William Richard’s Trichotomy typically categorises policies into three main perspectives, which are regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive. The regulative aspects refer to the formal rules, laws, and regulations that govern the implementation and monitoring mechanism. The normative pillar encompasses the values, norms, and expectations that guide behaviour, including ethical standards and professional responsibilities. The cultural-cognitive aspect refers to the shared understandings, beliefs, and cultural frameworks that shape behaviour, including how individuals and groups interpret institutional practices.
Scott’s Regulative Perspective:
Policy Coverage: The policy outlines various regulatory measures to ensure food security, such as improving food safety standards, enhancing agricultural productivity, and promoting sustainable practices. It also proposes mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation, such as establishing food security information systems and strengthening institutional networks. It also provides a framework to develop programs to enhance access to fortified, balanced, and diversified diets, clean drinking water, hygiene and sanitation facilities, and public health services in collaboration with local governments, donor agencies and city administration. It encourages developing institutional capacity to regulate and monitor food safety from pollutants and chemicals, accreditation of organic farming facilities, and implementation of relevant provisions of the National Environment Policy 2005 for food safety throughout the supply chain of food products.
National Food Security Policy 2018 is a comprehensive policy which focuses on all four aspects of food security while addressing the agriculture and its allied cross-cutting themes, including climate change, disaster management, water consumption, micro credit, seed certification, fertilisers, pesticides, and land management.
Policy Omissions: The policy lacks formal rules & regulations and a clear enforcement mechanism to ensure its implementation. For example, there is no detailed plan for ensuring compliance with food safety standards or environmental regulations. The financial and human resources required for effective regulation are not adequately addressed, raising concerns about implementation capacity. The policy does not sufficiently address coordination challenges between federal and provincial governments, particularly considering the devolution of agriculture and food security under the 18th amendment.
Scott’s Normative Perspective:
Policy Coverage: The policy emphasises the ethical responsibility of stakeholders, such as federal and provincial governments, policymakers, farmers, and private sector actors, to play their part in ensuring food security and sustainability. It promotes norms of equity and inclusion, such as targeting vulnerable populations (e.g., women, children, and small-scale farmers) in food security interventions.
Policy Omissions: The policy is lacking in clearly guiding the responsibility of stakeholders (e.g. farmers, food processors, and policymakers) to ensure food safety and environmental sustainability. It is unable to adequately address the power dynamics and conflicts of interest among stakeholders. For example, large agribusinesses may prioritise profits over environmental sustainability, while small farmers may lack the resources to comply with safety standards. The policy is silent regarding the promotion of gender-sensitive norms, such as the role of women in ensuring food safety at the household level or their participation in environmental conservation efforts.
Scott’s Cultural-Cognitive Perspective:
Policy Coverage: The policy recognises the role of public awareness campaigns in changing consumer behaviour, such as promoting the consumption of nutritious and environmentally friendly food products. It acknowledges the importance of traditional knowledge and practices in ensuring food security, such as indigenous methods of food preservation and organic farming.
Policy Omissions: The policy is lacking in incorporating traditional knowledge and practices into policy design, such as indigenous methods of food preservation or organic farming and launching public awareness campaigns to shift cultural attitudes toward food safety and environmental sustainability, emphasising the benefits of safe and sustainable practices.
Thus, it is observed that the NFSP 2018 policy, as per John Scott Trichomity, is weak in a regulatory perspective, though the desire to introduce food standards has been expressed in the policy, yet there are no formal rules, regulations or legislation introduced in the policy or indicated such intent to do so in the coming times. Regarding the normative perspective, the policy talks about the ethical values of stakeholders, but the defined roles of stakeholders are not given. Further, the policy is also weak in a cognitive perspective, as it has not introduced any planned activities to promote an awareness campaign to create apathy towards this policy.
Other major gaps of the policy that are deemed worth exploring are: Financial Arrangements: There’s limited information on how the programs under this policy will be funded. Programs like nutrition support for vulnerable groups (children under five and pregnant mothers) require robust financial backing. A clear budget and resource allocation plan would provide insight into the sustainability and scope of the initiative, which is lacking.
Implementation Mechanism: While the program outlines several action points, there’s a significant gap between policy formulation and on-the-ground implementation. The challenge lies in effective coordination among multiple ministries and agencies, e.g., the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, and the need for clear roles, accountability, and capacity building to ensure these ambitious goals translate into real outcomes.
Monitoring and Evaluation: The policy has outlined a monitoring and evaluation mechanism through Councils or Commission on specific activities under the umbrella of MNSFR vide para 8.1; however, considerable time has lapsed since issuance of the policy, but such an arrangement has not been put in place.
Infrastructure Gaps: The poor quality of infrastructure is a longstanding issue. Improved storage, grading systems, and road infrastructure, especially market access to farms in rural areas, are necessary to reduce post-harvest losses and improve overall food security. However, it’s unclear how the government plans to address the existing infrastructural deficits in rural areas where these problems are most severe. The condition of farm-to-market roads is very pathetic, and attention has not been given by any quarter to the development of these roads.
Lack of Cooperative Farming and Role of Private Sector: The policy has not covered cooperative agriculture farming to encourage the private sector to come forward through incentive schemes. In Pakistan, 90% of farmers are small landholders owning less than 12.5% acres of land; they are essential to agriculture and food security but face challenges like limited access to financing, quality inputs, and market representation. Hence, an increased number of small farmers is a major impediment to the productivity, profitability, and sustainability of the agriculture sector. Despite its potential, cooperative farming is not addressed in the National Food Security Policy, 2018. Whereas countries like China, India, and Japan have strengthened their cooperative farming to pave the way for small farmers towards access to credit, technologies, and markets.
Hence, National Food Security Policy 2018 is a comprehensive policy which focuses on all four aspects of food security while addressing the agriculture and its allied cross-cutting themes, including climate change, disaster management, water consumption, micro credit, seed certification, fertilisers, pesticides, and land management. However, the policy has inherent flaws such as gaps and challenges with respect to implementation arrangements and coordination of stakeholders. It is also important to note that MNFSR has not yet carried out any impact assessment or any study to ascertain the success of the policy in achieving its objectives.
Another emerging challenge is the Punjab government’s decision to halt wheat procurement at the government level. This policy shift could have serious implications for food security across Pakistan, given that wheat and flour are staple foods for the majority of the population. Alternative food sources lack consumer preferences and are often financially inaccessible to the common citizen. As a result, diversifying food sources, beyond wheat and sugar, remains the major challenge despite the policy’s intent to encourage this shift.
Additionally, the critical factors such as water consumption in agriculture, improved seed varieties, pesticide quality, and fertiliser availability at optimal rates remain largely unaddressed, besides addressing the issues in livestock and fisheries. These challenges, along with issues in livestock and fisheries development, further weaken the policy’s effectiveness. The high costs associated with commercial livestock breeding and production make it unaffordable for both farmers and consumers, while the regional variations in fish consumption create additional barriers to promoting fish as an alternative protein source. Considering these challenges and the weak institutional mechanisms outlined in the policy, it is evident that achieving its stated objectives and goals remains highly uncertain. Without stronger governance, financial commitment, and effective implementation strategies, the policy’s impact on national food security is likely to remain limited (Concluded).
The writer works at a public policy think tank and can be reached at saudzafar5@ gmail.com.