Talking Points Why is it important to have advocacy groups involved in building inclusive policy systems? What does experience to date with the inclusion of such groups teach us? Advocacy groups = commercial private sector, civil society (NGOs, farmers’ organisations etc) Experience: PRSPs, MDG consultations, CAADP, national planning frameworks (e.g. Ghana) …

Theory of advocacy group involvement Better information for planning Accountability for delivery Context = “autonomous” African states (van de Walle 2001)

Information for Planning Need for information: central state may have limited information on – Agricultural realities around the country – Needs of the private sector Demand for information only if – Strong political pressures to deliver ag. growth (critical to government survival), e.g. Rwanda – “owned” commitment to pluralistic policy, e.g. Ghana Otherwise, involvement of advocacy groups is largely “box ticking”

Impediments to Effective Participation The following impediments have to be overcome even where governments do desire better information: – Mutual suspicion: gov-private sector-civil society – Private sector and civil society are both fragmented and with divergent interests – Representative organisations for private sector and civil society are weak (latter may lack both resources and understanding of policy process)

Accountability Participation is in government’s “gift”: – who participates and who does not – gov controls agenda, e.g. when are views sought? – Views may be heard then ignored Advocacy groups have little leverage over governments: – Formal private sector contribution to employment and budgets (c/w US/Europe) – Few, if any, programmatic political parties representing business agenda – No rural social movements – Rural votes not exchanged for agricultural policies