Vehicle policy needs redress

in several ways. Firstly it indicates the Ministry’s responsiveness to stakeholder and ordinary citizen views. This is important to note.
Second and more importantly, it is significant in that it provides time and space for the Ministry to engage stakeholders in developing a broader motor vehicle policy. The decision to impose the ban was always destined to fail because it was not located in the broader context of developing a motor vehicle policy that is responsive to citizen needs.

While it is true that some policies can be initiated in response to external factors such as environment or signed treaties, it is fundamentally important that they be located in and are seen to be serving the needs and aspirations of the country’s citizens.
While the objective of the policy might have been for compliance (by conforming to environmental treaties), it sought to do that at the expense of everything else. The fact of the matter is not that stakeholders were not consulted, but it was basically that the compliance (regulatory) objective was being prioritised over people’s immediate needs.

Peoples immediate needs (in this case) are varied and include; securing vehicles that can transport produce to and from the farm (especially in light of the President’s call that farmers should be productive), a vehicle that can transport them to and from work, etc.
In other words the objective of the ban was not connecting with people in this sense. The bigger question or issue that the Ministry should engage with as of now (given that the ban is shelved) is not to seek to explore ways of smuggling the policy through, but to engage stakeholder on an overall motor vehicle policy for Zimbabwe.

This policy will clearly put across the realities and aspirations of Zimbabwe’s motoring public. Out of these realities and aspirations a framework should then be developed that seek to facilitate or meet these needs.
Bans, tariffs, and re-tests become optional instruments within this broader framework. The motor vehicle policy should also be connected with other policies in the economy. In other words it is not supposed to be a standalone policy. In fact the motor vehicle policy should be used as an “instrument” to address broader economic challenges and goals.

For example we should use the motor vehicle policy to achieve targets in agriculture, transport, industry, and other related sectors. It could also be used as an “instrument” to achieve targets in alleviation of transportation challenges such as road carnage as well as death on our roads.
In light of the above needs and broader goals, a motor vehicle policy would then start from understanding the country’s motor vehicle specific challenges and needs. This inevitably implies engaging the stakeholders (of which the motoring public, vehicle importers through their associations, motor car producers, farmers, etc) is paramount. In fact they need to be engaged long enough on these issues.

Out of the various concerns and priorities arising, ranking of the issues should be undertaken. This should be done with the active participation of these stakeholders. This step is important in ensuring ownership as well as ensuring that the needs and issues are correctly interpreted. The stakeholders should also be made aware of Zimbabwe’s international commitments and obligations at regional and international levels. This approach encourages issues to emerge from the stakeholders organically and hence owned as opposed to it being imposed by the Ministry.
Great care should also be taken to ensure that stakeholders are not only confining their contributions and inputs to the “now” situation. They should also address the future aspects through reflecting on their (and hence country’s) aspirations

Using this approach, it may actually emerge that the key priority or issue that need to be addressed by the motor vehicle policy relate to facilitating agriculture as well as providing transportation to the emerging class of entrepreneurs.
This means the Ministry can use targeted instruments to increase importation of certain type of vehicle such as trucks for business. So in that case the ban or tariff hike should not be dependent upon age but the key variable becomes the type of vehicle.

Once the priorities are set, these should feed into the country’s motor vehicle framework which should then be drafted and send back to the stakeholders for commenting and inputting.
This way we are sure that whatever instrument is being developed is not a standalone but is informed by the overall motor vehicle policy. It will also ensure that there is real ownership of the policy among the stakeholders.

In terms of format and means of collecting inputs from stakeholders, outreach programs where Ministry officials collect views from all the provinces or “key” provinces. Alternatively this can also be done at a series of broader workshops that are open to the various stakeholders including the motoring public.

Obviously resources are a key constraint in terms of which approach is to be adopted as well as the thoroughness of the approach. One alternative is to link up with related ministries on this issue. Once the motor vehicle policy is viewed as addressing the country’s key challenges such as agriculture, environment, etc, then the Ministry of Transport can actually collaborate and share resources other ministries.

In addition they also request the private sector including the motor associations to host such dialogues in partnership with the ministry. It is important to note that the key challenge or problem why a lot of policies crafted do not achieve the necessary impact (in spite of their legal tightness and sting) is that they neglect the realities and aspirations of the people and stakeholders who are directly affected by such policies. This bottom up approach should not only be restricted to the Ministry of Transport alone but should be widely applicable to other ministries and government departments as

well. Ultimately, the motor vehicle policy should also seek to promulgate a vision for the country in terms of local manufacturing of vehicles. It should also stipulate on the triggers and the extent to which the country will rely on imports before there is sufficient local production to meet the demand.

This also implies clarity on the phasing out of certain type of imported vehicles on the basis that they are being assembled locally. The ministry should work with all stakeholders to ensure that local producers such as Willowvale Mazda Motor Industries (WMMI) and any other emerging car manufacturers are provided with incentives.
The purpose of the incentives should not be to support their survival per se, but to motivate them to produce cheap and wider range of cars. In the case of South Africa, although their vehicles are generally more expensive compared to imported versions, they, however ensure that the choice is as wide as possible.

Therefore in the absence of a comprehensive motor vehicle policy that relates people’s and stakeholder’s needs to the country’s challenges on one hand as well as stimulation of local production on the other, then it is very difficult and counterproductive to come up with ad hoc instruments on banning of imports.
It should also not be lost to all the motoring public and stakeholders that at this point in time when Zimbabwe is coming out of debilitating economic challenges and sanctions; it may be overall cost effective to import vehicles rather than produce. This is also a key issue that has been overwhelmingly reflected by the motoring stakeholders in the run up to the abolition of the ban.
I strongly believe that the ministry and all stakeholders will use this as an opportunity to discuss and coalesce on developing a comprehensive Motor Vehicle Policy as opposed to focusing on the benign discussion of which instrument should be used and when can it enter into force.

Guiding this discussion should be clarity on intention and objectives, transparency in engagement as well as transparency in the instruments and ultimate framework chosen. I believe that there is still goodwill among the stakeholders driven by the national interest to ensure that the best outcome emerges.
Time for mending broken bridges and healing among the motoring stakeholders is now. In this sense, meaningful dialogue should be prioritised over unproductive confrontational approaches.