Vision of a healthy system:
If evidence of market dynamics informs national seed sector planning through strong public and private leadership; and,
If management decisions align varietal development with segmented market demand (product profiles) and better value propositions for farmers, processors, and consumers;
Then strong demand planning can be used to orient the operations of public institutions and private companies to deliver high-quality seeds of superior varieties that will be taken up by farmers at higher rates.
African nations have made CAADP Malabo commitments to make public investments equal to 10% of AgGDP to achieve agricultural transformation with an 8% annual sector growth rate
Translation of these political commitments into policy, policy into strategy, and strategy into seed plans and operations aligned with seed archetypes requires:
- Clear identification of roles, responsibilities and investment levels for public institutions in seed systems;
- Clear identification of the role of private sector seed companies and seed distributors;
- Adequate data on demand trends, supply trends, and formal sales of quality assured seed of crop varieties to inform advance planning for 3-4 year pipelines of EGS and annually adjusted quality assured seed needs;
- Allocation of public budgets and staff to perform planning and coordination functions;
- Seed trade associations with strong leadership and value-added propositions for members;
- Clear and open channels of communication for public-private sector dialogue;
- Effective and efficient management of seed subsidies, when necessary, and not for political reasons, using the SMART framework, including a defined exit strategy.
Impact on agriculture transformation will be achieved faster by well-planned and well-coordinated efforts to build government institutions that regulate, communicate, and coordinate with the private sector to build systems that improve access to, and the sustainability of, input and output markets. The strength of planning and coordination can be measured through evidence on the types and levels of communication that takes place between the public and private sectors, the use of data to inform decision-making, and the perspectives of public institutions and private companies on the strength and their trust in the cooperation that results.
Basis of Comparison: Mature seed systems provide benchmarks on the nature and the strength of public, private, and joint public-private planning and coordination.
| Strategic Objective | Description | System Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Seed Strategy | A National Vision and Strategy that articulates support for drivers of agriculture-led economic growth and transformation. Explicit attention paid to seed in the Agricultural Development Strategy and National Agricultural Investment Plan; clear identification of roles, responsibilities and investment levels for public institutions in seed systems; clear identification of the role of private sector seed companies and seed distributors. | •CAADP agricultural GDP targets •Translation of targets into a seed strategy that is prioritized by crop and seed system archetype •Identification of roles and responsibilities of the public sector •Budgetary allocations in line with strategy |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | Institutional support at Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) for planning, including timely and thoughtful leadership for planning activities that includes allocation of public budgets and staff to perform planning and coordination functions; | •Clear responsibility and oversight in MOA for planning •Presence of leadership in planning unit with relevant skills and expertise •Adequate government funding for planning unit activities •Support for credible provision of information for use in demand forecasting •Clear planning for EGS production support from public sector |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | There is adequate data for planning such as data on demand trends, supply trends, and formal sales of quality assured seed of crop varieties to inform advance planning for 3-4 year pipelines of EGS and annually adjusted quality assured seed needs; | •Timely availability of annual data on certified seed volumes, QDS, other •Timely availability of annual data on potential demand •Timely availability of annual subsidy information and approaches •Availability of longitudinal data/analysis •Reliable, timely, online data provision to stakeholders |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | Strong planning activities and communication with stakeholders that includes; | •Strong linkage between private sector concerns and MOA decision-making •At least two, participative national stakeholder planning meetings per year •Clear, timely communication from MOA re: planning meetings, timing •Strong MOA planning meeting implementation •Jointly agreed MOA planning meeting follow up notes •Public sector attendance at private sector planning meetings with adequate notice |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | Private sector coordination including strong seed trade associations with strong leadership and value-added propositions for members | •Existence of functioning trade association •Membership success •Member satisfaction •Member participation •Value-added benefits |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | Public sector coordination | •Clear responsibility and oversight in MOA for sector coordination •Presence of leadership in coordination unit with relevant skills and expertise •Adequate government funding for coordination unit activities •Clear and effective coordination mechanisms within public sector •Effective public extension |
| Strong public-private joint effort for seed sector planning | There are clear and open channels of communication for public-private sector dialogue. | •At least two well-organized national stakeholder coordination meetings per year (can be combined with planning meetings if logical) •Frequency of national stakeholder meetings •Participation and composition of participants •Regular public private meetings for special issues arising •Other vehicles for public/private dialogue |
| Effective and Efficient Subsidies (if present) | There is a clear, explicit, and evidence-based reason why seed subsidies are needed. Other than in times of relief due to widespread crop failure and famine and in areas of extreme poverty, seed subsidies often distort formal and semi-formal markets, especially when they are used as a political tool . When they are used, they need effective and efficient management of seed subsidies using the SMART framework with a defined exit strategy | •Clear rationale for the need for a subsidy •Clear responsibility in the MOA for planning and coordination •Consultative design with private sector seed producers, complementary input providers, farmer representatives, and financial institutions •Timeliness of financing, procurement, and voucher distribution •Quality assurance of seed supply •Transparent evaluation and adjustment process |
Description of Methodology
Typology of Stakeholders: 8-15 institutions, 20-40 individuals
| Category of Institution | Stakeholder Examples |
|---|---|
| National/Federal Ministries of Agriculture | •Head of Planning and Policy Department, •Head of Unit responsible for seed in the Ministry – Seed Desk or Director of Agricultural Inputs Service •Head of Subsidy Program and Program Coordinator •Department of Finance and Administration (to capture the budget allocations to seed related investments), •National Seed Agency or Authority, •National Plant Protection Organization, •National Agricultural Development/Transformation Agency •National Ag Extension Service Director |
| Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development | •Agricultural Desk Officer |
| Development Partners | •Chair of Agricultural Sector Working Group (CAADP/NAIP) •Chair of the in-country donor working group and also detailed discussions with main donors with history of seed sector support (USAID, GIZ, Irish Aid, DFID, etc.) |
| Lead National Ag Research Institutes **In close coordination with NARS Effectiveness thematic area | •Directors of Research •Seed Production Unit Leader(s) |
| National Seed Association | •President and Director |
| National Input Dealers Association | •President and Director |
| Large public seed enterprises **In close collaboration with EGS/Commercial and QA thematic area | •Managing Director, CEO. Etc. •Production and Marketing/Distribution Managers •Cooperative Unions |
| Large private seed enterprises **In close collaboration with EGS/Commercial and QA thematic area | •Managing Director, CEO. Etc. •Production and Marketing/Distribution Managers |
| Universities | •Directors of Seed Unit •Seed Market/Economics Researcher |
Method of conducting the assessment:
- Pre-visit survey to gather information on personnel, organizational diagrams, budgets, seed data, association charters, programs, and membership information. Information obtained and gaps identified used to inform in-country questionnaire and follow up questions.
- In-country/person interviews to engage the stakeholders through the established questionnaire with follow up questions, discussions and clarifications.
Discussion of Outputs
•Landscaping will provide indicators from TASAI and EBA that align with key system indicators to aid in the establishment of scoring rubrics (for example TASAI indicators for subsidy programs)
•Subcomponent and component scores will be calculated by the program and used to help prioritize recommendations developed in the course of the assessment work.
•Based on answers and follow up discussion, a score of 1 to 4 (Likert scale) is recorded for some questions which will summarize the overall impression
Ex: Does the country have a clear vision statement for agricultural growth?
0= No CAADP Ag GDP Annual Growth Target;
1= <2% Ag GDP Annual Growth Target
2= 2%<4% Ag GDP Annual Target
3= 4% <6.0% Ag GDP Annual Growth Target
4= ≥ 6.0% Ag GDP Annual Growth Target
•Assessors may enter qualitative comments for selected questions in addition to assigning Likert scores to qualify the scores or to draft potential recommendations.
•Demographics will be retained, but privacy protected, with respondents identified by category of institution rather than by name if quotations are used.
•Final report will include qualitative feedback and scores for benchmarked indicators