introduction - africa lead · web viewthe joint government and development partner rural...

FEED THE FUTURE: BUILDING CAPACITY FOR AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION (AFRICA LEAD II)

GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BRANDING AND MARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE METRICS FOR NAIP DESIGN, APPRAISAL, AND TRACKING

FEED THE FUTURE: BUILDING CAPACITY FOR AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL TRANSFORMATION (AFRICA LEAD II)

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE METRICS FOR NAIP DESIGN, APPRAISAL, AND TRACKINGProgram Title: Feed the Future: Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II)Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID Bureau of Food Security Award Number: AID-OAA-A13-00085Awardee: DAIAuthor: Africa Lead II Cover photo credit: Africa Lead II

This publication was prepared by DAI and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A13-00085.

INTRODUCTION Through the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Plan (CAADP), African countries have articulated a common commitment to agricultural development. One of the key innovations of CAADP has been to encourage countries to undertake an evidence-based and inclusive process of developing National Agriculture Investment Plans (NAIPs). NAIPs articulate the agriculture and food security goals of each country, the steps and investments that need to be taken to meet these goals, and a system of mutual accountability in these roles based on clear metrics.

The CAADP Results Framework (2015-2025) was developed as a key tool to track, monitor and report on progress towards achieving CAADP commitments and NAIP performance. A key challenge in operationalizing this framework is to ensure that evidence-based analysis is undertaken to monitor country progress and inform future planning and programming. To help guide this process, the African Union Commission (AUC) and the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA)1 is currently preparing a Technical Guide and Road Map for Appraisal and Preparation of the Next Generation of NAIPs (‘NAIP Road Map’).

The goal of NAIP Road Map is to identify a common set of analytical tools, metrics, and approaches that can be used to not only inform the development of future NAIPs, but to help in their appraisal once they are being implemented.2 This report contributes to the NAIP Road Map by synthesizing and distilling results from the Institutional Architecture for Food Security Policy Change (‘Institutional Architecture’) diagnostic.3

Part one takes lessons learned from the Institutional Architecture diagnostics to develop key best practice ‘institutional’ measurements in the development and design of NAIPs. These indicators will be included in the NAIP Road Map. Part two provide a summary of specific capacity constraints to inform NAIP development and implementation at the country level, based on an Institutional Architecture analysis. Six countries summaries are included: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Senegal. These summaries serve as a guide to government and development partners about the necessary systems and processes required to maximize the impact of the next NAIP.

1 With support from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKKS).2 AUC and NEPAD, 2016, Metrics, Analytical Questions and Tools for NAIPs Design, Appraisal, & Tracking.3 This report was written by David Quinn, Integra LLC, on behalf of the USAID-funded Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II).

For the NAIP Road Map, it is worth strongly noting that these Institutional Architecture indicators should be treated distinctly from the other five thematic themes of inclusive growth, regional trade, nutrition, gender and climate smart agriculture proposed by IFPRI in the NAIP Appraisal and Design Toolbox paper. The Institutional Architecture indicators deal with the ‘structures and processes’ that underpin the NAIP process, while the other thematic themes deal with measuring ‘outcomes’ from the NAIP. This distinction needs to be better articulated.

PART I: INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE INDICATORS The Institutional Architecture diagnostic is a framework for analyzing a country’s capacity to undertake policy changes in support of improved food security. The goal is to provide development partners, local policymakers, and other key stakeholders with information on possible constraints to effective policy implementation, and highlight areas to improve the capacity and performance of the policy change process. Institutional Architecture assessments examine six components of the policy making process:

1. Guiding Policy Framework – measures whether the overall policy framework is consistently applied and transparent.

2. Policy Development and Coordination - measures the capacity to use evidence-based analysis, coordinate across sectors, and ultimately to lay the groundwork to support policy implementation.

3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation - measures the degree of inclusivity and stakeholder consultation involved in the policy development process.

4. Evidence-based Analysis - measures the research, data, and statistics available to support government policies related to agriculture and food security.

5. Policy Implementation - measures whether implementation plans have been developed, whether priorities align with the work plans of line ministries, and whether a system is in place to understand impact.

6. Mutual Accountability - measures the effectiveness of a country’s mutual accountability systems.

Field interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders involved in agriculture and food security policy reform in each country studied, including government officials, development partners, civil society organizations, private companies and agribusiness associations, and research institutions. For each policy component, a set of indicators describes the capacity and

effectiveness of the overall policy change process and thus informs the analysis of each policy component.

To date, Institutional Architecture diagnostics have been conducted in 17 countries (of which 12 were in Africa); a cross-country synthesis report was published in 2015. Across these studies, a number of common constraints and best practices to effective policy development were identified. Based on the results of this cross-country study, a number of best practice indicators have been developed (see Table 1 below). While the policy reform process is unique across countries, the following institutional structures and processes are shared in common, and their presence have been found to maximize the effectiveness and impact of the policy development and implementation required by NAIP.

The structures in place to develop and implement NAIPs across the six countries examined in this report show a diversity of approaches and vast differences in institutional sophistication. What is clear, however, is that institutional structures are critical to maximizing the impact of NAIPs. The findings from this report, as well as the broader Institutional Architecture Cross Country study conducted in 20144, have identified a number of critical institutional structures vital to effective implementation.

Cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation is key. A cross-sectoral coordination mechanism, commonly known as a Steering Committee, must have high-level political support, as well as strong participation from line ministries, development partners, private sector, and civil society. This Steering Committee must have a mandate for coordinating and monitoring implementation, and not just policy development. It must also have a role in prioritizing activities and meet regularly. A well-funded Secretariat and a Technical Committee or TWGs are also necessary to provide the necessary organizational and technical support to the Steering Committee. Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi and Rwanda all have broadly functioning cross-sectoral coordination systems in place, although modest improvements can be made by following the indicators in this report. All of these countries have successfully integrated their cross-sectoral coordination systems with their mutual accountability systems, with the exception of Ghana, which has a separate mutual accountability Agriculture Sector Working Group. In contrast, Kenya and Senegal have virtually no structures in place for cross-sectoral coordination or mutual accountability and as a result, progress on NAIP implementation is limited.

4 USAID, 2014, Institutional Architecture Cross-Country Study, http://eatproject.org/docs/EAT_CrossCountry_Study_031815_web.pdf.

A common challenge across all six countries was the need for greater prioritization of activities within NAIPs. Given the political sensitivities surrounding access to food, governments seem to lack any political appetitive for selecting priority activities. However, by attempting to satisfy all stakeholders, many NAIPs end up looking strong on paper but lack any practical application and implementation.

Another common challenge across all six countries is the communication and dissemination of information related to NAIP implementation. While every country has published its NAIP, there is practically no information concerning implementation structures, annual plans, activity progress, monitoring and evaluation, etc. One best practice in this regard that could be replicated in CAADP countries is the Food Security and Nutrition Information System (FSNIS) in Cambodia. The mandate of FSNIS is to support improved policy formulation and analysis by disseminating existing food security and nutrition information, facilitating the exchange of information among stakeholders, and providing a repository for relevant documents.5

In ensuring mutual accountability, there should be a government-development partner mutual accountability committee or working group. This committee can either serve as the NAIP steering committee or else operate in close alignment. A joint sector review (JSR) is one effective way of operationalizing mutual accountability. The JSR process has three goals: 1) assess the performance and results of the agriculture sector, 2) assist governments in setting sector policy and priorities, and 3) assess how well state and non-state actors have implementing pledges and commitments laid out in NAIPs.

JSRs have been strongly promoted by the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and JSRs have been conducted in over 10 countries to date. One challenge identified in the Institutional Architecture analysis is that the need to conduct JSRs has led some countries to create separate and distinct structures to their NAIP coordination structures. This has led to some confusion and duplication of responsibilities. Countries that have the strongest JSR processes, such as Ethiopia and Malawi, have fully integrated the JSR into their existing systems and this model should be followed for all countries.

5 Ibid

Table 1: NAIP Institutional Architecture Indicators Establish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP.The Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation.The Minister of Agriculture (or relevant position) chairs the Steering Committee.The Steering Committee meets at least 4 times per year.The Steering Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society.The Steering Committee has attendance from at least 75 percent of participating line ministries and development partners.

All line ministries, development partners, private sector and civil society participants under the NAIP produce annual work plans reflecting this prioritization. All activities are broken down according to estimated cost, funding source, timeline, and responsible actors.The Steering Committee reviews progress on meeting annual work plan targets.

Establish an NAIP Technical Committee and Technical Working Groups

There is a Technical Committee or Technical Working Groups that facilitates cross-sectoral participation at the technical and operational level.The Technical Committee is co-chaired by the Director of the policy analysis unit within Ministry of Agriculture (or relevant Department) and a representative from development partners.The Technical Committee meets monthly.This Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society.Establish an NAIP Secretariat

There is a secretariat which provides overall technical and administrative support to the cross-sectoral ministerial and technical coordination committees.This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert.This secretariat produces quarterly progress reports.The secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources.Establish Mutual Accountability Mechanisms

There is a government-development partner Mutual Accountability Committee or Working Group, co-chaired by the Minister for Agriculture and a representative of development partnersThis coordination committee either operates in alignment with the NAIP Steering Committee or serves as the NAIP Steering Committee.This committee meets four times per year.This committee includes at least two private sector and two civil society representatives.The NAIP Technical Committee and TWGs are aligned with the Mutual Accountability

Committee or Working Group.The NAIP secretariat serves as the secretariat for the government-development partner coordination committee.

Conduct Joint Sector Reviews

Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually.The NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process.The NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR.The JSR encompasses the following components: public expenditure review, development partner expenditure review, public policy review, civil society scorecard, and private sector scorecard.An annual JSR report is published and available on the NAIP portal.The JSR process is finalized before resources have been allocated for the next year.The action plan is developed based on the findings and recommendations of the JSR. The NAIP Steering Committee reviews progress in meeting these goals every three months.

PART II: INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECUTRE COUNTRY SUMMARIES ETHIOPIA1. Guiding Policy Framework

The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), serves as Ethiopia’s national development plan. Under GTP, there are a number of sector specific plans, including the Agricultural Transformation Plan (ATP). The Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF), enacted in 2010, is Ethiopia’s guiding NAIP, designed to achieve eight percent annual growth in agricultural productivity. The PIF operationalized the CAADP Compact, and provides a ten-year strategic framework for investment and estimates of financing needs. All government food security programs are based on the achievement of the PIF objectives.

2. Policy Development & Coordination

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) is the primary institution for policy development. It is divided into four state ministries: Agricultural Growth, Sustainable Land Management, Disaster and Risk Management and Food Security, and Livestock Sector Development. The joint government and development partner Rural Development and Food Security Working Group (RED&FS) serves as the primary coordination body for PIF (discussed in Section 6. Mutual Accountability).

Within MoARD, task forces operate under each of the MoARD state ministries. These task forces suffer from capacity constraints, including limited financial and human resources. However, technical capacity is effectively boosted by RED&FS, which has technical committees mirroring each of the three task forces.

The MoARD Planning and Programming Directorate (PPD) is responsible for coordinating projects under the PIF and serves as the PIF secretariat. However, it suffers from a number of capacity constraints in terms of technical skills to conduct policy analysis and staffing and has limited resources to coordinate across ministries.6

There is a parallel and highly functioning companion to MoARD for agricultural policy development called the Agricultural Transformation

6 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ethiopia.

11

Agency (ATA). ATA was established in 2010 to address systematic bottlenecks in the agriculture sector by supporting and enhancing the capability of MoARD and other public, private, and non-governmental implementing partners. The ATA has high-level political support and is governed by the Agricultural Transformation Council (ATC), which is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the agency, approving plans and evaluating agency performance, and establishing technical committees. The ATC is chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Minister of MOARD serving at the deputy chair.

3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation

Traditionally, private sector participation has been ad hoc, informal, and not very inclusive. The Ethiopian Women Entrepreneurs Association, for example, noted their minimal role in policy development as ‘participation without a voice’. However, commitments under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition have expanded the opportunity to work with the private sector, as evidenced by the creation of the Private Sector Working Group under RED&FS.

Free and open participation in policy formulation is limited as a result of a history of mistrust between governments and civil society. A major policy barrier is the government’s ’70-30’ proclamation, which restricts the amount of resources spent on overhead to 30 percent, thus limiting the resources available to engage effectively on policy matters.7 The Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Associations (CCRDA) serves as a forum for over 300 organizations and is a member of the RED&FS Food Security Task Force.

The RED&FS Broad Platform meeting provides an opportunity for private and civil society engagement, and the minutes of the meeting are presented to the RED&FS Executive Committee.

4. Evidence-Based Analysis

There is a growing appreciation by the government of the importance of evidence-based policymaking and increasingly, performance reviews of ongoing policy initiatives are being commissioned. However, most agricultural research is based on national Central Statistics Agency data, although concerns persist about the tendency to overstate national growth and productivity trends.

PIF has an extensive plan for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), with a results framework that includes objectives, outcomes, and targets. PPD has the mandate for collecting monitoring data, but suffers from a lack of capacity and high staff turnover.

7 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ethiopia.

5. Policy Implementation

Ethiopia has been among the few countries to constantly excess the 10 percent CAADP national budget targets for agriculture. However, total spending on projects has been below planned amounts for the past five years of the NAIP. While projects have attracted considerable funding commitments from governments and development partners, delays in the disbursement of funds and a lack of financial tracking data has caused significant implementation delays.8

Policy implementation is the responsibility of individual ministerial technical units. The work of these units is successfully aligned with the PIF and coordinated effectively through the RED&FS. This structure represents a CAADP best practice.

However, the administrative and technical capacity of staff to undertake required implementation functions, such as financial management, communication, documentation, project management, etc.) remains limited. This problem is compounded by high staff turnover.

6. Mutual Accountability

RED&FS is one of many government–development partner sector working groups established under the Development Action Group (DAG) and is widely considered to be an effective mutual accountability structure for agriculture and food security implementation. The decision-making structure of the RED&FS includes a high-level Executive Committee, Technical Committees and Working Groups. All development partners are required to align their programs with the PIF.

Ethiopia conducts an annual Joint Sector Review (JSR), which has a strong commitment from the highest levels of government. The PIF Results Framework provides the monitoring and evaluation framework, with clear strategic objectives, outcomes, and milestones.

The RED&FS Secretariat coordinates the JSR process. However, the effectiveness of the JSR process is constrained by capacity limitations within the secretariat, which only has two core staff.

There is limited involvement by the private sector and civil society in the RED&FS structures, with the exception of the RED&FS Broad Platform.9

8 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ethiopia.9 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ethiopia.

Table 2: Ethiopia NAIP IndicatorsEstablish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. YESThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. NO

The Minister of Agriculture (or relevant position) chairs the Steering Committee. YESThe Steering Committee meets at least 4 times per year. YESThe Steering Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO

The Steering Committee has attendance from at least 75 percent of participating line ministries and development partners. YES

All line ministries, development partners, private sector and civil society participants under the NAIP produce annual work plans reflecting this prioritization. All activities are broken down according to estimated cost, funding source, timeline, and responsible actors.

YES

The Steering Committee reviews progress on meeting annual work plan targets. YES


There is a Technical Committee or Technical Working Groups that facilitates cross-sectoral participation at the technical and operational level. YES

The Technical Committee is co-chaired by the Director of the policy analysis unit within Ministry of Agriculture (or relevant Department) and a representative from development partners.

YES

The Technical Committee meets monthly. ?This Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO

Establish an NAIP Secretariat

There is a secretariat which provides overall technical and administrative support to the cross-sectoral ministerial and technical coordination committees. YES

This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. ?This secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. ?The secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO

Establish Mutual Accountability Mechanisms

There is a government-development partner Mutual Accountability Committee or Working Group, co-chaired by the Minister for Agriculture and a representative of development partners

YES

14

This coordination committee either operates in alignment with the NAIP Steering Committee or serves as the NAIP Steering Committee. YES

This committee meets four times per year. YESThis committee includes at least two private sector and two civil society representatives. YES

The NAIP Technical Committee and TWGs are aligned with the Mutual Accountability Committee or Working Group. YES

The NAIP secretariat serves as the secretariat for the government-development partner coordination committee. YES


Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. YESThe NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. YESThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. YES

The JSR encompasses the following components: public expenditure review, development partner expenditure review, public policy review, civil society scorecard, and private sector scorecard.

NO

An annual JSR report is published and available on the NAIP portal. NOThe JSR process is finalized before resources have been allocated for the next year. YESThe action plan is developed based on the findings and recommendations of the JSR. The NAIP Steering Committee reviews progress in meeting these goals every three months.

YES

GHANA 1. Guiding Policy Framework

The Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP, 2011-2015) articulates Ghana’s commitments under CAADP. It is an ambitious and wide-ranging plan for reform that aims to modernize agriculture and structurally transform the sector. There are six programs under METASIP: 1) food security and preparedness, 2) increased growth in incomes, 3) increased competitiveness and enhanced integration into domestic and international markets, 4) sustainable management of land and environment, 5) science and technology applied to food and agriculture development, and 6) improved institutional coordination. It is well aligned with Ghana’s Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy and the G8 New Alliance Cooperation Framework.


The METASIP Steering Committee is responsible for the development and coordination of METASIP. The Steering Committee is composed of 13 members from across government, as well as development partners and non-state actors. The committee meets around five times a year, for two hours at a time. Participation in SC meetings is often as low as 20 percent, and line ministry participation is generally lower than this. As a result, its ability to deliver on its mandate is limited.

There are no organized or active technical committees or working groups that operate under the Steering Committee. However, sub-committees may be created depending on specific needs. A subcommittee was established, for example, to prepare and organize the launch of the New Alliance G8 Cooperation. The Policy Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (PPMED) under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) is responsible for ensuring the development and coordination of policy and programs for the agriculture sector. It is organized into five divisions: 1) project preparation and budget, 2) policy planning and analysis, 3) monitoring, evaluation and coordination, 4) projects coordination, and 5) agribusiness support.

There is a METASIP Secretariat under PPMED, which has six staff on a part time basis. Secretariat members include the division heads of PPMED’s policy, budget, and M&E divisions, PPMED Director, one additional member from PPMED, and one member from the Statistics,

16

Research, and Information Directorate (SRID). However, the staff only work part time thus limiting its effectiveness.


On paper, there is significant inclusion of Ghanaian private sector and civil society in policy dialogue. The METASIP SC contains a good cross-representation of institutions and sectors, including private sector membership associations, civil society organizations, and farmer-based organizations. However, in practice, attendance at SC meetings appears to be inconsistent, with one prominent NGP participant noting only an average of 20 percent attendance.

The private sector is well represented on the METASIP SC. Representative organizations include the Ghanaian Federation of Agricultural Producers, the Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters, the Private Enterprise Foundation, Ghana National Association of Farmers and Fishermen, and the Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG). However, despite this participation, these national organizations are weak and often have overlapping constituencies competing for the same membership. This overlap of farmer organizations posses a considerable challenge for constructive and effective capacity building.

Civil society is less represented. Most CSOs are poorly funded and do not have the staff or resources to carry out research to develop strong policy positions. There is a need to increase engagement of civil society groups involved in METASIP.

Other than METASIP SC meetings, there is no clear mechanism to share information on METASIP implementation or policy implementation issues with stakeholders. There is no METASIP newsletter or website, and progress reports are not circulated.


While there is a growing level of evidence-based planning, as demonstrated by the development of the seed policy with the support of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a lack of up-to-date and accurate data affects the quality of policy planning.

There is a METASIP results framework and associated set of performance measures that are organized according to the framework’s six objectives. Ghana’s M&E system is generally inadequate to collect data and track progress on policy implementation, particularly at the district level. Implementation actions across different line ministries are not defined or tracked. Within MoFA, PPMED producers an annual report, but it is not specific

to METASIP. However, JSRs are conducted annually (see Part IV – Mutual Accountability).

5. Policy Implementation

Ghana has increased its spending on agriculture in recent years and allocated just under 10 percent of its budget to the sector. Funding for the agricultural sector is often released late compared to other sectors, and there is disconnect between sector plans and available resources. The total cost of METASIP implementation over the five-year period is projected at just over 1 billion dollars, of which only half of the funding has been provided to date.

In METASIP, a total of thirty policy actions are identified, but there is no indication that these actions have been prioritized. Some of the targets were found to be unrealistic and beyond the financial and non-financial capabilities of the government in the JSR Review.10 METASIP SC work plans are not aligned with the five program areas, are not specific to the accomplishment of METASIP objectives, and do not contain timelines or responsibilities.

METASIP SC is responsible for coordination, whereas particular implementation actions are the responsibility of the line ministries. As a result, there is difficulty in securing commitment and momentum from line ministries outside of MoFA. This is a common problem across countries, with only 19 percent of Institutional Architecture assessments finding effective cross-ministerial coordination of implementation. In addition, MoFA or the other line ministries have not developed their own METASIP implementation plans.

MoFA does not have the capacity or required skills to successful implement activities under METASIP. In addition, low staff numbers is also a constraint. The ratio of extension officers to farmer is 1:1500, and it is estimated that the MoFA only have 60 percent of its required staff members to successful implement METASIP. Some capacity building efforts are ongoing. MoFA did train 116 staff members overseas in 2012, for example. However, the JSR also noted issues in the scope and quality of training.

6. Mutual Accountability

There is an effective and efficient mutual accountability forum through the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG), which runs in parallel to the METASIP SC. ASWG is regarded as one of the best sector working groups in the country.11 ASWG is responsible for coordination of food

10 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ghana.11 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Ghana.

security issues between the government and development partners. Its primary tasks include: 1) conducting a continuous sector policy dialogue, 2) reviewing the performance of the sector and proposing actions to improve performance, and 3) improving the harmonization of procedures, projects, and programs. Meetings are held on a monthly basis, and are jointly chaired by MoFA and rotating development partners. There are three thematic sub-groups for policy, governance, and operations. Historically, participation by the private sector and CSOs has been limited, but in 2014, members of the METASIP SC were invited to join.

Ghana has conducted an annual Joint Sector Review (JSR) since 2008 with the goal of identifying and harmonizing strategic reform priorities, reviewing implementation challenges, and developing clear recommendations for reform. The JSR has been praised for reaching a number of key decision points and commitments, but there are a number of ongoing constraints in terms of participation and implementation of reforms. In terms of participation, private sector and civil society only comprise 15 percent of JSR participants, and are largely consigned to the role of witness and not active participant. In terms of implementation, there is no clearly established permanent body to monitor the implementation of the decisions from the JSR. Ad hoc committees form just prior to the JSR and dissolve before the next JSR, which curtails an effective mechanism for monitoring JSR commitments. Furthermore, the JSR review process is finalized only after resources have already been allocated for the year, thus leaving little room in the budget for implementing any recommendations. As a result, there are no financial incentives or sanctions to ensure stakeholders honor their commitments.

Table 3: Ghana NAIP IndicatorsEstablish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. YESThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. NO

The Minister of Agriculture (or relevant position) chairs the Steering Committee. YESThe Steering Committee meets at least 4 times per year. YESThe Steering Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. YES

The Steering Committee has attendance from at least 75 percent of participating line ministries and development partners. NO


NO



There is a Technical Committee or Technical Working Groups that facilitates cross-sectoral participation at the technical and operational level. NO


NO

The Technical Committee meets monthly. NOThis Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO



This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. YESThis secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. ?The secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO



YES




The NAIP secretariat serves as the secretariat for the government-development partner coordination committee. NO


Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. YESThe NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. YESThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. NO


NO

An annual JSR report is published and available on the NAIP portal. NOThe JSR process is finalized before resources have been allocated for the next year. NOThe action plan is developed based on the findings and recommendations of the JSR. The NAIP Steering Committee reviews progress in meeting these goals every three months.

NO

KENYA1. Guiding Policy Framework

Vision 2030 sets the overall policy director for the country, of which agriculture and food security are prominent components within the Economic Pillar. The Medium Term Plan (MTP II, 2013 – 2017) operationalizes Vision 2030 and aims to increase diversification and commercialization of agriculture for food security. The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS, 2010-2020) aligns with Vision 2030 and outlines a ten-year plan for agricultural growth. The policy agenda for food security is articulated in the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP, 2011) which is aligned with the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS).

2. Policy Development and Coordination Before FNSP, there were a number of coordination entities in place,

including the Kenya Food Security Meeting (KFSM), the Inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee on Food and Nutrition, the Agricultural Sector Coordinating Unit (ASCU), and the National Food Safety Coordinating Committee. The ASCU developed FNSP, with participation from a number of line ministries. Under FNSP, these organizations were to be consolidated and coordinated by the National Food and Nutrition Security Steering Committee. However, this Steering Committee has not been formed, thus severely constraining cross-sectoral coordination. At the county level, County Food Security Committees are also due to be established.

FNSP also provided for the establishment of the National Food and Nutrition Security Secretariat, as well as County Level Food and Nutrition Security Secretariats. These secretariats were to be responsible for facilitating cross-sectoral coordination, provide a forum for an integrated response to emergency and food security issues, and serve as an advisory body to the government on issues relating to food security. However, these have not been created.

3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation The Kenya Constitution has mainstreamed inclusivity and stakeholder

consultation in the National Bill of Rights and there are many forums in place for consultation. The Intergovernmental Consultative Secretariat (IGS) is a sectoral consultative mechanism between line ministries and countries. It has developed a Common Program Framework for consultation and implementation of Food Security Programs though Intergovernmental Thematic Working Groups (ITWGs) for 1) Food

22

Security, Capacity Building, and Extension, 2) Policy, Standards, and Legislation, 3) Projects and Inputs, and 4) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Communications. ITWGs comprise representatives from all 47 county governments, and report to the Council of Governors and the MOALF.

MOALF has established mechanisms for policy dialogue through stakeholder workshops. These are largely ad hoc, given the lack of a functioning FNSP Steering Committee. Stakeholders noted that they are often not given adequate time to prepare, invitations are not sent to relevant representatives, there is little time set for proper engagement, and language barriers hinder participation.

The Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA) was established in 2003 to lobby and advocate as an umbrella body for all private sector organizations. KEPSA represents its members at numerous sector working groups and forums, such as the Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock Ministerial Stakeholders Forum. There are also a number of other umbrella organizations engaged in policy dialogue, including the Fresh Produce Exports Association of Kenya (FPEAK) and the Kenya National Farmers Federation (KENAFF). KENAFF has an impressive membership base and has aligned its structure to the devolved system of government.

Civil society organizations are active in a wide cross section of sectors and have been effective in engaging in policy dialogue. The NGO Council serves as the primary CSO representative body for policy discussions with the government related to agriculture and food security and is active in a number of forums, although some concerns have been raised about their capacity to effectively advocate for agriculture and food security issues.

4. Evidence-Based Analysis The role of evidence-based analysis in informing policy formulation and

development, including FNSP, is increasingly gaining prominence. This is due to the presence of several credible sources of quality data. Tegemeo and Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) are two leading institutions that have provided analysis for policy development. The major challenge with respect to analytically informing policy development processes is that provision is never made for the requisite resources in the formation of policy taskforces.

5. Policy Implementation Until the devolution of agricultural services to county governments in

2013, there were adequate structures for agricultural policy implementation. The Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee (ICC), supported by sector working groups, provided the leadership for development, implementation, and monitoring of the ASDS. Under

devolution, implementation takes place at the sub-county and ward levels and each of the 47 county governments has their own coordination mechanisms for implementation. Chief Executive Committees (CECs) for agriculture have the responsibility for coordinating implementation of ASDS. However, there is no project implementation or appraisal commitment at the county or national level on whether projects align to ASDS.

FNSP does not have an implementation framework in place, due to delays as a result of the government transition in 2012. While FNSP identifies priority areas, there is a lack of a corresponding institutional configuration for implementation. It was envisaged that the coordination function for the implementation of FNSP was to be conducted by the National Food and Nutrition Steering Committee, with support from the National Food and Nutrition Secretariat. In addition, Stakeholder Technical Committees (STC), mirroring the four major pillars of the FNSP (emergencies, nutrition, availability and access, and food safety and quality), were to provide technical assistance in planning, implementing, and monitoring and evaluation. To date, none of this structure is in place.

The Counties experience a general lack of expertise in policy analysis, interpretation, and implementation, which impedes implementation of FNSP.

6. Mutual Accountability There is a strong system in place for mutual accountability at the

national level. The Development Partner Forum (DPF) is the highest structure for engagement between government and development partners. It is chaired by the Deputy President, and comprised of cabinet secretaries and ambassadors/high commissioners. It meets twice a year to provide policy guidance on overall development assistance. The Aid Effectiveness Group (AEG) is the technical arm of the DPF and meets monthly to implement recommendations from the DPF and track progress. Under AEG, there are two coordination groups, the Developing Partners Coordinating Group (DPCG) and the Government Coordinating Group (GCG).

At the sector level, the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG) used to serve as a mutual accountability committee between department heads, development partners, the private sector and civil society. There were also six thematic working groups under the ASWG reflecting the six pillars of the ASDS. However, since devolution this group has not been functional, and with the absence of any coordinating committees under FNSP, namely the National Food

Security and Nutrition Steering Committee, there is currently no coordination mechanism in place.

Table 4: Kenya NAIP Indicators Establish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. NOThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. NO

The Minister of Agriculture (or relevant position) chairs the Steering Committee. NOThe Steering Committee meets at least 4 times per year. NOThe Steering Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO



NO

The Steering Committee reviews progress on meeting annual work plan targets. NO


There is a Technical Committee or Technical Working Groups that facilitates cross-sectoral participation at the technical and operational level. NO


NO

The Technical Committee meets monthly. NOThis Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO


There is a stand-alone secretariat which provides overall technical and administrative support to the cross-sectoral ministerial and technical coordination committees. NO

This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. NOThis secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. NOThe secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO



NO

26

This coordination committee either operates in alignment with the NAIP Steering Committee or serves as the NAIP Steering Committee. NO

This committee meets four times per year. NOThis committee includes at least two private sector and two civil society representatives. NO

The NAIP Technical Committee and TWGs are aligned with the Mutual Accountability Committee or Working Group. NO



Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. ?The NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. NOThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. NO


?

An annual JSR report is published and available on the NAIP portal. NOThe JSR process is finalized before resources have been allocated for the next year. ?The action plan is developed based on the findings and recommendations of the JSR. The NAIP Steering Committee reviews progress in meeting these goals every three months.

?

MALAWI 1. Guiding Policy Framework

The vision and strategy to improve agriculture and food security is clearly articulated through three documents: 1) Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (ASWAp, 2011 - 2015), New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Cooperation Framework, and The National Agricultural Policy (NAP, 2016-2020). ASWAp provides a well-defined investment plan. The New Alliance Framework has been successful in committing the government to certain reforms and in committing the private sector to certain investments in agriculture. The draft NAP is also a clear statement of what the sector hopes to achieve in the next five years. However, the Farm Input Subsidies Program (FISP) continues to consume at least half of the human and financial resources from the Ministry of Agriculture.

2. Policy Development and Coordination Malawi has strong policy development and coordination structures in

place to support the ASWAp. The Minister of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS) is the lead ministry for ASWAp, while the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG) is responsible for cross-sectoral coordination and monitoring implementation. The ASWG is co-chaired by MoAFS Principal Secretary and the current chair of the relevant donors committee. The ASWG reports to the Joint Sector Review (JSR, see Section 6. Mutual Accountability).

Under the ASWG, there are a number of technical working groups (TWGs) that support departments on technical issues and methodologies. TWGs are co-chaired by a Director of the relevant government department and a member from civil society or the private sector and they meet quarterly. One challenge that limits effectiveness is that technical departments perceive these groups as supplemental tasks and not support mechanisms, and thus participation is limited. Moreover, there is poor participation from other ministries, as invitees are not bound by any mechanism to attend, and as a result, cross-sectoral input is limited.12

There is a stand-alone secretariat for the ASWAp. An ASWAp coordinator, supported by two deputies, staffs the secretariat. The secretariat is responsible for coordinating and supporting the various ASWAp mechanisms and directly advising the Principal Secretary directly. The secretariat also serves as the JSR Secretariat.

12 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Malawi

28

3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation Private sector and civil society are included in the policy reform

process through the ASWG, the TWGs, and the Joint Sector Review. The development of the draft ASWAp used a highly participatory process, with over 800 stakeholders were consulted.

Civil society is highly effective in engaging in policy dialogue. The Civil Society Agricultural Network (CISANET) is one of the most important civil society players in agricultural policy dialogue. Its membership is composed of both organizations and individuals with interest in agriculture. For the private sector, there are a number of umbrella organizations

involved in policy dialogue, including the Farmers’ Union of Malawi (FUM), the National Smallholders Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM), the Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCCI), as well as trade associations. In addition to the TWGs and SWGs, MCCCI hosts the Public Private Dialogue Forum (PPDF), which brings together a number of private sector companies and associations to discuss important policy issues. Through USAID funded Malawi Agriculture Policy Strengthening Project (MAPS), private sector organizations have engaged in a capacity building program designed to lead to improved private sector participation in policy formulation and implementation in Malawi.

4. Evidence-Based Analysis Availability of reliable data that can be easily accessed is a major

challenge for developing evidence-based analysis for the agriculture sector. The credibility of statistics, particularly the agricultural production estimates, has been a subject of debate by stakeholders interviewed for some time. There have been some efforts to use satellite imagery but the technique in use is expensive and only provides a four percent improvement in accuracy over current crop estimates. Market data is another area where reliability, timeliness, and accessibility are a challenge. Data collected by the government is not widely distributed, while market data collected by the Agriculture Commodity Exchange for Africa (ACE) is only distributed to members.

5. Policy Implementation ASWAp includes a budget for each component, as well as an identified

source of funding (i.e. government, development partner). In many cases, the ASWAp indicates if there is a forecasted shortfall in funding by component. This is a CAADP best practice. In addition, the New Alliance Framework contains commitments of government action and

letters of intention from private sector companies to invest in agriculture.

Work plans exist for each component of ASWAp, though the actions are not prioritized.

Without development partner support, the government has little capacity to monitor policy implementation. While ASWAp has a well-defined M&E framework, there are a number of constraints to effective M&E, including a lack of capacity for data collection at the district level, variations in the methodologies used within the agricultural sector and within the national statistics office, and poor availability of data. In addition, inadequate staff numbers and poor information sharing mechanisms limit the capacity and ability of the MoALF M&E unit to conduct performance-based reviews.13

6. Mutual Accountability There are 16 development partners that assist in the financing of

agricultural projects and programs in Malawi. In addition, a number of private sector companies have committed funds as part of the New Alliance Framework.

In Malawi, mutual accountability mechanisms are fully integrated into all stages of the policy reform process through the ASWG and TWGs. This is regarded as a best practice in mutual accountability. The ASWG and TWGs support the JSR process, which occurs twice a year.

A JSR Secretariat is located within the larger ASAWp Secretariat. The membership of the secretariat includes the MoAFS planning unit, the MoAFS M&E unit, and advisers from the International Food Policy Research Institute. The JSR secretariat is responsible for organizing meetings and following up with technical working groups, but human resource capacity limitations constrains its effectiveness.14

The private sector and civil society are fully integrated into the JSR process, representing a best practice example for CAADP countries to follow. In 2014, Malawi established the JSR Committee to expand inclusivity. Members of the committee include government, development partners, farmers’ organizations, the private sector, civil society, and academia. An objective of the JSR Committee is to ensure follow up on proposed actions and recommendations.

The Donor Committee for Agriculture and Food Security (DCAFS) consolidates common positions on agriculture and food security programs. The DCAFS coordinates with 16 development partners and the DCAFS coordinator participates in all TWG meetings.

13 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Malawi14 ReSAKSS, 2014, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Malawi

Table 5: Malawi NAIP Indicators Establish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. YESThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. YES


The Steering Committee has attendance from at least 75 percent of participating line ministries and development partners. ?


YES





YES

The Technical Committee meets monthly. NOThis Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. YES


There is a stand-alone secretariat which provides overall technical and administrative support to the cross-sectoral ministerial and technical coordination committees. YES

This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. NOThis secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. ?The secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO



YES




The NAIP secretariat serves as the secretariat for the government-development partner coordination committee. YES


Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. YESThe NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. YESThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. YES


NO


?

RWANDA 1. Guiding Policy Framework

Rwanda’s guiding policy framework is regarded as an impressive success story of the CAADP process. There is a high degree of policy alignment, right from the Millennium Development Goals and the accompanying Vision 2020 to the Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS), which outlines the medium term multi-sectoral plans. The Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture (PSTA), now in its third iteration, operationalizes EDPRS for the agriculture, while the Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (ASIP) outlines resource mobilization, and the annual work plans and budgets outline activities and funding needs.


Rwanda is regarded as having excellent cross-sectoral coordination systems in place. Within Rwanda, the Office of the Prime Minister coordinates policy analysis, planning, and program implementation of all national policies and development programs. Post-CAADP, the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG) was established as the main coordination mechanism for the PSTA. The ASWG has over 200 members comprising MINAGRI, MINIFIN, other line ministries, development partners, private sector and civil society. It is chaired by MINAGRI, with a lead development partner as co-chair, and meets monthly. Under ASWG, the Sector Wide Approach Committee (SWAP) is a much smaller government-development partner committee responsible for coordinating financial support.

Under the ASWG, Rwanda has established technical working groups (TWGs) that have the authority and capacity to identify technical challenges, develop project specific policies, and draft policy proposals. There are currently ten TWGs in operation: seeds, fertilizer, agricultural finance, private sector development, irrigation, extension, environment, feeder roads, soil erosion, and nutrition.15

MINAGRI has a Directorate General in charge of planning, institutional development, and coordination that serves as the secretariat for the ASWG. This unit does not have sufficient staff in place with the necessary skills and required competencies. This capacity gap is broadly understood and being partially addressed, with the USAID

15 Dietvorst, Desiree, and Walla, Kah, 2016, The Case of Rwanda: Strategic Plan for the Transition of Agriculture (PSTA): Phase III

34

Rwanda Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HCID) program recently funding an economist and policy analyst.


The ASWG includes participation from the private sector and civil society. The private sector is afforded numerous opportunities to participate in policy dialogue, both through the sector working groups and the Public Private Dialogue (PPD) mechanism. PPD is hosted by the Rwanda Development Board, in collaboration with the Private Sector Federation (PSF), and aims to offer a joint public-private platform for policy reform. PSF serves as an apex organization of Federations and Unions of agricultural cooperatives. Civil society is also well represented in policy formulation and strategy development.


The Rwandan government uses various data collection and analysis mechanisms for obtaining information to inform agriculture and food security policy and planning decisions. In general this data is of good quality and made publically available.

Linkages between independent policy analysis institutions, such as the Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), and policy makers are weak, and policy research remains more reactive than proactive.

5. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Rwanda is among few CAADP countries that have frameworks in place

to track financial expenditure as part of policy implementation. The country maintains, and sometimes goes beyond, the 10 percent CAADP budgetary commitment. The Common Performance Assessment Framework (CPAF) and the Donor Performance Assessment Framework (DPAF) provide the basis for mutual accountability with regard to financial commitments.

One of the greatest challenges to effective implementation identified during the country assessments was the lack of effective cross-sectoral coordination in executing activities. Rwanda was one of only four countries to score strongly in this indicator. Rwanda has put in place policy coordination and implementation systems through the Prime Ministers Office and through the ASWG. What also set Rwanda apart was the high degree of political commitment demonstrated by the Prime Minister to coordination. Additionally, MINAGRI has two major implementing agencies, the Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) and the National Agricultural Development Export Board (NAEB) that translate agricultural policies into actions relative to crop and livestock

extension, research and technology transfer, and agricultural and livestock export promotion.

RAB and NEAB, the two main implementing agencies of MINAGRI lack the technical skills to guide development along value chains, particularly in the areas of post-harvest handling, storage, and processing. Interventions are needed to enhance the provision of technical and vocational education. These weaknesses are magnified at the district level, which is poorly integrated into the overall planning system.

Rwanda has developed a series of sub-sector strategies to operationalize PSTA. These include the crop intensification program, irrigation and mechanism for sustainable production systems, land-husbandry and soil conservation, animal resources development, and post-harvest handling and storage. Each priority program has clear objectives and targets that are reflected in the PSTA. Funding proposals are also made available according to priority programs to inform development partners on funding gaps. The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) coincides with the end of the PSTA, which means that implementation runs parallel. This provides for an ease of monitoring of implementation activities again budgets.

There are M&E capacity gaps within the planning departments for MINAGRI, RAB, and NAEB. These entities are short on skilled personnel and adequate infrastructure systems, and often rely on outsourced staff to support the M&E process.

6. MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY Rwanda has put in place a strong mutual accountability framework,

which serves as an effective tool for the government and development partners and a best practice example for the rest of CAADP.

Rwanda has a joint sector review mechanism that brings together key development partners, CSOs, and the private sector to review policy implementation and draw recommendations for subsequent plans. JSRs take place annually, with a meeting in the spring dedicated to looking forward in the next fiscal year and a meeting in the autumn designed to review the previous years progress. The JSR is conducted by the ASWG, which thus provides a strong alignment between the NAIP process and the JSR process.

The Common Performance Accountability Framework (CPAF) is the main monitoring framework for the sector. There are ten prioritized policy actions tied to five key indicators with annual targets for each ministry. In addition, the Donor Performance Accountability Framework (DPAF) measures the performance of development partners. Both CPAF

and DPAF are measured using a traffic light system (i.e. green, yellow, or red) and progress is reviewed at the ASWG.

Joint Action Development Forums (JADF) are a district-level extension of the ASWG. They are monthly multi-stakeholder meeting with representatives from the government, farmers, local community leaders, local companies, and local civil society groups. JADF develops five year District Development Plans (DPP), as well as annual sector targets. DPPs are then integrated into sector programs at the national level.16

16 Dietvorst, Desiree, and Walla, Kah, 2016, The Case of Rwanda: Strategic Plan for the Transition of Agriculture (PSTA): Phase III

Table 6: Rwanda NAIP Indicators Establish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. YESThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. YES


The Steering Committee has attendance from at least 75 percent of participating line ministries and development partners. ?


?





YES

The Technical Committee meets monthly. YESThis Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. YES



This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. ?This secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. ?The secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO



YES




The NAIP secretariat serves as the secretariat for the government-development partner coordination committee. ?


Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. YESThe NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. YESThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. ?


?


?

SENEGAL1. Guiding Policy Framework

Senegal adopted its national agriculture investment plan in 2009, known as Le Plan National D’Investissement Agricole (PNIA). PNIA is regarded as a comprehensive multi-sectoral, multi-year strategic plan that provides a robust framework for agriculture-led growth. It’s objective is to increase production, ensure sustainable management of water and natural resources, improve market access and value added transformation, and strengthen stakeholders’ capacity.

2. Policy Development and Coordination A major challenge to agriculture and food security policy development in

Senegal is the lack of a functioning cross-sectoral coordination committee. The Ministry of Agriculture (MAER – Ministere de l’Agriculture et de e’Equipment Rural) was responsible for the development of PNIA. PNIA provided for the creation of a cross-sectoral Steering Committee to oversee implementation and coordination between ministries, chaired by the Prime Minister’s Office. However, this committee has not been formed.

In Senegal, weak capacity in policy planning is linked to inadequate staffing, lack of financial resources, and poor staff retention due to poor pay and difficult working conditions.17 A Technical Committee was established through MAER’s Agricultural Directorate for Statistical Analysis and Predictions (DAPSA – Direction de l’Analyse de la Prevision et des Statistiques Agricole). Each of the line ministries nominates a representative to the Technical Committee. However, members of the committee have limited authority to develop new policies or strategies, and there is currently no active participation from the private sector or civil society.

The secretariat for the Technical Committee is based at DAPSA. However, with only two part-time staff, it has very limited administrative and human resources. As a result, the secretariat is unable to autonomously coordinate and communicate across ministries, severely constraining policy coordination.

3. Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation The Government of Senegal has been steadily increasing its engagement

with the private sector and civil society in policy development. The PNIA was developed with significant participation from the private sector and civil society. However, the absence of the PNIA Steering Committee limits participation in the implementation process and the lack capacity within DAPSA limits communications and outreach.

17 ReSAKSS, Joint Sector Review Assessment: Senegal.

i

Organizations representing larger businesses, such as the National Council of Employers (CNP) and the National Confederation of Employers of Senegal (CNES) are regularly engaged in government led discussions and their opinions are taken into consideration. Smaller and medium sized businesses are in general not as well-organized and do not have the same kinds of influence. There is a relatively new Women Entrepreneurs’ Leadership Organization with a committee on Agro-food businesses, but the organization does not yet have the capacity to influence policy decisions. For civil society, the National Rural Cooperative Council (CNCR) represents 28 federations and cooperative unions in agriculture, forestry, livestock, fishery, and horticulture. CNCR is well-organized and an important representative in policy discussions.

4. Evidence-Based Analysis Each ministry has its own unit or directorate for data collection, data

management, and analysis. Within the Ministry of Agriculture, DAPSA is better staffed than comparative units at the Ministries of Fisheries and Livestock. Data gathered at the line ministry level is central managed by the National Agency for Statistics and made publically available through the FAO platform CountrySTAT. In addition, PNIA provided for the establishment of the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS), which serves as an integral part of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of policies in the agriculture sector.

There are numerous independent research organizations involved in the agriculture sector. The Initiative for Agricultural and Rural Forecasting (IPAR) and the Center for Development Policy Studies (CEDOP) have started to engage more in food security policy analysis by producing papers and organizing meetings to which stakeholders and government officials at invited. The Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research (ISRA) and the Institute for Food Technology (ITA) are known for their quality In addition, IFPRI has a country office in Senegal and is engaged in food security analysis and dissemination.

5. Policy Implementation Repeated national deficits and optimistic national budgeting has created a

situation where the implementation of policy plans does not match the financial realities. In addition, there is a lack of disaggregated agriculture expenditures by sub-program. As a result, budgets and programing will often have to be readjusted halfway though the financial year.

Each ministry has a Monitoring and Planning Unit that is responsible for ensuring that annual plans are implemented in accordance with three and five year strategies. Within the Ministry of Agriculture, this is the responsibility of DAPSA. It is not unusual for annual work plans to differ in activities from national plans. Several of the line ministry annual work plans highlight a number of constraints to the previous year’s implementation and

ii

include some suggestions to how these constraints can be addressed. However, there is not a concrete mechanism to review whether these constraints are being addressed.

There is currently no functioning committee or task force that is responsible for ensuring cross-ministerial cooperation on implementation of the NAIP. Under the Prime Minister’s office, there is an Executive Secretariat for Food Security that should coordinate the implementation of food security programming across the government. However, this secretariat has almost no personnel, and its role in coordination is marginal. As a result, there is not a good overview of the specific programs at the ministry levels that are being implemented and how these various projects add up to align with national agriculture and food security priorities.

The NAIP Steering committee should oversee the commission of an NAIP impact assessment, conducted by an independent research organization. However, since the steering committee is currently not functioning, and the technical committee has limited capacity, such monitoring and evaluation has not occurred. Each ministry produces an annual review of their work, but the review is primarily focused on monitoring program expenditures, but not their impact.

6. Mutual Accountability In Senegal, there is an active level of development partner coordination

around food security policies and programming. The G-50 is the largest coordination group, which cuts across all sectors of financial and technical assistance, and meets once a month. The G-12 is a working group of the twelve largest bilateral and multi-lateral development partners and serves as the secretariat for the G-50. The G-12 also has 18 technical working groups, including for Rural Development and Food Security, which meet on a regular basis to discuss specific topics.

While government representatives partake in the technical working groups, there is no representation on the G-12 or G-50. The PNIA Steering Committee was envisaged to serve as the primary mutual accountability mechanism, but as mentioned above, this committee has not been enacted.

Senegal conducted a JSR review in 2014, although a number of JSR best practice processes were found to be lacking. There is no JSR steering committee and secretariat in place, and there was limited consultation with private sector and civil society. The JSR did produce a detailed action plan under the responsibility of DAPSA, but the mechanisms for ensuring implementation were unclear.

iii

Table 7: Senegal NAIP IndicatorsEstablish a high-level NAIP Steering Committee

There is a cross-sectoral steering committee for NAIP. NOThe Steering Committee has oversight over both policy development and implementation. NO

The Minister of Agriculture (or relevant position) chairs the Steering Committee. NOThe Steering Committee meets at least 4 times per year. NOThe Steering Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO


The Steering Committee produces an annual work plan, with all activities prioritized as high, medium, or low. NO


NO



The Technical Committee is co-chaired by the Director of the policy analysis unit within the Ministry of Agriculture and a representative from development partners. YES

The Technical Committee meets monthly. ?This Technical Committee has at least two representatives from the private sector and two representatives from civil society. NO



This secretariat has at least four full time staff, including one communications expert. NOThis secretariat produces quarterly progress reports. NOThe secretariat manages an NAIP online portal, which publishes all relevant policies, implementation plans, progress reports, and agriculture and food security resources. NO



NO

iv

This coordination committee either operates in alignment with the NAIP Steering Committee or serves as the NAIP Steering Committee. NO

This committee meets four times per year. NOThis committee includes at least two private sector and two civil society representatives. NO

The NAIP Technical Committee and TWGs are aligned with the Mutual Accountability Committee or Working Group. NO



Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) are conducted annually. NOThe NAIP Steering Committee and NAIP technical committee leads the JSR process. NOThe NAIP Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the activities and operations of the JSR. NO


NO

An annual JSR report is published and available on the NAIP portal. NOThe JSR process is finalized before resources have been allocated for the next year. NOThe action plan is developed based on the findings and recommendations of the JSR. The NAIP Steering Committee reviews progress in meeting these goals every three months.

NO

v

introduction - africa lead · web viewthe joint government and development partner rural...

Documents