Recommendation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

forum and supported by senior government officials, as this meant that RAC already had ‘a foot in the door’. Innovation: RAC engaged three senior policy advisers at SETSAN (National Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition) as advocates for OFSP. These advisers were supported to push the message that OFSP should be promoted not just for its potential economic advantages but also for nutritional and health reasons. SETSAN was already an established multisectoral policy platform, and so RAC’s advocacy yielded results much faster in Mozambique than in Tanzania or Nigeria, where such platforms did not exist. By December 2014, among the countries involved in RAC, Mozambique had the highest hectarage under OFSP, the highest number of people and institutions trained on OFSP and the highest level of investment. Analysis: The process of advocating for OFSP among senior public policy‐makers is more effective when it is led by well‐positioned and respected actors in the public sector and research institutions and supported by civil society organizations. <strong>Recommendation</strong>: Advocacy projects should work with the already established multisectoral policy platforms where they exist. Where they do not exist, efforts should be made to facilitate their establishment and to build their institutional capacity. Lesson learned: In pursuing an advocacy agenda, it is effective to associate with credible national multisectoral policy institutions. Advocacy lesson 2 – timing of advocacy and OFSP variety introduction Background: In Nigeria, the RAC team found it very hard to start advocacy activities as planned in the project design because OFSP was relatively unknown in the country. Experience/challenge: According to the project design, the advocacy team in Nigeria was expected to persuade policy‐makers to invest in OFSP even before the crop varieties were released officially. However, it was quickly realized that what was needed in the circumstances more than advocacy for policy change, in fact, was varietal release and then promotion of OFSP. Innovation: Rather than sticking to the advocacy work that had been planned in the project design, the RAC team revised the project activities to focus on the promotion of OFSP. The team also restructured the agronomic activities so that some of the project resources could be dedicated to fast‐tracking the release of the OFSP varieties. Nigeria is now ready for a RAC‐style project. Fortunately, as the RAC project came to a close, the Rainbow Project was launched. That project, which was funded by the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Agriculture in response to 15
RAC’s advocacy efforts, will implement some of the activities initiated during the RAC project. Analysis: The timing of advocacy activities is critical. The project design assumed that RAC Nigeria’s advocacy efforts were starting from zero when in fact they were starting from well below zero. No OFSP varieties had been officially released by the government and OFSP was hardly known in Nigeria. Thus, prioritization of the activities to commence with OFSP promotion was appropriate, since one cannot advocate for a commodity that does not exist. <strong>Recommendation</strong>: Before active advocacy for policy change commences, OFSP should be promoted and, more importantly, its varieties should already have been released. Lesson learned: Countries are at different levels in OFSP adoption, and, therefore, entry points for advocacy work should be defined according to their specific context. An analysis should be done to determine the extent to which OFSP varieties have been released and how widespread OFSP is. In countries where no official OFSP varieties have been released, awareness raising and promotion need to precede advocacy. In the case of RAC, Nigeria was not as ready for advocacy as Mozambique was. Advocacy lesson 3 – holistic messaging Background: The RAC project design was centred on advocating for OFSP to combat vitamin A deficiency. Although this is a valid goal, there are a host of other reasons to grow, eat and market OFSP. Experience/challenge: Soon after commencing advocacy activities, it became apparent that the focus on a single crop and micronutrient was not effective in catching policy‐makers’ attention. In addition, many RAC advocates and champions were more comfortable advocating for biofortification and micronutrients than for OFSP alone as a means of combatting vitamin A deficiency. Policy debates at both national and regional levels view OFSP as an integral part of the broader public issue of food‐based approaches to address malnutrition, or biofortified crops for income, nutrition and health. Innovation: It made greater sense to focus on a food‐based approach such as biofortification to improve nutrition, health and income than on OFSP for vitamin A deficiency reduction. Taking this approach ultimately attracted more partners and stakeholders, creating a much more effective advocacy platform. The regional champions advocated for the adoption of biofortified crops as a food‐based approach to combat vitamin A deficiency. National advocates aligned their 16
Page 1 and 2: Learning the Smart Way: Lessons Lea
Page 3 and 4: Learning the Smart Way: Lessons Lea
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements We are grateful to
Page 7 and 8: Acronyms ARMTI CAADP CIP DVMs HKI O
Page 9 and 10: esults. In Nigeria, where OFSP was
Page 11 and 12: 1.2 The RAC highlights The RAC proj
Page 13 and 14: 2. The RAC lesson learning process
Page 15 and 16: manual was then edited and translat
Page 17 and 18: platform to exchange information an
Page 19 and 20: 12 drawn up, negotiated, refined, r
Page 21: technical issues while the country
Page 25 and 26: was an avenue through which key mul
Page 27 and 28: promotion experts were expected to
Page 29 and 30: Capacity building lesson 3 - market
Page 31 and 32: Lesson learned: The pre‐training
Page 33 and 34: Recommendation: With the prevailing

Recommendation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?