1. Dr He Changchui, Assistant Director-General (ADG) of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAP), delivered the welcoming remarks while Dr Mafa Chipeta, Director of the FAO Policy Assistance Division (FAO-TCA), gave the opening speech, which highlighted the features of Asia and the role of FAO in development work, thus setting the tone for policy discussions. Dr Arsenio M. Balisacan, Director of the SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), likewise helped set the atmosphere by providing the appropriate political and development backdrop. The general message sent to workshop participants was that countries in Asia shared the primary development goal of reducing hunger and extreme poverty through policy work and regional collaboration. Mr Chipeta noted that good policy work is essential, but examples of these must be made known to a larger audience to be of value. On the part of SEAMEO SEARCA, Dr Balisacan reported that the workshop was one of the avenues through which the regional centre hoped to enter the mainstream work of poverty alleviation, a major objective boldly and clearly indicated in the centre’s Eighth Five-Year Plan along with the attainment of food security.
2. H.E. Shin Sakurai, Japanese lawmaker and current Chairperson of the Food Security Committee of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD), emphasized in his message that while the world population has been continually rising, the earth’s resource base remains limited. Moreover, at present, a phenomenal increase in food production is not expected. Because of this, solving the population issue is deemed essential to achieving sustainable development. He added that World Trade Organization (WTO) rules must be consistent with the concept of food security and that workshop participants must work to create more advanced rules that allow for cooperation and follow the principles of competitiveness and harmonization in their respective countries. These are believed to be important undertakings as there are still many big issues in the area of food security.
3. Dr Balisacan subsequently presented the keynote paper entitled "Averting hunger and food insecurity in Asia". The paper comprehensively reviewed the current status of poverty and hunger in the region vis-à-vis the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) while assessing agricultural growth and rural performance in relation to poverty and food insecurity. It also examined the implications of emerging (and recurring) policy and institutional issues on agricultural organization, rural growth and poverty and hunger reduction while incorporating emerging paradigms in development economics.
4. The following were the issues raised by participants during the open forum that followed the presentation:
a. Dr James Roumasset of the University of Hawaii pointed out that the 12 percent share of government expenditure allotted to price stabilization was too high, adding that if one considered the full cost (i.e. including the access burden), the percentage would be much higher. He said that previous studies have shown that geography does not matter much in determining income levels, but institutions do (e.g. Rodrik et al. 2002). He cited as an example the economy of Catanduanes, a small island in the Philippines that remains isolated because of natural and policy-induced trade barriers. In this economy, there is zero export and people depend more on remittances and other income generated outside the province. With no export-led growth, the economy is hence allegedly stagnant.
Dr Roumasset then identified common issues related to geography such as high shipping and general transportation costs, which have an impact on food security. He also highlighted the hypothesis that globalization is neutral while raising the idea that efficiency-enhancing growth benefits the poor. In this sense, if globalization indeed increases efficiency, then factoring the negatives (e.g. environmental degradation) into the resulting improvements in trade still allows the net effect of the globalization process to be pro-poor. He further stated that completing the process could help eliminate the bias between poor and developed countries.
b. Dr Sang Mu Lee, Chairperson of the Global Agricultural Policy Institute (GAPI), broached three points related to "conditioning factors" that influence the response of the rural non-farm sector to the stimulus of agricultural growth. The first touched on the need for greater focus on factor markets, particularly in regard to market potential, in order to shed light on what may be another driving factor behind demand creation. The second related to the importance of examining the management factor (and not only the technical factor), especially in terms of the skills needed in the area of information and risk management and finance. The third referred to the need to study the relationship between agricultural and rural development both in the agriculture and non-agriculture sector given the importance of linkages in income growth theory.
c. Dr GS Bhalla of the Center for the Study of Regional Development (CSRD), meanwhile, respectfully requested that poverty figures for India be reviewed as the latest survey results (NSS 2000) show poverty incidence to be less than 36 percent while the paper reported it to be about 48 percent. He also said that assessment of a direct relationship between agricultural growth and rural poverty would have made the results of the study more robust considering that rural poverty accounts for a greater share of total poverty in Asia. He commended the author’s approach to globalization and said it was presented in proper perspective. He added that greater details on the declared limits of globalization should have been presented to support the general points stated in the paper.
d. Dr Dilli Raj Khanal of the Institute of Policy Research and Development (IPRD) raised questions on the impact of globalization, the link between trade and agricultural growth and the transmission mechanism required to bring about a positive effect on the rural economy. He also drew attention to issues related to the status of factor markets and their link to the product market, especially under a liberalized environment. He added that issues concerning relative prices and the creation of an environment that provides incentives for farmers should also be analysed.
e. Mr Materne Maetz of the FAO Agricultural Policy Support Service (FAO-TCAS) brought up two important points. The first related to the need for further analysis of the type of growth that facilitates poverty alleviation given existing evidence of a strong correlation between growth and poverty reduction. This implied the conduct of studies on the composition of growth and how it influences poverty as well as on the impact of agriculture and off-farm enterprise development on poverty reduction. The second point, which he said required further study as well, pertained to the failure of food security and nutrition indicators to improve substantially despite a very good response of poverty reduction to the growth stimulus. He then inquired about analytical work that related agricultural or rural growth to food security indicators to improve understanding of these relationships. He added that greater information was needed to be able to comprehend the dynamics involved and to isolate the lessons from experiences of countries performing less favourably in Asia as well as in other regions.
f. Dr Balisacan responded by stating that the workshop was designed precisely to elicit such questions and identify policy issues that may be addressed in terms of modeling, empirical econometric work and simulation modeling. He said most agriculture models indeed lacked feedback mechanisms but reported that ways to bring the rural non-farm component into the picture were already being explored. He added that the issue of public spending was of concern and agreed that factor and product markets should be understood more fully, especially in terms of the interaction between the urban and rural areas via the labour market. Moreover, future growth in the food and agriculture sector depended mainly on productivity increases and that change in agriculture required improvement in agriculture technology. The question le. for the participants to ponder upon was this: "Can research systems of developing countries maintain strong agricultural research and development (R&D) programmes and ensure productivity growth?"
5. Dr Jikun Huang, Director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP), presented the first thematic paper, which he originally wrote together with Dr Ruifa Hu of CCAP and Dr Scott Rozelle of the University of California in Davis. The study focused on China’s agricultural R&D, namely the reforms needed, challenges faced and the implications of policy changes for other developing countries. In his presentation, Dr Huang reviewed the existing structure of the Chinese agricultural research system, examined the trends and structure of agricultural research financing and revenues in the country and discussed the current reforms and policies. He concluded by presenting policy recommendations tailored for the Chinese Government while citing their relevance to developing countries in general.
6. The open forum that followed the presentation drew the following responses:
a. Dr Roumasset raised the issue of maintaining performance standards and accountability when expenditures are decentralized. He noted that decentralization would often lead to rent seeking activities of politicians as experienced by countries that have undergone the process (e.g. Philippines). He also suggested that the priorities on public subsidies be appropriately expanded. In particular, cash crop and hybrid seeds can be handled by the commercial sector while the crossbred variety and staple foods can be publicly supported since the beneficiary is the poor household.
b. Dr Dyaa Abdou, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Regional Office for the Near East (FAO-RNEP), gave the following observations. First, he expressed hope that the strategy for agriculture research in China would coincide with the overall strategy of sustainable agriculture and food security in the region, the reason being that sometimes strategies are crafted in isolation of actual priorities of the country and without regard to the strategic framework for development in the region. Second, he believed that whenever agriculture research is discussed, policy-oriented issues must always be included. While many studies refer to the technical aspect of agriculture, very little attention is given to the actual economic environment. Third, he said issues related to the applications of research, technology transfer and extension work should be further elaborated.
c. Mr Maetz then voiced the general concern over inadequate investment in research. This reportedly occurred even though various studies have already made an excellent case for investing in research. He further inquired into the availability of convincing qualitative evidence of the effectiveness of advocated reforms to support the author’s recommendations for change in the Chinese research system. He was particularly interested in how the management of research, especially in terms of the process of selecting research areas, affected the efficiency of resources utilized. Emphasis was also placed on strategies to ensure that research being conducted met the needs of farmers. He added that consideration should be given to qualitative indicators such as those associated with the availability of resources for the staff because these help in assessing research efficiency and in steering policy towards a more favourable direction.
d. Dr Bhalla similarly raised several key points. First, he called attention to the problem associated with using total research allocation as a measure of total research productivity given that a larger part of research expenditure often goes to the salaries of scientists with very little going to actual research (e.g. Nepal and Bangladesh). He reminded everyone to be careful about using such criteria. Second, he mentioned the role of public and private sector in R&D, stating that agriculture research at present has become very costly and is virtually monopolized by multinational research institutes. He ended by posing the question: "How do developing countries confront this issue of dependence on multinationals for research?"
e. Dr Nipon Poapongsakorn, Senior Consultant at the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), reported that the situation in China was similar to that in Thailand where there was also underinvestment in research and understaffing of agricultural research institutions. Although public research in agriculture is vital, the limited number of good researchers hinders performance in that area. Thus, he said one problem that ought to be addressed was designing a system capable of attracting highly skilled researchers.
f. Dr Lee highlighted the relationship of agriculture research to extension work, stressing how the latter is just as or even more important in terms of practical results. He then asked the author’s perspective on China’s opening up of its R&D market to multinationals, especially the privately owned ones.
g. Ms Neela Gangadharan, Chief of FAO-TCAS, emphasized that public research served as the hero during the green revolution because results could easily be seen on the ground. She asked whether public research remained demand driven and inquired into the results of public research that justify its need for financial support. She also pointed out that agricultural research that prioritizes environmental stability must also consider cost effects on farmers with regard to production, prices and output.
h. Dr Saifullah Syed, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAPP), raised questions regarding the design or system for distribution of research in China. He then noted the possible effects of privatization on research, specifically in terms of the impact on poor farmers’ access to research output.
i. Dr Balisacan commented that governments usually do not look at agriculture research activities in view of the long term but rather treat these as short-term undertakings.
7. Dr Roumasset then delivered his thematic paper, which focused on the topic of rural institutions, agricultural development and pro-poor economic growth. To gain understanding of relevant issues, he applied a conceptual framework that contrasted sharply with conventional wisdom, citing several examples principally from the Southeast Asian region to illustrate his points.
8. The open forum that followed elicited the following responses:
a. Dr Bhalla emphasized issues related to equity and then asked why interventions that were meant to alleviate poverty ultimately ended up achieving very little for target beneficiaries.
b. Dr Poapongsakorn asked if pushing for agricultural development could actually benefit the rural poor given the existence of rural non-farm households that earn their income from the non-agricultural sector. In relation to this, he inquired about mechanisms to ensure that the poor gain from agricultural rural development. Lastly, he wanted to know if the author had an alternative model that explained share tenancy given that the paper criticized the mainstream (Stiglitz) model.
c. Dr Khanal noted that the whole argument presented in the paper was based on new institutional theory and that the various empirical studies mentioned were somehow based on the social delivery principle. He claimed that the initial conditions in traditional societies were different from what the theories assumed. As an example, most people in the agrarian system had less than 0.5 hectares of land, with the share of the landless population increasing over time. He suggested that an alternative policy to address hunger and food insecurity be forwarded bearing in mind that societies are not homogenous. Differences occurred not only in terms of culture, he emphasized, but along social, political and economic dimensions as well.
d. Dr Abdou said he expected a broader discussion of agricultural institutions, particularly in terms of formal and informal arrangements and the possible role of such structures in enforcing policies concerning water scarcity, pollution, management, food security and poverty alleviation. A larger picture of rural institutions that includes organization, decision-making processes, property rights, regulations and laws was observed to be missing. He said he hoped to hear more about the regional aspect of building institutional capacity and fostering cooperation among countries although he clarified that this omission was true not only for this presentation but for earlier presentations as well.
He also suggested the addition of empirical results, which he believed could enrich the paper more than the theoretical framework in marketing and credit. He added his own notes on the issue of subsidy, reiterating that financial support given to the farmers should have associated criteria, as it would be difficult to discuss the topic without also discussing target groups. The last point he raised touched on the special programme for food security, which aimed to increase farmers’ incomes through diversification and intensification of production. He said this provided a good occasion for testing the theories on land tenure and decision-making mentioned in the paper.
e. Dr Lee stated that rural institutions were widely acknowledged to be politically important in developing countries. He then aired the problem of how to handle institutional reforms considering the political behaviour and environment of these countries.
f. Dr Chipeta highlighted the change in the state of poverty in Asia. He cited that the number of poor people has actually gone down quite swiftly, implying a rapid transformation of the economy. In light of this development, he emphasized that although more people have become landless, they were not necessarily worse off. He hypothesized that the situation in Asia might eventually become similar to that in Europe where the landless number among the most food secure and where people work outside of the agriculture economy (e.g. only 5 percent of the people own the land). This, he averred, could be the scenario in 50 to 70 years, at which time landlessness might no longer feature as an issue surrounding food security. He added that under conditions of rapid change, dynamism played an important role. In this context, the vital question is whether or not institutions are adaptable to transformations in the economy.
g. Dr Syed pointed out that as long as the institutional aspect was not addressed, development efforts would not be very successful. He further stated that institutions embodied the efficient response within any socio-economic milieu at any time and hence represented the most fundamental element in the organization for economic development.
h. Dr Antiporta meanwhile requested the author to further elaborate in his paper what he believed could be a suitable pro-poor credit policy or programme.
i. Dr Roumasset responded to the comments by stating that the conceptual framework rationalizing existing institutions was flawed. He explained that there were two forces that shaped institutions - efficiency and government failure. In addition, he said there were two types of government failure: the presence of subsidies that pervert incentives and cause moral hazard and the failure to provide the infrastructure for cooperation. Infrastructure, he said, included not only physical infrastructure but also the legal framework or rule of law (e.g. based on the principle of equality or absence of discrimination). He emphasized that it would be difficult to determine whether or not an institution was "efficient" because these two forces were entirely different.
This does not preclude though that an institution may already be efficient by itself, thus undermining the logic of many government intervention programmes, Dr Roumasset added. He cited Dr Yujiro Hayami’s favourite example of land reform in the Philippines. In this case, share tenancy was substituted by permanent labour, which turned out to be less efficient. He also cited Dr Balisacan’s paper where elasticity of economic growth on poverty reduction was shown to be as high as 3 but where the mixture of efficiency and inefficiency pulled it down to 1. The problem with all the attempted interventions (e.g. directed credit, government sponsored cooperatives and land reform), he said, was that these only contributed to retarding economic growth and have proven to be unsustainable.
Another kind of government failure cited by the author was the pervasiveness of rent seeking in governments. The National Food Authority of the Philippines, for example, was reportedly anti-poor and anti-growth because it directly contributed to shrinking the size of the country’s economic pie and worsening income distribution. While government price stabilization sounded good, it has been found to be massively wasteful and destabilizing.
On comments about the definition of institutions, he replied that this generally included organization, contracts, relationships and the nature of firms, while the apparatus of new institutional economics also included regional cooperation. Principles related to game theory, he emphasized, can be very useful in enhancing cooperative engagement.
He shed light on another aspect of new institutional economics, which recognizes three different levels of analysis of the agricultural setting: the old (first best) level, which has proven to be helpful in explaining the terms of contractual relationships in the rural environment; the second best level, which emphasized the presence of transaction costs; and the third best way, as pioneered by Dr Balisacan, which recognized the political economy of the existing environment, explicitly taking the rules of the games as endogenous (instead of exogenous). Formation of different coalitions in society and government influence must be fully understood if cooperation towards development is the goal, and this new type of economics helps provide the tools.
Dr Roumasset further clarified that institutions are not presumed efficient, but theory says that abstracting from political economy makes it efficient (i.e. rent-seeking activities take place if political economy is considered). He also clarified that agency theory could already suitably explain the 50 percent sharing rate in existing tenancy arrangements and that a consistent model could thus be built.
On the subject of pro-poor credit, he reported that although microfinance has emerged as a model, it was not expected to be completely financially self-sustaining. He said the World Bank should be able to provide management assistance and even subsidize administrative operations in order to maintain the incentives for selecting good clients.
As regards the issue of subsidy vs. privatization, he said there was already a widening consensus that directed subsidies did not work. He added that privatization was clearly the ideal way forward although more study would be needed to be able to design a hybrid model.
9. Presentations made by members of invited institutions marked the second day of the workshop. Mr Kyoung-soo Hong of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF) discussed the topic of Korean agricultural cooperatives followed by Dr Akio Yamamoto, executive director of the JA-ZENCHU Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives, who similarly tackled issues relating to Japanese agricultural cooperative development. Dr Khanal of IPRD from Nepal and Ms Rosemarie G. Edillon, Executive Director of the Asia-Pacific Policy Center (APPC) in the Philippines, likewise presented their current research work in the area of food security and poverty reduction. Dr Linxiu Zhang, Deputy Director of CCAP, presented his view on social viability, gender and food security with a focus on China.
10. Dr Antiporta of FAO-RAPP and Dr Tirso Paris of UPLB then discussed an overview of the regional policy assistance work carried out within the framework of GCP/RAS/188/JPN on agricultural policy simulation as applied to Indonesia, the Philippines and China.
Support to the Policy Assistance Branch (Project GCP/RAS/188/JPN)
11. The following were the issues and concerns addressed to the presenters:
a. Dr Roumasset noted that supply stabilization was generally quite difficult to undertake. He added that among the issues that also needed to be considered were trade, international prices and wages. He also commented that the unemployed in the population were apparently not waiting to acquire skills before seeking jobs but were creating activities for self-employment as seen in the studies.
b. Mr Roberto Samanez, Chief of the FAO Field Programme Development Service (FAO-TCAP), inquired why the research covered only Indonesia, China and the Philippines and not other countries such as Viet Nam, Cambodia or Lao People’s Democratic Republic.
c. Dr Khanal asked questions related to stability in the micro and macro sense as well as to the policy implications of the zero hunger programme.
d. Dr Bhalla emphasized results that illustrated how with urban wages higher than farm wages and non-farm incomes higher than rural wages, the incidence of poverty was markedly higher in rural areas.
e. TCAS representatives meanwhile commented that analytical results and specific policy recommendations from the studies were much desired.
f. Dr Antiporta explained in response that the zero hunger programme was only a partial study. On the issues surrounding stabilization, he stressed that what was visualized was not a buffer stock or a form of government support. He also averred that while the goal of "zero hunger" tended to be criticized and labeled as unattainable, there was nothing wrong with making it a vision for future development. In the case of Philippines, he said, zero hunger might even be achievable within five years and that small farmers expected income to improve. He further clarified that the programme would eventually cover other countries in order to guide future policy reforms.
12. The programme was then opened up to all participants, including FAO officials in attendance. Below is a summary of the discussion that marked the last portion of the workshop:
a. Dr Abdou of FAO-RNEP expressed appreciation of the meeting as it turned out to be both informative and useful. He highlighted some of the main topics tackled, namely institutional capacity building, the role of governments in policy development and the directions taken at the regional and country levels. He noted that the concerns discussed at the workshop were similar to countries in the Middle East, although agriculture contributes very little to national income in this region. He believed that the inappropriate involvement of government in development distorted the market mechanism. Too much subsidies in agriculture, for instance, could lead to misuse of inputs (e.g. chemicals and fertilizers, which also represent environmental hazards), he said. He then highlighted the problems endemic in subsidy and subsidy redistribution systems. Other issues underscored by Dr Abdou dealt with diverse topics such as water resources management, livestock development, organic farming, regional collaboration and the importance of working with governments in developing strategies on agricultural issues.
b. Mr Madhy Bamba, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the Regional Office for Africa (FAO-RAFP), informed workshop participants that the Africa Ministers of Agriculture in 2001 developed a Comprehensive Agriculture Development Programme (CADP), which formed part of the vision called the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The agriculture component (which included access to land and agricultural infrastructure, control of water, production and productivity) was subsequently agreed upon in June 2002. He added that commitments have been made until 2015 to work in this direction and suggestions have been raised to introduce fishing, forestry and livestock in the list of priority areas for development. He further reported that the activity of the FAO Regional Office for Africa at present involves assisting countries in updating their policies and strategies to make these consistent with key areas identified in the CADP. Moreover, assistance is now given at the country level in order to craft a national programme that is coherent with the global practices defined in the programme. He added that a major component of the CADP has been to promote regional integration and encourage development activities that have regional impact and focus.
c. Mr Kidane of SAFP put emphasis on the recurrent drought in their subregion (Southern and Eastern Africa) and said that countries traditionally considered as food secure were now becoming increasingly food insecure. After structural adjustment, the region reportedly still grapples with the impact and hence strategies to reverse the situation are currently given utmost priority.
He then raised the issue on the outcomes of liberalization whereby many countries have withdrawn from their involvement in production, marketing and service provision. He reported that their policy office was working along these lines, citing a study on the impact of such reforms on food security issues. He also cited the existence of another study done with colleagues in the FAO system that discussed the mitigating impact of structural adjustment on the input/output market in remote areas. The FAO-SAFP is also currently promoting the "Never Again" slogan, which the countries have begun to adopt and emphasize. This slogan, he said, embodied the commitment to avoidance of repeated hunger and thus emphasized that addressing the food scarcity problem was top priority.
Mr Kidane meanwhile raised issues related to the HIV disease, citing a particular country in Africa as the area most severely affected and where the proportion of infected people ranges from 20 to 38 percent. Policy instruments are clearly needed to mitigate such problems, he said.
He then highlighted land related issues resulting from a colonial past and said their organization needed to respond to these challenges. The last area of concern he mentioned related to economic integration, particularly with respect to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, which declared the region a free trade area with zero tariffs. He reported that the policy office helps in terms of addressing both institutional dimensions and imminent issues (e.g. pertaining to rules of origin and common external tariffs).
d. Mr David Sedik, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Regional Office for Eastern Europe (REUP), noted how the importance of agriculture varied in each country, with less weight assigned to the sector in countries that had very little agriculture involvement. He added that participation in capacity building and training in policy areas ought to be strengthened. Issues surrounding rural development and policy assistance given directly to people instead of to governments were also raised.
e. Mr Luis Gomez-Oliver, Chief of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (FAO-RLCP), emphasized that increasing food security and promoting rural development were also important in light of the present economic conditions in their region, where the increase in per capita income in many countries averaged at only about 1 percent. To date, agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean contributes 7 percent to GDP and 20 to 40 percent to employment. He pointed out that the relationship between agriculture growth and food security might not always be positive but that increased food security could certainly aid in mitigating poverty. Agricultural development basically characterized rural development in many countries, he said, adding that there was a need for improvement in agriculture productivity and improvement of market and processing facilities.
f. Ms Gangadharan of TCAS then presented a paper related to distance learning of agriculture, food and rural development policies in Asia.
g. Dr Khanal likewise presented a brief report on food security, macropolicies and politics that provided economic and social perspectives. He also highlighted various issues relating to multilateral involvement, the countervailing role played by institutions such as the FAO, market and non-farm employment and land policy that followed market principles.
h. Dr Lee expressed his appreciation of the meeting and extended his congratulations to workshop organizers. In his position as Chairperson of the FAO Korea Association, he announced that he was willing to similarly collaborate with both FAO and SEARCA. He added he was willing to do the same as Chairperson of the Asia-Pacific Agriculture Policy Forum, currently composed of five country institutions including CCAP in China, the Pertarnian Institute in Indonesia, GAPI in the Republic of Korea, APPC in the Philippines, with other members from Malaysia, Nepal and Thailand. He said it is hoped that other countries in the Asia and Pacific region would also be included in future and that contact with the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Latin American countries would be established. In agreement with FAO-RAP ADG Mr Changchui, he suggested that a regional policy and research network be formed together with the relevant FAO regional office and SEARCA. He appealed to Japan, Republic of Korea and other potential donors to support this endeavor. Meanwhile, he also highlighted the gender issues raised by Dr Linxiu Zhang.
13. Dr Chipeta likewise extended his gratitude to the workshop organizers and assured the group of their readiness to cooperate and build upon the issues presented. He appealed to the group to find a way to spread the message regarding the various policy concerns and thus generate greater policy opportunities. He said there should be a drive to share the knowledge with and solicit support from people who govern the bigger economy, especially the decision-makers who set national policy priorities.
14. In closing, Dr Balisacan thanked the group for their active participation and productive discussion of policy concerns. He emphasized the accessibility of the papers presented in the website of SEARCA and FAO and urged everyone to view the exercise as a work in progress. He said that regional collaboration would certainly enrich policy advice given to national governments. Furthermore, he hoped that the discussions would spread beyond the walls of the workshop hall and lead to more solid policy advice. The appropriate venue for further discussion of the issues, he said, included the halls of congress and the executive branches of governments, the occupants of which had the greatest means to advance food security via better policy. He concluded the meeting by expressing his sincere appreciation for the opportunity given to collaborate with FAO and promised workshop participants that SEARCA would continue to pursue similar forms of cooperation with other organizations in the region.
