monitoring and evaluation system for caadp implementation_2010
Post on 18-Nov-2014
1.233 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation
CAADP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Validation Workshop
Indaba Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa
March 1-3, 2010
Babatunde OmilolaCoordinator, Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)
IFPRI
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
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
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
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))
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
Idea behind M&E framework
Page 7
Greater/better distributedpoverty reduction & food and nutrition
security outcomes
Accelerated agricultural growth & Greater market access
More enabling policies &Greater/more efficient allocation of
agricultural investments
Global level
Commitments
Africa-wide level
Declarations
Decisions
Regional level
Early actions
8
7
6
1
2
3
5
P 4
P 3P 2
4
P 1
National level
Roundtable
Processes
Other factors
Other factors
Other factors
More effective
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Page 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 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 (www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP6.pdf)
– 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 indicators
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
Page 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 12
Pillar 1Pillar 1
Land & water management
Pillar 4
Research &
Technology
Pillar 3
Food security
Pillar 2
Markets & trade
Programscaling up and
out, etc.
Key Indicators:
Credible and relevant evidence used in design of investment program
Inclusive participation of stakeholders in program design
Investment program aligned with CAADP principles and targets
Investment program technically reviewed
Mechanisms in place for implementation and M&E of the program
Input indicators:CAADP roundtable process
Program implementation
and M&E
Roundtable conference
held & compact signed
National compact
developed & discussed Stock taking
and gap analysis completed
Cabinet memo discussed &
approved
Steering & Technical
Committeesappointed
CAADP process
launched
National Focal Point appointed
Input indicators:enabling conditions (other processes, policies, institutions)
Key Indicators:
• Policies for private sector development (property rights, access to credit, contract enforcement, licensing, competition, …)
• Policies on equity(access of poor and vulnerable groups to resources, markets, food, and nutrition)
• Governance (political
stability, accountability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption)
• Harmonized policies and strategies
• Commitments met
Page 13
Private Sector
Donors
Others
National Policy Processes/Events
CAADP, SWAP, MTEF, Exp Reviews, Donor
harmonization, Elections, Law, etc.
Gov’t
Regional Level Africa-wide level
Actors
RECs, RegOrgs., etc.
Actors
AU, Int’l Orgs., etc.
Global level
Actors
G-8, G-20, WTO, etc.
Process
Summit, Reviews,
etc.
Process
Assembly, Summit,
etc.
Process
Conventions, etc.
Input indicators:investments and disaggregation
AGRICULTURAL & RELATED
INVESTMENTS
Space
Province, district, rural/urban, Agro-
ecology
Agriculture
Research, extension, irrigation, input support,
markets, ...
Sub-sector
Crops, livestock, fishery, forestry
Economic
Salaries, capital, operations and maintenance, …
Commodity
Staples, traditional, high value, export, ...
Source
Government, Donors, Private
Sector
Other
Gender, socio-economic groups
CAADP Pillar
1, 2, 3, 4
Sector
Agriculture, roads, education, health,
water & sanitation, ...
Output indicators:coverage and utilization of services
Investment /Intervention
Provision /Coverage (e.g.)
Utilization (e.g.) Disaggregation
Research Number of technologies dev’d
Area under technology
Commodity, gender, space
Extension Extension-farmer ratio
Number of visits received per year
Gender, space
Irrigation Capacity of irrigation (irrigable area)
Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space
Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, space
Feeder roads Length or density of roads
Space
Market Distance to nearest market
Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space
Post harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space
…
Outcome indicators:agricultural sector performance
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
PERFORMANCE
Use of factors (land, labor, capital) and inputs by:
sub-sector, commodity, gender, socio-economic group, Space
Growth returns to different types of investments by:
sub-sector, commodity, space
Sub-sector growth and contribution to
AgGDP by:
Space
Commodity growth, contribution to
AgGDP by:
Space
Productivity of factors (land, labor, capital)
and inputs by:
sub-sector, commodity, gender, socio-economic
group, space
Sector growth and contribution to overall GDP by:
Space
Production, trade and prices by:
sub-sector, commodity, space
Impact indicators
INCOME, POVERTY,
FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY, HUNGER
Returns to different types of investments by:
gender, socio-economic group, space
Decomposition by:
sector (agriculture, services, industry); sub-sector (crops, livestock,
fishery, forestry);commodity (staples,
high value, export, etc.)
Distribution by:
gender, socio-economic group,
space
Returns to commodity growth by:
gender, socio-economic group, Space
Unit costs by:
gender, socio-economic group,
space
Returns to sub-sector growth by:
gender, socio-economic group, Space
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
Key indicators
Processes
• Formal communications, declarations
• Compact signings (country and regional)
• Review and dialogue
• Mutual accountability framework
Agricultural InvestmentsAgricultural Investments
• Levels and Shares
• Sub-sector
• Spatial
Agricultural Agricultural Growth
• Levels and growth rates
• Production and Productivity
Poverty Poverty Reduction
• Headcount index
• Absolute numbers
• MDG projections
Other factors: trade, hunger,
inputs, prices, etc.
Overview of methodology for M&E
Key question Tools Data
Delivering on commitments
• Trends• Simple correlations
• National surveys• Expert opinion surveys
Effectiveness of interventions
• Econometric methods• General equilibrium models
• National surveys• Targeted surveys• Expert opinion surveys
Consistency with initial targets
• Simulation models• Participatory approaches
• Assessment of effectiveness• Expert opinion surveys
Exploring better interventions
• Simulation models• Participatory approaches
• Assessment of effectiveness and consistency• Expert opinion surveys
Details in (www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP4&7.pdf)
Page 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 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 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 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 targets
Page 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 analysis
Data collection strategy
• Short-term: – Secondary sources– These are already collected, updated and made
available on ReSAKSS website (www.resakss.org)
• 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)
Page 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 (www.resakss.org) 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 dialogues
Users can customizethe map and charts
based on the specific information they are looking for, whether
that be regional information or
country-specific information
Users can customizethe map and charts
based on the specific information they are looking for, whether
that be regional information or
country-specific information
The ReSAKSS website allows users to easily track progress
against the CAADP and MDG targets
while also accessing a wealth of knowledge and data on
agricultural development in Africa
The ReSAKSS website allows users to easily track progress
against the CAADP and MDG targets
while also accessing a wealth of knowledge and data on
agricultural development in Africa
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…
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
– …
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
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
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
1. Government appoints Focal Point(s)
2. REC and Government launch
process
3. Country Steering and Technical
Committee
4. Cabinet Memo and Endorsement
5. Stocktaking, Growth, Invest.
Analysis
6. Drafting of Country CAADP Compact
7. Roundtable Signing of Compact
8. Elaboration of detailed investment
plans
9. Post compact review meeting and
validation of investment plans
10. Agreement on financing plan,
financing instruments, and annual review
mechanism
11. Operational design and other technical
studies and assessment for
program execution
12. Execution of new investment programs
13. First annual review meeting
14. Second annual review meeting
The National CAADP Roundtable Process & Country
Status
Libya, Eritrea
Zimbabwe, Egypt,
Mauritius, DRC
Comoros, Madagascar, Sudan
Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Seychelles
Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi,
Senegal, Uganda, Zambia
Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Gambia, Liberia, Mali, Niger,
Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Swaziland
Rwanda
Ethiopia, Ghana, Togo
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
Gu
ine
a B
issa
u*
**
Gab
on
**
*
DR
C**
Co
te d
'Ivo
ire
Mo
rocc
o*
*
Cen
tral
Afr
ican
…
Mau
riti
us*
*
Leso
tho
**
Rw
and
a
Egyp
t**
Cam
ero
on
**
Bo
tsw
ana
Bu
run
di*
**
Ken
ya*
***
Swaz
ilan
d**
Uga
nd
a***
*Su
dan
***
Nam
ibia
**
Tan
zan
ia**
Mau
rita
nia
***
Be
nin
***
*
Tun
isia
**
Nig
eria
Zim
bab
we*
*
Zam
bia
*
Togo
Mad
agas
car*
*
Gam
bia
***
Mo
zam
biq
ue*
*C
had
***
Gh
ana*
**
*
Mal
i
Mal
awi
Eth
iop
ia*
*
Sen
egal
Gu
inea
***
Nig
er*
Bu
rkin
a Fa
so*
%
Agricultural Expenditures as a share of total (%), 2007
CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted)
*=2006; **=2005; ***=2004; ****=2008 estimates
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
Only 8 countries have met the 10%
target
Have countries increased their spending in response to the 2003 Maputo Declaration?
• At the continental level, agricultural spending nearly doubled between 2000 and 2005
• In 2003, only 3.2% of countries allocated 10% or more of their budgets to agriculture– This increased to 33.3%
in 2006 before slightly falling to 25% in 2007
• 9 countries increased their allocations from less than 5% spending to 5-10% spending
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
% o
f re
po
rtin
g co
un
trie
s
Level of agricultural spending as a share of total spending, 2002-2007
Less than 5% 5%-10% More than 10%
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
Agricultural expenditure as a share of agricultural GDP
• Measures government spending on agriculture relative to the size of that country's agriculture sector
• Under this measure, more countries fall into the category of low budget support to agriculture
0
20
40
60
80
%
Agricultural expenditures as a share of agricultural GDP, 2007
CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted)
*=2006; **=2005; ***=2008 estimates
The range is considerable
(1 to 60%)
On aggregate , Africa spends between 5-7% of agricultural GDP on agriculture,
compared to 15% in Asia during its Green Revolution
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
Agricultural GDP growth
Page 39
-36
-30
-24
-18
-12
-6
0
6
12
18
24
Erit
rea
Gam
bia
, Th
e
Zim
bab
we
Sen
ega
l
Tun
isia
Mau
rita
nia
Mal
awi
Leso
tho
Cap
e V
erd
e
Gab
on
Mal
i
Ke
nya
Co
te d
'Ivo
ire
Eth
iop
ia
Zam
bia
Mad
agas
car
Alg
eri
a
CA
R
Ch
ad
Gu
ine
a-B
issa
u
Bo
tsw
ana
DR
C
Seyc
he
lles
Swaz
ilan
d
Nig
er
Bu
rkin
a Fa
so
Djib
ou
ti
Sud
an
Egyp
t
Cam
ero
on
Uga
nd
a
Gh
ana
Bu
run
di
Nig
eri
a
Co
mo
ros
Mau
riti
us
Mo
rocc
o
Tan
zan
ia
Gu
ine
a
Sou
th A
fric
a
Togo
Be
nin
Nam
ibia
Mo
zam
biq
ue
Sao
To
me
& …
An
gola
Rw
and
a
Equ
ato
rial
Gu
ine
a
2002: Only 9 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth
2008: At least 20 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth
6% CAADP target
6% CAADP target
Source: WDI
Burkina Faso CameroonCongo, D.R.
C. African Rep. Ethiopia Guinea Kenya Mali
Morocco Senegal
Swaziland Togo
TunisiaUganda
AngolaBotswana
EgyptGhana
MauritaniaNamibia
Countries on track towards halving poverty by 2015
Countries on track towards halving hunger by 2015Only 6 Countries on track
towards achieving both goals of MDG1
Algeria Malawi
Sao Tome and PrincipeTanzania
What about poverty and hunger?
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009
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
Thank you.
top related