Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Programme (CAADP)...
Purpose of the report• Primary output of the     • Report will evaluate  CAADP M&E Framework         trends in agricultura...
Outline of each M&E report•   Introduction•   Enabling environment•   CAADP implementation process•   Tracking commitments...
2010 Comprehensive M&E Report for             CAADP• Compilation of primary and secondary data   – Primary from ReSAKSS no...
Introduction: Enabling environment• Agriculture is crucial for development in Africa   – Mostly rural, at least 70% of wor...
CAADP Implementation Process• Formulated in 2003 under auspices of AUC and  NEPAD• Since initiation, dozens of countries h...
CAADP Implementation Process: Status (updated April 20, 2010)              Cameroon,                      Zimbabwe,       ...
Public agricultural spending and commitments:                  Agriculture spending as a share of total spending      At l...
Public agricultural spending and commitments:       Agriculture spending as a share of agriculture GDP                    ...
…But the share of countries meeting the                                         10% target recently been increasing       ...
Disaggregation of agriculture      expenditures: West Africa (WA)• What is the source of                         Breakdown...
Disaggregation of agriculture     expenditures: West Africa (WA)• How are the agricultural                                ...
Resource efficiency• Resource efficiency can be                                                                           ...
Donor spending on African agriculture •       In Africa as a whole, donor                                                 ...
Agricultural performance•   Although agricultural performance varies within and across African countries, recent trends   ...
Agriculture GDP growth and CAADP                                          30Agriculture GDP annual growth rate (%)        ...
Agricultural trade performance              35              30                                                            ...
Agricultural trade performance by regions:                    A snapshot of COMESA and ECOWAS                        COMES...
Poverty, Hunger and Food and        Nutrition Security: MDG1• The continent as a whole is not on track to achieving  the f...
Which countries are “on track”?•There are 2 components to MDG1: hunger and poverty•Great progress has been made in many co...
Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security:          The Global Hunger Index (GHI)• The index is an average of  – The...
Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security:                                    The Global Hunger Index (GHI)         ...
Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Does growth, spurred by investment, lead to  poverty reduction?  – This is the theory ...
Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Of the 13 countries on track for the poverty MDG1 target, 6 arealso meeting the 10% sp...
Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Badiane and Ulimwengu propose 2 measures for  tracking this: poverty overhang and grow...
Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages in West Africa This column indicates the increase, in                             This ...
Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages             in West Africa• Among the West African countries experiencing a poverty  ov...
Conclusions• Increased attention to agriculture’s role is evident  in donor and government pledges• Yet this has been slow...
More information…• Is available in the detailed draft of the  Comprehensive M&E Report for CAADP• A shorter, summarized ve...
Thank you!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)_2010

1,507 views

Published on

"Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)," presented by Babatunde Omilola at the 6th CAADP Partnership Platform. Birchwood Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa. April 21-23, 2010.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,507
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)_2010

  1. 1. Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Babatunde Omilola 6th CAADP Partnership Platform April 21-23, 2010 Birchwood Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa
  2. 2. Purpose of the report• Primary output of the • Report will evaluate CAADP M&E Framework trends in agricultural (which was validated in development, March 2010) performance and• Published annually for spending in Africa main audience (AUC and • Will also track key poverty NPCA) by July and hunger indicators• Main components (MDG1) available for CAADP PPs • Therefore tracks country/ regional/ continental progress toward CAADP goals and objectives
  3. 3. Outline of each M&E report• Introduction• Enabling environment• CAADP implementation process• Tracking commitments and spending• Agricultural growth performance• Agricultural trade performance• Poverty, hunger and food and nutrition security• Investment-growth-poverty linkages• Conclusions
  4. 4. 2010 Comprehensive M&E Report for CAADP• Compilation of primary and secondary data – Primary from ReSAKSS nodes; Secondary from non- ReSAKSS sources such as WDI, FAO, UN…• Compilation of analysis across three regional ReSAKSS nodes – Focuses more on continental trends, but also disaggregates information by region and in some cases, countries• Synthesis of relevant literature – Includes current and relevant analysis undertaken by organizations such as OECD, World Bank and IFPRI
  5. 5. Introduction: Enabling environment• Agriculture is crucial for development in Africa – Mostly rural, at least 70% of workforce engaged in the sector• Yet over last 20 years, support to the sector has declined – Partly the outcome of SAPs, declining share in aid and government budgets, etc.• Recent developments have recognized agriculture’s role in development – WDR 2008 – Donor pledges made at G8 summit in L’Aquila – Maputo Declaration  CAADP
  6. 6. CAADP Implementation Process• Formulated in 2003 under auspices of AUC and NEPAD• Since initiation, dozens of countries have begun the implementation process and 18 have held Roundtables (RT) and signed country compacts• 2 countries – Rwanda and Togo – have held post- compact investment and review meetings• Primary focus is now shifting from the RTs and compacts to the post-compact implementation process
  7. 7. CAADP Implementation Process: Status (updated April 20, 2010) Cameroon, Zimbabwe, DRC, Egypt, Mauritius Libya, Tanzania 2. REC and 3. Country Steering 1. Government 4. Cabinet Memo and Government launch and Technicalappoints Focal Point(s) Endorsement process Committee 8. Elaboration of 5. Stocktaking, 7. Roundtable Signing 6. Drafting of Country detailed investment Growth, Invest. of Compact CAADP Compact plans Analysis Ethiopia, Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cote Gambia, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Zambia Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Swaziland, Uganda Seychelles, Sudan 10. Agreement on 11. Operational design 9. Post compact financing plan, and other technical review meeting and 12. Execution of new financing instruments, studies and validation of investment programs and annual review assessment for investment plans mechanism program executionRwanda, Togo 14. Second annual 13. First annual review review meeting meeting
  8. 8. Public agricultural spending and commitments: Agriculture spending as a share of total spending At least 10 percent 5 percent to less than 10 Less than 5 percent percent Burkina Faso Ethiopia1 Chad2 Gambia2 Angola2 Benin • CAADP Target = 10% of Ghana3 Guinea Mauritania3 Namibia2 Botswana2 Burundi2 total expenditures Malawi2 Mali Sao Tome and Principe2 Sudan2 Cameroon3 Central African Republic2 allocated to agriculture Niger Togo Comoros4 sector Senegal2 Tunisia3 Congo, Dem. Republic2 Zimbabwe2 Congo, Republic3 Cote dIvoire2 • Africa as a whole has Djibouti2 Egypt3 not met 10% target Guinea Bissau2 – Since 1980, the annual Kenya1 Lesotho2 average has been Liberia1 between 4 and 6% Madagascar2 Mauritius Morocco3 • 8 countries have met Mozambique2 Nigeria the target Rwanda3 Seychelles • 9 are spending between Sierra Leone3 Swaziland2 5 and 10% Tanzania Uganda • While 28 are spending Zambia2Sources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources and less than 5IMF 2009.Notes: 1. Estimate for 2009; 2. 2007; 3. 2006; 4. 2005; 5. 2004
  9. 9. Public agricultural spending and commitments: Agriculture spending as a share of agriculture GDP 5 percent to less • An alternative measure At least 10 percent Botswana1 than 10 percent Burkina Faso Less than 5 percent Benin2 that weighs the size of the Zambia Cameroon sector in the overall Egypt Zimbabwe Ethiopia Cote d’Ivoire1 economy when comparing Mali Ghana across countries Niger Kenya • Compared to Asia, Africa Malawi agricultural spending Nigeria1 Rwanda under this measure is low Togo1 – Asia spends 8-10% on Uganda average compared to 5-7% in AfricaSources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national governmentsources and IMF 2009.Notes: 1. 2007; 2. 2008. • Only 3 countries exceed the 10% mark
  10. 10. …But the share of countries meeting the 10% target recently been increasing 70 • In 2003, only 5.9% ofShare of reporting countries (%) 60 50 African countries 40 30 were spending at 20 least 10% of their 10 0 total budget 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 allocations on More than 10% 5%-10% Less than 5% agriculture Sources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources and IMF 2009. • This figure increased to 15.2% in 2007 and to 35.7% in 2008
  11. 11. Disaggregation of agriculture expenditures: West Africa (WA)• What is the source of Breakdown of agricultural expenditure by source of funding in selected West African countries (average 2003-2007) most agricultural 100 Share of agircultural expenditures (%) 90 funding? 80 70 – In WA, the Sahelian 60 countries (which largely 50 40 spend on investments 30 rather than recurrent), 20 10 funding primarily comes 0 from ODA/external sources – Whereas the coastal countries’ agricultural From internal sources From external sources spending mostly comes from internal sources Source : ReSAKSS 2010 data collection from various national government sources.
  12. 12. Disaggregation of agriculture expenditures: West Africa (WA)• How are the agricultural 100 expenditures spent? 90 Research and Development – Subsectors: most countries Share of total agriculture expenditure (%) 80 Other in WA spend on the crop 70 production subsector 60 Non rather than livestock or 50 Disaggregated fisheries and forestry 40 Irrigation – Function: varies by country 30 Inputs and (see chart) 20 Equipment • Only in Burkina Faso and 10 Extension Mali is irrigation heavily 0 Admistration favored Ghana Benin Togo Burkina Mali • R&D spending is limited in Faso all countries Source: ReSAKSS data collection from various national government sources.
  13. 13. Resource efficiency• Resource efficiency can be 140 measured by the investment gap Ratio of actual to budgeted agriculture expenditures ratio = ratio of actual spending to 120 budgeted spending 100• Best practice is a maximum of 3% discrepancy between budgeted 80 and actual (=97% investment gap (%) 60 ratio) 40• From 2000 to 2004/5, Nigeria and Malawi (figure) had poor budget 20 execution, within a range of 48 to 0 85%. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 – This means that up to 52% of budgeted resources for agriculture Nigeria Malawi PEFA target were not being spent. – In contrast, in recent years, both countries have overspent the Sources: Mogues et al. 2008; Njiwa et al. 2008; Govereh et al. 2009. budgeted amount. Note: The PEFA target is considered the threshold below which the investment gap ratio indicates underutilization of funds. It is set at 97 percent.
  14. 14. Donor spending on African agriculture • In Africa as a whole, donor 3,000 Emergency food aid spending for agriculture as a Development food aid/food security 2,040 share of total donor spending 2,500 Agriculture and rural development 2,592 saw a consistent decline, from Constant 2007 US$ (millions) 1,704 2,2861,596 an average of 15% between 2,000 2,103 2,034 1,439 1980 and 1995 to 12% between 1,906 1,9991,433 1,837 2000 and 2002. 1,500 1,688 764 • In 2006, the ratio had declined to about 4%. 1,000 378 • Total ODA for agriculture in Sub- 242 894 750 Saharan Africa has hovered at 500 618 692 625 549 668 688 US$1 billion a year since the 1990s. 0 • In comparison, the share of ODA 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 spent on aid for emergencies has doubled and, in actual 60,000 12 dollars, has more than Share of ODA allocated to agriculture (%) 50,000 10 quadrupled during the same Share of ODA to agriculture (%) period. Constant 2007 US$ (millions) 40,000 8 • Although investment in 30,000 6 agriculture has increased in Total ODA 20,000 4 recent years, a large and commitments increasing share is still devoted 10,000 ODA commitments to agriculture 2 to short-term food aid 0 0 interventionsChart Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2009.
  15. 15. Agricultural performance• Although agricultural performance varies within and across African countries, recent trends indicate an increase in agricultural GDP growth at the continental and regional levels• SSA’s agriculture GDP growth rate increased from an annual average of 3.0% in the 1990s and 2000s to 5.3% in 2008• A similar trend can be observed at the regional level – All regions saw an increase in average agricultural growth rates from approximately 3.0% in the 1990s to 2008, although Southern Africa has seen the most dramatic increase with a current agriculture GDP growth rate of 7.1% – West Africa and East and Central Africa’s recent agriculture growth is also positive at 4.3 and 4.8%, respectively. 10 Average annual growth rates (%) 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 GDP Agriculture GDP CAADP target for agriculture GDP Source: World Bank 2009. Note: 2009 GDP estimates are from International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2009.
  16. 16. Agriculture GDP growth and CAADP 30Agriculture GDP annual growth rate (%) 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 2008 CAADP Target Source: ReSAKSS calculations based on World Bank 2009.• The CAADP agriculture GDP growth rate target is 6%• In 2008, ten countries met the CAADP’s 6% target: – Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda.• Nineteen other countries attained moderate agricultural GDP growth rates of between 3 and 6 percent.• In the same year, eight countries experienced negative growth in their agriculture sectors.
  17. 17. Agricultural trade performance 35 30 • Sub-Saharan Africa has 25 been a net food 20 importer since theUS$ billion 15 1980s. 10 • In 2007, the value of 5 the region’s trade 0 deficit started to 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Imports Exports increase as a result of Source: FAOSTAT 2010. higher food prices.
  18. 18. Agricultural trade performance by regions: A snapshot of COMESA and ECOWAS COMESA Region ECOWAS Region • Both the imports and exports of agricultural raw materials have increased over time in nominal • Agricultural exports account for a large value for the COMESA region share of total exports in WA countries with low or no mineral resources (e.g., ~80-90% • But, the region has been exporting and importing in Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia…) relatively less agricultural products compared to non-agricultural products • Only 1/3 of countries are able to cover their agriculture imports by their • Exports of cash crops (tobacco, tea, coffee, agriculture exports vegetables) have increased in value since 2000 • This ratio has been declining due to higher • Imports of wheat, maize and palm oil also prices of food imports increased since 2000 • The coverage rate (ag imports to ag exports) 400 Ratio of agricultural imports to 350 varies for the region from year to year agricultural exports (%) 300 Share of ag. Share of ag. 250 Agricultural Agricultural Net exports Exports in Imports in 200Year exports (US$) imports (US$) (US$) total exports total 150 (%) imports (%) 1002000 945,426,069 1,007,971,576 -62,545,507 6.77 3.37 502001 892,311,614 912,441,887 -20,130,273 6.88 3.18 0 Gambia Mali Ecowas Nigeria Côte dIvoire Togo Benin Ghana Niger Cape Verde Guinea Burkina Faso Senegal2002 1,085,743,413 897,860,082 187,883,331 3.13 1.972003 1,424,042,407 951,961,782 472,080,625 3.08 2.172004 1,745,443,839 1,067,728,616 677,715,222 3.06 2.152005 1,521,101,002 1,401,474,548 119,626,453 2.02 2.062006 1,528,029,010 1,675,221,277 -147,192,267 1.54 2.162007 2,056,217,333 1,933,331,954 122,885,379 1.96 2.01 2003-2007 2008 Target2008 2,451,807,257 2,804,033,755 -352,226,499 1.58 1.85 Source: ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources. Source: COMESA 2010.
  19. 19. Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: MDG1• The continent as a whole is not on track to achieving the first MDG of halving hunger and poverty by 2015• ReSAKSS estimates use a simple “business as usual” linear projections based on previous growth rates to estimate current hunger and poverty rates• These are compared to yearly benchmark rates that are required to meet MDG1 (halving the 1990 rates by 2015) to determine if a region/country is “on track” or not• According to these estimations, current child underweight prevalence stands at 29.3% for SSA and current poverty is at 38.6%, both of which are higher than their benchmark rates
  20. 20. Which countries are “on track”?•There are 2 components to MDG1: hunger and poverty•Great progress has been made in many countries that are meeting one or the other,but only one – Ghana – is currently meeting both Burkina Faso Cameroon Algeria C. African Rep. Angola Egypt Benin Ethiopia Botswana Guinea Burundi Ghana Gambia Kenya Lesotho Guinea Bissau Mali Mauritania Senegal Namibia Swaziland Sao Tome & Tanzania Principe Countries on track towards Countries on track Countries on track towards halving poverty by 2015 towards achieving halving hunger by 2015 MDG1
  21. 21. Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: The Global Hunger Index (GHI)• The index is an average of – The percentage of the population that is undernourished – The percentage of children that are underweight – The under-5 mortality rate• Captures intra-household food security• Countries with GHIs higher than 20 are considered to have “alarming” rates of hunger
  22. 22. Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: The Global Hunger Index (GHI) 50Global Hunger Index 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 South Africa Comoros Ethiopia Gambia Sudan Cameroon Togo Morocco Lesotho Botswana Mauritania Swaziland Senegal Kenya Zambia Algeria Mauritius Angola Rwanda Niger Nigeria Zimbabwe Tanzania Egypt Ghana Uganda Mali Djibouti Liberia Mozambique Madagascar Gabon Namibia Eritrea Cote dIvoire Benin Malawi Central Af. Rep. Sierra Leone Tunisia Chad Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Guinea Guinea Bissau Burundi Burkina Faso 1990 2009 Alarming Source: IFPRI 2010. • The majority of countries in Africa have seen a decline in their GHIs from 1990 to 2009 (improvement in hunger) – In the COMESA region, 2/3 of countries saw a decline – In SADC, nearly every country except for DRC and Zimbabwe saw a decline or leveling off of GHIs – In ECOWAS, 10 out of 14 countries saw a decline • Despite these reductions, all regions have multiple countries which remain above the alarming level
  23. 23. Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Does growth, spurred by investment, lead to poverty reduction? – This is the theory behind much of the CAADP agenda (that higher agriculture expenditures will lead to agriculture growth and poverty reduction) – In practice, higher overall economic growth has not always translated into poverty/hunger reduction
  24. 24. Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Of the 13 countries on track for the poverty MDG1 target, 6 arealso meeting the 10% spending target, and 4 are meeting the 6%agricultural GDP growth target •3 of which are meeting both CAADP targets – Ethiopia, Mali and Senegal•Of the 10 countries on track for the hunger MDG1 target, 2 aremeeting the 6% agriculture GDP growth target Countries meeting 6% Countries meeting agriculture growth Countries meeting Countries meeting 10% spending target target poverty MDG1 target hunger MDG1 target Burkina Faso Angola Burkina Faso Algeria Ethiopia Ethiopia Cameroon Angola Ghana Mali C. African Rep. Benin Guinea Mozambique Egypt Botswana Malawi Namibia Ethiopia Burundi Mali Niger Ghana Gambia Niger Rwanda Guinea Guinea Bissau Senegal Senegal Kenya Mauritania Tanzania Lesotho Namibia Uganda Mali Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Swaziland Tanzania
  25. 25. Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages• Badiane and Ulimwengu propose 2 measures for tracking this: poverty overhang and growth deficit – They compare the rate of poverty reduction to that of growth – When a country’s growth rate is less than that required for maintaining the pace of poverty reduction the country is said to be experiencing a growth deficit. – Where the rate of poverty reduction is slower than that of GDP growth the country is said to be experiencing a poverty overhang.
  26. 26. Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages in West Africa This column indicates the increase, in This column indicates the extent, inpercentage points, which has to occur percentage, by which the poverty ratein GDP growth if the country’s pace of should have been lowered given the poverty reduction in the 1990-2005 country’s growth rate in the 1990- period is to be maintained 2005 period Growth (%) required for achieving MDG1 or 6% Agriculture Growth GDP Agric GDP Agric Funding Growth Deficit Poverty Overhang Growth Growth Growth Most Propoor sub-sectors Benin Less than 2.5 5.1 13.1 7.9 Food crops 3.2 7.1 9.1 Livestock Burkina Faso Greater than 20 – 30 Cape Verde 2.5 – 5 5.4 2.6 11.2 Food crops Cote dIvoire Less than 2.5 Gambia Less than 2.5 20.3 14.4 27 Cereals 5 4.2 19.1 Staple, fishery and Ghana Less than 2.5 forestry Guinea Less than 2.5 Guinea Bissau Less than 2.5 40.5 26 27 Food crops (rice, cassava Liberia Greater than 30 – 40 and others) 7.2 12.5 8.2 Food crops and livestock Mali Greater than 10 – 20 Niger Greater than 50 4 11.5 11.1 livestock 11 12 24 Cereals Nigeria Greater than 40 – 50 5.7 6.8 7.6 Food crops Senegal Greater than 10 – 20 7.2 5.5 10 Cassava, rice Sierra Leone Greater than 30 – 40 4.3 9.6 35.4 Food crops Togo Greater than 20 – 30 Sources: Badiane and Ulimwengu, forthcoming and IFPRI CAADP analyses (see ReSAKSS WP series).
  27. 27. Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages in West Africa• Among the West African countries experiencing a poverty overhang, the worst case is found in Niger where the poverty rate should have been lower than half of its current rate given the country’s growth rate between 1990 and 2005.• The countries with the lowest overhang are Senegal and Mali where it has a value of greater than 10 to 20.• The success of CAADP implementation is particularly critical for countries experiencing poverty overhang in the sense that it can bring about the necessary increase in agriculture funding and agriculture GDP needed to appreciably improve the pace of poverty reduction.• Analysis carried out by IFPRI, ReSAKSS WA and their collaborators indicates that agriculture growth rates ranging from 2.6% (in Cape Verde) to 26% (in Liberia) would be needed to achieve MDG1 by 2015 in 12 countries.
  28. 28. Conclusions• Increased attention to agriculture’s role is evident in donor and government pledges• Yet this has been slow to translate into increased spending (8 countries meeting 10% target)• Agricultural policies and programs must now take into consideration the complex combinations of factors such as more volatile food markets and prices, market distortions, and climate change• The next phase of CAADP (post-compact) will emphasize these factors as investment plans are laid out in more detail
  29. 29. More information…• Is available in the detailed draft of the Comprehensive M&E Report for CAADP• A shorter, summarized version is available in the ReSAKSS 2009 Annual Trends and Outlook Report – online at http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42774• All published CAADP analyses, briefs, brochures and signed compacts are available at www.resakss.org
  30. 30. Thank you!

×