monitoring african agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis_2011
Upload: african-regional-strategic-analysis-and-knowledge-support-system-resakss
Post on 18-Nov-2014
1.131 views
DESCRIPTION
“Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis,” Presented by Sam Benin, ReSAKSS-AW Program Leader, IFPRI, at the 7th CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting, Hilton Hotel, Yaoundé, Cameroon. 23 March 2011.TRANSCRIPT
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