This document discusses sector-wide approaches (SWAps) in agriculture and rural development. It defines a SWAp as a program that supports a single sector through a common policy, expenditure program, and reliance on national systems. The objectives of a SWAp are to broaden government ownership over sector policies and spending, improve coordination among stakeholders, and increase coherence in sector policies, spending, and results. A SWAp can involve general budget support, sectoral budget support, or basket funding earmarked for the sector. Key elements include a nationally-owned policy and strategy, performance monitoring, and consultation mechanisms. The document examines experiences with SWAps in agriculture and rural development.

1. 1 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Sector Wide Approaches in Agriculture
and Rural Development
Module 3: Investment and Resource Mobilization
Session 6: Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps)
F A O P o l i c y L e a r n i n g P r o g r a m m e

2. 2 of 17
© FAO January 2008
By
of the
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Michael Wales, Principal Advisor, TCID, Guy Evers, Senior Advisor,
TCID, Melissa Brown, Economist, TCIS, and Alicia Fernandez (TCID),
Investment Center Division, FAO, Rome, Italy
Sector Wide Approaches in Agriculture
and Rural Development

3. 3 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Introduction – Definition of SWAp
A SWAp is:
a programme that supports a single sector
policy & expenditure programme
government leadership
a common approach across the sector
and it
relies on national systems to disburse, account
and report on use of all funds
Programme-based approach: more general

4. 4 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Objectives
Broaden government ownership of sector
policy, strategy and spending
Improve coordination of all stakeholders
Increase coherence – sector policy,
spending and results
Minimise transaction costs of external
financing
After reading this module, you
should know about [the main
approaches to]:

5. 5 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Policy planning & financing
SWAp is a policy planning &
management approach, not just
financing mechanism
Can be financed by:
General (direct) budget support
– G(D)BS
Sectoral budget support
Basket funding earmarked for
sector

6. 6 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Elements
Nationally-owned policy & strategy
MTEF
reflect sector priorities
Programming of resources
activities-funds-work programmes-schedule for
implementation
Performance monitoring system
enhance accountability
Consultation mechanisms

7. 7 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Agriculture Sector SWAps
Uniquely complex
Many private actors
different capacities, interests,
production systems, sub-sector
markets
Many public sector actors
different ministries, agencies, functions
Unclear role of the state
governments and donors hold diverse
views

8. 8 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Study of A&RD SWAps
Are SWAps in A&RD achieving their stated
goals?
Identify...
critical lessons on development assistance in A&RD, and
how to enhance the effectiveness of aid and contribution
of A&RD to long term growth and poverty reduction

9. 9 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Trends
Changing A&RD governance: changes in mandates of MoAs,
challenges of coordination and coherence
Complexity of A&RD sector: most activities in the private sector –
public expenditure is not the main source of financing
Aid processes in A&RD: aid has fallen, greater focus on policy-
making, institutional capacity strengthening and public financial
management

10. 10 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Themes for study
Improved aid management
Enhanced sector policy
coordination and planning
Improved institutional capacity
and government leadership
Enhanced public expenditure,
financial management and
equitable service delivery
Stronger private sector interface

11. 11 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Preliminary findings
Improved aid management: limited concrete evidence
Improved policy coordination and planning: to some extent
Enhanced PFM: showing signs of improvement
Improved institutional capacity: limited progress
Enhanced private sector: no obvious signs of improvement

12. 12 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Initial messages
Performance: difficult to identify tangible results
Ownership: constrained by weaknesses in government
leadership
Decentralisation: how to make the SWAp consistent with
decentralisation
Aid H&A: GBS achieves greater H&A
Policy & institutional coherence: extremely difficult -
avoid complexity

13. 13 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Mozambique PROAGRI
“Innovative, bold and commendable” design
Objectives “not operational or measurable”
No effective M&E – hard to assess results
Fiduciary pressure by donors to track all expenditures
Trade-off between institutional strengthening and
development impact

14. 14 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Conclusion: Lessons
It is possible to revive weak
institutions quickly
Massive capacity building efforts
needed for staff and incentives to
keep them
Jointly-supported donor operations
enhances government ownership
Improved PFM can be put in place
and must be able to track
expenditures

15. 15 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Further readings
Anand S., 1983. Inequality and
Poverty in Malaysia, Oxford
University Press, London, UK.

16. 16 of 17
© FAO January 2008
Session 1: Investment in agriculture & rural
development
Session 2: Environment for private investment in
agriculture & rural development
Session 3: Sources and uses of financial resources
Session 4: Strategies for increasing farm financing
resources
Session 5: Risk mitigation in agricultural investment
Session 6: Sector-wide approaches (SWAps)
Session 7: Socio-economic & livelihood analysis
FAO Policy learning programme
FAO Policy
learning programme
Capacity Building Programme
on Policies and Strategies for
Agricultural and Rural
Development

17. 17 of 17
© FAO January 2008
T h a n k y o
u !