FAO index page AG index page

Programmes / Projects

Project Impacts
Institutional impacts
The PPLPI contributed significantly to the recognition that pro-poor social and economic outcomes can best be mediated through processes of policy and institutional change has gained greater currency in development circles. One of the difficulties associated with such approaches, however, is that there is often a long lag before tangible benefits can be appreciated and measured. Nevertheless, PPLPI’s specific influence can be seen in:
International organisations: Livestock sector-related organisations such as AU-IBAR, WB and the ALive platform, ILRI and IGAD to name some, at least in part through working with PPLPI (The IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative GCP/INT/963/EC, is an offshoot of PPLPI), have enhanced their awareness of the importance of livestock sector policies for poverty reduction and increased their capacity for providing policy guidance. Co-funding of the South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme (SA-PPLPP), which has assumed a regional mandate, by India’s National Dairy Development Board can also be seen as evidence for the enhanced ‘policy awareness’ of large national organizations.
Member nations: Countries in which PPLPI has engaged in selected policy processes (Peru, UEMOA countries, Uganda, Andhra Pradesh in India and Viet Nam) have strengthened their livestock sector formulation capacity through ‘learning by doing’ as well as through targeted, applied capacity-building events / workshops. Livestock sector policy relevant material is being disseminated through the PPLPI as well as through the EASYPOL website of FAO’s Policy Assistance Division (TCA) expanding the project impact beyond the countries in which PPLPI is directly active. In terms of establishing modes of working within member countries building on the FAO representation and local institutions, the 2008 evaluation of FAO’s cooperation with India states: “The SAPPLPP process was a very good example of public-private partnership at the sub-regional level: its usefulness as a model will depend very much on FAO’s capacity to draw lessons from the experience and apply these more widely.”
FAO: The 21st COAG urged “that FAO allocate a greater share of total available resources to supporting member countries in the formulation of livestock sector policies, plans and programmes and in leveraging resources for their implementation.”

The new structure of AGA’s regular programme has embedded ‘information’ and ‘strategy, policy and institutional development’ in its programme entities / organisational results (livestock and economic growth / poverty reduction; livestock and natural resources management, incl. animal genetic resources; and management of animal and human health threats) which demonstrates AGA’s endeavour to institutionalize policy and institutional change capacity within the organization and to transform from a Division that focussed mainly on providing technical assistance to one that provides strategic guidance at higher decision levels while maintaining its technical roots.


Comments: AGA-Webmaster