The National Action Group Process, Malawi

1
The National Action Group Process, Malawi

• Jason Agar, NAG Secretariat
• Chancellor Kaferapanjira, Malawi Confederated
  Chamber of Commerce and Industry

2
Context at Commencement (2001)

• Post Independence Govt. managed/controlled
  economy
• Early 1990s enforced liberalisation, then more
  willing liberalisation post democratisation (1994
  onwards)
• Legacy of Govt involvement in private sector
• Mistrust by public sector of old and new private
  sector
• Mindset that public sector knows best and resist
  external accountability (except to donors) -
  policy-making not open
• Relatively weak business associations limited
  co-operation
• Business frustrated/mistrustful of public sector
  disengaged

3
Evolution of the NAG Process

• Home grown public-private initiative by Minister
  of Finance and CEOs of major investors to meet
  (end 01)
• Grew organically as participants saw wider range
  of issues to resolve
• Group and agenda grew leading to joint
  pub-private Business Plan for Malawi (Growth
  Strategy) in 2003
• Led to establishment of sub-sectoral working
  groups and work with established fora (Trade
  Policy Group)
• Agenda focused on implementing Growth Strategy
• Mostly public-private dialogues but also private-
  Dev. Partner dialogue (IMF, World Bank, CABS
  Group etc)

4
The NAG Forum

• Main Forum participants
• Ministers senior civil servants key public
  agencies,
• Business CEOs and business associations for main
  sectors
• Heads of Development partners interested in PSD
• Meets bi-monthly agenda proposed by
  participants but linked to Growth Strategy and
  current issues
• Co-convened by Minister of Trade (ex President of
  MCCCI) and a senior CEO (ex Minister of Finance)
• Reports received from working groups and
  Secretariat

5
The Working Groups

• 3 Types
• Cross-cutting (trade, investment),
• Sub-sectoral (focal sectors tea, sugar, mining
  etc), and
• Issue-related (power, forex controls, tax reform
  etc)
• Groups engage in dialogue with relevant
  stakeholders and follow own action
  plans/strategies (in many cases)
• Some existed pre-NAG but isolated and mixed
  effect
• Groups not run/controlled by NAG feed in
  cross-cutting and unresolved WG issues to the
  Forum
• Some groups actively facilitated by the NAG
  Secretariat

6
NAG Secretariat

• Tri-partite Secretariat like Forum
  (Govt/Donor/Pr. Sec)
• Govt - Min. of Trade PSD and Min. of Econ.
  Planning
• Donor - DFID PSD Adviser liases with donors
• Pr. Sec - 2 Mw consultants act as facilitators
  work closely with MCCCI and other Business
  Assocs
• Convenes Forum, supports/facilitates groups,
  progress chases builds capacity of Business
  Assocs.
• Facilitates Bus Assoc. to form a network
• Communicates to wider stakeholders on
  issues/progress

7
Key Points about the NAG Process

• Series of (facilitated) dialogue processes around
  a main Forum, not a single dialogue Forum gives
  standing
• Home-grown, organic and still evolving
  flexible, responsive and opportunistic as
  environment dynamic
• Not a legal entity but is formal - organisational
  commitment to participate and act dialogue of
  the willing
• Govt/businesses provide resources (travel, venues
  etc)
• Devt partners contract Secretariat (DFID/USAID)
  to facilitate, but not fund projects.
• Publicity shy, media not usually helpful to
  dialogue simplify and polarise better to talk
  directly

8
Challenges 1

1. Need for short-term results to satisfy private
   sector yet without alienating public sector by
   pressing too hard
2. Understand political economy of policy change and
   help private sector to understand and act on it
3. Weak private sector capacity to engage
   effectively, competing agendas and lack of
   enabling environ focus
4. Coping with regular changes in Govt./public
   sector personnel policy discontinuity and lack
   of coherence
5. Integrating competing processes driven by other
   agendas in public sector and Development Partners

9
Challenges - 2

• Weak capacity of Parliament to legislate and
  capacity of public sector to implement policy and
  regulations
• Representation vs. effectiveness not all
  interests can be directly represented or
  necessarily need to be!
• Misunderstanding of NAG perceived by some as a
  representative body competing with MCCCI etc.
• (Deliberate) misrepresentations of what NAG is
• Public sector resist accountability of a coherent
  voice
• Private sector practices being exposed Assocs
  shaken up
• Development partners working to own (HQ-driven)
  agenda

10
The Future of the NAG Process

• Good opportunity for change in Mw with current
  Govt. macro-economy improving political will
  exists
• Will always be opponents, so find strategies to
  deal with be opportunistic, flexible, selective
  and realistic
• Keep looking for changes that can be delivered
  short term
• Build the diversity and depth of dialogues
• Build a culture of constructive engagement for
  mutual benefit embed dialogue as a normal
  helpful thing
• Invest more time in explaining what NAG is/is not