Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Case study 4: Regional policy change in seed trade and dairy marketing policy

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Additional case study ‘Quick and dirty’ But yielded important perspectives on regional policy-making processes compared with local and national Engagement with ECAPAPA and analysis of activities Information through interviews with key stakeholders and workshop session with regional dairy regulators

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Regional policy harmonisation Agricultural policies in East Africa are predominantly set at national level. But harmonisation encouraged given close ties Role of EAC ECAPAPA support for harmonisation and rationalisation of policies in two key areas –Seed trade –Dairy sector.

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Figure 1: ECAPAPA’s way of working

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change ECAPAPA approach Regional and national-level resource-persons engage with all key sector actors Identify key issues, collect and carefully analyse data in individual countries. Facilitate in-country discussions for feedback on findings Facilitate regional discussions on findings, appropriate actions and further research Ongoing process of engagement Also positive activities to help developing private sector – e.g. support of seed trade associations

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Regional seed trade Seed supply relies on several steps –development and testing of new varieties –certification and release of seeds –marketing and distribution of seeds Historically controlled by public bodies Few incentives for efficiency Liberalisation – many more private actors now –But affected by restricting, inefficient, policy environment –Few linkages between actors Need to rationalise/harmonise recognised –ECAPAPA project 2002 to present

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Policy change Some key areas of change since 2002: –agreement on more efficient variety release procedures –strengthened plant variety protection measures in some countries –more efficient seed certification procedures –more appropriate phytosanitary controls and –more efficient import/export procedures. Marked change in attitude and behaviour between key actors –positive dialogue towards more change c.f. previous distrust

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Regional dairy policy Issue similar to described in Case study 1 in Kenya –Situation is similar in other countries in the region. –Policies designed for a western industrialised dairy model inappropriate for the informal sector which supports most of the livelihoods in the sector –Small-scale milk vendors (SSMVs) unable to access training nor be certified to operate. –Genuine quality and public health concerns cannot be addressed –Harassment of SSMVs increases consumer price decreases farm gate price for milk. Regional milk trade determines that harmonisation of dairy policies beneficial

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Policy Change Following on from the policy change in Kenya described in Case Study 1 Rationalisation: Regulators across the region are now more proactively engaging to train and certify SSMVs. Harmonisation: In 2006 dairy regulators from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda agreed: –A common approach to the training and certification of SSMVs, including a common syllabus for training. –Procedures to facilitate cross border trade.

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Influences on change 1 Facilitation of discussions has been key Bringing together of key actors for facilitated discussions – over a number of meetings. –SPS agreements based on 3 key people chatting Evidence collected and analysed with care Also drew heavily on evidence from Kenya’s Smallholder Dairy Project. Evidence effectively communicated through sharing and discussion of this evidence on multiple occasions with key stakeholders

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Influences on change 2 Effective linkage-brokering: Wide engagement encouraged ‘buy-in’ to the whole process of policy reform, with stakeholders recognizing their role in the process. Now better transparency and collaboration between actors in private & public sectors. Difference in levels of engagement: –Formal seed –Informal dairy –Implication? Poverty relevance?

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Key lessons 1 Regional policymaking is a very different process from local or national processes. –Policymakers are further removed from grassroots stakeholders affected by the decisions. –Technocrats and higher-level actors play a key role. –The interests of the poor may be difficult to feed to such processes other than via well-placed organisations with a pro-poor focus. Facilitating linkages and enabling dialogue is the most critical element for influencing change.

Process and Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy Change Key lessons 2 Barriers to change include sensitivities between similar actors in different countries, and between different actor types. Use of evidence is important, and collection and analysis of such evidence should be done in the context of this close collaboration with the key policy actors. Evidence may have to be handled sensitively if particular actors face reduced roles.