|
 |
|
|
Origins of FANRPAN
Origins of FANRPAN
The founders of FANRPAN were a group of economic and agricultural
economics research institutes in universities, public policy units or para-public research institutes.
Their regional network to encourage the exchange of skills, information and experiences and to
coordinate comparative research is a logical response where skills in the region may be
dispersed, there is little institutional memory and individual expertise is isolated. It was endorsed
by the Ministers of Agriculture and ten research and policy institutions signed the Constitution of
FANRPAN.
In order to achieve the original intention to promote appropriate agricultural and natural resources
policy, FANRPAN focused on: 1) improving policy research, analysis and formulation on key
themes in the southern Africa region; 2) developing human and institutional capacity for
coordinated policy dialogue, and 3) improving policy decision-making through the generation,
exchange and use of policy-related information. In recent years, FANRPAN has placed
increasing emphasis on managing policy dialogues and knowledge management, complementing
its research and analysis roles.
In its Strategy 2002-2007, FANRPAN highlighted priorities for policy research in seven thematic areas:
-
technology development and adoption,
-
natural resources management as a source of comparative advantage,
-
trade and market liberalization,
-
capacity building to enhance productivity,
-
natural resource conservation,
-
land reform,
-
information and communications management.
Since the publication of the initial strategy in 2002, FANRPAN has carried out useful research
and analysis in four key areas, all consistent with its mandate and important to the region, but
primarily reflecting the willingness of donors to provide funding. These four areas were:
-
markets and trade,
-
HIV/AIDS and agriculture,
-
biotechnology policy, and
-
rural livelihoods.
The critical issue of funding is highlighted in the nature of FANRPAN’s activities and adaptation to
funding:
-
governance has been assured through the voluntarism of a few key board members;
-
coordination has been constrained by the lack of core funds for secretariat services at regional
and national level (in only one year out of four, has there been funding for a full-time coordinator,
and
-
the ability to develop and sustain longer-term research or to implement the full policychange
cycle is compromised (over 30 short term projects commissioned, with only 2 with a
duration of over 15 months).
|
|
|
- - -
|
|
|
