From Research To Decisions: What Zambia’s Seed And Grain Sectors Can Teach Us About Evidence-informed Policy
18 August 2026, Zambia: Over several decades, and more so in the last three decades, government departments, universities, think tanks, development partners and research organizations, including CIMMYT, have generated a substantial body of research evidence on agricultural production, seed systems, markets, climate resilience and food security. The growing body of knowledge generated has informed sustainable intensification approaches, the coordination and management of seed systems, and through institutions such as the Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute (IAPRI) on the design of optimal grain marketing policies.
But producing research is only the beginning. Does this evidence reach the people making policy decisions? Do policymakers consider it credible, timely and relevant? And when evidence reaches the policy table, what determines whether it is used, adapted or set aside? These questions are key as agricultural policies affect far more than institutions and markets. They influence which seed varieties farmers can access, whether producers can sell into regional markets and earn considerably more income, how food prices are managed and how Zambia responds to climate, production and food-security shocks.
Why evidence is key
Solid scientific evidence can support policymakers in several ways. It can deepen understanding of a problem better (conceptual use), reshape how decision-makers perceive it (attitudinal use), or help them compare policy options and anticipate who may benefit or lose from a particular decision (content use). Evidence can reveal unintended consequences and help governments use limited public resources more effectively. However, scientific evidence does not remove political judgment. Policymaking must still respond to public priorities, competing interests and changing circumstances. Credible and well-communicated evidence can make those policy choices more transparent, informed, and effective.
The challenge arises when evidence does not automatically move from a research report or a published journal article into a policy decision-making matrix. Its influence may depend on who produced it, how it was communicated, when it became available and whether the source is trusted. It also relies on intermediaries, including think tanks, civil society organizations, farmer associations, and advocacy groups, who may determine whether evidence reaches the right audience and gains traction. Furthermore, institutional mandates, relationships between organizations and broader political and economic pressures may be just as important as the technical quality of the research itself. CIMMYT and IAPRI are working with stakeholders in Zambia to understand these dynamics through a comparative study of the country’s seed and grain sectors.
Two sectors, different policy journeys
Funded by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office through the Research Commissioning Centre and managed by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the study examines how evidence-source characteristics and political economy factors shape policy uptake in Zambia. It compares seed and grain trade because the two sectors operate within the same national agricultural system but appear to have followed different institutional and policy trajectories.
Zambia’s seed sector is widely regarded as relatively well-coordinated, with structured regulatory systems, strong private-sector participation, and growing regional integration. There has been well-coordinated harmonization of policies and regulation within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) regions, supported by CIMMYT. Research and technical cooperation have supported developments such as regional seed-regulation harmonization, helping position Zambia as an important seed producer and trading hub.
The grain sector presents a different picture. Grain policy is closely connected to staple-food prices, national food security and the livelihoods of both farmers and consumers. Decisions on exports, imports, government strategic reserve purchases and market regulation are sensitive and closely observed by the public. The sector has experienced frequent, abrupt and uncoordinated policy changes such as import and export bans. At the same time, stakeholders sometimes have sharply different interests and interpretations of the available evidence. This contrast offers an opportunity to learn. . The study does not begin from the assumption that one sector has succeeded while the other has failed. Instead, it examines how differences in institutional structures, stakeholder interests and policy pressures influence the movement and use of evidence. It asks why evidence may travel more easily through one policy domain than another, even when the two sectors involve overlapping institutions, policymakers and regional market forces.
Listening to Zambia’s policy community
CIMMYT and IAPRI launched the study at an inception meeting in Lusaka on May 20, 2026. It brought together representatives from government, research institutions, regional bodies, the private sector, farmer organizations, civil society and development partners. Participants emphasized that the evidence used in policymaking extends beyond academic research. Surveys, policy evaluations, stakeholder consultations, farmer experience, private-sector information and political priorities can all influence decisions. They also identified important barriers to evidence uptake. Coordination platforms may operate in isolation, with limited integration and institutional ownership or follow through. Even where evidence is available, weak coordination can prevent it from entering policy discussions at the right time or in a form that decision-makers can readily use.
The discussions also highlighted lessons that might be shared across sectors. Participants pointed to the seed sector’s clearer institutional arrangements, stronger regulation and greater private-sector involvement. For the grain sector, they emphasized the need for more predictable policy, stronger market institutions, better implementation of existing legislation and broader participation in policy discussions.
These observations are starting points for investigation rather than final findings. The work is now moving from inception and stakeholder mapping to detailed policy and document reviews, interviews and analysis of how evidence flows through the two sectors. Ultimately, the study aims to generate practical recommendations for Zambia’s wider evidence ecosystem. For researchers and other knowledge producers, the findings will offer guidance on making evidence timely, relevant, and accessible without compromising its independence. This includes identifying the formats that work best for different policy audiences, determining when evidence should enter the policy process, and understanding how relationships with trusted intermediaries can strengthen uptake. For think tanks, civil society organizations, farmer associations and other intermediaries, the study will help identify effective ways to translate, package and communicate evidence while ensuring that less-heard perspectives are represented.
For policymakers and public institutions, the research will identify institutional arrangements and coordination mechanisms that can help credible evidence enter deliberations more consistently, particularly when decisions are politically sensitive. And for development partners, it will provide lessons on supporting functioning evidence systems, not simply funding the production of additional studies. Closing the gap between research and policy requires more than producing more evidence. It requires attention to trust, timing, relationships, institutional incentives and the realities within which policymakers make decisions.
By learning from Zambia’s seed and grain sectors, CIMMYT and IAPRI hope to help evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers build stronger pathways from knowledge to policy, and, ultimately, from policy to better outcomes for farmers, consumers and the wider agrifood system.
Also Read: Paraquat and the Future of Pesticide Regulation in India
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
