Assessment of Institutional Architecture for Policy Change

Purpose: Conduct an analysis of a country’s capacity to improve food security policy Result: Provide key stakeholders with information to strengthen effective policy change Methodology: -Map the policy process -Analyze the elements of policy reform Institutional Architecture for Policy Reform Assessment Overview

Beautiful Institutional Architecture – clear form & function

Policy Reform Process is non-linear: - varies by country; - varies by policy; - multiple initiation points/paths; - multiple actors; - winners & losers Policy reform is characterized by complex management requirements & is difficult to objectively assess.

Policy Elements: 1. Predictability of the Policy Framework 2. Policy Development & Coordination 3. Inclusivity & Stakeholder Consultation 4. Evidence-based Analysis 5. Policy Implementation 6. Mutual Accountability Policy Reform Architecture: the Reform Process

Assessment Process: Elements and sub-elements Policy Element 3: Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation Inclusive Participation within the Policy Coordination Management Entity Outreach and Communications Private Sector Participation – Opportunity/Space Private Sector Participation – Capacity to Participate Participation of CSOs – Opportunity/Space Participation of CSOs – Capacity to Participate

Lessons Assumptions

Let’s Develop the Right Policies -Use evidence-based analysis, and consult with stakeholders, to develop the “right” policies -Unfortunately, often there is no “right” policy: policy change has winners and losers -The right policy for what purpose, and for whom? -Evidence-based analysis will not always solve this issue, but is necessary

Managing Policy Change -Define the objective; conduct research; develop “ideal policy solution” -Define stakeholders; conduct political mapping to determine winners and losers, and relative degree of influence (economic/political); -Develop a reform “strategy” -Empower policy advocates – level the playing field -Identify an influential policy “champion”; build a coalition of political support…manage compromise

Complex NAIP Management Requirements -Effective management of food security is not the exclusive purview of MoAs -Coordination of complex multi-million/billion dollar programs cannot be effectively implemented by part-time staff -Managing policy and program issues among multiple institutions requires consistent, high-level leadership and engagement (i.e. Ministers+)

Detailed Aligned Plans are Required In Ethiopia and Rwanda, NAIP food security plans have become the foundation for all programming and financing discussions related to food security. NAIPs = country plans (one and the same) In Ethiopia the structure of the MoA mirrors the structure of the NAIP (Ag Growth, Land Mgmt, Food Security) Work plans with objectives, targets and performance measures are required – MoA, other Ministries & decentralized units

Inclusivity: Private Sector Participation -Substantial private sector investment is required for NAIPs to succeed -This requires private sector input into policy -Meaningful private sector involvement has been elusive, and is challenging -The private sector is busy being the private sector *** The best opportunity for expert and meaningful involvement may be at working group level Kenya/ASCU has private sector-led Thematic Working Groups

CAADP is a Big Wonderful Experiment -There is no one path to success, or right path; -There are divergent structures and approaches being taken; -Learning laboratories are excellent ways to generate lessons and best practices; -Innovation is particularly high in the beginning phases of new programs, when there is the most divergence of approaches. CAADP should be a structured learning laboratory: Analyze, capture and disseminate lessons. -Case studies -- analysis and dissemination; -Peer-to-peer structured learning opportunities.

LESSONS FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF CAADP PROGRAMS IN ETHIOPIA AND RWANDA OCTOBER 2012

Focus on results; Learn & share; Push forward.