"Assessing the Performance of Agricultural and Rural Management Councils (CARGs) in Western Democratic Republic of Congo" - Catherine Ragasa, John Ulimwengu and Thaddee Badibanga at SIG 2015 Workshop "Integrating Multi-level Governance into the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Opportunities, Trade-offs, and Implications", Nov 9-10, 2015

1. Assessing the Performance of Agricultural and
Rural Management Councils (CARGs) in Western
Democratic Republic of Congo
Catherine Ragasa, John Ulimwengu
and Thaddee Badibanga

2. Motivation
• 2010-2013: IFPRI’s 3-year research program in 3
provinces in western DRC
• Study on CARGs not initially included in the main
research programs
• MINAGRI requested IFPRI to assess the performance of
CARGs
• We wanted to investigate status, measure performance,
and attempt to identify patterns and factors that explain
CARG performance
 Focusing on western DRC (not national)
 Linking to ongoing surveys and interviews

3.  Development
domains (map from
World Bank 2006)
15 years of conflict
 DB 2015: 187th of 189
countries
 HDI 2013: 186th of
187 countries
 GHI 2011: worst of 89
countries
 DRC agricultural
potential
 Most externally-
funded projects are
concentrated in
eastern part, Equateur,
Katanga, Kinshasa,
Bas-Congo and
Bandundu

4. Agricultural Policy of DRC
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Fisheries
National Advisory
Council
of Provincial-level
CARGs
Provincial Advisory
Council
of Territory-level
CARGs
Communication & Knowledge
Management Platform
Journal of CARG;
Thematic brochures
Government agencies
Provincial Agricultural Development
Plan
Territory-level CARGs
30-member management committee
(composed of 2/3 members from Civil
society and 1/3 from State); and 10-
member leadership
Cooperatives, farmer-based organizations, producer associations, local development committees
Agricultural research
agricultural schools,
institutes and universities
Churches, Private
companies, financial
institutions
Agricultural market and information
systems; rural radio communication
General Assembly meetings;
executive management meetings;
policy discussions and dialogues;
information sharing; service demand
articulation and monitoring
External partners
(donors, international
NGOs, etc.)
Sector-level CARGs

5. Relevant structures and approaches to
CARGs
Structures/
Approaches
Example of
studies
Scope Outcomes
Participatory
(consultative)
policymaking
processes
Resnick and
Birner (2012);
Schut et al.
(2014)
Broad in
scope
(national,
regional)
Mixed outcomes; lessons: manage expectations; focus on
tangible outcomes; complementary expertise; operational
capacity
Community-based and
-driven development
Review by
Mansuri and
Rao (2004)
Localized
(community
or district)
Mixed outcomes on targeting, service delivery and
empowering the poor; major challenges of implementation;
impact depends on local context
MSP for natural
resources
management
Faysee (2006);
Ribot (1995);
Warner 2006;
Ribot 1995);
Berger et al.
(2007)
Localized
(e.g.,
common
resource)
Mixed outcomes. Many successful stories but there are also
some challenges; impact depends on local context
Innovation platforms Kilelu et al.
(2014); van
Paassen et al.
(2014); Pamuk
et al. (2014)
Localized
(value
chain)
Mixed outcomes. Pockets of successes based on case
studies; but limited impact based on evaluation studies;
impact depends on local initial condition
Multi-level MSP for
demand-driven
services and
policymaking
processes
Spielman et al.
(2012); World
Bank (2006)
Broader
(district,
provincial or
national)
Only project implementation and completion reports
available and no independent evaluation of these projects;
clearly-communicated objectives are important

6. Research questions
• Are CARGs effective?
• What are the objectives (what are they intended for)?
• Any indication of achieving these objectives?
• What are the perceptions of stakeholders on these CARGs?
• What conditions explain CARG performance?
• Context (conflict & collection action): (-) Montalvo and Reynal-
Querol 2005; Hellin et al. 2007); (+) Cramer 2006; Bellows and Miguel
2009; Voors et al. 2010; Unruh 2002
• Characteristics and governance with these CARGs
(coordination processes, training, time spent on CARG
activities, financial capacity)
• Characteristics of membership and leadership (heterogeneity
of membership and leadership)

7. Data and methods
• Process evaluation (not impact assessment; not casual effects)
• Scoping visits, key informant interviews (2010-mid 2011)
• Survey of 55 CARGs in 23 randomly-selected territories
(consistent with INS 1-2-3 national survey)
• Group of 6 members and leaders
• CARG module in various surveys (main research programs
(mid 2011-2012))
• 145 villages (4-6 opinion leaders)
• 181 RPOs (4-6 leaders and members)
• 107 extension organizations (head)
• 162 agricultural workers
• Review of meeting minutes and reports (2012)
• More visits and key informant interviews (2012-2013)
• Preliminary findings presentations (2013); under journal review

8. Sample of 55 CARGs
o By province
• 38% (21 CARGs) in Bas-Congo
• 62% (34 CARGs) in Bandundu
• Kinshasa (not functional, deceased champion)
o By level
• 76% territory CARGs
• 24% city/sector CARGs
o By year of set-up
• 65% were set-up in 2009 (36 CARGs)
• 26% in 2010 (14 CARGs)
• 5% in 2011 (3 CARGs)
• 4% in 2008 (2 CARGs)

9. Status of CARG implementation
• As of 2014, there were 144 territory CARGs installed across
DRC (2/3 of territories)
• Active in 4 provinces (Bas-Congo, Bandundu, North Kivu,
Katanga)
• Agricultural market information system and rural radio
communication – stakeholders were not aware
• Provincial Agricultural Development Plan (Bandundu) - most
stakeholders were aware and some had participated, but no
follow-up
• Thematic journals/brochures published regularly, but most
stakeholders were not aware
• Highly depends on a committed champion in the area –
Kinshasa case
• Diverse experience: pockets of successes, major challenges

10. Outcome variables
• (1) Stakeholders’ perception on CARGs (%, OLS)
• % of stakeholders who are aware of CARG
• % of stakeholders attending CARG meeting
• % of stakeholders perceiving CARG to be useful
• % of stakeholders reporting having benefited from CARG
• (2) Matching reported objectives with reported activities
(dummy, probit)
• 50% of CARGs have conducted activities consistent with at
least one of the main goals
• (3) External linkages (role in problem-solving and as
bridge) (count, Poisson)
• Frequency of interaction with external partners (NGOs,
donors, MOFA, service providers, researchers, universities,
private sector)

11. Stakeholders’ perceptions about CARGs
79
56
64
20
58
30 30
10
49
22 22
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Aware of CARGs Have attended a
CARG meeting
Considers CARG as
useful
Benefitted from
CARG
Extension organizations Agricultural workers RPOs

12. Correlates of CARG Performance
Factors Indicators (one at a time per factor)
Heterogeneity
of
membership
o % of women in membership
o Dummy variables of gender balance in membership, defined as (i)
40:60 ratio and (ii) 25:75 ratio of female to male in membership
(Agarwal 2009, 2010)
o % of youth in the membership
o Number of distinct ethnicities and religions in the focus territory
o Coefficient of variation of per capita expenditure in the territories
o Composite index
Active
participation
o Frequency of meetings
o Meeting attendance rate
o Members' rating of the meetings
o Composite index
Effective
coordination
of CARG
process
o Time of CARG leadership for CARG activities (number of hours)
o Frequency of leadership meetings
o Education level of CARG leaders
o Dummy variable if decisions in meetings were transformed into actual
activities
o Composite index

13. Correlates of CARG Performance
Factors Indicators
Financial capacity
of CARG
Annual funds available (in US$000), total, and disaggregated into
internally- and externally-generated
Training received o Dummy variable for receipt of any external training
o Frequency of training
o Frequency of training rated as at least "satisfactory"
Composition of
leadership
o Heterogeneity of leadership (% women and youth in the leadership)
o Balance of power between government and non-government actors:
measured in terms of
 % of government actors in the leadership
 % of CARG leaders designated by government officials, as
supposed to the CARG rule of election
Local context and
enabling
environment
o Dummy for province
o Per capita expenditure in territory (US$000)
o Distance to nearest national road (kilometer)
Risk of political
instability and
conflict
Number of conflict events in the territory 1997-2010, defined as battles,
riots, protests, violence against civilians, and nonviolent transfer of territory
from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset (ACLED)
Stage of CARG Number of months since CARG was established
Type of CARG Dummy for territory or sector CARG

14. Results
Significant correlates of better CARG performance
o Financial capacity of CARGs (both external and internal)
 Financial support is likely to be needed especially in early stages of CARG set-up
o Time spent by CARG leaders on CARG-related activities (a proxy for the
commitment of CARG leadership to CARGs)
 Ways to incentivize management and role of third part broker/facilitator
o Coordination capacity indicator (training received and whether decisions
from meetings led to specific actions or activities)
 Training of management committee members is likely to strengthen CARGs
 Follow-up issues during meetings
o Representation by government officials in CARG executive leadership
 Consistent with the role of state actors in CDD (Mansuri and Rao 2004)
 Some distrust among government officials seems to be outweighed by the
technical and political support that government officials can contribute to
CARGs

15. Results (2)
o No evidence that risk of conflict can either induce or prevent
collective action and coordination
o Indicators for local context and enabling environment are
correlated with CARG performance
 Consistent with others (Mansuri & Rao 2004; Pamuk et al. 2014; Faysee 2006)
 CARGs in Bandundu have better performance indicators than those in Bas-
Congo
 Within each province, measures of general well-being, connectivity, and
access to services and markets are correlated with CARG performance
o Heterogeneity in membership and leadership not significant
o Women and youth representation not significant
 30% of leadership should be women, but most CARGs have not followed
 Quota system should be carefully designed as to ensure that constraints to
participation and engagement are addressed

16. Some reflections
How transformative are CARGs?
• The experience of CARGs in DRC reinforces the limits
of MSP to be transformative
• Same representatives attending meetings and
dialogues – limits as coalition of change
• CARG is a platform that depends on the capacity of
existing organizations (but currently with weak
capacity)
Role in agricultural extension service provision?
• High expectation on CARGs as the solution to
ineffective extension system in DRC
• Demand side (yes); supply side (no)

17. Some reflections (2)
Need to manage expectations
• Current benefits are in terms of consultations
• Need capacity to be an effective bridge between
demand and supply of services
• Rethink role of CARGs’ role in monitoring of
projects/programs and extension service delivery
Findings should be viewed as the early stages of
CARG implementation (after 3-4 years)
• CARG performance may come with maturity
(regression results support this)

18. THANK YOU

19. Results of probit, OLS, and Poisson models
(1)
Matched
objectives &
activities
(2)
% aware of
CARGs
(3)
% attended
CARG
activities
(4)
% perceived
CARGs as
useful
(5)
% benefitted
from CARGs
(6)
Freq. of
external
linkages
Time spent by CARG leaders 0.01** 0.16*** 0.19*** 0.20*** 0.23*** 0.05***
(number of hours) (0.01) (0.05) (0.04) (0.05) (0.04) (0.00)
Coordination capacity 0.22** 0.89*** 0.93** 0.75*** 0.50 0.21***
indicator (composite index) (0.11) (0.29) (0.39) (0.33) (1.19) (0.08)
Financial capacity (US$000) 1.08* 1.78 4.79* 3.53 1.40 1.40***
(0.40) (2.31) (2.41) (2.39) (1.98) (0.11)
Training received (dummy) 0.12** 3.12* 5.37*** 3.84** 3.69** 3.30**
(0.05) (1.79) (1.86) (1.84) (1.53) (1.05)
% of government actors in 0.02 3.56* 5.51*** 3.30** 3.71** 0.05**
leadership (0.05) (1.70) (1.19) (1.30) (1.13) (0.01)
% of CARG leaders designated by -0.32 0.56 0.51 0.30 0.11 5.50*
government officials (0.45) (0.79) (1.19) (1.10) (0.13) (2.3)
Bandundu province (dummy) 0.96** -7.89 2.38 -4.94 19.87*** 3.40**
(0.13) (7.48) (7.78) (7.71) (6.39) (1.30)
Age of CARGs (number of -0.01 0.41 0.83*** 0.59** 0.54* 0.10
months) (0.01) (0.27) (0.13) (0.11) (0.23) (0.20)