Shahid Khalil

Food security is not just about providing enough food to the people that satisfy their hunger. The quality of food is important as well.
Unfortunately, these two aspects of food are looked after by different departments that lack coordination.

In Pakistan, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture ensures that the country produces enough food for its 180 million people. If there are any shortages it arranges imports with the coordination of the Ministry of Finance. The aspect of malnutrition is dealt with by the Ministry of Health. There is no connection or little interaction between the Ministry of Food and Agriculture and the Ministry of Health. This is the reason that during years when the country produces enough grain and livestock the problem of malnutrition remains unresolved. The nutrition experts need cooperation of the Ministry of Education in school-feeding programs.

The distribution of quality food having enough nutrients to ensure the uniform health of the entire population is a dilemma for the developing countries and efforts are being made to ensure multi-sector coordination to achieve this objective.

Experts agree that multisectoral programs are the most effective way to tackle malnutrition. Still, despite general agreement that multisectoral actions (if not programs per se) are the best way to reduce malnutrition, many observers believe that multisectoral planning and coordination are simply too difficult to carry out.

Doing more and doing it systematically has appeal when most of what is done (in regard to interventions for nutrition) is so limited and inadequate. The dilemma is that comprehensive understanding often leads to highly complex interventions with lots of interdependencies; and these overwhelm the capacities of weak institutions and make action reliant on coordinated efforts by lots of different actors who do not particularly appreciate being harnessed to, and subordinated by, the requirements of a comprehensive plan.
The main question is how to facilitate collaboration vertically and horizontally across interrelated sectors, ministries, and actors inside and outside government.

Commonly cited obstacles to such cooperation include the following:-

Each agency seeks to preserve its autonomy and independence, which can be compromised through cooperation with other agencies.

Agencies have different visions, goals, routines, and procedures.
Agencies and individuals may conflict in terms of technical understanding of the problem and appropriate solutions. Organisational capacities and power may be uneven across the partners in collaboration, affecting abilities to make and implement decisions.

They may also face different timelines for action. Organisational coordination, alignment, and synchronization can become difficult.

Agencies have different political constituencies to which they respond and, often, different structures for accountability. Different constituencies can bring different expectations and pressures to bear on each agency. The various pressures for action can actually pull agencies in different directions.
Working multisectorally may not be a guiding principle for government or for outside interest groups, including potential beneficiaries.

Thus, incentives (political, organizational, and personal) for multisectoral action may be weak, as perceived benefits do not overcome the costs of coordination. This factor seems to be particularly relevant in the case of nutrition.

International and national commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) has further galvanized support for social and economic development. The MDGs include nutrition as an indicator, and many of them are interrelated and so encourage multisectoral analysis and action. Some observers have predicted that a collective initiative like the MDGs that explicitly recognizes the cross-sectoral and synergistic causalities will motivate increased interaction among sectors and ministries to treat problems as a set rather than individually.

Although many factors are likely to contribute to the success of multisectoral programs, effective collaboration is likely to be central among them. Collaboration is not a natural state of affairs for organizations. Government ministries and development organisations rarely place high premiums on collaboration outside of the sectors in which they work, and incentives for individuals in these organisations to step outside their sectors are unusual.
Collaboration requires adaptation of one's own way of doing things as well as understanding how to motivate others to participate in joint action. To take advantage of opportunities to work multisectorally, policymakers and programmers must clearly understand the motives, conditions, mechanisms, and processes that trigger and sustain multisectoral activities. None of this is easy to achieve.

Collaboration implies the existence of a partner, one who is interested in participating because of the potential to receive some benefit.
Often experts in nutrition who try to work across sectors or organisations seem to have forgotten the role of incentives and motivation, of demonstrating the benefits of collaboration to potential partners. Instead of understanding the needs of others, they use a nutrition-(or nutritionist) centric view. The question becomes less about how to promote collaboration between agencies and more about how to force uptake of one's own nutrition interests or perspectives into existing organisations, policies, projects, or programs.

The simple knowledge that cross-sectoral collaboration might help reduce malnutrition more rapidly, perhaps in a less expensive way, seems to have been the main element of persuasion. Because operational, individual, or institutional benefits were not clear and actors could apparently achieve reductions in malnutrition even without collaborating, individuals and institutions had little reason to vigorously pursue multisectoral efforts.

This lack of motivation may have much to do with the institutional culture and professional preparation or perspectives of those involved. Nutrition programmers or advocates often have backgrounds in science or research. The usual process is to conduct the research and then produce and present the evidence to decision makers. The approach is almost to say, "Here is the evidence. Now use it." There is limited planning or implementation of strategic communications that might help convince potential partners to cooperate, especially those in fields largely unfamiliar with nutrition who have different institutional missions and interests.

Using cooperation, agencies may be able to employ the same institutional channels to deliver or monitor services. Organisations can reduce transaction costs by avoiding redundant activities or creating dedicated mechanisms for cooperation. For example, cross-sectoral delivery systems between Ministries of Education and Health could complement one another in school feeding programs.

Different agencies may work to avoid duplication efforts as in conditional cash-transfer programs with nutrition-related conditions (such as requiring attendance at scheduled prenatal care visits), or when implementing a system for health and nutrition information-management and planning.

Collaboration itself can foster empowerment. Organising in support of a collaborative purpose can help participants understand how to work together (including through the integration of outside resources) to reach their agreed-on goals. Rapid Results Initiatives have taken this tack in addressing micronutrient malnutrition in several African countries, using time-bound, results-focused efforts to help normally rather disparate players come together and work to quickly achieve a common goal.

Source:WEEKLY CUTTING EDGE