1  

 The  Private  Sector  as  a  Driver  for  CAADP  Implementation  

Katrin  Kuhlmann,  Susan  Sechler  and  Eugene  Terry    

he  decade-­‐long  Comprehensive  Africa  Agriculture  Development  Programme  (CAADP)   process   has   created   a   country-­‐based   framework   for   agricultural  development  with  widespread  support  and  resource  commitments  from  both  

African   governments   and   the   donor   community.     This   achievement   is   more  significant   than   many   realize.     After   decades   of   underperformance   and   political  obscurity,   agriculture   and   the   food   industry   are  now  central   to  broader   economic  development   plans   and   hold   high   potential.     In   particular,   they   are   “expected   to  contribute   to   wealth   creation   and   economic   growth;   to   job   creation   and   to  increasing   opportunities,   especially   for   women   and   for   the   youth;   to   poverty  reduction;   to   food   security   and   improved   nutrition;   and   to   resilient   societies   and  economies.”1  

However,   the   widespread   implementation   of   CAADP   remains   a   significant  task  given  the  looming  challenges  facing  African  agriculture.    Those  involved  in  the  CAADP   process—the   country   teams,   the   regional   and   national   support  organizations,   the   donors   and   other   stakeholders—must   scale   up   their   work   and  create   tangible   results   for   farmers,   businesses   and   consumers   throughout   Africa,  and   they  must  do   so  at   a   faster  pace.    Today  Africa  produces   less   than  half  of   the  food  required  to  feed  its  people.    Assuming  current   levels  of  growth—and  without  consideration  of   the   impacts  of  climate  change  and  diminishing  water  resources—experts  project  that  figure  will  be  reduced  to  13  percent  by  2050.2    More  advanced  commercial   systems   featuring   modern   production   techniques   and   far   greater  market  integration  are  urgently  needed  in  order  to  increase  food  production  rather  than  lose  more  ground.        

Demographic   changes   on   the   continent   also   present   both   challenges   and  opportunities.     Africa’s   massive   youth   bulge   is   significant—young   people   aged  between  15  and  25   represent  more   than  60  percent  of   the   continent’s  population  and  45  percent  of  its  labor  force,  and  are  expected  to  do  so  for  the  next  25  years.3    In  urban   areas,   the   demand   for   more,   higher-­‐quality   food   is   on   the   rise,   offering  opportunities  for  farmers  if  they  can  meet  the  demand  for  more  specialized,  higher  value-­‐added  food.    If  they  cannot,  Africa’s  cities  will  turn  to  imported  food  products,  and  the  opportunity  for  growth  and  regional  market  development  will  be  lost.4        

CAADP’s  African  leadership  is  well  aware  of  these  challenges  and  is  seeking  ways   to   turn   them   into   opportunities   that   can   drive   transformational   change  forward.      A  final  draft  summary  report,  CAADP—Sustaining  the  Momentum  Into  the  Next   Decade   (henceforth   “CAADP   Report”)   by   the   New   Partnership   for   Africa’s  Development   (NEPAD)  and   the  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency   (NPCA)  rightly   lists   the   desired   outcomes   from   CAADP   implementation   as   increased  productivity,   competitiveness   and   regional   and   global   integration.     The   Report’s  goes  on  to  say  “It   is   inconceivable  that  these  objectives  can  be  realized  without  

T  

                                                                                                                                     

  2  

further,  radical   improvements   in  agricultural  policy  and  practice,  and  without  substantially   higher   private   and   public   investment,   and  more   efficient   public  investment”  (emphasis  added).5  

The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  discuss  ways  to  build  on  and  supplement  CAADP’s  achievements  thus  far  and  to,  as  called  for  by  the  CAADP  report,  “ratchet  up  performance  to  deliver  more  certain  and  substantial  results”  (emphasis  added).6      In  particular,  we  focus  on  how  to  stimulate  greater  and  more  inclusive  investments  aimed  at  growing,  expanding  and  replicating    successful  business  models  and  practices  along  food  value  chains.    This  will  not  only  most  effectively  drive  more  rapid  productivity  growth  but  will  also  lead  to  improvements  in  the  policy  environment  and  to  the  more  rapid  regional  integration  that  successful  CAADP  implementation  will  require.    Although  there  are  good  examples  of  success  with  inclusive  investment  in  Africa,  many  African  countries  have  had  only  limited  exposure  to  working  with  private  sector  investment  in  agriculture,  not  all  of  which  has  been  positive.    While  there  is  a  growing  appreciation  of  the  centrality  of  business    to  Africa’s  future,  it  would  be  useful  for  CAADP  leadership  and  the  donors  working  on  African  food  security  to  draw  upon  a  broader  and  more  thoroughly  documented  range  of  experiences  that  could  underpin  CAADP’s  implementation.  It  will  be  especially  critical  to  help  promote  better  understanding  of  what  business  needs  to  succeed,  where  government  can  most  effectively  support  inclusive  investment  through  appropriate  policy  action  and  where  business  participation  in  public  processes  can  be  most  helpful.      

   Ratcheting  up  performance  and  delivering  more  substantial  results  will  

require  a  serious  push,  and  a  body  of  work  published  by  the  International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute  (IFPRI)  and  edited  by  Johannes  Linn  details  a  particularly    promising  methodology  for  what  they  call  “scaling  up”  that  has  been  used  successfully  to  drive  transformational  development  throughout  the  world.      With  some  adaptation,  we  think  that  the  “scaling  up”  approach  could  help  guide  a  cohesive  implementation  strategy  that  would  expand  CAADP’s  influence  as  well  as  produce  the  biggest  response  in  the  shortest  period  of  time.    It  might  also  help  CAADP  (and  NEPAD)  allow  for  a  more  rapid  set  of  activities  to  blossom  at  the  national  and  locals  levels  that  will  lead  to  transformational  change.  And,  perhaps  most  importantly,  the  scholarly  work  may  help  donors,  many  of  whom  are  relatively  unfamiliar  with  Africa,  agriculture  or  business  investment,  develop  more  confidence  in  supporting  a  mix  of  private  business  development  and  public  purpose  that  would  have  been  unthinkable  even  a  decade  or  two  ago.  

   Applying  this  concept  of  scaling  up  to  implementation  of  the  CAADP  

framework  would  involve  focusing  on  successful  pilots,  investments  and  best  practices  that  can  be  replicated  and  applied  more  broadly:  “systemic  scaling  up  requires  a  perspective  that  sees  beyond  the  traditional  project  approach…it  expands,  replicates,  adapts  and  sustains  successful  policies,  programs  or  projects  to  reach  a  greater  number  of  people.”7    This  concept  is  especially  important  in  the  African  context  because  it  is  particularly  relevant  to  the  task  of  building  markets  and  

                                                                                                                                   

  3  

increasing  private  sector  involvement  in  agriculture.    It  involves  both  a  deep  understanding  of  the  particular  factors  that  contributed  to  the  success  of  a  scalable  project  or  investment  and  an  analysis  of  the  broader  environment  in  which  it  is  operating.    It  is  also  an  inherently  interactive  rather  than  stove-­‐piped  process  and  will  require  the  type  of  coordination  across  and  within  disciplines  that  CAADP  was  mean  to  encourage.    As  discussed  in  the  section  below  on  the  relationship  between  the  policy  environment  and  increased  private  sector  investment  in  agriculture,  the  interplay  between  institutional,  policy  and  investment  strategies  is  particularly  critical  to  scaling  up  and  moving  from  pilot  to  proliferation—the  “scaling-­‐up  pathway”—which  “typically  involves  policy  reform  and  institution  building  to  help  achieve  the  policy  and  institutional  conditions  needed  for  successful  .  .  .  scaling  up.”8    

The  discussion  below  begins  with  a  brief  examination  of  private  sector  engagement  in  CAADP’s  first  decade  followed  by  background  on  the  over-­‐arching  importance  of  regional  market  development  and  the  improvement  of  policy  and  business  conditions  to  attracting  private  sector  investment.    Recommendations,  which  are  divided  into  four  parts,  follow.      

 The  first  discusses  a  new  way  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  public  sector  

efforts  aimed  at  improving  business  conditions  and  removing  barriers  to  trade  by  using  private  sector  investment  opportunities  as  a  push  factor  to  bring  about  more  rapid  and  beneficial  changes  in  national  and  regional  policies  and  practices.    The  second  discusses  effective  public-­‐private  collaboration  to  develop  and  use  research  products  in  support  of  productivity-­‐enhancing  technologies.  The  third  discusses  the  role  of  the  public  sector  in  increasing  private  investment,  including  risk  management  strategies  and  changes  to  developed  country  trade  policies  that  impact  Africa’s  regional  market  development.      

 Finally,  the  recommendations  conclude  with  a  section  that  draws  together  

the  previous  three  sections  and  discusses  possible  mechanisms  through  which  implementation  could  advance.    This  section  focuses  on  the  regional  Development  Corridors—noted  in  the  CAADP  Report  as  a  concept  that  has  widespread  support  among  the  donors.9    As  one  possibility,  a  more  explicit  linkage  between  the  CAADP  country  teams  and  the  private  sector—at  the  national,  regional  and  global  levels—could  be  achieved  through  using  a  combination  of  donor  and  private  investment  funds  to  create  privately-­‐run  agricultural  investment  facilities  focused  on  inclusive  and  efficient  investment  along  several  of  the  more  promising  transportation  and  Development  Corridors.  Another  related  mechanism  would  be  to  support  regional  value  chain  hubs  through  coordinated  application  of  a  suite  of  best  practices  designed  to  unlock  new  market  opportunity.    Both  mechanisms  could  also  provide  market-­‐based  touchdown  points  for  efforts  to  ensure  efficient  and  equitable  policy  solutions,  including  on  issues  like  land  use  and  ownership  that  thwart  investment  and  limit  food  security  efforts.            

                                                                                                                                 

  4  

Private  Sector  Engagement  in  the  CAADP  Process  To  Date      

A  review  of  the  literature  on  the  role  of  the  private  sector  as  a  driver  for  change  in  agriculture  and  food  systems  strongly  supports  the  contention  that  increasing  private  sector  investment  and  engagement  in  African  agricultural  and  food  system  development  is  the  best  way  to  propel  the  CAADP  process  forward  and  generate  real  results.10    Despite  increasing  private  sector  investment  in  Africa,  however,  a  clear  correlation  cannot  be  drawn  between  this  activity  and  the  CAADP  process.11    Overall,  private  sector  participation  in  the  CAADP  process  has  been  limited  and  somewhat  ad  hoc,  and  CAADP’s  own  reviews  report  that  business  feels  left  out  of  the  process.12      

 The  main  vehicle   for  private  sector  engagement  within  CAADP   thus   far  has  

been  the  country  planning  process,  which  has  worked  better  in  some  countries  than  others.     In   the   Ghana   country   planning   process,   business   was   reportedly   fairly  engaged.    But  it  has  been  less  engaged  in  other  country  processes  where  the  private  sector  has  historically  been   less  well   organized.  13    The  AU,  NEPAD  and   the  World  Economic  Forum,  with  donor  support  and  participation,  recently  launched  the  Grow  Africa  Initiative  to  help  facilitate  private  sector  investment  in  priority  value  chains  and   enhance   coordination  with   CAADP.14     Reliable   data   on   its   impact   are   not   yet  available,  however,  and  reports  indicate  that  its  private  sector  supporters  are  most  heavily  concentrated  among  larger  global  companies  that  can  play  an  important  role  but  have  different  needs  and  considerations  than  the  growing  group  of  smaller  and  medium-­‐sized   businesses   in   the   sector.     To   spur   private   sector   growth   and  investment,   CAADP’s   leadership   must   find   ways   to   engage   and   catalyze   private  sector  participants  of  all  sizes  along  entire  value  chains.15        

 The   term   “private   sector”   is   often   used   as   a   broad   catch-­‐all,   but   (as   Keith  

Palmer,   founder   and   Chairman   of   AgDevCo   and   InfraCo,   Ltd.,   argues)   there   are  distinctions   to  be  made   in  understanding   the  private   sector   in  African   agriculture  that  are  particularly  relevant  to  CAADP’s  focus  moving  forward:    

The  national  private  sector  in  agriculture  and  agribusiness  in  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  is  made  up  of  three  groups:  the  established  larger  businesses,  small  and  medium  sized  enterprises  and  small  holders  (family  farmers  and  individual  traders).      Growth  and  poverty  reduction  require  that  all  three  of  these  groups  benefit  from  and  contribute  to   national   development   …   clearly   foreign   corporate   investors   also   have   an  important   role   to   play   alongside   the   national   private   sector.    The   challenge   is   to  support   all   three   national   private   sector   groups   and   to   create   effective  partnerships   with   foreign   private   investors,   host   governments   and   the  international  development  community  (emphasis  added).16    

 Successfully   using   private   sector   investment   to   drive   CAADP   implementation  

will   require   that   CAADP   country   leadership   and   the   donors   support   new  ways   of  working   with   the   full   range   of   private   sector   actors.     It   will   also   require   better  approaches   to   create   the   kind   of   policy   and   enabling   environment   critical   to  

                                                                                                                                   

  5  

attracting  private   investment.  Both  will  entail  changes   in  CAADP’s  governance  and  processes,  more  targeted  donor  intervention  strategies,  and  enhanced  capacity  and  skills  at  both  the  country  and  regional  levels,  along  with  a  more  concentrated  effort  to  identify  solutions  to  the  more  intractable  problems  that  are  undermining  private  sector  investment,  especially  by  domestic  enterprises.        The  Role  of  Africa’s  Regional  Markets  and  Policy  Change   in  Stimulating  Agricultural  Development      

Private   sector   actors—whether   large   companies,   small   and   medium-­‐sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  or  commercially  oriented  farmers—base  their  decision-­‐making  on  the  market.    In  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa,  where  many  countries  are  either  landlocked  and  lacking  access  to  ports  or  so  small  that  local  markets  cannot  provide  adequate  economic   opportunities,   most   market   challenges   and   solutions   are   necessarily  regional   in   nature.17     Regional   markets   offer   the   economies   of   scale   required   to  expand   business   opportunities,   foster   competitiveness,   and   connect   producers   to  consumer  demand,  competitive  value  chains  and—eventually—global  markets.        

At   present,   however,   Africa’s   regional   markets   are   underdeveloped   and  complex,   performing  well   below   their   potential.     Although   a   significant   portion   of  agricultural  trade  is   informal  and  much  production  doesn’t  make  it  to  market,   it   is  still   striking   that,  given   the  dominance  of  agriculture   in  most  African  economies,18  formal   agricultural   trade   accounts   for   less   than   20   percent   of   intra-­‐African  exports.19    

 Regional   trade   barriers,   infrastructure   gaps,   weak   market   systems   for  

moving   high-­‐quality   seed   and   other   inputs,   and   lack   of   appropriate   financing  mechanisms  all  contribute  to  the   low  level  of   intra-­‐African  agricultural   trade.20    As  the  World  Bank  notes,  Africa  has  “integrated  with  the  rest  of  the  world  faster  than  with   itself.”21     It   takes   longer  and  costs  more   to  export  and   import  goods   in  Africa  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world,  with  more  documents  and  duplicative  paperwork  required  and  multiple  overlapping  policies  and  agencies  involved.    Africa’s  transport  costs  are  well  over  twice  those  of  other  developing  regions.22    

 Successfully  connecting  African  producers  and  SMEs  to  greater  opportunities  

is  not  just  a  matter  of  efficiency.    It  is  also  a  matter  of  equity,  which  goes  to  the  heart  of   CAADP’s   mandate. 23     With   a   large   segment   of   Africa’s   farmers   and   their  households   surviving   in   what   is   effectively   a   closed   system—isolated,   with   poor  access   to   transport,   market   information   and   nutritious   foods   and   virtually   no  incentive   to   improve   their   productivity—connecting   these   farmers   to   larger  markets   could   significantly   enhance  health   and  wellbeing,   spur   productivity   gains  and  expose  farmers  to  better  services,  seed  varieties  and  inputs.    Weak  markets  also  hamper   the   creation   of   much-­‐needed   job   opportunities   for   Africa’s   youth   and  women,  many  of  whom  are  hoping  to  find  opportunities  beyond  the  farm.    Further,  rural  areas  can  benefit   from  improvements   in  social  safety  nets,  reduced   isolation,  

                                                                                                                                 

  6  

and   social   spending   made   possible   by   positive   economic   growth   stemming   from  better  functioning  markets  and  improved  policies.  

 Africa’s   hard   infrastructure   challenges—lack   of   sufficient   and   high-­‐quality  

roads,   bridges,   highways,   storage   facilities,   etc.—are  well   documented   and   impact  businesses  of  all  kinds  and  sizes   in  Africa,   a   continent  with   three-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half   times  the  landmass  of  the  United  States  and  few  navigable  rivers.  Historically,  where  funds  have   existed   to   improve   infrastructure,   much   money   has   been   wasted   without   a  sound   economic   justification:   roads   were   built   that   did   not   connect   markets   to  centers  of  production,  and  ports  were  provided  with  the  wrong  equipment  that  still  lies   idle.24     Furthermore,   and  of  very  direct   concern   to   the  600  million  Africans   in  farm  families,  analysts  estimate  that  no  more  than  20  percent  of  public  investment  in   infrastructure   has   gone   to   rural   areas.25     Absent   new   forms   of   public-­‐private  intervention  that  generate  infrastructure  investment  linking  rural  areas  to  the  cities,  urban   areas   will   become   even   more   of   a   focus   and   the   rural   areas   that   need  infrastructure  the  most  will  become  increasingly  isolated.  

 But  while  hard   infrastructure   constraints  are  very   real,  most  of   the  market  

barriers  CAADP   identifies  as  priorities   for  agriculture  and   food  security   fall  under  the  category  of  “soft  infrastructure.”    A  weak  policy  environment  accounts  for  three  quarters  of  the  delays  and  difficulties   in  regional  trade,26  and  these  burdens  weigh  most   heavily   on   the   agricultural   sector.27     Multiple   checkpoints   along   transport  routes   run   up   costs   and   hamper   trade   in   many   farm   products,   including   cotton,  fruits  and  vegetables.28    For  example,  an  additional  day’s  delay  due  to  transport  and  customs   issues   can   reduce   exports   of   time-­‐sensitive   agricultural   goods   by   seven  percent. 29     Delays   can   also   lead   to   spoilage   and   additional   costs   through  warehousing  or  port  payments,  along  with  the  need  to  maintain  extra  inventory.    

 Addressing  soft  infrastructure  barriers  requires  a  number  of  interconnected  

steps,   among   them:   improving   and   enforcing   laws   and   regulations;   establishing  more   efficient   and   transparent   customs   procedures   and   other   measures   for  facilitating  trade;  improving  certification  systems  and  procedures  for  ensuring  food  safety;   and   enacting   and   enforcing   policies   to   make   better   quality   and   higher  yielding   seeds   available   through   market   channels.     All   of   these   are   essential   to  CAADP  implementation,  the  production  goals  at  the  heart  of  the  global  food  security  initiative   and   the   market   development   interests   of   both   the   public   and   private  sectors.      

 However,   despite   numerous   agreements   to   the   contrary—including   the  

detailed  agreements  for  free  trade  areas  and  customs  unions  that  underpin  Africa’s  RECs—progress   in   removing   the   soft   barriers   to   regional  market   development   in  most  regions  in  sub-­‐Saharan  Africa  has  been  slow  and  inconsistent.  African  national  policies  would  be  better  aligned  if  regional  agreements  were  better  enforced,30  but  these  agreements  lack  enforceability  mechanisms  to  begin  with.31    Not  surprisingly,  the   results   are   detrimental   to  market   development   and   regional   integration.     For  example,   in  many  African  regions  countries  have  neither  harmonized  sanitary  and  

                                                                                                                                 

  7  

phytosanitary   (SPS)   regimes   nor   do   they   recognize   the   regulatory   inspection  processes  of  neighboring  countries.    The   resulting  overlapping   regulatory   regimes  are  often  duplicative,  poorly  enforced  and  difficult  for  businesses  to  navigate.    Recommended   Actions   to   Drive   Private   Sector   Investment   in   Agricultural  Development        (1)  Opening  Markets  Through  Opportunity-­‐Driven  Policy  Change    

Ultimately,  strengthening  regional  markets  will  depend   largely  upon  a  real-­‐time,   direct   connection   between   high-­‐level   policymaking   processes   and   the  entrepreneurs   and   businesses   that   hold   the   potential   for   driving   inclusive  agricultural   development.   In   order   to   both   have   an   impact   and   be   scalable,   this  opportunity-­‐driven   approach   to   strengthen   market   conditions   and   jump-­‐start  private  sector  investment  must  start  with  specific  investment  opportunities  and  the  barriers  that  stand  in  their  way  and  then  work  back  up  to  the  policy  level,  instead  of  waiting  for  transformational  change  to  occur  the  other  way  around.    

     The  large  public-­‐led  policy  processes  tasked  with  improving  Africa’s  regional  

markets   have   had   limited   success   in   changing   the   enabling   environment   for  business.    This  is  in  part  because  the  link  between  economic  gain  and  policy  change  is   not   always   directly   articulated   or   perceived,   resulting   in   weak   incentives   for  policymakers—at   both   the   political   and   technical   levels—to   change   policies   or  practices.    The  fear  of  doing  the  wrong  thing  often   far  outweighs  the  possibility  of  success,   and   inaction   is   many   times   the   norm.     In   addition,   data   on   market  opportunities  and  factors  impeding  them  are  sparse  and  diffuse,  and  many  pressing  for   market   development   have   lacked   both   information   and   accountability.   While  political   will   remains   critical,   lasting   policy   change   in   the   agricultural   sector   will  depend  upon  the  ability  to  identify  what  is  possible  in  the  market,32  as  signaled  by  a  concrete  market  opening  and  demand  for  new  investment,  growth  or  diversification,  and   then   move   step   by   step   up   the   policy   chain   to   identify   and   address   specific  barriers  or  gaps  that  may  hinder  that  opportunity.        

The  need  for  an  opportunity-­‐driven  approach  to  policy  change33  is  supported  by   the   literature   on   Africa’s   regional   trade.     A   recent   World   Bank   report   on  “Defragmenting  Africa”  echoes  the  approach  in  calling  for  regional  integration  to  go  beyond   tariff   reduction   to   address   “on-­‐the-­‐ground   constraints   that   paralyze   the  daily   operations   of   producers   and   traders.”34  Francesco   Rampa   of   the   European  Centre   for   Development   Policy  Management   (EDCPM)   calls   for   “pragmatic   efforts  towards  regional  integration”  that  go  beyond  “broad  regional  policy  frameworks  .  .  .  [to]  target  the  development  of  business-­‐oriented  transport  and  regulatory  systems  for  specific  sectors.”35    In  “Agribusiness  for  Africa’s  Prosperity,”  UNIDO  presents  an  approach   that   analyzes   productive   potential   along   entire   value   chains,   identifying  weak  links  and  policy  and  investment  constraints.36    

   

                                                                                                                               

  8  

Numerous   examples   in   practice   underline   the   need   for   this   approach   and  demonstrate   its   potential   for   success.     These   include   the   difficulties   in   unlocking  horticultural   opportunities   along   the   Beira   Corridor   in   Mozambique   due   to  bureaucratic   constraints; 37  limitations   on   agricultural   opportunities   along   the  Southern   Agricultural   Growth   Corridor   of   Tanzania   (SAGCOT)   due   to   taxes,  regulatory   hurdles   and   government   red   tape;38  and   the   need   for   measures   to  revitalize  the  cotton  sector  in  Ghana,  including  policy  changes.39  

One  example  highlighting  how  real  policy   change   can  be  delivered   through  the  opportunity-­‐driven  approach  and  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the  community  as  a  whole  is  Mtanga  Farms  in  Tanzania,  where  such  a  model  was  adopted  to  jumpstart  a  successful  seed  potato  industry  (see  Box  1).    The  investment,  policy  and  agricultural  team   that   worked   with   the   entrepreneurs   at   Mtanga   Farms,   which   included   the  authors,   isolated   and   addressed   the   technological,   legal   and   regulatory   barriers  impeding   progress   towards   establishment   of   the   enterprise.     Removing   these  barriers   required   a   targeted   and   sequenced   approach   starting   with   knowledge  sharing  and  identifying  the  actions  to  be  taken.    This  success  has  been  reported  and  adopted  throughout  Tanzania  and  Kenya.    Collaboration  with  Tanzanian  and  Kenyan  regulatory   organizations   has   increased,   and   the   results   of   these   interventions   are  being   shared   with   investors   and   policymakers   in   Africa,   the   United   States   and  Europe.  

Box  1  The  Case  of  Mtanga  Farms  

 The   opportunity   around   which   Mtanga   Farms   was   built   came   from   a   group   of  African   entrepreneurs,   Jillanjo   Ltd.,  with   extensive   experience  working  with   small  farmers   to   create   inclusive,   commercial,   and   profitable   agriculture-­‐based  enterprises.    Before  Jillanjo  entered  the  market  some  150,000  smallholder  farmers,  many  of  them  women,  were  growing  potatoes  in  Tanzania.    Yet  these  farmers  were  only  getting  one-­‐fifth  to  one-­‐tenth  of  potential  global  yields,  which  meant  that  they  barely   grew   enough   potatoes   for   home   consumption   and   had   none   to   supply   the  growing   consumer   market   in   Tanzania.     In   particular,   there   was   no   source   of  commercial   quantities   of   healthy,   disease-­‐free,   high-­‐yielding   potato   seed   stock.    With  potatoes  being   trucked   in   from  South  Africa   to  meet   the  market  demands   in  Dar   es   Salaam,   however,   the  market   opportunity  was   clear.     The   opportunity  was  identified  and  investigated,  due  diligence  completed,  and  the  first  investment  made.    However,   Jillanjo   found  that   they  were  unable   to  obtain   the  advanced  disease-­‐free  seed   of   improved   potato   varieties   necessary   to  make   the   business  work   due   to   a  complex   web   of   technical,   legal   and   regulatory   hurdles.   Opening   the   Tanzanian  market  required   taking  one  concrete  step  after  another   to  address   these  obstacles  and   applying   a   hybrid   approach   that   combined   highly   technical   expertise   with  political  and  policy  understanding  to  identify  and  remove  barriers.    It  also  required  working   up   and   down   the   “policy   value   chain”  with   a   significant   number   of   local,  state,  regional  and  international  public  entities.        Today  Mtanga  Farms  is  a  thriving,  inclusive,  mixed-­‐use  commercial  enterprise,  with  a   commercial   greenhouse-­‐based   seed   potato   business   that   directly   employs  

                                                                                                                                   

  9  

upwards   of   150   women   and   plans   to   sell   improved   potato   seed   to   producers  throughout   Tanzania,   enabling   them   to   produce   and   sell   potatoes   for   home  consumption  in  the  growing  regional  market  around  Dar  es  Salaam.    Because  of  the  inclusive  approach  taken  with  Mtanga  Farms,  the  lessons  learned  have  been  spread  to  other  investors  and  regulators.    This  opportunity-­‐driven  approach  has  significant  room   for   scale-­‐up  with   other   investments,  making   it   very   relevant   to   the   goals   of  CAADP’s   implementation.     For   a   more   detailed   discussion,   see   the   case   study   of  Mtanga  Farms  done  by  the  Global  Impact  Investing  Network.40    

In  order  to  scale  up  this  approach,  particular  attention  will  need  to  be  placed  on   ensuring  both   that   the   voice   of   the  private   sector   is   appropriately  diverse   and  that   the   benefits   of   policy   change   take   root   at   the   community   level—critical   to  establishing   the   rule   of   law—which  will   require   focus   on   the   particular   needs   of  small   farmers,   women   and   others   largely   left   out   of   market   systems.   This   would  result   in   better   inclusivity   and   could   facilitate   access   to   voices   beyond   the   large  companies   that   have   historically   been   more   effective   at   getting   governments   to  address  the  barriers  they  face.    Doing  so  would  also  both  better  reflect  the  needs  of  the  market  and  capture  the  efficiency  and  equity  gains  noted  above.    

As   this   approach   is   expanded,   it   should   also   be   combined   with   targeted  public   sector   support,   capacity   building   interventions   and   better  mechanisms   for  engaging   the  private  sector.  Undoubtedly,   support   is  needed  to  strengthen  African  institutions,   such   as   the   RECs,   and   build   up   scientific   and   technical   capabilities  within  these  institutions.    As  an  overarching  principle,  however,  these  interventions  should   be   designed   and   carried   out   in   a   manner   that   will   support   increased  commercial  activity.  Doing  so  will  not  only  strengthen  mechanisms  for  collaboration  between   the   public   and   private   sectors   to   generate  more   inclusive   investment   in  African   agriculture,   it   will   also   strengthen   markets   themselves.     These   are   all  fundamental   requirements   for   the  opportunity-­‐driven  approach  and  are  discussed  in  more  detail  in  the  sections  below.    

 (2)   Establishing  Partnerships  to  Promote  Faster  Dissemination  and  Uptake  of  

Public  and  Private  Research  Products    

Private   sector   engagement   in   the   CAADP   process   could   be   strengthened  considerably,  and  inclusive  commercialization  propelled  forward,  by  the  creation  of  public-­‐private  collaboration  aimed  at  bringing   the  best  of  both  sectors   together   to  promote  CAADP’s  goals.    This  is  especially  important  in  the  development  and  use  of  research  products,  where  both  sectors  have  an  important  role  to  play.    

In  virtually  all  successful   food  systems  that  function  at  scale,   the  private  sector  plays  a  key  role  in  the  development  of  new  technologies,  the  provision  of  essential  services,   and  access   to  markets.  The   success  of  development  efforts   that   integrate  the  private   sector   can  be   seen   through   the   significant   impact   on  millions   of   small  producers   of   seeds   and   crop   protection   products,   fertilizers,   communications  technology  (e.g.  mobile  phones)  and  agricultural  machinery  and  tools.      

                                                                                                                                   

  10  

   Without   public   support,   however,   much   of   the   private   sector   investment   in  

African   agriculture   will   flow   to   more   market-­‐ready   commercial   parts   of   the  agriculture   system  and   to  models   that   are   not   optimally   pro-­‐poor   or   beneficial   to  CAADP’s  overall  goals.          On  the  other  hand,  if  public  sector  support  is  isolated  from  market   forces   (as   it   has  been   traditionally),   it   too  will   not   serve  CAADP’s   goals  of  wealth  generation,  poverty  alleviation,  economic  growth,   job  creation  and  regional  integration.      

Successfully  combining  public  goods  investments  and  private  sector  know  how  and  dissemination  capacities  is  critical  to  business  formation,  increased  productivity,  new  value-­‐added  activities  and  market  development.      This  is  especially  true  in  “pre-­‐commercial”   circumstances   and   areas   in   which   there   are   large   numbers   of  subsistence   farmers,  and  where  private  companies  and  public   institutions   lack  the  resources   or   incentives   to   fully   develop   products   or   exploit   their   assets  independently.     Systematic   interventions   to   promote   public-­‐private   collaboration  can   improve   the   functioning   of   value   chains   and   create   synergies   in   technology  generation   such   as   in   genetics,   plant   breeding,   soil   fertility   solutions,   crop  protection,  irrigation  and  mechanization.    In  turn,  all  of  these  can  help  attract  more  private  sector  engagement.        

Molecular  breeding  presents  especially  good  opportunities   to  use  partnerships  between   the   public   and   private   sector   at   the   national   level   to   spur   institutional  reforms  while  realizing  CAADP’s  goals.    To  strengthen  crop  breeding  programs,  for  example,  there  is  a  good  distribution  of  comparative  advantages.  The  international  agricultural   research   centers   (CGIAR)   and   the   national   programs   are   strong   at  phenotyping—using  experienced  observation  to  score   for   the  presence  or  absence  of   traits   in   a   population   of   crop   plants   grown   in   the   field—while   crop   science  companies   have   the   advanced   laboratories   and   databases   necessary   to   do  geneotyping—scoring   the  same  plants   for   the  presence  or  absence  of  known  DNA  sequences   and   segments,   including   alternative   versions   of   specific   genes.   Used   in  concert,  phenotyping  and  geneotyping  can  speed  the  development  of  crop  varieties  with  traits  important  to  African  farmers.  One  example  of  successful  collaboration  in  this   area   is   the  African  Agriculture  Technology  Foundation   (AATF),  which  bridges  the  transfer  of  technology  from  the  public  to  private  sector  (see  Box  2).      

 Box  2  

The  African  Agriculture  Technology  Foundation    

AATF  is  a  public-­‐private  partnership  created  to  serve  as  an  honest  broker  in  negotiating  for  royalty-­‐free   transfer   of   technologies   held   by   public   and   private   organizations   in  industrialized   and   developing   countries   to   smallholder   farmers   in   Africa.     It   is   a   good  example   of   an   Africa-­‐based   and   owned   institution   with   a   public-­‐private   mandate   that   is  worthy   of   replication.     Based   in   Kenya   and   created   with   support   from   the   Rockefeller  Foundation   and   others,   AATF   also   has   strong   support   from   global   seed   companies.       Its  mission   is   to   provide   African   farmers  with   access   to   existing   technologies   and   improved  

                                                                                                                                   

  11  

germplasm  from  the  private  sector  that  are  not  available  in  Africa  and  to  reduce  costs  and  speed   up   adaptation   and   use.    With   its   close   connections   to   the   private   sector   AATF   can  respond   to   farmer   “demand”   and   access   technologies   not   available   in   Africa   that   can  address   intractable   problems   such   as   Striga,   a   plant   parasitic   weed   that   significantly  reduced  yields  of  infested  crops.    The  Water  Efficient  Maize  for  Africa  (WEMA)  initiative  is  a  multilateral   consortium   led   by   AATF.     This   project   was   designed   to   use   marker-­‐assisted  breeding  and  biotechnology   to  develop  African  maize  varieties  with   the   long-­‐term  goal  of  making  drought-­‐tolerant  maize  available  royalty-­‐free  to  African  small-­‐scale  farmers.    

 Public-­‐private   arrangements   between   business-­‐oriented   NGOs   and   the  

private   sector   can   also   be   important   to   implementing   and   scaling   up   the  opportunity-­‐driven  model  for  policy  change  described  above.  For  example,  a  recent  report   for   the   Ford   Foundation   by   the   Sustainable   Food   Lab,   a   business-­‐oriented  NGO,  examines  how  to  make  specific  value  chains  work   for  poor   farmers.  41    Using  the  study  to  create  collaborative  “learning  by  doing”  opportunities  for  country  level  teams   working   with   business   could   be   one   way   to   build   country   level   capacity.    However,   this   would   require   an   unprecedented   collaboration   among   CAADP  leadership,  the  NGOs,  the  donors  and  the  private  sector.         Opportunities   to   expand   production,   create   businesses   and   reach   regional  markets   can   also   be   supported   through   creative   new   mapping   technologies   that  identify   trade   opportunities   based   on   capabilities   and   conditions   required   to  develop  new  products  and  show  where  value  could  be  added  based  on  skill,  level  of  development   and   growing   conditions.   For   example,   the   “Product   Space”  methodology   developed   by   the   MIT   Media   Lab   and   Harvard’s   Kennedy   School  Center   for   International   Development   and   housed   within   the   Observatory   of  Economic   Complexity   identifies   untapped   market   potential   through  comprehensively   mapping   the   products   countries   are—and   could   be—producing  based  on  existing  economic  and  institutional  capabilities.42      

As  a  way   to   strengthen  national   scientific   capacity   in  African  countries  and  ensure   that   the   publicly   supported   innovations   are   tested   and   adapted   for   small  farmers  in  the  precise  ecosystem  in  which  they  will  be  used,  the  CGIAR  centers  work  mainly   through   the  National  Agriculture  Research   Institutions   (NARS).    The  NARS  often  do  not  have  the  capacity  to  further  improve  or  test  new  seeds,  and,  as  a  result,  the  improved  varieties  frequently  languish  on  the  shelf.    Changing  this  will  require  new   approaches   to   public   goods,   including   the   creation   of   new   public-­‐private  entities  and  private  sector  businesses  capable  of  reaching  African  farmers.    Models  that   invest   in   and   disseminate   more   productive   technology,   such   as   new   higher  yielding  seeds,  carry  the  promise  of  great  benefit  but  also  come  with  risk  that  must  be  mitigated  through  appropriate  public  sector  interventions.    Such  investments  are  especially   important   in   Africa  where   so  many   farmers   depend   on   “orphan”   crops  such   as   cassava   that   do   not   supply   adequate   nutrition   for   healthy   growth   and  development.    The  preponderance  of  work  on  these  crops  is  being  conducted  by  the  international   crop   research   facilities   in   the   CGIAR   system,  whose  mechanisms   for  

                                                                                                                                   

  12  

getting   them   to   farmers   are   for   the   most   part   too   restrictive   to   allow   for   rapid  uptake  and  business  formation.    (See  Box  3)  

 Box  3  

Seeds2B—Promoting  Small-­‐Scale  Seed  Commercialization    

Recognizing   the   need   to   move   improved   seed   varieties   from   the   shelves   of   the  CGIAR   into   the   market   and   building   on   the   capacity   of   the   AATF,   the   Syngenta  Foundation  for  Sustainable  Agriculture  (SFSA)  has  developed  Seeds2B,  an  initiative  that   will   work   with   AATF   to   promote   small-­‐scale   commercialization   of   seed   of  improved  varieties  of  staple  and  other  crop  commodities.    Seeds2B  will  use  new  risk  mitigation   tools   and   new   licensing   models   and   work   on   trade   harmonization   to  demonstrate  to  African  farmers  and  small  seed  companies  that  it  is  possible  to  earn  a   profit   from   selling   improved   seeds   for   a  wide   range   of   crops.     The   relationship  with   AATF   is   being   developed   with   technical   support   from   SFSA’s   Africa   Seed  Program   in   seed   handling   and   risk   management.     Seeds2B   will   partner   with   the  AATF   and   others   to   develop   the   capacity   to   manage   the   transfer   of   new   high-­‐yielding   seeds   from   public   and   private   breeders   into   the   hands   of   African   seed  companies  and  farmers  in  commercial  quantities  through  market  channels.    SFSA’s  exit   strategy   envisions   leaving  behind   Seeds2B  as   a   new   for-­‐profit   enterprise   that  will  bridge  the  gap  between  the  public  and  private  sectors  and  promote  the  release  of   new   varieties   for   small-­‐scale   commercialization.     It   is   envisaged   that   this   will  result   in   greater   incentives   for   trade   harmonization   among   countries,   and   the  creation   of   new  models   for   seed   licensing   and   risk  mitigation.     It   will   also   add   a  much-­‐needed,   for-­‐profit   arm   to   AATF   that   can   use   the   revenues   these   services  generate  to  make  its  own  sources  of  support  more  sustainable.  

     Leadership   of   CAADP,   the   AU   and   NEPAD   are   all   well   aware   that   the  

transformation  of  African  agriculture  will  require  much  more  strategic  development  of   Knowledge,   Information   and   Skills   (KIS)   support   systems   for   CAADP  processes  (sector  investment  planning  and  implementation)  at  the  country  and  regional  levels.      These   CAADP  processes  must   have   at   their   core   evidence–based   quality   data   and  information,  as  well  as  capacity  and  skill  for  analysis.  New  public-­‐private  initiatives,  therefore,  must  be  structured  to  improve  the  research,  information  and  knowledge  base   that   underpins   the   CAADP   effort.     After   years   of   underinvestment   by   both  African   leadership   and   the   donors   in   research   and   development,   both  must   forge  expanded  (and  replicable)  public-­‐private  collaborations  capable  of  filling  the  gap  in  research   institutions,   market   information   sources   and   other   knowledge.     The  Strategic   Analysis   and   Knowledge   Support   Systems   (SAKSS)   initiatives   at   the  national  level,  and  ReSAKSS  initiatives  at  the  regional  level,  have  been  useful  in  this  context,   and   aspects   of   these   programs   should   be   extended   to   capture   data   on  business  environment  and  on  producer,  input  and  output  markets  performance,  as  well  as  on  the  political  economy  of  agriculture.43        

                                                                                                                                 

  13  

 (3)     Leveraging  Private  Sector  Investment  Through  Donor  Programs  and  Policies    

Transforming   African   agriculture,   one   of   CAADP’s   overarching   goals,   will  require   many   times   more   investment   capital   than   is   available   through   all   of   the  donors  and  impact  investors  combined.    Accordingly,  successful  implementation  of  CAADP   will   require   acceleration   of   the   pace,   scale   and   density   of   commercial  investment   in  African  agriculture  and   food  systems.  This  cannot  happen,  however,  without   change   on   the   part   of   both   the   bilateral   and  multilateral   donors   to   focus  their  programs  on  the  type  of   investment  support  Africa  needs  to  leverage  enough  private  sector  investment  to  meet  CAADP’s  ambitious  goals.    

 The  Role  of  the  Donors  in  Enabling  Private  Sector  Investment    

Investment  has  increasingly  become  an  area  of  focus  for  the  bilateral  donors,  and  many  are  actively  working  to  figure  out  ways  to  “invest”  rather  than  rely  solely  on   more   traditional   interventions   such   as   grant   making   and   contracts   with  development  organizations  and  non-­‐profits.     In  many  bilateral  donor  agencies,   the  internal   agricultural   expertise   has   diminished   and   the   necessary   skills   and  mechanisms   for   investment  decisions  and  programming  have  not  been  developed.      Nevertheless,  many  bilateral  agencies  are  under  political  pressure   to   show  results  quickly.      And  many  of  them  are  stuck  in  a  “cameo  project”  mentality  rather  than  a  systemic  one,  at  the  expense  of  a  more  dynamic  and  appropriate  role  in  leveraging  new  agricultural  investment.      Because  they  lack  the  track  record  with  private  sector  investment  strategies,   the  bilateral  donors  have  not  yet  developed  a  consistent  set  of  appropriate  public  sector  interventions  to  support  the  private  sector  activities  of  investment  funds  and  business-­‐oriented  non-­‐profit  institutions.      

 For   example,   tailoring   donor   interventions—whether   at   the   bilateral   or  

multilateral  level—to  catalyze  investment  opportunities  and  bridge  the  public  goods  gap   is   essential   to   generating   more   business   activity.       All   sectors   thrive   on  successful  replication  and  density,  and  agriculture  is  no  exception.    Africa  will  need  thousands  of  successful  commercial  SMEs  in  the  agricultural  sector  to  make  CAADP  implementation  work.    Success  will  bring  with  it  more  success,  with  the  more  viable  SMEs  being  emulated  by  others,  as  has  happened  in  the  technology  sector.    However,  even  the  successful  medium-­‐scale  agricultural  entrepreneurs  who  can  operate  both  commercially  in  both  local  and  regional  markets  have  trouble  securing  financing  on  reasonable   terms,   especially   if   they   use   “inclusive”   models   that   involve   small  farmers  in  their  business  plans  as  workers,  partners,  or  customers.    Tested  models  for   expanding   access   to   and   availability   of   private   sector   technologies   for   use   by  African   farmers   currently   remain   few   and   far   between,   with   donors   reluctant   to  channel  support  to  replicate  these  models.    

 Bilateral   donors   could   also  play   a  particularly   significant   role   in   leveraging  

private   sector   investment   and   supporting   business   formation   in   pre-­‐commercial  areas  where  capital  will  not  necessarily  flow.    The  donors  are  in  the  unique  position  

                                                                                                                                   

  14  

of   being   able   to   use   resources—while   remaining   unencumbered   by   the   need   to  make  a  profit—to  develop  new  tools  and  models  that  promote  sustainability,  wealth  accumulation,  inclusivity  and  efficiency.    And  they  are  well  positioned  to  ensure  that  investments  are  complemented  by  interventions  to  spread  the  benefits  so  the  public  good   is  maximized.    While   donors  must   be   careful   not   to   skew   investments   away  from  sustainability  and  profitability,  they  can  provide  the  kinds  of  services  needed  to   build   strong   food   systems   that   that   have   been   the   backbone   for   the  commercialization  of  agriculture  in  developed  countries.    

 Expanded  support  for  risk  management  tools  is  also  critical.    This  would  help  

businesses   invest   in   riskier,   more   inclusive   models   for   commercial   agricultural  production   and   related   food  processing   enterprises,   fill   in   gaps   in   the   value   chain  that  make  other  investments  less  likely  to  succeed,  and  create  ways  to  ensure  that  poor   farmers  are  able   to  benefit.44    Related   to   this,   the  donors  could  put  a  greater  emphasis   on  using  market   incentives   in   combination  with   programs   to   abate   risk  and  open  new  market  opportunities.      

The  investment  practices  of  the  development  finance  institutions  (DFIs)  and  international   finance   institutions   (IFIs),   including   the   International   Finance  Corporation  (IFC),  will  be  especially  critical   to  stimulating   the   type  and  amount  of  activity  required  for  the  implementation  of  CAADP.      Notably,  however,  their  role  is  undermined   by   the   significant   pressure   they   face   from   their   governments   and  investors  to  be  profitable,  which  tends  to  create  a  strong  preference  for  downstream  investments   (such   as   processing)   and   firms   with   proven   track   records.     While  investment  in  processing  and  ongoing  enterprises  remains  important,  the  increased  disincentive   for   investment   in   production   agriculture   that   results   from   these  practices   undermines   opportunities   for   broad-­‐based   agricultural   development.    Both  production  agriculture  and  start-­‐ups  carry  a  higher  risk  burden,  which   is  not  offset  in  production  agriculture  (especially  at  a  more  modest  commercial  scale)  by  high   returns.    As   a   result,   start-­‐ups  and  production  agriculture   in   general   are   less  attractive  to  most  commercial  investors  as  well.          But  both  are  essential  to  creating  value   chains   and   to   supporting   the  kind  of   dense   clusters   of   enterprises  Africa   so  desperately  needs.    Furthermore,  rather  than  work  to  reduce  risk  at   the   firm  level  and  provide  models  for  success,  many  investors  use  public  monies  to  de-­‐risk  at  the  portfolio   level,   keeping   their   low-­‐return   investments   to  a  minimum  and  balancing  them   (and   covering   their   losses)   with   more   profitable   ventures   in   other   sectors.    This   perpetuates   rather   than   lowers  market   risk,   which   is   seen   as   an   immutable  factor  more  suitable  for  high  table  policy  discussions  than  for  the  investor.  

 The  Role  of  Donor  Trade  and  Investment  Policies    

The   policy   environment   is   also   directly   linked   to   the   ability   of   donor  interventions   to   encourage   greater   private   sector   investment.   Most   immediately,  and  as  discussed  above,  weak  enabling  environments—which  tend  to  persist  even  if  policies  are   improved  “on  paper”—result   in   increased  costs  of  doing  business   that  render  many  investments  uneconomic  and  might  prevent  them  from  taking  place  at  

                                                                                                                                 

  15  

all.45     Private   sector   investors   will   not   wait   for   the   long   and   often   unsuccessful  government-­‐driven   processes   to   improve   business   conditions.46     Particularly   if  coupled   with   opportunity-­‐driven   policy   change,   bilateral   and   multilateral   donors  can  shape  programs  to  directly  address  and  reduce  market  risk  by  allocating  funds  to  address   legal  and  regulatory  challenges  that  may  stand   in  the  way  of  otherwise  viable  investments.      

 In   addition,   donor   country   policies   themselves   play   a   role   in   facilitating  

greater  private  sector  investment  in  African  agriculture.    As  discussed  above,  market  failures   caused   by  weak   enabling   environments   and   fragmented   regional  markets  contribute   to   significant   risk   for   investors.47     While   these   risks   are   not   primarily  caused   by   donor   country   policies,   donor   policies   can   further   fragment   African  markets   through   complex,   inconsistent   and   overlapping   policies.     In   some   cases,  these  complexities  arise  from  very  different  donor  approaches—as  is  the  case  with  the   United   States   and   European   countries;48  in   other   cases   they   can   result   from  conflicting   approaches   within   donor   governments.49     Often,   because   opportunity-­‐driven   analysis   is   lacking,   donor   policy   approaches   can   significantly   limit   African  opportunities  and  further  complicate  fragmented  markets,  such  as  has  been  the  case  with   Europe’s   Economic   Partnership   Agreements. 50     These   effects,   however  unintentional,   can   be   avoided   through   the   opportunity-­‐driven   policy   model  discussed   above,   which   will   ultimately   lead   to  more   opportunities   for   donor   and  African  private  sector  participants  alike.  

   Furthermore,   the  donors   lack  policies   that   are   effective   in   helping  Africans  

develop   strong   markets.   Donor   trade   policies   have   focused   too   exclusively   on  opening   export   markets,   neglecting   the   more   important   regional   market  development.   A   new   model   for   agricultural   development   that   moves   beyond  traditional   donor   aid   is   also   badly   needed.51     In   order   to   address   Africa’s   more  systemic   food   security   issues,   the   donor   countries  will   need   to   bring  much  more  than  their  aid  agencies  to  the  table.  

   Overall,   a  more   effective   policy   approach   on   the   part   of   the   donors  would  

involve  resetting  priorities   to  unlock  new   investment  potential  and  a  new   form  of  partnership  with  the  private  sector.    It  would  also  require  breaking  down  silos  and  increasing   coordination   within   governments,   both   within   Africa   and   in   donor  countries.    As  discussed  in  the  next  section,  CAADP  implementation  will  ultimately  rely   upon  mechanisms   that   can   spur   private   sector   investment,   leverage   effective  donor  interventions  and  generate  necessary  policy  change.    

 (4)  Strengthening  Governance,  Accountability  and  Implementation  Structures    

The  recommendations  above  outline  the  elements  of  an  approach  that  could  be  scaled  up   to  move  CAADP   forward   in   the  direction   it  has  declared   is  an  urgent  priority.     But   mechanisms   for   bringing   this   approach   together   with   concrete  demand   from   the   private   sector   will   also   be   necessary.     Fundamentally,   this   will  require  nimble  new  structures  for  coordination,  governance  and  accountability.      

                                                                                                                                   

  16  

Addressing  Challenges  at  the  National  and  Regional  Levels    Without   question,   much   more   emphasis   needs   to   be   placed   on   building  

capacity   and   empowering   the   CAADP   country   teams   to   incorporate   and   use  information   from   the  private   sector   to   stimulate   the  policy   changes   that   are  most  needed,   coordinate   public   and   private   investment   efforts   to   best   leverage   the  strengths  of  both,  and  aggregate  and  scale  up  existing  models  for  inclusive  growth.    Most   engagement  with   the  private   sector—working  with   companies,   cooperatives  and  farmers,  and  finding  viable  and   inclusive   investment  opportunities—will  need  to   take   place   within   countries,   especially   work   to   give   subsistence   farmers   the  confidence   to  move   into  deeper  relationships  with   the  private  sector  and  use  new  production  technologies  that  offer  real  benefits  but  also  carry  greater  risk.    CAADP  implementation  will  require  strong  country  level  teams  with  resources  to  carry  out  this  work.    Significant  investment  will  be  needed  to  build  the  capacity—in  terms  of  skills,   personnel   and   strategies—for   the   country   teams   to   be   able   to   perform   the  next  stage  of  work.        

However,   at   the   national   level,   those   in   charge   of   the   CAADP   country  processes   have   had   to   navigate   within   a   challenging   political   climate,   and   their  authority   has   depended   upon   the   interest   of   the   donors,   NEPAD,   the   AU   and  increased  general  concern  over  global  and  national  food  security.    When  CAADP  was  first  created   ten  years  ago,   it  appeared   to  many  country  governments   to  be  either  irrelevant   or   even   a   possible   threat   to   national   sovereignty.     Governments   had  become  used   to  donors  giving  agricultural  development  a   low  priority,  as  was   the  case   for   the   previous   30   years.     Control   over   access   to   the   budget   process—including   the   “development   budget”—was   negotiated   among   country   finance  ministers  and  their  donor  partners,  and  the  relationships  were  jealously  guarded.      

After   a   decade,   and   much   to   the   credit   of   the   country   teams   and   CAADP  leadership,  political  attitudes  toward  CAADP  (and  toward  agricultural  development  in  general)  have  improved  greatly.    However,  especially  in  countries  that  still  do  not  prioritize  agricultural  development,  opportunities  for  political  engagement  between  CAADP   country-­‐level   leaders   and   the  more   powerful  ministries  with   control   over  budget  and  policy  disputes  remains  limited.    Country-­‐level  CAADP  officials  are  often  unable   even   to   present   a   “voice   of   reason”   at   the   table   and   challenge   short-­‐term  politically   motivated   decisions   affecting   the   agriculture   sector.     This   lack   of  authority   and   clout  makes  CAADP   less   interesting   to   investors,   and   several   of   the  CAADP   reviewers   suggested   that   at   the   country   level   CAADP   should   become   a  “service   provider”   for   businesses   seeking   to   invest   in   agriculture   in   that   country.    Without   new   resources   and   a   strengthened   mandate,   however,   the   already  overstretched   CAADP   country   leaders   will   not   be   in   a   position   to   provide   such  services  or  carry  out  implementation  activities.  

 In   addition   to   the  national-­‐level   focus,   CAADP’s   leadership,  NEPAD  and   the  

AU   have   all   repeatedly   articulated   support   for   regional   market   development.52    These   efforts   have   focused   on   two   channels—regional   planning   processes  

                                                                                                                                   

  17  

(compacts)  and  support  for  the  regional  Development  Corridors—both  of  which  are  meant  to  be  carried  out  through  the  RECs.    The  regional  compact  planning  process  is  relatively  new  to  CAADP,  and  only  the  Economic  Community  of  West  African  States  (ECOWAS)   region   has   produced   a   plan.     While   several   other   regional   plans   are  underway,  including  one  with  the  Common  Market  for  Eastern  and  Southern  Africa  (COMESA)   and   a   newer   process   with   the   East   African   Community   (EAC),53  this  process   is  still  quite  new  and  must  find  ways  to  effectively  connect  to  the  national  level  where  much  of  the  action  will  be  required.      

 The   RECs   have   an   important   role   to   play   in   regionalization   but   they  

themselves   have   struggled  with   becoming   an   agent   of   change   because   of   capacity  challenges,   operational   constraints   and   complicated   political   legacies.   For   these  reasons,  many  CAADP  observers   question   the   extent   to  which   the  RECs   can  drive  CAADP  implementation.    The  2010  CAADP  review  described  the  problem  well:    

Although  the  RECs  vary  with  respect  to  their  capacities,  resources  and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  trusted  by  their  member  states,  the  scale  of  the  task  of  launching  and  supporting  CAADP  implementation  simultaneously  in  many  countries  is  far  beyond  even  the  strongest  of  them.    Efforts  to  strengthen  the  RECs  are  being  undertaken  in  parallel  with  the  implementation  process  but  this  has  not  alleviated  the  immediate  capacity  constraint.54      

 Effective   implementation   of   CAADP   will   require   mechanisms   that   can  

navigate   these  challenges  at   the  national  and  regional   levels  and  drive   the  CAADP  process   forward.     Working   through   such   mechanisms   would   require   a   CAADP  structure   that   has   greater   executive   capacity   and   can   work   at   both   national   and  regional  levels  to  bring  all  of  the  existing  pieces  together  and  generate  dynamic  new  forward  momentum.     This   strengthened   institutional   structure   should   be   built   on  the  foundation  that  has  already  been  laid,  enhancing  rather  than  replacing  the  hard  work  of  ten  years  of  CAADP  deliberations  and  processes.    One  promising  possibility,  which  already  has  strong  support  within  CAADP,  exists  in  the  regional  Development  Corridors.        Building  on  the  Development  Corridors  as  a  Coordinating  Mechanism      

The  Development  Corridors  (see  Box  4)  represent  a  market-­‐driven  approach  to   regional   development.55       As   such,   they   offer   a   mechanism   to   support   CAADP  implementation   and   activities   in   a   way   that   draws   in   and   coordinates   with   the  private  sector.    

Box  4  The  African  Development  Corridors  

 The  Development  Corridors   stemmed   from  Nelson  Mandela’s   vision   for   economic   growth  and   security   in   sub-­‐Saharan   Africa,   which   hinged   upon   economic   policies   shared   across  regions,  greater  collaboration  between  business  and  government,  and  more  transportation  linkages   between   Africa’s   vast   interior   and   international   maritime   trading   routes.       As  

                                                                                                                                   

  18  

President   of   South   Africa,   Mandela   recognized   what   is   widely   accepted   today:   Africa’s  rudimentary   transportation   infrastructure   is   preventing   African   entrepreneurs   from  benefitting—as   either   sellers   or   buyers—from   regional   and   global   markets,   ultimately  keeping  millions   of   Africans   locked   in   poverty.56     Mandela   was   especially   concerned   that  Africa’s   hundreds  of  millions   of   small—mostly   subsistence—farmers  be   included   in   value  chains   and   benefit   from   regional   development   strategies.     Mandela   also   understood   that  most   agricultural   enterprises   were   not   profitable   enough   to   build   infrastructure   or  command   the   changes   required   in   the   enabling   environment,   but   he   saw   that   if   both  demand  and   the   infrastructure   to   link  products  and  people  with   larger  markets  existed,  a  tremendous   opportunity  would   be   created   for   agriculture   and   food  production.     It  would  then  be  up  to  the  country  governments  to  build  the  “farm  to  market”  roads  that  could  over  time  give  more  remote  African  villages  a  way  to  move  products  in  and  out.57          

While  the  Corridors  present  a  more  market-­‐focused  approach  upon  which  to  build,  they  too  have  had  their  challenges.  Most  of  them  do  not  as  yet  have  adequate  governance  entities  that  could  take  on  direct  coordination  with  CAADP  leadership,  and,  as  noted  in  the  CAADP  Report,  agricultural  development  suffers  as  a  result.    The  most   successful   Corridor   governing   authorities   have   been   those   that   have   real  power  to  regulate  and  to  balance  authority  between  the  public  and  private  sectors.    (The  Walvis  Bay  Corridor  is  one  such  example).    Without  this  public-­‐private  balance,  transport  can  be  improved  and  donors  somewhat  better  aligned,  as  happened  with  the  Maputo  Corridor,  but  the  potential  for  stimulating  private  investment,  especially  in  agriculture,  will  fall  short.    

 In   addition,   both   politics   and   private   sector   hesitation   around   agricultural  

investment,   due   to   some   of   the   factors   discussed   above,   have   often   limited   the  possibilities   for   realizing   the   vision   for   the   Corridors.     While   the   Corridors   need  business   to   thrive—as   was   demonstrated   by   experience   with   the   successful  Corridors   in   Southern   Africa—business   has   mainly   been   interested   in   using   the  Corridors  for  resource  extraction  and  other  industrial  development.  58    Furthermore,  within  Africa,  continent-­‐wide  support  has  been  needed  for  the  Corridors,  yet  NEPAD,  the  RECs  and  the  AU  have  taken  a  somewhat  piecemeal  approach  to  the  Corridors  and   regional   integration   more   broadly,   limiting   opportunities   for   market  development.      

The   new   focus   on   food   security   in   Africa   and   new   business   interest   in  agriculture   hold   particular   hope   for   a   heightened   and   coordinated   role   for   the  Corridors   as   well   as   particular   implications   for   CAADP.     A   number   of   countries,  donor  development  agencies  and  other  stakeholders  (including  the  World  Economic  Forum)  have  embraced  Mandela’s  vision,  at  least  in  part,  and  support  the  Corridors  as   a   touch-­‐down   point   for   investment   opportunities.     If   enhanced,   the   Corridors  could  offer  an  institutional  approach  that  is  complementary  to  CAADP’s  framework  and   could   help   CAADP   move   forward   into   implementation   without   the   need   for  creating  an  entirely  new  implementation  structure.    The  Corridors  could  potentially  host  a  continent-­‐wide  structure   through  which,   for  example,   the  global  companies  that   have   pledged   support   for   Grow  Africa   and   the   New  Alliance   for   Global   Food  Security  and  Nutrition,  both  of  which   link  to  CAADP,  could  work  with  the  national  

                                                                                                                                   

  19  

private   sectors   (farmers,   SMEs,   Africa-­‐based   agribusiness)   and   other   innovative  mid-­‐sized  businesses  and  investors,  all  in  tandem  with  donors.          Scaling  Up      

In  order  for  a  mechanism  like  the  Corridors  to  succeed  and  become  a  critical  part   of   CAADP’s   implementation,   public   resources   available   to   the   donors   for  African   food   security  will   have   to  be  used   at   least   in  part   to   create  more   efficient  ways  to  expand  and  replicate  successful  enterprises  and  models  (rather  than  create  individual   success   stories   and   move   on),   leverage   private   capital   through   more  efficient   interventions   and   partnerships,   and   use   the   combination   of   public   and  private  investment  in  an  “action-­‐forcing”  way  to  create  better  business  conditions.        

For  example,  donor  efforts  could  work  in  combination  with  a  private  sector  investment   facility   for   agriculture   on   each   Corridor   that   provides   a  market-­‐based  focus  for  commercial   investment,   is  capitalized  by  global  investors,  businesses  and  banks,   and   offers   competitively   priced   capital,   business   acumen   and   globally  accepted   standards   and   procedures.   This   structure   could   strengthen   CAADP  country-­‐level  implementation  capacity,  help  with  risk  mitigation,  and  provide  better  access   to  public   goods   and  public   capital   aimed  at   leveraging  more  private   sector  investment.    There  is  a  rich  and  detailed  literature  on  how  such  a  facility  might  work,  but  it  would  be  important  that  its  investment  decisions  be  governed  by  commercial  agricultural   investment   and   business   rules,   within   the   framework   of   globally  accepted   financial   standards   and   procedures.     Donor   funds   could   be   used   to  leverage   the   private   sector   investments,   work   to   expand   opportunity,   pursue  strategies   to   reduce   risk   and   use   public   donor   capital   to   expand   the   number   of  people  who  would   benefit.     Through   the   introduction   of   global   lending   standards  and   world-­‐class   investment   capacities,   this   could   stimulate   the   proliferation   of  inclusive   yet   efficient   models   of   agricultural   development   and   encourage   African  financial   systems   to   become   more   competitive   and   supportive   of   regional  integration.      

 Such   a   facility   could   also   be   supported   by   technically   proficient   teams  

capable   of   sourcing,   assessing,   putting   together,   and   supporting   new   and   existing  business  ventures.    The  donors  could  support  CAADP  country  teams  and  work  with  them  to  ensure  the  integrity  of  the  procedures  and  practices,  as  well  as  facilitate  the  realization  of  CAADP’s  dual  goals  of  food  security  and  agricultural  growth.    A  CAADP  implementation   team   with   more   capacity   to   work   within   the   framework   of   the  compact  agreements  at  the  national  level  and,  with  donor  and  investment  support,  at   the   regional   level   through   the  Corridors   could  provide  a  powerful   incentive   for  bureaucratic   change,   more   government   cooperation,   better   harmonization   of  practices,  and  support  for  other  necessary  functions.    This  would  provide  a  means  of  moving  forward  continent-­‐wide  in  a  timely,  efficient  and  equitable  manner.      

   

                                                                                                                                   

  20  

Strengthening  Regional  Value  Chains  

  As   the   regional   compact   planning   process   picks   up   steam   in   both  COMESA  and  the  EAC,  approaches  that  complement  the  Corridors  are  emerging  to  engage  the  private   sector,   implement   regional   market   development   and   build   much-­‐needed  institutional   capacity.     One   promising   approach   is   public-­‐private   collaboration  around   regional   value   chain   hubs   that   coordinate   the   factors   and   stakeholders  necessary  for  development  along  value  chains  to  occur.    

As  with   the   Corridors   and   ongoing   value   chain   development   through  Grow  Africa  and  other  initiatives,  success  will  depend  upon  focused  public-­‐private  collaboration  and   the  ability   to  effectively  scale  up  models   to  develop  storage,   feeder  roads  and  other  necessary  infrastructure  and  enhance  technical  capacity  and  capability  within  regional   institutions   and   farmers’   organizations   alike.     The   hubs   and   other   value  chain   initiatives   will   also   have   to   successfully   deliver   ways   in   which   to   open   up  regional   trade   in   practice   instead   of   on   paper,   including   through   one-­‐stop   border  posts  and  other  trade  facilitating  measures.      

Closing  the  Capacity  and  Policy  Gaps    

Over   time,   in   addition   to   providing   a   practical   way   to   use   public   funds   to  leverage   private   sector   investment   in   support   of   both   agricultural   growth   and  poverty   reduction   through   wealth   enhancement,   the   Corridors   and   related  mechanisms  could  also  provide  a  training  ground  for  young  Africans  and  developed  country   professionals   in   investment,   law   and  policy   and   the   full   range   of   services  needed   to  make  entrepreneurial   enterprises   fully   successful.    This  would  build  on  but  go  beyond  the  technical  assistance  currently  offered  by  donors  and  nonprofits  and  could  target  services  directly  to  the  needs  of  entrepreneurs.    However,  it  will  be  important  to  ensure  that  the  public  goods  approach  is  promoted  so  that  benefits  can  be  extended  beyond  one  investment  or  firm  to  the  sector  as  a  whole  in  a  way  that  recognizes   the   many   equities   involved.   Such   activities   would   contribute   to   more  steady   investment   in  support  of  building  African  capacity  and  would   leave  behind  functioning  institutions  at  the  end  of  the  process.    

Going  full  circle,  the  business  opportunities  made  through  these  efforts  could  also  be  action-­‐forcing  events  to  demonstrate  that  a  better  business  climate  creates  more  opportunity  for  more  people,  which  in  turn  will   lead  to  more  prosperity  and  stability.    Trade  and  investment  policies  will  remain  critical.    One  of   the   lessons  of  the  failure  of  the  Doha  Development  Round  of  global  trade  talks  at  the  World  Trade  Organization   (WTO)   is   that   without   a   viable   development   plan   that   links   more  liberal   trade   policies   with   reliable   opportunities   for   economic   growth   and   food  security,   trade   liberalization  will   not   garner   the   support   required   to   override   the  entrenched  interests  that  have  always  blocked  reform.        

                                                                                                                                 

  21  

 Conclusion    

The  possibility  of   implementing  CAADP   in  a  dynamic,   inclusive  way   is  very  tangible,   yet   visionary   new   efforts  will   be   required   to   bring   all   of   the   drivers   for  change   together   and   enable   CAADP   to   better   deliver   on   its   promise.       If  appropriately   scaled   up   and   combined  with   significant   technical   competence   and  support,  the  approaches  and  mechanisms  discussed  above  could  provide  a  real-­‐time  way   for   businesses   of   all   sizes   to   engage   in   Africa’s   agricultural   development,  potentially   speeding   up   successful   implementation   and   strengthening   the   CAADP  institutions,  RECs  and  the  Corridors.    

Effectively   building   up   these   mechanisms   and   moving   to   an   opportunity-­‐driven   strategy   to   remove   barriers   and   better   aligning   donor   practices   would  require  a  seismic  shift  among  the  Africans  and  donors  alike.    But  the  need  for  such  a  solution  stems  from  a  close  reading  of  the  CAADP  literature  and  the  urgent  situation  facing   African   agriculture:     only   by   building   on   the   strengths   of   the   public   and  private   sectors   and   linking   CAADP   to   existing   institutional   processes   will   it   be  possible  to  take  advantage  of  the  current  window  of  opportunity  for  Africa’s  farmers  and  consumers  to  put  the  continent’s  tremendous  agricultural  production  potential  to   use   to   feed   its   people   and   spur   economic   growth.         Support   structures   that  facilitate  quicker  action  among  the  players  at  the  country  and  regional   levels  must  be  put  in  place,  however,  as  this  window  of  opportunity  is  closing  fast.        

Climate   change   is   taking   an   increasing   and   unexpectedly   rapid   toll,  threatening   to   cut   rain-­‐fed   farm   yields   by   half,   with   severe   impacts   for   the   vast  preponderance   of   African   farming.     Without   major   private   sector   investment   to  increase   productivity,   build   regional   markets,   and   create   jobs   and   wealth   among  Africa’s   rural   people,   the   deterioration   of   Africa’s   productive   capacity   and   the  resulting  diaspora  of  hungry  and  ill-­‐equipped  Africans  would  not  only  wreak  havoc  in  rural  areas  but  would  also  be  felt  acutely  in  the  cities,  the  region,  and  worldwide.    The  ambitious  plans  of  donors   to  use   their   resources   to   facilitate  sustainable   food  security  and  economic  growth  in  Africa  would  thus  be  deflected  once  again—as  they  must—to   meet   increasingly   dire   new   emergencies   that   require   emergency   aid  responses  but  do  nothing  to  build  the  long  term  capacity  of  Africa  to  feed  itself.                                                                                                                          1  “CAADP-­‐Sustaining  the  Momentum  Into  the  Next  Decade,”  NEPAD  and  NEPAD  Planning  and    2  Global  Harvest  Initiative,  Global  Agricultural  Productivity  (GAP)  Report,  2011-­‐12  Washington,  DC.    3  Alassane  Ouattera,  “Stability  and  Prosperity  in  West  Africa:    Cote  d’Ivoire’s  Contribution,”  Chattam  House,  July  27,  2012.    4  Value  chain  development  implies  mutual  investment  up  and  down  the  production  chain,  with  “value”  added  to  each  leg  of  the  chain.    Agriculture,  in  particular,  lends  itself  to  a  value  chain  approach,  with  

                                                                                                                                   

  22  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         food  safety,  quality  and  traceability  included  in  the  system.  5  Supra,  Note  1.    6  Id.    7  “Overview:    Pathways,  Drivers,  and  Spaces,”  Johannes  F.  Linn,  Brief  I  in  “Scaling  Up  in  Agriculture,  Rural  Development  and  Nutrition,”  Johannes  F.  Linn,  ed.,  Focus  29,  June  2012,  2020  Vision  for  Food,  Agriculture  and  the  Environment,  International  Food  Policy  Research  Institute.    8  Id.    9  The  CAADP  Report  proposes  “new  energy  for  devising  infrastructure  corridors  must  incorporate  agricultural  opportunities  and  seek  synergies.”  Supra,  Note  1.    10  A  particularly  comprehensive  compilation  of  research  by  the  United  Nations  Industrial  Development  Organization  (UNIDO)  makes  a  compelling  case  for  the  central  role  of  agribusiness  in  agricultural  development,  highlighting  the  “strong  synergies  .  .  .  between  agribusiness,  agricultural  performance  and  poverty  reduction  for  Africa.    “Agribusiness  for  Africa’s  Prosperity,”  Kandeh  Yumkella,  Patrick  Kormawa,  Torben  Roepstorff,  and  Anthony  Hawkins,  eds.,  UNIDO,  2011.  See  also  Imoni  Akpofure,  “Let  the  Private  Sector  be  a  Catalyst  for  Sustainable  Development,”  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  8,  October  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management)  and  “CAADP  Review:    Renewing  the  Commitment  to  African  Agriculture,”  Final  Report,  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency,  March  2010.        11  See  Babatunde  Omilola,  Mbaye  Yade,  Joseph  Karugia  and  Pius  Chilonda,  “Monitoring  and  Assessing  Targets  of  the  Comprehensive  Africa  Agriculture  Development  Programme  (CAADP)  and  the  First  Millennium  Development  Goal  (MDG)  in  Africa,”  ReSAKSS  Working  Paper  No.  31,  July  2010.  

12  “CAADP  Review:    Renewing  the  Commitment  to  African  Agriculture,”  Final  Report,  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency,  March  2010.    13  Ghana  is  touted  as  a  success  story  for  its  engagement  with  other  stakeholders,  including  the  private  sector,  while  Ethiopia  is  noted  as  having  a  less  robust  private  sector  engagement  process.    See  “CAADP  Success  Stories  2  Ghana:    Enhancing  Stakeholder  Engagement,”  NEPAD  March  2011  and  “CAADP:    Highlighting  the  Successes,”  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency,  November  2010.        14  Grow  Africa  is  focused  on  Rwanda,  Ethiopia,  Burkina  Faso,  Tanzania,  Mozambique,  Ghana  and  Kenya.    See  “African  and  Global  Leaders  Rally  Private  Sector  Investment  to  Accelerate  Agricultural  Transformation,”  AllAfrica.com,  May  10,  2012,  available  at  http://allafrica.com/stories/201205101271.html?page=2.    15  See,  e.g.,  Presentation  by  FANARPAN  available  at  www.fanrpan.org/documents/.../NSA_presentation-­‐Yaounde.pps.    16  Keith  Palmer,  “Achieving  Higher  Growth  and  Poverty  Reduction  in  Sub-­‐Saharan  Africa:    A  Note  for  the  Commission  on  Africa,”  2004.        17  For  example,  political  borders  “separate  surplus  millet  and  sorghum  producers  in  southern  Mali  and  Burkina  Faso  from  deficit  markets  in  half  a  dozen  surrounding  countries;  surplus  maize  and  bean  producing  zones  of  Uganda  from  deficit  markets  in  Kenya,  southern  Sudan  and  Rwanda;  food  surplus  northern  Mozambique  and  southern  Tanzania  from  intermittently  deficit  markets  in  Malawi  and  eastern  Zambia;  and  livestock  exporters  in  Mali,  Mauritania,  and  Niger  from  coastal  markets  all  

                                                                                                                                   

  23  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         across  West  Africa.”    Steven  Haggblade,  “Unscrambling  Africa:    Regional  Requirements  for  Achieving  Food  Security,”  Michigan  State  University,  October  2010.  18  In  some  countries,  up  to  90  percent  of  rural  livelihoods  are  focused  around  agriculture.      World  Bank,  World  Development  Report  2008:  Agriculture  for  Development,  Washington,  DC  2008.    19  See  Francesco  Rampa,  “Trade  and  Development  for  Food  Security:    Tapping  the  Potential  of  Regional  Agricultural  Trade,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  1,  January/February  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).    Report  cites  UNCTAD,  “Economic  Development  in  Africa  Report  2009:    Strengthening  Regional  Economic  Integration  for  Africa’s  Development,”  2009.    20  See,  Francesco  Rampa,  “Trade  and  Development  for  Food  Security:    Tapping  the  Potential  of  Regional  Agricultural  Trade,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  1,  January/February  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).        21  Foreword  by  Marcelo  Giugale  in  Paul  Brenton  and  Gozde  Isik,  eds.,  “Defragmenting  Africa:    Deepening  Regional  Trade  Integration  in  Goods  and  Services,”  World  Bank  2012.    22  “Trade   Facilitation   to   Promote   Intra-­‐African   Trade,”   Committee   on   Regional   Cooperation   and  Integration,  Addis  Ababa,  Ethiopia,  March  24-­‐25,  2005.    23  Foreword  by  Marcelo  Giugale  Paul  Brenton  and  Gozde  Isik,  eds.,  “Defragmenting  Africa:    Deepening  Regional  Trade  Integration  in  Goods  and  Services,”  World  Bank  2012.    24  For   the  2009  World  Development  Report,  World  Bank  economists  analyzed  the  past  20  years  of  the   agency’s   infrastructure   investments,   dividing   the   developing   world   into   four   regions,   one   of  which  was   sub-­‐Saharan  Africa.     They   found   that,   in   three   of   those   regions,   over   75   percent   of   the  business   infrastructure  was   in   the   “right”   places   to   underpin   increased   economic   growth.     In   Sub-­‐Saharan   Africa,   the   figure   was   under   50   percent.     World   Bank,  World   Development   Report   2009:  Reshaping  Economic  Geography,  Washington,  DC,  2009.        25  Vivien   Foster   &   Cecilia   Briceño-­‐Garmendia,   PowerPoint   presentation   based   on   Africa’s  Infrastructure:  A  Time  For  Transformation,  World  Bank,  2009.    Presented  March  2010.  26  LM  Harmon,  B   Simataa   and  A  van  der  Merwe   “Implementing  Facilitation  on  Trade  and  Transport  Corridors,”  Proceedings  of   the  28th  Southern  African  Transport  Conference  (SATC  2009),  Document  Transformation  Technologies,  Pretoria,  South  Africa,  July  6-­‐9,  2009.    27  Todd  Moss  and  Alicia  Bannon,  “Africa  and  the  Battle  over  Agricultural  Protectionism,”  Washington,  DC:  Center  for  Global  Development,  2009.    28  While  the  costs  of  transport  delays  are  significant,  the  benefits  of  reducing  transport  times  can  be  immediate   and   transformative.   Mali   and   Senegal   signed   a   border   cooperation   agreement   that  reduced  the  number  of  checkpoints  from  twenty-­‐five  to  four,  and  transport  time  quickly  went  from  seven   to   ten  days   to   just   one  or   two.   “Doing  Business   in  Landlocked  Economies,”  Washington,  DC:  World  Bank  Group,  2009.    29  Id.    30  Paul  Collier,  The  Bottom  Billion,  Oxford  University  Press  2007.    See  also  “Assessing  Regional  Integration  in  Africa  IV:    Enhancing  Intra-­‐African  Trade,”  Economic  Commission  for  Africa,  African  Union,  African  Development  Bank,  2010.    31  See  Iwa  Salimi,  “African  Economic  Integration  and  Legal  Challenges,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  1,  January/February  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).      

                                                                                                                                 

  24  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           32  See  Jakob  Oster  and  Paida  Nyamakanga,  “Engaging  Local  Business  Organizations  as  a  Powerful  Tool  for  Successful  Public-­‐Private  Dialogue,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  8,  October  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).        33  See  Advisory  Council  on  Trade,  “A  Market-­‐Based  Approach  to  Trade  and  Development:    Policy  Recommendations  for  the  Prospective  U.S.-­‐EAC  Trade  and  Investment  Partnership,”  September  2012,  available  at  http://transfarm.org/act/.    34  Foreword  by  Marcelo  Giugale  in  “Defragmenting  Africa:    Deepening  Regional  Trade  Integration  in  Goods  and  Services,”  Paul  Brenton  and  Gozde  Isik,  eds.,  World  Bank  2012.    35  Francesco  Rampa,  “Trade  and  Development  for  Food  Security:    Tapping  the  Potential  of  Regional  Agricultural  Trade,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  1,  January/February  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).        36  “Agribusiness  for  Africa’s  Prosperity,”  Kandeh  Yumkella,  Patrick  Kormawa,  Torben  Roepstorff,  and  Anthony  Hawkins,  eds.,  UNIDO,  2011.    37  Keith  Palmer,  “Achieving  Higher  Growth  and  Poverty  Reduction  in  Sub-­‐Saharan  Africa:    A  Note  for  the  Commission  on  Africa,”  2004.        38  “Tanzania:    Key  Stakeholders  Want  More  Incentives  for  the  Agricultural  Sector,”  Tanzania  Daily  News,  December  26,  2011.    39  See  Philippe  Scholtes,  “Tapping  into  the  Agribusiness  Potential  for  Africa’s  Prosperity,”  October  24,  2012,  International  Centre  for  Trade  and  Sustainable  Development  (ICTSD).    40  Global  Impact  Investing  Network  (GIIN)  “Improving  Livelihoods,  Removing  Barriers:    Investing  for  Impact  in  Mtanga  Farms,”  November  2011.    

41  Under  What  Conditions  are  Value  Chains  Effective  Tools  for  Pro-­‐Poor  Development?  Report  from  the  Sustainable  Food  Lab  to  the  Ford  Foundation,  http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16029IIED.pdf    42  Observatory  of  Economic  Complexity  (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/).    Given  the  importance  of  the  policy  environment  in  unlocking  untapped  economic  opportunity,  TransFarm  Africa  is  partnering  with  the  Observatory  to  add  a  new  dimension  that  maps  the  policy  environment  affecting  products  with  nascent  economic  potential.    

43  Supra,  Note  1.    44  Under  What  Conditions  are  Value  Chains  Effective  Tools  for  Pro-­‐Poor  Development?  Report  from  the  Sustainable  Food  Lab  to  the  Ford  Foundation,  http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16029IIED.pdf    45  Keith  Palmer,  “Achieving  Higher  Growth  and  Poverty  Reduction  in  Sub-­‐Saharan  Africa:    A  Note  for  the  Commission  on  Africa,”  2004.        46  “Spotlight  on  African  Agriculture,”  INFOCUS,  September  2012,  Lion’s  Head  Global  Partners,  available  at  http://www.lhgp.com/120924-­‐Spotlight%20on%20Ag_final%20Sep12.pdf.    

                                                                                                                                   

  25  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         47  Keith  Palmer,  “Achieving  Higher  Growth  and  Poverty  Reduction  in  Sub-­‐Saharan  Africa:    A  Note  for  the  Commission  on  Africa,”  2004.        48  See  Dominique  Njinkeu,  “Boosting  Intra-­‐African  Trade:    What  Role  for  the  External  Trade  Regime,”  in  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  1,  January/February  2012  (European  Centre  for  Development  Policy  Management).        49  For  example,  the  U.S.  government  has  been  a  strong  proponent  of  global  food  security  efforts,  including  through  the  Grow  Africa  initiative  and  New  Alliance  on  Food  Security  and  Nutrition  that  highlight  opportunities  in  sectors  like  sugar  in  which  the  United  States  still  maintains  heavily  restrictive  agricultural  and  trade  policies  that  distort  the  global  market.    50  See  Antoine  Bouët,  David  Laborde  and  Simon  Mervel,  “Searching  for  an  Alternative  to  Economic  Partnership  Agreements,”  Washington,  DC:  IFPRI  Brief  [48],  December  2007  and  Patrick  Messerlin  “Economic  Partnership  Agreements:    How  to  Rebound?”  in  Updating  Economic  Partnership  Agreements  to  Today’s  Global  Challenges,  The  German  Marshall  Fund,  Economic  Policy  Paper  Series,  November  2009.    51  See  Dolly  Afun-­‐Ogidan,  “Regional  Integration  for  Food  Security  in  East  Africa:    The  Role  of  CAADP,”  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  4,  June  2012  (ECDPM).    See  also  Philippe  Scholtes,  “Tapping  into  the  Agribusiness  Potential  for  Africa’s  Prosperity,”  October  24,  2012,  International  Centre  for  Trade  and  Sustainable  Development  (ICTSD).    52  See,  e.g.,  “CAADP:    Highlighting  the  Successes,”  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency,  November  2010.        53  Dolly  Afun-­‐Ogidan,  “Regional  Integration  for  Food  Security  in  East  Africa:    The  Role  of  CAADP,”  GREAT  Insights,  Vol.  1,  Issue  4,  June  2012  (ECDPM).      54  “CAADP  Review:    Renewing  the  Commitment  to  African  Agriculture,”  Final  Report,  NEPAD  Planning  and  Coordinating  Agency,  March  2010.    55  For  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  Development  Corridors,  see  Katrin  Kuhlmann,  Susan  Sechler  and  Joe  Guinan  “Africa’s  Development  Corridors  as  Pathways  to  Agricultural  Development,  Regional  Economic  Integration  and  Food  Security  in  Africa,”  Draft  Working  Paper,  Aspen  Institute  June  15,  2011.    56  “Development  Corridors”  sound  like  an  abstract  concept,  but,  in  fact,  they  have  been  central  to  all  development:  the  roads  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  canals  and  railroads  of  England,  the  rail,  river  and  Interstate  Highway  System  of  the  United  States.  

57  See  Dave  Perkins  and  Glen  Robbins  “The  Contribution  to  Local  Enterprise  Development  of  Infrastructure  for  Commodity  Extraction  Projects:  Tanzania’s  Central  Corridor  and  Mozambique’s  Zambezi  Valley,”  Making  the  Most  of  Commodities  Programme  (MMCP)  Discussion  Paper  No.  9  March  2011.  

58  See  Monty  Roodt  “The  Impact  of  Regional  Integration  Initiatives  and  Investment  in  a  Southern  African  Cross-­‐Border  Region:  The  Maputo  Development  Corridor,”  African  Sociological  Review  12,  1,  2008.