IFPRI

Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance:

a comparative analysis

Sam BeninReSAKSS-AW Program Leader, IFPRI

7th CAADP Partnership Platform MeetingHilton Hotel, Yaoundé

23rd March 2011

The Report = 2010 CAADP M&E Continental Report

Copies of complete report will be made available

Report based on CAADP M&E framework validated in February 2010

Reports, database, analysis and graphics downloadable at www.resakss.org

Why CAADP M&E?

Page 3

poverty & food and nutrition security

agricultural productivity & growth

policies & allocation of agricultural investments

Global levelCommitments

Africa-wide levelDeclarations

Decisions

Regional levelEarly actions

8

7

6

12

3

5

P 4P 3

P 2

4

P 1

National levelRoundtable Processes

Other factors

Other factors

Other factors

More effective

if we can understand

links and track progress

to support dialogue

Why CAADP M&E?

Page 4

greater /better distributedpoverty & food and nutrition security

outcomes

higher agricultural productivity &accelerated growth

more enabling policies & greater/more efficient allocation of agricultural

investments

Global levelCommitments

Africa-wide levelDeclarations

Decisions

Regional levelEarly actions

8

7

6

12

3

5

P 4P 3

P 2

4

P 1

National levelRoundtable Processes

Other factors

Other factors

Other factors

More effective

if we can understand

links and track progress

to support dialogue

What do we need to understand and track?

Delivering on commitments» Have commitments and targets been met so far?

Effectiveness of interventions (policies, investments, etc.)» How effective have different types of interventions been?» What are the trade-offs and complementarities among different

interventions?

Consistency with initial targets» What are projected impacts if interventions proceed as planned?» Are the projected impacts compatible with the initial targets?» If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track?

Exploring better interventions» Could greater or better distributed outcomes be obtained?» What are interventions that can lead to these outcomes?

This is where ReSAKSS comes in!

ReSAKSS-AW node at IFPRI-DC: coordinates 3 Africa-based

regional nodes

Mozambique SAKSSMalawi SAKSS

Rwanda SAKSSUganda SAKSS

Nigeria SAKSS

ReSAKSS-ECA, ILRI-Nairobi

ReSAKSS-SA, IWMI-Pretoria

ReSAKSS-WA, IITA-Ibadan

Created and launched in 2006 to provide credible information, analysis, and knowledge products on above questions to support implementation of CAADP

Charged with taking lead in developing and implementing CAADP M&E framework

Feed information into:» Mutual review ⇒ continental» Peer review ⇒ regional» Progress review ⇒ national

Ghana SAKSS

In this 2010 report; and outlook Due to data limitations, only able to answer the first

question on delivering on commitments more reliably

Data and methodology used

Main results» Progress in and extent to which commitments and

targets been met so far; reasons and lessons

Outlook

» Improving data

» 2011 M&E report and beyond

Data and Methodology (I) Several data sources:

» African and World Development Indicators, FAOSTAT, UN MDG statistics, OECD, IMF Government Finance Statistics

» Supplemented by more recent data compiled by the ReSAKSS network from various national and regional sources

Data analyzed and presented at different levels and compositions of aggregations of countries» Geographic: Africa, SSA, and the 5 regions of the African

Union—central (9 countries), eastern (13), northern (6), southern (10), and western (15)

» Economic: four-category typology based on agricultural potential, alternative (or nonagricultural) sources of growth, and income level

Economic ClassificationLow income (LI) (29)

Middle income (MI)(24)

More favorable

agricultural conditions

(20)

Mineral rich (LI-1)

(6)

Central African Republic;DRC; Guinea; Liberia;Sierra Leone; Zambia

Algeria; Angola; Botswana; Cameroon;

Cape Verde; Congo;Cote d’Ivoire; Djibouti;

Egypt; Equatorial Guinea; Gabon; Lesotho; Libya;

Mauritius; Morocco; Namibia; Nigeria; Sao

Tome & Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; South Africa; Sudan;

Swaziland; Tunisia

Non-mineral rich (LI-2)

(14)

Benin; Burkina Faso; Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana;

Guinea Bissau; Kenya; Madagascar; Malawi;

Mozambique; Tanzania; Togo; Uganda; Zimbabwe

Less favorable agricultural conditions

(LI-3)(9)

Burundi; Chad; Comoros; Eritrea; Mali; Mauritania; Niger; Rwanda; Somalia

Data and Methodology (II) Data analyzed and presented as annual average levels and

changes in the values of the indicators prior to and after 2003, year CAADP initiated» four periods: 1990-1995, 1995-2003, 2003, and 2003-2009» 2003 value reported is simple average over the years 2002 to 2004» more reliable for analyzing trends than actual year-to-year changes

that are usually fraught with large variations

CAADP M&E core indicators: » Enabling environment (policies and institutions, ODA,

macroeconomic governance and performance)» CAADP roundtable process» Commitments and financing of the agricultural sector » Agricultural sector performance (productivity, growth, and trade)» Halving poverty and hunger (MDG1)

Focus of this Presentation

CAADP Roundtable Process» Status towards compact and post-compact milestones

Agricultural expenditures» Maputo declaration—10% total expenditures per year

Agricultural growth» 6% agricultural GDP annual average growth

MDG1» Halving 1992 poverty and hunger rates by 2015

1. Focal Point appointed by government

2. Process launched by Government & REC

3. Steering and Technical

Committee instituted

4. Endorsement

by Cabinet

5. Stocktaking, Growth,

Investment Analysis

6. Compact drafted

7. Compact signed

8. investment plan prepared

9. Investment plan reviewed and validated

10. financing plan & instruments, & review mechanism

agreed on

11. assessment of program execution

12. Execution of new

investment programs

13. 1st annual review

meeting

14. 2nd annual review

meeting

CAADP Roundtable Process & Country Status

Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Libya

Mauritius, Mozambique

COMESA, Zimbabwe

Cote d’Ivoire, DRC, Guinea

Bissau, Zambia

Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, ECOWAS, Gambia,

Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali,

Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda

Comoros, Djibouti, Madagascar,

Seychelles, Sudan

Ethiopia†, Niger†, Rwanda†, Sierra

Leone†, Togo†

Burundi, Swaziland

39 countrieshave started

CAADP process25 countries &

ECOWAShave signed

compacts

5 countrieshave received GAFSP

funding and at implementation stage

Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Togo

Number Achieving Selected MilestonesRegion/REC Focal Point

appointedStocktaking,

Growth & Investment

Analysis undertaken

Round table held

and Compact

signed

Investment plan

drafted, reviewed

and validated

Financing plan secured and annual

review mechanism

agreed upon

Execution of investment

plan

Africa 39 31 24 19 5 4Central 5 2 1 0 0 0Eastern 12 10 5 5 2 2Northern 2 0 0 0 0 0Southern 5 4 3 1 0 0Western 15 15 15 13 3 2

RECs 2 2 1 1 0 0

Western region hasoutperformed the others:

100% CompactSigning Rate

Agriculture spending share (10% target)

02468101214161820

-20-15-10

-505

1015

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

9

Afr SSA CA EA NA SA WA MI LI-1 LI-2 LI-3

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Annual average change, left axisAnnual average level, right axisCAADP target

declines in average levels across most

regions

Average levels in Eastern Africa have increased

by the most

In the last period (2003-09), only 1 region (EA) and 4 countries (Ethiopia, Mali,

Niger and Senegal) have surpassed the 10% target on average per year

Agricultural GDP growth rate (6% target)

0123456789

-4-3-2-101234

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

990

-95

95-0

320

0303

-09

90-9

595

-03

2003

03-0

9

Afr SSA CA EA NA SA WA MI LI-1 LI-2 LI-3

Perc

ent

Perc

enta

ge p

oint

Annual average change, left axisAnnual average level, right axisCAADP target

No region reached an average annual AgGDP growth rate of

6% target in recent periods

Since 2003, however, upward trend in growth rate—particularly, SSA,

central, eastern, and southern

12 countries achieved an average annual AgGDP growth rate of more than 6% since

2003: Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Gambia,

Guinea, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone

Halving Poverty and Hunger (MDG1)

On track to halve poverty

Burkina Faso; Cameroon**; Cape

Verde**,***; Central African Rep.**; Egypt*,**;

Ethiopia; Ghana**; Guinea*,**; Kenya;

Lesotho; Malawi; Mali; Mauritania**; Morocco*; Senegal; Swaziland**,***;

Uganda*

EA, NA, LI-2

Algeria***; Angola**,***; Benin*,**;

Botswana**,***; Burundi; Egypt*,**’; Equatorial;

Guinea**,***; Gambia**; Ghana**; Guinea

Bissau**; Mauritania**; Mozambique**;

Namibia**,***; Sao Tome & Principe**,***; Tunisia

NA

Egypt*,**Ghana**

Mauritania**

NA Region*,**

14 countries on track tohalving poverty by 2015

12 countries on track to halving hunger by 2015

Majority of allcountries are in

western Africa (5 for poverty, 4 for hunger)

On track to halve hunger3 countries on

track to meeting MDG1

Conclusions and Lessons (I) Substantial progress in roundtable process: 10 (40%) of 25

compacts in 2010 alone; West Africa achieved 100%» Facilitation (e.g. slow start in SADC; ECOWAS contributed

additional funding for analysis, etc)» Other (e.g., low priority of agriculture in middle-income

countries, internal conflict)» $$$ (e.g., GAFSP fund is a major factor in 17 countries moving

on to design of investment plans, benefiting 5 = $223.5 mil)

Increased spending (absolute amounts) on agriculture sector, but low relative shares; few countries consistently surpassed 10% target each year

Not surprisingly, progress in outcomes (growth and MDG1) has been slow; few scattered moderate-to-high performers

Conclusions and Lessons (II)

Understanding cause-effect relationships between investments and outcomes require specialized studies and data that are not available

Same problem underlying many investment plans, contributing factor in low success rate in accessing GAFSP

Investment plans show different countries adopting different strategies. Fundamental question:» How to raise agricultural productivity in a manner that

accelerates growth, food security, and poverty and hunger reduction?

Proposed Budget Allocation in NAIPs, 2010-15

Source: National Agricultural Investment Plans

Kenya: heavy on irrigation and commercialization

Malawi: heavy on farm support and irrigation

Rwanda: more balanced, favoring NRM

Uganda: also more balanced, favoring extension and farm support

Outlook for M&E and ReSAKSS (I)

Feature topic for 2011 M&E report will be agricultural productivity: options for raising and maintaining high agricultural productivity. Objectives:» to better understand the usefulness of different measures of

agricultural productivity in monitoring and evaluation

» to assess why there has not been widespread technical change in Africa

» to review lessons associated with the efficiency gains in agricultural production achieved in different parts of Africa

» to identify specific agricultural investment programs whose implementation can be scaled up or undertaken in different parts of Africa

Outlook for M&E and ReSAKSS (II)

Main agenda going forwards: assist countries to establish data systems and improve data quality (SAKSS nodes !!!) ⇒ answer more pertinent M&E questions

Progress» Rwanda already up and running since May 2010» Launched in Nigeria in December 2010» Semi-established in Uganda, Malawi and Mozambique (transition

from IFPRI programs to country SAKSS)» Advanced stage in Ghana, Mali, Senegal, and Zambia

Priority» 4 others that have secured funding—Sierra Leone, Togo, Niger and

Ethiopia» Others with compacts and investment plans» …

Thank You

What is the plan to pay for these investments?

32.3%

23.6%

50.9%

20.2%

43.6%

0.5%

65.9%

25.2%

30.9%

33.5%

21.4%

18.0%

30.5%

20.6%

75.0%

48.5%

17.6%

9.3%

15.4%

1.0%

8.9%

25.0%

50.1%

33.6%

49.1%

64.5%

35.1%

81.5%

2.5%65.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Uganda DSIP

Senegal PNIA

Rwanda PSTII/ASIP

Nigeria NAIP

Mali PNIP-SA

Malawi ASWAp

Liberia LASIP

Kenya MTIP

Ghana METASIP

Ethiopia PIF

Government Development Partners Gov't and DPs Private Sector Gap