MCDA Final Report Malawi - Standards and Trade Development ...

Given the robustness of the results, the ranking provided by the MCDA framework provides a coherent
basis on which to start defining a national action plan for SPS capacity-building in Malawi. It is important
to recognise, however, that the results of the analysis presented above represent just the starting point
in the use of the priority-setting framework in the context of SPS capacity-building in Malawi. Indeed,
the results should be revisited and revised on an on-going basis in the light of improvements in the
availability and/or quality of data, changes in policy priorities that imply shifts in the decision weights
and/or the introduction of new decision criteria, etc. Further, if new capacity-building needs arise, these
can be added to the analysis. Likewise, as investments are made in the options included in the analysis
above, these can be excluded and the priorities re-estimated accordingly. The intention is that the
prioritisation framework will become a routine element of SPS capacity-building planning in countries
such as Malawi.
It is possible that some stakeholders will be concerned about the priorities presented above. Clearly,
the ranking is based on the results of the stakeholder consultation process and the collection and
collation of data directed at the compilation of the information sheets. It is almost always possible to
improve on this process, for example by encompassing the perspectives of a larger number and wider
range of stakeholders, and this should certainly be pursued. It is important to recognise that, however,
that the aim of the framework is not to make decisions over investments in SPS capacity-building, but to
provide an input into established systems of decision-making. Indeed, the framework aims to facilitate a
coherent and transparent debate over priorities between capacity-building options. Thus, if a particular
group of stakeholder is unhappy about the priority given to a particular option, they should be invited to
present new evidence in the form of revised data to support measures of particular decision criteria in
the capacity-building option information cards/profiles and/or to suggest how and why distinct decision
criteria or differing decision weights should be employed. Such changes can then be employed and the
model re-estimated accordingly.
.
Page | 50