Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis_2011

Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysisIFPRI Sam Benin ReSAKSS-AW Program Leader, IFPRI 7th CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting Hilton 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? poverty & food and nutrition security if we canOther factors understand agricultural productivity & links and growth track progressOther factors to support dialogue policies & allocation of agricultural investmentsOther factors National level 1 8 Roundtable 2 P4 More effective Africa-wide level Processes P3 7 P2Global level Regional level P1 3Commitments Early actions 6 5 4 Declarations Decisions Page 3

Why CAADP M&E? greater /better distributed poverty & food and nutrition security outcomes if we canOther factors understand higher agricultural productivity & links and accelerated growth track progressOther factors to support more enabling policies & greater/more dialogue efficient allocation of agricultural investmentsOther factors National level 1 8 Roundtable 2 P4 More effective Africa-wide level Processes P3 7 P2Global level Regional level P1 3Commitments Early actions 6 5 4 Declarations Decisions Page 4

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! Created and launched in ReSAKSS-AW node at IFPRI-DC: 2006 to provide credible coordinates 3 Africa-based information, analysis, and regional nodes knowledge products on above questions to support Nigeria SAKSS implementation of CAADP ReSAKSS-WA, IITA-Ibadan Charged with taking lead in Ghana SAKSS Uganda SAKSS developing and implementing Rwanda SAKSS CAADP M&E framework ReSAKSS-ECA, ILRI-Nairobi Feed information into: Malawi SAKSS Mozambique SAKSS » Mutual review ⇒ continental » Peer review ⇒ regional ReSAKSS-SA, » Progress review ⇒ national IWMI-Pretoria

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 Classification Middle income (MI) Low income (LI) (29) (24) Mineral rich Central African Republic; Algeria; Angola; (LI-1) DRC; Guinea; Liberia; Botswana; Cameroon; (6) Sierra Leone; Zambia More Cape Verde; Congo; favorable Benin; Burkina Faso; Cote d’Ivoire; Djibouti;agricultural Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Egypt; Equatorial Non-mineralconditions Guinea Bissau; Guinea; Gabon; rich (LI-2) (20) Kenya; Madagascar; Malawi; Lesotho; Libya; (14) Mozambique; Tanzania; Mauritius; Morocco; Togo; Uganda; Zimbabwe Namibia; Nigeria; Sao Tome & Principe; Less favorable Burundi; Chad; Comoros; Senegal; Seychelles; agricultural conditions Eritrea; Mali; Mauritania; South Africa; Sudan; (LI-3) Niger; Rwanda; Somalia Swaziland; Tunisia (9)

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

CAADP Roundtable Process & Country Status1. Focal Point 2. Process 3. Steering and 4. 39 countriesappointed by launched by Technical Endorsementgovernment have started Government & Committee by Cabinet Cameroon, Chad, REC Mauritius, institutedCAADP process Egypt, Eritrea, Mozambique Gabon, Libya 25 countries & 8. investment ECOWAS 5. Stocktaking, plan prepared haveCompact 7. signed signed 6. Compact Growth, compacts drafted Investment Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Analysis Swaziland DRC, Guinea COMESA, Comoros, Djibouti, Bissau, Zambia Zimbabwe Madagascar, Seychelles, Sudan 5 countries 10. financing plan 12. Execution 9. Investment 11. assessment have & instruments, & received GAFSP of new plan reviewed review implementation of program investment funding and at mechanism and validated agreed on execution programsBenin, Burkina Faso, Cape stage Ethiopia†, Niger†, Ethiopia, Rwanda,Verde, ECOWAS, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Togo Rwanda†, Sierra Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Leone†, Togo† Liberia, Malawi, Mali, 14. 2nd annual 13. 1st annualNigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, review review Uganda meeting meeting

Number Achieving Selected Milestones Region/REC Focal Point Stocktaking, Round Investment Financing Execution of appointed Growth & table held plan plan secured investment Investment and drafted, and annual plan Western region has Analysis Compact reviewed reviewoutperformed the others: undertaken signed and mechanism 100% Compact validated agreed upon Signing Rate Africa 39 31 24 19 5 4 Central 5 2 1 0 0 0 Eastern 12 10 5 5 2 2 Northern 2 0 0 0 0 0 Southern 5 4 3 1 0 0 Western 15 15 15 13 3 2 RECs 2 2 1 1 0 0

Agriculture spending share (10% target) 15 20 10 18 16 5 14 12Percent 0 Percent 10 -5 8 -10 6 4 -15 2 -20 0 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 In the last period (2003-09), only 1 region declines in average and 4 countries (Ethiopia,levelsLI-2 Eastern Afr SSA CA (EA) EA NA SA WA MI LI-1 in LI-3 Average Mali, levels across Niger and Senegal) have surpassed the most Annual average change, left axis increased Africa have regions 10% Annual average level, right axis the most target on average per byyear CAADP target

Agricultural GDP growth rate (6% target) 4 9 3 8 2 7 1 6Percentage point 5 0 4 Percent -1 3 -2 2 -3 1 -4 0 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 90-95 95-03 2003 03-09 12 countries achieved an average annual AfrAgGDPCA SSA growth rate ofSA WA MI6% since LI-3 EA NA more than LI-1 LI-2No region reached Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya,upward trend 2003: an averageSince 2003, however, Annual average change, left axisannual AgGDP growth rate of in growth rate—particularly, SSA, Morocco, Annual average level, right axisGambia, Mozambique, Namibia, 6% target in recent CAADP target central, eastern, and southern periods Guinea, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone

Halving Poverty and Hunger (MDG1) On track to On track to 3 countries on halve poverty halve hunger track to Burkina Faso; Cameroon**; Cape meeting MDG1 Algeria***; Angola**,***; Benin*,**; Verde**,***; Central Egypt*,** Botswana**,***; Burundi; African Rep.**; Egypt*,**; Ghana** Egypt*,**’; Equatorial; Ethiopia; Ghana**; Mauritania** Guinea**,***; Gambia**; Guinea*,**; Kenya; Ghana**; Guinea Lesotho; Malawi; Mali; NA Region*,** Bissau**; Mauritania**; Mauritania**; Morocco*; Mozambique**; Senegal; Swaziland**,***; Namibia**,***; Sao Tome Uganda* Majority of all & Principe**,***; Tunisia EA, NA, LI-2 countries are in NA14 countries on trackwestern Africa (5 for 12 countries on track to to poverty, 4 for hunger) halving hunger by 2015halving poverty by 2015

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 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 Source: National Agricultural Investment Plans

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? Ethiopia PIF 30.9% 20.6% 48.5% Ghana METASIP 25.2% 8.9% 65.9% Kenya MTIP 65.9% 30.5% 2.5% 1.0% Liberia LASIP 0.5% 18.0% 81.5% Malawi ASWAp 43.6% 21.4% 35.1% Mali PNIP-SA 20.2% 15.4% 64.5% Nigeria NAIP 50.9% 49.1%Rwanda PSTII/ASIP 23.6% 33.5% 9.3% 33.6% Senegal PNIA 32.3% 17.6% 50.1% Uganda DSIP 75.0% 25.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Government Development Partners Govt and DPs Private Sector Gap

Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis_2011

by African Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 44

Statistics

Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis_2011 Presentation Transcript

http://unjobs.org	43
http://users.unjobs.org	1