“Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: a comparative analysis,” Presented by Sam Benin, ReSAKSS-AW Program Leader, IFPRI, at the 7th CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting, Hilton Hotel, Yaoundé, Cameroon. 23 March 2011.

1. Monitoring African agricultural
development processes and performance:
a comparative analysis
IFPRI
Sam Benin
ReSAKSS-AW Program Leader, IFPRI
7th CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting
Hilton Hotel, Yaoundé
23rd March 2011

2. The Report = 2010 CAADP M&E Continental Report
 Copies of complete
report will be made
available
 Report based on CAADP
M&E framework
validated in February
2010
 Reports, database,
analysis and graphics
downloadable at
www.resakss.org

3. Why CAADP M&E?
poverty & food and nutrition
security if we can
Other factors understand
agricultural productivity & links and
growth track progress
Other factors to support
dialogue
policies & allocation of
agricultural investments
Other factors
National level
1
8
Roundtable
2 P4 More effective
Africa-wide level Processes
P3
7 P2
Global level Regional level P1 3
Commitments Early actions
6
5
4 Declarations
Decisions
Page 3

4. Why CAADP M&E?
greater /better distributed
poverty & food and nutrition security
outcomes if we can
Other factors understand
higher agricultural productivity & links and
accelerated growth track progress
Other factors to support
more enabling policies & greater/more dialogue
efficient allocation of agricultural
investments
Other factors
National level
1
8
Roundtable
2 P4 More effective
Africa-wide level Processes
P3
7 P2
Global level Regional level P1 3
Commitments Early actions
6
5
4 Declarations
Decisions
Page 4

5. What do we need to understand and track?
 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?
» What are the trade-offs and complementarities among different
interventions?
 Consistency with initial targets
» What are projected impacts if interventions proceed as planned?
» Are the projected impacts compatible with the initial targets?
» If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track?
 Exploring better interventions
» Could greater or better distributed outcomes be obtained?
» What are interventions that can lead to these outcomes?

6. This is where ReSAKSS comes in!
 Created and launched in ReSAKSS-AW node at IFPRI-DC:
2006 to provide credible coordinates 3 Africa-based
information, analysis, and regional nodes
knowledge products on above
questions to support
Nigeria SAKSS
implementation of CAADP ReSAKSS-WA,
IITA-Ibadan
 Charged with taking lead in Ghana SAKSS Uganda SAKSS
developing and implementing Rwanda SAKSS
CAADP M&E framework ReSAKSS-ECA,
ILRI-Nairobi
 Feed information into: Malawi SAKSS
Mozambique SAKSS
» Mutual review ⇒ continental
» Peer review ⇒ regional ReSAKSS-SA,
» Progress review ⇒ national IWMI-Pretoria

7. In this 2010 report; and outlook
 Due to data limitations, only able to answer the first
question on delivering on commitments more reliably
 Data and methodology used
 Main results
» Progress in and extent to which commitments and
targets been met so far; reasons and lessons
 Outlook
» Improving data
» 2011 M&E report and beyond

8. Data and Methodology (I)
 Several data sources:
» African and World Development Indicators, FAOSTAT, UN
MDG statistics, OECD, IMF Government Finance Statistics
» Supplemented by more recent data compiled by the ReSAKSS
network from various national and regional sources
 Data analyzed and presented at different levels and
compositions of aggregations of countries
» Geographic: Africa, SSA, and the 5 regions of the African
Union—central (9 countries), eastern (13), northern (6),
southern (10), and western (15)
» Economic: four-category typology based on agricultural
potential, alternative (or nonagricultural) sources of growth,
and income level

9. Economic Classification
Middle income (MI)
Low income (LI) (29)
(24)
Mineral rich Central African Republic;
Algeria; Angola;
(LI-1) DRC; Guinea; Liberia;
Botswana; Cameroon;
(6) Sierra Leone; Zambia
More Cape Verde; Congo;
favorable Benin; Burkina Faso; Cote d’Ivoire; Djibouti;
agricultural Ethiopia; Gambia; Ghana; Egypt; Equatorial
Non-mineral
conditions Guinea Bissau; Guinea; Gabon;
rich (LI-2)
(20) Kenya; Madagascar; Malawi; Lesotho; Libya;
(14)
Mozambique; Tanzania; Mauritius; Morocco;
Togo; Uganda; Zimbabwe Namibia; Nigeria; Sao
Tome & Principe;
Less favorable
Burundi; Chad; Comoros; Senegal; Seychelles;
agricultural conditions
Eritrea; Mali; Mauritania; South Africa; Sudan;
(LI-3)
Niger; Rwanda; Somalia Swaziland; Tunisia
(9)

10. Data and Methodology (II)
 Data analyzed and presented as annual average levels and
changes in the values of the indicators prior to and after
2003, year CAADP initiated
» four periods: 1990-1995, 1995-2003, 2003, and 2003-2009
» 2003 value reported is simple average over the years 2002 to 2004
» more reliable for analyzing trends than actual year-to-year changes
that are usually fraught with large variations
 CAADP M&E core indicators:
» Enabling environment (policies and institutions, ODA,
macroeconomic governance and performance)
» CAADP roundtable process
» Commitments and financing of the agricultural sector
» Agricultural sector performance (productivity, growth, and trade)
» Halving poverty and hunger (MDG1)

11. Focus of this Presentation
 CAADP Roundtable Process
» Status towards compact and post-compact milestones
 Agricultural expenditures
» Maputo declaration—10% total expenditures per year
 Agricultural growth
» 6% agricultural GDP annual average growth
 MDG1
» Halving 1992 poverty and hunger rates by 2015

12. CAADP Roundtable Process & Country Status
1. Focal Point 2. Process 3. Steering and
4.
39 countries
appointed by launched by Technical
Endorsement
government
have started Government & Committee
by Cabinet
Cameroon, Chad, REC Mauritius, instituted
CAADP process
Egypt, Eritrea, Mozambique
Gabon, Libya 25 countries &
8. investment
ECOWAS 5. Stocktaking,
plan prepared haveCompact
7. signed
signed 6. Compact Growth,
compacts drafted Investment
Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Analysis
Swaziland DRC, Guinea COMESA, Comoros, Djibouti,
Bissau, Zambia Zimbabwe Madagascar,
Seychelles, Sudan
5 countries
10. financing plan 12. Execution
9. Investment 11. assessment
have & instruments, &
received GAFSP of new
plan reviewed review implementation of program investment
funding and at mechanism
and validated agreed on execution programs
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape stage
Ethiopia†, Niger†, Ethiopia, Rwanda,
Verde, ECOWAS, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Togo
Rwanda†, Sierra
Ghana, Guinea, Kenya,
Leone†, Togo†
Liberia, Malawi, Mali, 14. 2nd annual 13. 1st annual
Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, review review
Uganda meeting meeting

13. Number Achieving Selected Milestones
Region/REC Focal Point Stocktaking, Round Investment Financing Execution of
appointed Growth & table held plan plan secured investment
Investment and drafted, and annual plan
Western region has Analysis Compact reviewed review
outperformed the others: undertaken signed and mechanism
100% Compact validated agreed upon
Signing Rate
Africa 39 31 24 19 5 4
Central 5 2 1 0 0 0
Eastern 12 10 5 5 2 2
Northern 2 0 0 0 0 0
Southern 5 4 3 1 0 0
Western 15 15 15 13 3 2
RECs 2 2 1 1 0 0

14. Agriculture spending share (10% target)
15 20
10 18
16
5 14
12
Percent
0
Percent
10
-5 8
-10 6
4
-15 2
-20 0
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
In the last period (2003-09), only 1 region
declines in average and 4 countries (Ethiopia,levelsLI-2 Eastern
Afr SSA CA
(EA) EA NA SA WA MI LI-1 in LI-3
Average Mali,
levels across Niger and Senegal) have surpassed the
most Annual average change, left axis increased
Africa have
regions 10% Annual average level, right axis the most
target on average per byyear
CAADP target

15. Agricultural GDP growth rate (6% target)
4 9
3 8
2 7
1 6
Percentage point
5
0
4
Percent
-1 3
-2 2
-3 1
-4 0
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
90-95
95-03
2003
03-09
12 countries achieved an average annual
AfrAgGDPCA
SSA growth rate ofSA WA MI6% since LI-3
EA NA more than LI-1 LI-2
No region reached Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya,upward trend
2003: an averageSince 2003, however,
Annual average change, left axis
annual AgGDP growth rate of in growth rate—particularly, SSA,
Morocco, Annual average level, right axisGambia,
Mozambique, Namibia,
6% target in recent CAADP target central, eastern, and southern
periods
Guinea, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone

16. Halving Poverty and Hunger (MDG1)
On track to On track to
3 countries on
halve poverty halve hunger
track to
Burkina Faso;
Cameroon**; Cape
meeting MDG1 Algeria***; Angola**,***;
Benin*,**;
Verde**,***; Central Egypt*,** Botswana**,***; Burundi;
African Rep.**; Egypt*,**; Ghana** Egypt*,**’; Equatorial;
Ethiopia; Ghana**; Mauritania** Guinea**,***; Gambia**;
Guinea*,**; Kenya; Ghana**; Guinea
Lesotho; Malawi; Mali; NA Region*,** Bissau**; Mauritania**;
Mauritania**; Morocco*; Mozambique**;
Senegal; Swaziland**,***; Namibia**,***; Sao Tome
Uganda* Majority of all & Principe**,***; Tunisia
EA, NA, LI-2 countries are in
NA
14 countries on trackwestern Africa (5 for 12 countries on track to
to
poverty, 4 for hunger) halving hunger by 2015
halving poverty by 2015

17. Conclusions and Lessons (I)
 Substantial progress in roundtable process: 10 (40%) of 25
compacts in 2010 alone; West Africa achieved 100%
» Facilitation (e.g. slow start in SADC; ECOWAS contributed
additional funding for analysis, etc)
» Other (e.g., low priority of agriculture in middle-income
countries, internal conflict)
» $$$ (e.g., GAFSP fund is a major factor in 17 countries moving
on to design of investment plans, benefiting 5 = $223.5 mil)
 Increased spending (absolute amounts) on agriculture sector,
but low relative shares; few countries consistently surpassed
10% target each year
 Not surprisingly, progress in outcomes (growth and MDG1)
has been slow; few scattered moderate-to-high performers

18. Conclusions and Lessons (II)
 Understanding cause-effect relationships between
investments and outcomes require specialized studies and
data that are not available
 Same problem underlying many investment plans,
contributing factor in low success rate in accessing GAFSP
 Investment plans show different countries adopting
different strategies. Fundamental question:
» How to raise agricultural productivity in a manner that
accelerates growth, food security, and poverty and hunger
reduction?

19. Proposed Budget Allocation in NAIPs, 2010-15
 Kenya: heavy on
irrigation and
commercialization
 Malawi: heavy on
farm support and
irrigation
 Rwanda: more
balanced, favoring
NRM
 Uganda: also more
balanced, favoring
extension and farm
support Source: National Agricultural Investment Plans

20. Outlook for M&E and ReSAKSS (I)
 Feature topic for 2011 M&E report will be agricultural
productivity: options for raising and maintaining high
agricultural productivity. Objectives:
» to better understand the usefulness of different measures of
agricultural productivity in monitoring and evaluation
» to assess why there has not been widespread technical
change in Africa
» to review lessons associated with the efficiency gains in
agricultural production achieved in different parts of Africa
» to identify specific agricultural investment programs whose
implementation can be scaled up or undertaken in different
parts of Africa

21. Outlook for M&E and ReSAKSS (II)
 Main agenda going forwards: assist countries to establish data
systems and improve data quality (SAKSS nodes !!!) ⇒ answer
more pertinent M&E questions
 Progress
» Rwanda already up and running since May 2010
» Launched in Nigeria in December 2010
» Semi-established in Uganda, Malawi and Mozambique (transition
from IFPRI programs to country SAKSS)
» Advanced stage in Ghana, Mali, Senegal, and Zambia
 Priority
» 4 others that have secured funding—Sierra Leone, Togo, Niger and
Ethiopia
» Others with compacts and investment plans
» …

22. Thank You

23. What is the plan to pay for these investments?
Ethiopia PIF 30.9% 20.6% 48.5%
Ghana METASIP 25.2% 8.9% 65.9%
Kenya MTIP 65.9% 30.5% 2.5%
1.0%
Liberia LASIP 0.5%
18.0% 81.5%
Malawi ASWAp 43.6% 21.4% 35.1%
Mali PNIP-SA 20.2% 15.4% 64.5%
Nigeria NAIP 50.9% 49.1%
Rwanda PSTII/ASIP 23.6% 33.5% 9.3% 33.6%
Senegal PNIA 32.3% 17.6% 50.1%
Uganda DSIP 75.0% 25.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Government Development Partners Gov't and DPs Private Sector Gap