Quality for Governance for Nutrition, June 2014

8/9/2019 Quality for Governance for Nutrition, June 2014

1/18


2/18

2

The research base on nutritiongovernance,

“is limited to a handful of studies…[and]

systematic evidence about processesrelated

to intersectoral and multisectoralintegration

of actions is urgently needed.”

Gillespie et al. 2!"#$ Lancet paper 4

%e need to understand the barriers toactors

&or'ing at the interface of agriculture

and nutrition(

“)sing a variety of methods, &e need to*nd out

the follo&ing from these actors(

+o& much do they 'no& aboutnutrition

%hat do they thin' could be done”


3/18

#

PoSHAN policy process studyquestions(repeat panels, ofce holders, 2013201!" #

in conte$t o% national &ultiSectorNutrition Plan

". %hat metrics eectively 0measure1 nutrition

governance

2. s stronger nutrition governance associated&ith better

nutrition outcomes over time


4/18

4

5unaula +a3ar

6o5+78 research *eld sites 2"$

/ulti-5ector 8utrition 6lan


5/18

9

5ource( 6o5+78 survey data 2!"

'evel nstitution)ndividual

8ational 6olicy ma'ers, donors, international non-governmental organi3ations 8G:s$,academics

;egional ;egional 7dministrator, /inistries of +ealth,7griculture, evelopment, implementing 8G:s

la'a :?ces of +ealth, 7griculture,


6/18

E

hat is -easured.

Aommitment willingness to act $)nderstand and accept responsibility in multi-sector policy, senior management support, desire

to &or' across line ministries, incentives, etc.

Aapacity capacity to act $6osts *lled, adeIuate s'ills, purposive training,frustrations, resources available, disincentives,

bureaucracy, etc.

Aoherence horizontal and verticalcollaboration$

>egrees of agreement on nutrition problems,riorit actions needed, oint o&nershi of


7/18

veryone see nutrition prole-s the sa-e a

&in

Agri

c

&in

Healt

h

&in

at

er

&in

4ducati

on

&in

'ocal

/ev

o-e

n in

/ev

5oodProductio

n

44K 42 #" 92 #F 4

/isease 4! 99 4E 4H #F "9lliteracy FH F H4 FH F2 H9Poor

6reast%ee

ding

! "H "9 E H "F

7ultural

taoos

22 22 "9 "9 "9 2!


8/18

H

veryone see nutrition prole-s the sa-e a

High

levels

govern

8 (N9:;"

'oer

level

gov

8 (N2


9/18

F

ncy o% vies on>o pro-ote crosssector collaoration %or nutr

Highe

r

levelgov

8

'oe

r

levelgov

8

:; F9KA 6-value

Strong

-anage-ent

support

F ".2# !.",

2."""

!.49"!

?oint

responsiility

#! "H ".F# ".#4E,

2.E!

!.!!!#

&andatory

-echanis-

#! F 4.#2 2.9,

E.#9

L.!!!"

7apacity "# "" ".22 !.E, !.#FH2


10/18

"!

ncy o% vies on>

o pro-ote crosssector collaoration %or nutr

Health

sector

8

(n*12

3"

Non

health

sector

8 (n

:32"

:; F9KA 6-value

Strong

-anage-ent

support

H F !.H !.42F,

".94

!.EF#9

?oint

responsiility

2# 2E !.H9 !.944,

".#2E

!.4#2

&andatory

or@ing

-echanis-

"9 2# !.9H !.#4,

!.FE4

!.!#4!


11/18

""

onal -ultisector nutrition plan rollout districts


12/18

"2

istency o% vies on>

hallenges in -ultisector policy rollout&SNP

sites

8

(n*;:

"

All

other

sites 8

(n*;93

"

:; F9K A 6 value

Sufciently

consulted on

nutrition issues

4" 29 2."" ".2H!!,

#.4E#"

!.!!2

5req discuss

nutrition ith

colleagues

4! 24 2." ".24E,#.4""

!.!!#

nstitutional

hurdles aect

collaoration

4F 2H 2.4 ".9"49,4.!2"9

!.!!!2

7olleagues in 9H 4" ".F9 "."FHF, !.!!E


13/18

"#

7onsistency o% vies on>

challenges to eective -ultisector or@on nutrition &SNP

sites 8

All

other

sites

8

:; F9K A 6

valu

e

'ac@ Bnancial

resources

# 4F !.E2 !.#",".!2"H

!.!4

Political

inter%erence

9 "9 !.## !.""H4,

!.F2F2

!.!

#'ac@

coordination

"4 F ". !.H2,

#.4HF4

!.!

4

Cely on

e$ternal aid,donor driven

"! "2 !.H2 !.#E2",

".H444

!.!

#


14/18

"4

/istricts ithest and leastchanges in

stunting 200;2011


15/18

"9

&osti-proved sites

8

'easti-proved

sites 8

:; F9K A 6 value

Beel unable to

respond

eectively

#4 9H !.#

!.2"!,

!.E4!

!.!!!4

>iscussed

stunting in pastmonth

29 "" 2.E

".24H,

9.EHH

!.!!F9

Trained in agD

lstoc' in past #y

"9 H 2.!

4

!.H#H,

#.!2#

!.""!F

Trained in

nutrition

F "F !.4

"

!."H2,

!.F#F

!.!#""

istency o% vies on>

llenges across est vs orst per%or-ing district


16/18

Preli-inary conclusions

". Governance elements commitment, capacity,coherence$ vary across sectors, levels ofgovernment, and location /ust tailor incentives,information, training.

2. Be& even /o7$ claim that 0more food1 is the solution to

nutrition problems. Mut little agreement on 'ey

actions.

#. =Npression of &illingness to collaborate acrosssectorsO but

uncertainty on ho& to do that.


17/18

"

ays %orard.

". 5tudy of nutrition 0governance1 still in itsinfancy. /ethods and methodologicalchallenges must be &idely shared.

2. =ncouraging *ndings( ts possible to measure policy processes

motivation, commitment to collaboration

across sectors, &illingness to act, capacity toact$. ;eal 0action1 is at sub-national level. Puality of nutrition governance lin'ed

measurably$ to impact. %orth eNploring

more.


18/18

&any collaorators

Quality for Governance for Nutrition, June 2014

Documents