Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation_2010


Published on

"Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation", presentation by Babatunde Omilola at the CAADP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Validation Workshop held at the Indaba Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa March 1-3, 2010.

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation_2010

  1. 1. Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation Babatunde OmilolaCoordinator, Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) IFPRI CAADP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Validation Workshop Indaba Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa March 1-3, 2010
  2. 2. Outline• What is CAADP? – Principles – Processes and implementation• Why a M&E System for CAADP?• What is the role of ReSAKSS?• Implementation of CAADP M&E Framework – Key indicators – Data collection strategy – Collaborators – Results and Outcomes• Next Steps
  3. 3. What is CAADP?• The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is the African Union (AU)/New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) vision and strategy for the development of African agriculture.• CAADP puts agriculture at top of priorities of African countries• CAADP is African-owned and African-led
  4. 4. CAADP Principles• Employ agriculture-led growth to achieve MDG1 of halving poverty and hunger by 2015• Pursuit of 6% average annual sector growth at national level• Allocation of 10% of national budgets to agriculture sector• Exploitation of regional complementarities and cooperation to boost growth• Policy efficiency, dialogue, review and accountability (evidence-based policymaking)• Partnerships and alliances to include farmers, agribusiness, civil society
  5. 5. CAADP Process• The principles are achieved through: – the strategic functions of CAADP, – the guidance and involvement of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and – the national roundtable process• These activities surround four key pillars, led by Africa-based technical institutions: – Pillar 1: extending the area under sustainable land management (University of Zambia) – Pillar 2: Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access (Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa (CMA/AOC)) – Pillar 3: Increasing food supply and reducing hunger (University of KwaZulu-Natal) – Pillar 4: Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA))
  6. 6. Why a M&E system for CAADP?• To regularly monitor CAADP goals – Are countries achieving the targeted growth rates? (6%) – Are countries investing at the targeted level? (10%) – Are these investments having their intended impacts on poverty and hunger?• To inform the review processes established by CAADP-PP (mutual, peer and progress review)• To further inform policy-making and dialogue
  7. 7. Idea behind M&E framework Greater/better distributed poverty reduction & food and nutrition t a r security outcomes r n eOther factors a a p Accelerated agricultural growth & c l o Greater market access k y rOther factors i s t More enabling policies & n i i Greater/more efficient allocation of g s n agricultural investments gOther factors More effective National level 1 Processes 8 Roundtable 2 P4 P3 Regional level 7 P2 Africa-wide level Global level P1 3 Early actions 6 Declarations Commitments 5 4 DecisionsPage 7
  8. 8. Key questions for M&E• 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 in any achievements realized so far? What factors have shaped the achievements? – What are the trade-offs and complementarities, if any, among different types of interventions?• Consistency with initial targets – What are the projected impacts if interventions proceed as planned? – Are the projected impacts compatible with the CAADP targets? – If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track?• Exploring better interventions – Could greater or better distributed impacts be obtained by reconfiguring the interventions? – What are the different interventions that can lead to these outcomes?Page 8
  9. 9. Main challenge and achievements to date  Main challenge – Need indicators that are standardized, consistent and measurable across different countries and regions for cross-country comparisons and learning • Main achievements – CAADP M&E working group established, beginning with a workshop at the AU (Addis Ababa, Dec 3-4, 2007) – Draft M&E framework developed and presented at CAADP PP meeting in Seychelles, March 2008 ( – Framework based on CAADP principles and economic theory to address issue of attribution/causality (i.e. inputs outputs outcomes impacts) – Developed data collection formats with which ReSAKSS nodes will work with network of partners to collect data on indicatorsPage 9
  10. 10. ReSAKSS Role in CAADP M&E• M&E of agricultural development initiatives in Africa is key element of ReSAKSS strategic analysis• CAADP M&E Technical Working Group met in 2008 and designed M&E Framework for CAADP – See ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 6• ReSAKSS has now outlined a plan for implementing this framework• As mandated by 5th CAADP-PP in Abuja, the CAADP M&E framework will be validated in collaboration with AU/NEPAD and other stakeholders in South Africa between March 1 and 3, 2010
  11. 11. Types of indicators and rationale• Input indicators: what is the overall level of effort invested? – CAADP processes, policies, institutions, investments, etc.• Output indicators: what is the level of provision, coverage, and utilization of services? – Access to infrastructure and services, adoption of technologies, etc.• Outcome indicators: what is the effect on outcomes that affect goals? – Yields, production, wages, prices, trade, etc.• Impact indicators: what is the ultimate effect on goals? – Growth, income, poverty, food security, hunger, etc.• Conditioning indicators: how confident are we that any observed changes is due to the intervention? – Total budgetary resources, climate, natural disasters, wars, etc.Page 11
  12. 12. Input indicators: CAADP roundtable processIndicators: Program Key Program implementation scaling up and  Credible and relevant and M&E out, etc. evidence used in design of investment program National Focal Point appointed  Inclusive participation CAADP of stakeholders in Pillar 4 process Research & launched program design TechnologyRoundtable Pillar 3  Investment programconference Food security aligned with CAADP held & Steering & Pillar 2 Technical principles and targets compact Markets & trade signed Pillar 1 Committees  Investment program appointed Land & water technically reviewed management National compact  Mechanisms in place Cabinet memo developed & Stock taking discussed & for implementation and discussed and gap analysis approved M&E of the program completed Page 12
  13. 13. Input indicators: enabling conditions (other processes, policies, institutions) Key Indicators: National Policy • Policies for private Gov’t Processes/Events Donors sector development CAADP, SWAP, MTEF, (property rights, access to Exp Reviews, Donor credit, contract enforcement, Private harmonization, licensing, competition, …) Others Sector Elections, Law, etc. • Policies on equity (access of poor and vulnerable groups to resources, markets, food, and nutrition) Regional Level Africa-wide level Global level • Governance (political Actors Process Actors Process Actors stability, accountability, Process government effectiveness,RECs, Reg Summit, AU, Int’l Assembly G-8, G-20, Conventi regulatory quality, rule of law,Orgs., etc. Reviews, Orgs., etc. , Summit, WTO, etc. ons, etc. control of corruption) etc. etc. • Harmonized policies and strategies • Commitments met Page 13
  14. 14. Input indicators: investments and disaggregation CAADP Sub-sector Agriculture Pillar Crops, livestock, Research, extension, 1, 2, 3, 4 fishery, forestryirrigation, input support, markets, ... Commodity Staples, traditional, Sector AGRICULTURAL high value, export, ... Agriculture, roads, & RELATED education, health, Other INVESTMENTS water & sanitation, ... Gender, socio- economic groups Space Province, district, Source Economic rural/urban, Agro- Government, Salaries, capital, ecology Donors, Private operations and Sector maintenance, …
  15. 15. Output indicators: coverage and utilization of servicesInvestment / Provision / Utilization (e.g.) DisaggregationIntervention Coverage (e.g.)Research Number of Area under Commodity, gender, space technologies dev’d technologyExtension Extension-farmer Number of visits Gender, space ratio received per yearIrrigation Capacity of irrigation Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space (irrigable area)Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, spaceFeeder roads Length or density of Space roadsMarket Distance to nearest Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space marketPost harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space…
  16. 16. Outcome indicators: agricultural sector performance Production, trade and prices Sector growth and by: contribution to Growth returns to overall GDP by: sub-sector, commodity, space different types of investments by: Spacesub-sector, commodity, Sub-sector growth space AGRICULTURAL and contribution to SECTOR AgGDP by:Productivity of factors PERFORMANCE Space (land, labor, capital) and inputs by: Commodity growth,sub-sector, commodity, Use of factors (land, labor, contribution togender, socio-economic capital) and inputs by: AgGDP by: group, space sub-sector, commodity, gender, Space socio-economic group, Space
  17. 17. Impact indicators Unit costs by: Returns to differenttypes of investments by: gender, socio- Distribution by: economic group,gender, socio-economic gender, socio- space group, space economic group, spaceReturns to sub-sector growth by: INCOME,gender, socio-economic POVERTY, Decomposition by: group, Space FOOD AND sector (agriculture, NUTRITION services, industry); sub-Returns to commodity sector (crops, livestock, growth by: SECURITY, fishery, forestry); HUNGER commodity (staples,gender, socio-economic group, Space high value, export, etc.)
  18. 18. Implementation of CAADP M&E Framework• Implementation is a system consisting of: – Linked country level and regional teams, working under clearly defined roles and using shared data standards and protocols – Regular collection, documentation and processing of data at national and regional levels – Timely publication of these indicators and related monitoring reports
  19. 19. Key indicators • Formal communications, declarations • Compact signings (country and regional) • Review and dialogue Processes • Mutual accountability framework • Levels and Shares • Sub-sectorAgricultural • SpatialInvestments Other factors: • Levels and growth rates trade, hunger,Agricultural • Production and Productivity inputs, prices, etc. Growth • Headcount index • Absolute numbers Poverty • MDG projectionsReduction
  20. 20. Overview of methodology for M&EKey question Tools DataDelivering on • Trends • National surveyscommitments • Simple correlations • Expert opinion surveysEffectiveness of • Econometric methods • National surveysinterventions • General equilibrium • Targeted surveys models • Expert opinion surveysConsistency • Simulation models • Assessment of effectivenesswith initial • Participatory • Expert opinion surveystargets approachesExploring better • Simulation models • Assessment of effectivenessinterventions • Participatory and consistency approaches • Expert opinion surveys Details in (
  21. 21. Methodology: delivering on commitments• Trends, situation, and simple correlation analyses to monitor progress (i.e. no attribution to interventions) – CAADP Roundtable process – Donor commitments – 10% government agricultural expenditure – 6% agricultural GDP growth – Halving poverty and hunger, etc.• Data – National household surveys, accounts, etc. – International public datasets (AfDB, World Bank, FAO, etc.) – Targeted surveys (CAADP national focal points) – Targeted expert opinion surveys – …Page 21
  22. 22. Methodology: effectiveness of interventions (1)• Main challenge is attribution• Two complementary approaches – Before and after treatment • Baselines (2003, compact signed, program implemented) • Mid-term, end of project, long after project – With and without treatment • Treatment: direct beneficiaries; indirect beneficiaries through information/technology transfers, etc. • Controls: can only be affected through general equilibrium effects, e.g. prices, wages, etc.• For poverty (pov), impact of intervention (INV) measured by Average Treatment effect of the Treated (ATT): ATTj = Ej [ povbefore, j – povafter, j | INVj =1] – Ei [povbefore, i – povafter, i | INVi =0]Page 22
  23. 23. Methodology: effectiveness of interventions (2)• Underlying relationships to be estimated – Intervention decision making and placement – Household access to and utilization of services due to intervention – Household production, marketing and consumption decisions• Techniques – Econometric methods (double-difference, instrumental variables, matching) to assess direct impacts (mid-term, end of project, long after project) – General equilibrium modeling to assess economy-wide impacts• Data – National surveys – Targeted household, market and other surveys to fill gaps – Expert opinion surveys – Case studies (selected countries and/or programs)Page 23
  24. 24. Methodology: consistency with initial targets• Apply models developed for stocktaking and gap analysis• What are the projected impacts if interventions proceed as planned? – Use mid-term estimated ex-post impacts and parameters and growth patterns to project ex-ante impacts over period when target is expected to be achieved Are the projected impacts compatible with the CAADP targets? – Compare above ex-ante impacts with initial targets If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track? – Use data and information from experts to identify plausible scenarios – Simulate impacts under different scenarios to reach initial targetsPage 24
  25. 25. Methodology: exploring better interventions• Could greater or better distributed impacts be obtained by reconfiguring the interventions? – Even if interventions are consistent with the initial targets, can simulate impacts under different composition of investments to identify (in)efficiencies in implementation – Use estimated ex-post impacts and parameters from cross-country reviews and information from experts to identify plausible scenarios – Value of indicators associated with simulated impacts of the desirable scenarios can be used as guidelines to set new targets What are the different interventions that can lead to these outcomes? – Composition of investments associated with desirable scenarios from preceding analysisPage 25
  26. 26. Data collection strategy• Short-term: – Secondary sources – These are already collected, updated and made available on ReSAKSS website (• Medium-term: – ReSAKSS surveys and collection from country partners via regional nodes and established country SAKSS nodes • Already started in many countries and regions• Long-term: – ReSAKSS data collection mechanism institutionalized and implemented on regular basis (semi-annual, annual or bi-annual depending on indicator)
  27. 27. Reporting and dissemination of M&E results• ReSAKSS Annual Trends Report and briefs to be completed by end of September of each year―timely for CAADP PP meeting• ReSAKSS website ( to view and download trends, data, charts, supporting research publications, etc.• Various other media and presentations to review M&E information and results of analyses: – CAADP PP (Africa wide) – CAADP advisory councils (REC level) – ReSAKSS steering committee meetings (REC level) – Other regional- and country-level policy dialoguesPage 27
  28. 28. Tracking Progress of CAADP: ReSAKSS Website
  29. 29. Users can customize the map and charts The ReSAKSS website allows based on the specific users to easily track progress information they are against looking for, whether the CAADP and MDG targets that be regionalwhile also accessing a wealth of information or knowledge and data on country-specific agricultural development in information Africa
  30. 30. Key collaborators• The main collaborator at the country level will be the SAKSS nodes, which will liaise with the planning units of ministries, bureaus of statistics and private sector institutions and think tanks• Data quality will be guaranteed by working with partners such as the AU, NEPAD, RECs, CAADP Pillar institutions, CAADP country focal points, external partners such as UN institutions, Universities, etc• ReSAKSS will establish demonstrable agreements with RECs and national centers of expertise on shared platforms for benchmarking, collection…
  31. 31. Roles and Responsibilities in Implementation of CAADP M&E Framework• Need for serious efforts by the RECs and their member countries to internalize the collection and provision of the data within their own M&E systems• This should be tied with serious efforts to meet International standards in reporting• Ultimately, the responsibility of collecting and analyzing the data and reporting the results must be with the country itself• ReSAKSS and network of partners can facilitate this – Consulting with the RECS and CAADP country focal points – Strengthening capacity of national statistical bureaus – …
  32. 32. Results and Outputs of M&E System• Data collected are openly available for review, analysis and download on ReSAKSS website – 28 indicators already tracked and analyzed on website
  33. 33. Results and Outputs of M&E System• Data are analyzed and published in key monitoring reports: – Annual Trends report for each node • Agriculture performance, investment and MDG targets – Semi-annual report on CAADP process that will be made available at each CAADP PP – Joint publications with key partners, such as AU/NEPAD
  34. 34. Where are we now?• Almost 7 years after CAADP, has there been any progress toward the goals?• The Process: – 13 countries and 1 region have signed CAADP compacts• Agricultural Spending/Investment: – The number of countries spending at least 10% of budgets on agriculture has increased since 2002• Agricultural Growth: – At the continent level agricultural growth has increased since 2002 – The number of countries with annual agricultural growth rates of 6% or more has increased since 2002
  35. 35. The National CAADP Roundtable Process & Country Status Zimbabwe, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Comoros, Libya, Eritrea Seychelles Mauritius, DRC Madagascar, Sudan 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 Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia Togo Swaziland 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 execution Rwanda 14. Second annual 13. First annual review review meeting meeting
  36. 36. Government spending on agriculture: Progress towards the Maputo Declaration target • The African continent as a whole has not met the 10% target (current spending at 6-8 percent) • But, this varies by country Only 8 countries have Agricultural Expenditures as a share of total (%), 2007 met the 10% 25 target 20 CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted) 15% 10 5 0 Central African… Madagascar** Ghana**** Guinea Bissau*** Morocco** Gabon*** Mali Nigeria DRC** Egypt** Swaziland** Benin**** Burundi*** Tunisia** Chad*** Kenya**** Uganda**** Tanzania** Malawi Sudan*** Zambia* Gambia*** Senegal Niger* Cote dIvoire Lesotho** Togo Mauritius** Namibia** Ethiopia** Rwanda Botswana Mauritania*** Mozambique** Guinea*** Cameroon** Zimbabwe** Burkina Faso* *=2006; **=2005; ***=2004; ****=2008 estimates Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
  37. 37. Have countries increased their spending in response to the 2003 Maputo Declaration?• At the continental level, Level of agricultural spending as a share of total spending, 2002-2007 agricultural spending nearly doubled between 70.0% 2000 and 2005 60.0% % of reporting countries• In 2003, only 3.2% of countries allocated 10% 50.0% or more of their budgets 40.0% to agriculture – This increased to 33.3% 30.0% in 2006 before slightly falling to 25% in 2007 20.0%• 9 countries increased 10.0% their allocations from 0.0% less than 5% spending to 5-10% spending 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Less than 5% 5%-10% More than 10% Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
  38. 38. Agricultural expenditure as a share of agricultural GDP • Measures government spending on agriculture relative to the size of that countrys agriculture sector • Under this measure, more countries fall into the category of low budget support to agriculture Agricultural expenditures as a share of agricultural GDP, 2007 80 60 The range is CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted) considerable% 40 (1 to 60%) 20 0 *=2006; **=2005; ***=2008 estimatesOn aggregate , Africa spends between 5-7% Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009. of agricultural GDP on agriculture, compared to 15% in Asia during its Green Revolution
  39. 39. -36 -30 -24 -18 -12 -6 12 18 24 0 6 Eritrea Gambia, The Zimbabwe SenegalSource: WDI Tunisia Mauritania 2008: Malawi Lesotho 2002: Cape Verde 6% CAADP target 6% CAADP target Gabon Mali Kenya Cote dIvoire Ethiopia Zambia Madagascar Algeria CAR Chad Guinea-Bissau Botswana DRC Seychelles Swaziland Niger Burkina Faso Djibouti Sudan Egypt Cameroon Page 39 Uganda Ghana Burundi Nigeria Comoros Mauritius Morocco Tanzania Agricultural GDP growth Guinea South Africa Togo Benin Namibia Only 9 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth At least 20 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth Mozambique Sao Tome &… Angola Rwanda Equatorial Guinea
  40. 40. What about poverty and hunger? Burkina Faso Cameroon Congo, D.R. C. African Rep. Angola Ethiopia Botswana Guinea Algeria Egypt Kenya Malawi Ghana Mali Sao Tome and Principe Mauritania Morocco Tanzania Namibia Senegal Swaziland Togo Tunisia UgandaCountries on track towards Countries on track towards halving poverty by 2015 Only 6 Countries on track halving hunger by 2015 towards achieving both Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009 goals of MDG1
  41. 41. • Next steps Formal validation of M&E framework by all stakeholders under the leadership of NEPAD and AU• Regional network already established• Next step is to fully operationalize country-level surveys and data analysis in each region – Establish country SAKSS nodes• Harmonize efforts with other development partners doing similar M&E work in Africa such as AGRA, World Bank, Pillar Institutions, Mutual Accountability Framework, etc• Track the contributions of the CAADP process to the achievements of agricultural growth and poverty reduction• Monitor how agricultural budgets are being spent• Establish critical M&E information needed to enhance effective dialogue and policy processes at all levels
  42. 42. Thank you.