1. TRACKING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN AR4D:
LESSONS FROM OECD REVIEWS & DAC CRS
Karim Hussein

2. SOME TOOLS FOR TRACKING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN FS & AG
• UNECA-OECD MRDE: Tracks development commitments, results,
future policy priorities in Africa – including food security & agriculture
(see: www.mrde-africa.org)
• DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS): Tracks reported DAC ODA
allocations by sector, including agricultural research; research funding
distributed across sectors and CRS ‘purpose codes’ and sectors
• G8 L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI): Tracks commitments
and disbursements of ODA to respond to AFSI Pledge 2009-2012
• No equivalent systems to track private funding

3. UNECA-OECD MRDE: LESSONS FOR MONITORING AR4D COMMITMENTS
• Monitor in consultation with key partners / stakeholders
• Develop a clear, simple, joint framework: improve with experience
• Examine AR4D investment trends at global, regional, national levels
• Use comparable sources of data at national and regional levels to
monitor AR4D funding, results and policy priorities
• Complement official data with academic, PS, civil society analysis
• Identify main priorities for improved AR4D support (dev effectiveness)
• Involve stakeholders / users in data collection, analysis,
identification of priorities & dissemination (> relevance, investment)

4. OECD/DAC CREDITOR REPORTING SYSTEM (1)
• Creditor Reporting System (CRS) Aid Activity Database provides
basic comparative data on where aid goes, what purposes it serves,
policies it aims to implement & how donor resources are delivered
• CRS data on AR4D spending is collected through official reporting
by DAC development partners on the agricultural research purpose
code: comparative data on expenditure - but an incomplete picture
• Some AR4D-related spending collected via other purpose codes
• Case for improving CRS tracking of AR4D…OECD/DAC & AFSI
members discussing improvements to tracking AR4D funding &
results within the CRS and AFSI - GCARD2 can inform this debate

5. OECD DAC CREDITOR REPORTING SYSTEM (2)
• CRS is used by donors to classify funding and identify sectors /
subsectors funded by their ODA; it reports donor commitments /
disbursements for sectors identified by the OECD/DAC in the CRS
• It does not provide country level information nor capture all pubic and
private financial flows…an incomplete picture of AR4D funding
• But changing CRS purpose codes will not achieve the detail needed
to monitor the funding for the diverse activities related to AR4D
• CRS information also needs to be complemented by other sources of
information at the national / sub national levels - requires investment
of human and financial resources

6. CRS TRACKING OF AR4D – POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
• A more standard approach to coding information by DAC members -
specific new DAC guidance to member country agencies and staff?
• Clarify exactly what should be reported under the CRS code for AR4D
and agree common descriptors that provide more detail on the core
areas of ODA-funded AR4D (production, crops or processing)
• Take steps to improve reporting on AR4D funding in donor systems at
country level to feed better quality data into the CRS
• GCARD2 could urge like-minded donors to pilot improvements in the
way AR4D funding is reported from country level up to HQ and share
lessons in the DAC, agreeing best practice guidelines on reporting

7. DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE TRACKING SYSTEM FOR AR4D FUNDING
1) Agree core set of meaningful indicators to monitor among partners
2) Build on existing monitoring of international & national level AR4D
support (CRS, ASTI, MRDE etc.): avoid duplication; faster set up;
foster comparability…..
3) Partner with relevant global, regional, national organisations and
producers and users in data collection, analysis and priority setting
4) Allow time to establish agreed methodology with partners and build
HR capacity to collect and analyse AR4D data
5) Provide realistic periodic updates
6) Foster policy coherence in AR4D through tracking tools among
development partners and across government