy, whilst taking into account the changing environment of agriculture and food systems, as well as both (a) the broader international, African and regional development agenda, and (b) key in country developments. Yet, an uneven approach has been taken by theindividual NAIP drafting teams with regard to the alignment of the NAIPs to the SDGs, Agenda 2063, Malabo Declarations and the CAADP Implementation Guide. By not aligning these documents and the NAIPs, the NAIPs are not mainstreamed and will likely remain parallel to, and compete for funding and other resources with, other government priorities and programmes. The focus and contents of the NAIPs should be aligned to or inform the revision of all other existing national policy, regulatory, strategic and implementation frameworks to align with current international, African and regional frameworks. There is no direct obligation for countries to ensure the necessary changes in their national visions, five-year growth and development strategies and transversal (multi-sectoral) and sectoral policy frameworks, legislation, strategies and implementation plans to fully reflect, incorporate and align with these international, African and regional frameworks. A review of the existing policy and regulatory frameworks should precede the formulation of strategic frameworks. It is interesting to note that although the AU framework does not compel countries to undertake such reviews, the AU’s Biennial Review Mechanism Technical Guide indicator 1.3 compels countries to report on what steps they have taken to review their existing policies and institutional settings (however, indicator 1.3 does not refer specifically to regulatory reviews). It seems that insufficient guidance was provided to the NAIP drafting teams on (a) the definition and understanding of food security and nutrition as concepts and the relationship between agriculture, food insecurity and malnutrition and (b) how to ensure that it is appropriately reflected as one of the core outcomes and elements of the NAIPs. This lack of guidance is likely to affect the constitution of the NAIP drafting teams. It is possible that the teams did not include specialists from areas such as food security and nutrition as well as experts related to governance, public and private finance, monitoring and evaluation, gender and social protection experts. There is an urgent need for intensive training on guiding frameworks such as the SDGs, Agenda 2063, the Malabo Declarations and the NAIP architecture. This requires the compilation of appropriate, up-to-date training materials and training for various groups including the expanded drafting teams and those who will be undertaking the mid-term review of their approved NAIPs. This training should include elements focusing on the proper understanding of key concepts such as sustainable development, food security and nutrition food security, nutrition, as well as international, African and regional frameworks, the specific domestic constitutional framework and national vision, transversal growth and development frameworks or strategies (also referred to as medium term strategic frameworks), sectoral policies, legislation, five-year Strategic Plans (Strategies) and annual implementation (work) plans. In addition, focused training on policy formulation (within the context of governance and policy sequencing) applied to the drafting and review of NAIPs. Resources should be made available for the continuous professional development of a significant cadre of in-country people as well as international experts providing support to the national NAIP drafting and review teams. The NAIP task team managed by ReSAKSS is one of the few conduits that should be tasked with this responsibility, provided that said task team should be capacitated on a regular basis by key experts identified by the AU. Universities and other tertiary institutions in Africa must enhance their curricula by the introduction of compulsory courses focusing on the broader social aspects of development (including, but not limited to, matters related to food security and nutrition).