Seed Policy Reform Processes in ‘Group A’ Countries

Rationale For Grouping The HaSSP Policy Study revealed that the pilot countries are at different stages of national policy alignment. These were categorized into ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B’ countries. Group A countries consist of Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe These countries have undertaken significant HaSSP project-related activities but have not yet managed to ‘anchor’ the policy alignment process in their respective Ministries of Agriculture standard ‘Policy Reform Processes’

Country Status – Malawi

Country Status - Malawi Cont’d Where is Malawi in the Reform Process? The HaSSP Malawi Task Team consists of representatives from the government (Ministries of Agriculture and Justice), the private sector, farmers and research. It has undertaken activities aimed at influencing the seed policy reform process HOWEVER it appears from the study that the ‘alignment process’ (i.e. the policy reforms), has not been officially endorsed by the policy makers i.e. the Minister of AFS. As such, Malawi is still to complete STEP 1 of the standard process. Government representatives in the task team have been involved in developing some of the drafts etc, but this does not necessarily amount to Ministerial buy-in that is anticipated under Step 1b of the process.

Country Status – Malawi Cont’d Identified Challenges Preliminary research reveals that there is ‘political will’ and a supportive policy environment to facilitate Ministerial ‘Buy-in’ to commence the national alignment process. However, challenges appear to be associated with: HaSSP Task Team’s ‘approach’ to policy alignment – Emphasis has been placed on technical activities e.g. preparation of draft amendments to legislation outside the standard reform process. - The approach appears to be: to produce technical outputs (i.e. drafts) and present them to MoAFS at a later stage HaSSP Task Team not meeting consistently to monitor and review approaches to alignment Inadequate resources to fund activities associated with policy alignment

Country Status – Malawi Cont’d Preliminary Recommendations Although the Malawi’s reform context and arena seem to be supportive of the seed policy reforms, it is important to ascertain WHY Ministerial ‘Buy-in’ has not been achieved. As such it is important to undertake a ‘stakeholder and institutional analysis’ to ascertain the interests of actors and the institutional context of seed policy reforms in the country. This analysis will assist the team to clearly map out its advocacy strategy. Based on the analysis, re-formulate workplan to place emphasis on tools and mechanisms to obtain buy-in, such as policy dialogues etc Enhance institutional partnership within the HaSSP task team that emphasizes on clear ‘modes’ of interaction. This is because a strong coalition or partnership of stakeholders is crucial for enhancing influence over the process.

Country Status - Zambia Standard Policy Reform Process

Country Status – Zambia Where is Zambia in the Reform Process? Several HaSSP project-related activities on policy alignment have been undertaken by the Task Team (i.e. reviews of legislation etc); but these activities have been done outside the standard reform process. Although the HaSSP project activities have involved government representatives represented in the Task Team, this does not amount to MoAL official buy-in As such, it appears Zambia is still to complete Step 1 of the process (i.e. the MoAL still has to receive a Cabinet ‘Approval in Principle’ to officially commence the reform process)

Country Status - Zambia Identified Challenges Like Malawi, it seems that Zambia’s reform context and arena, including its broad agricultural policy thrust is supportive of the SADC seed policy reform proposals. However, there appear to be challenges in: Lack of understanding by the HaSSP Task Team of its role in the alignment process, and lack of clear roles of members within the HaSSP Task Team regarding the alignment process. This has been affecting strategic planning and implementation Lack of clarity on what the policy alignment process entails. This naturally affects any planned activities, because they depend on a clear appreciation of the reform context, reform arena and reform process.

Country Status - Zambia Preliminary Recommendations Although there appear to be general support for the SADC seed policy reform proposals in Zambia, it is recommended that a ‘stakeholder and institutional assessment’ be undertaken to ascertain the interests of actors and the institutional context of seed policy reforms in the country. This may explain the reasons behind stagnation in obtaining Cabinet and Ministerial Buy-in. Based on the analysis, identify appropriate tools and mechanisms, such as policy dialogues or using the Permanent Secretary as a Champion etc; in order to facilitate the MoAL obtaining the Cabinet’s ‘Approval in Principle’. Re-organize the Task Team and establish a policy alignment sub- committee with specific mandate to influence the policy alignment process and guided by a clear strategy of action  Provide training to task team members on policy engagement and advocacy approaches for influencing the alignment process

Country Status - Zimbabwe Standard Policy Reform Process

Country Status - Zimbabwe Where is Zimbabwe in the Reform Process? The HaSSP Task Team has been mainly undertaking technical activities (e.g. review of legislation, preparation of draft amendment legislation etc) aimed at ‘aiding’ the policy alignment process. However, these activities seem to have been done outside the formal and standard policy reform process because the Minister of AMID has not officially endorsed the process. Although the technical activities have been undertaken with the involvement of government representatives represented in the Task Team, they do not amount to ‘government driven’ activities within the context of the standard reform process As such, it appears Zimbabwe is at Step 1 of the process

Country Status - Zimbabwe Identified Challenges There seem to be lack of ‘political support’ at Ministerial Level for the SADC Harmonized System What appears to be lack of political support is also reflected by the inertia demonstrated by unsuccessful attempts to have the SADC MoU signed The HaSSP Task Team members have limited time to engage and undertake activities aimed at influencing policy alignment. This institutional challenge affects planning and implementation of actions

Country Status - Zimbabwe Preliminary Recommendations Because there seem to be lack of clear political support for the SADC seed policy reform proposals, it is recommended that the HaSSP Task Team identifies the ‘bottleneck’ with the country’s seed sector policy reform context and reform arena. As such it is recommended that a ‘stakeholder and institutional analysis’ be undertaken to ascertain the interests of actors. This will assist the team to identify appropriate tools and mechanisms to leverage ‘buy in’. Identify appropriate engagement and advocacy mechanisms (e.g. policy dialogues etc) aimed at obtaining ‘buy-in’, based on the analysis. Establish a policy alignment sub-committee within the task team with the mandate to spearhead the alignment process. Given the challenges faced in obtaining political support from the MoAMID, the task team may need to re-strategize the ‘entry points’ for policy reform. In this context, the task team may wish to include other government ministries in the HaSSP task team, namely; the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and the Ministry of the Regional Integration and International Cooperation.

Conclusion The role of the HaSSP national task teams is to ‘aid’ the policy reform process. Although the membership of the task teams reflect a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including government representatives from the Ministries of Agriculture and Justice; they are ‘external’ to the process. In order to effectively ‘aid’ the process Group A countries should: Appreciate that their role of ‘external units’ to the standard reform process is to FACILITATE the commencement of the formal reform process INFLUENCE the process at each step of the prescribed process for policy/legislative reform This requires the Task Teams to be adequately prepared for this function.