Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report for the Comprehensive Africa

Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

Babatunde Omilola6th CAADP Partnership Platform

April 21-23, 2010Birchwood Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa

Purpose of the report

• Primary output of the CAADP M&E Framework (which was validated in March 2010)

• Published annually for main audience (AUC and NPCA) by July

• Main components available for CAADP PPs

• Report will evaluate trends in agricultural development, performance and spending in Africa

• Will also track key poverty and hunger indicators (MDG1)

• Therefore tracks country/ regional/ continental progress toward CAADP goals and objectives

Outline of each M&E report

• Introduction• Enabling environment• CAADP implementation process• Tracking commitments and spending• Agricultural growth performance• Agricultural trade performance• Poverty, hunger and food and nutrition security• Investment-growth-poverty linkages• Conclusions

2010 Comprehensive M&E Report for CAADP

• Compilation of primary and secondary data– Primary from ReSAKSS nodes; Secondary from non-

ReSAKSS sources such as WDI, FAO, UN…

• Compilation of analysis across three regional ReSAKSS nodes– Focuses more on continental trends, but also

disaggregates information by region and in some cases, countries

• Synthesis of relevant literature– Includes current and relevant analysis undertaken by

organizations such as OECD, World Bank and IFPRI

Introduction: Enabling environment

• Agriculture is crucial for development in Africa– Mostly rural, at least 70% of workforce engaged in the

sector

• Yet over last 20 years, support to the sector has declined– Partly the outcome of SAPs, declining share in aid and

government budgets, etc.

• Recent developments have recognized agriculture’s role in development– WDR 2008– Donor pledges made at G8 summit in L’Aquila– Maputo Declaration CAADP

CAADP Implementation Process

• Formulated in 2003 under auspices of AUC and NEPAD

• Since initiation, dozens of countries have begun the implementation process and 18 have held Roundtables (RT) and signed country compacts

• 2 countries – Rwanda and Togo – have held post-compact investment and review meetings

• Primary focus is now shifting from the RTs and compacts to the post-compact implementation process

CAADP Implementation Process: Status (updated April 20, 2010)

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

Cameroon, DRC, Egypt,

Libya, Tanzania

Zimbabwe, Mauritius

Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Kenya, Zambia

Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde, Gambia, Malawi, Mali, Niger,

Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Uganda

Rwanda, Togo

Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia,

Comoros, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti,

Madagascar, Seychelles, Sudan

Public agricultural spending and commitments: Agriculture spending as a share of total spending

• CAADP Target = 10% of total expenditures allocated to agriculture sector

• Africa as a whole has not met 10% target– Since 1980, the annual

average has been between 4 and 6%

• 8 countries have met the target

• 9 are spending between 5 and 10%

• While 28 are spending less than 5

At least 10 percent 5 percent to less than 10

percent

Less than 5 percent

Burkina Faso Chad2 Angola2

Ethiopia1 Gambia2 Benin

Ghana3 Mauritania3 Botswana2

Guinea Namibia2 Burundi2

Malawi2 Sao Tome and Principe2 Cameroon3

Mali Sudan2 Central African Republic2

Niger Togo Comoros4

Senegal2 Tunisia3 Congo, Dem. Republic2

Zimbabwe2 Congo, Republic3

Cote d'Ivoire2

Djibouti2

Egypt3

Guinea Bissau2

Kenya1

Lesotho2

Liberia1

Madagascar2

Mauritius

Morocco3

Mozambique2

Nigeria

Rwanda3

Seychelles

Sierra Leone3

Swaziland2

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia2

Sources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources and IMF 2009.Notes: 1. Estimate for 2009; 2. 2007; 3. 2006; 4. 2005; 5. 2004

Public agricultural spending and commitments: Agriculture spending as a share of agriculture GDP

At least 10 percent

5 percent to less

than 10 percent Less than 5 percent

Botswana1 Burkina Faso Benin2

ZambiaEgypt

Cameroon

Zimbabwe Ethiopia Cote d’Ivoire1

Mali Ghana

Niger Kenya

Malawi

Nigeria1

Rwanda

Togo1

Uganda

• An alternative measure that weighs the size of the sector in the overall economy when comparing across countries

• Compared to Asia, Africa agricultural spending under this measure is low– Asia spends 8-10% on

average compared to 5-7% in Africa

• Only 3 countries exceed the 10% mark

Sources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources and IMF 2009. Notes: 1. 2007; 2. 2008.

…But the share of countries meeting the 10% target recently been increasing

• In 2003, only 5.9% of African countries were spending at least 10% of their total budget allocations on agriculture

• This figure increased to 15.2% in 2007 and to 35.7% in 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Shar

e o

f re

po

rtin

g co

un

trie

s (%

)

More than 10% 5%-10% Less than 5%

Sources: Based on ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources and IMF 2009.

Disaggregation of agriculture expenditures: West Africa (WA)

• What is the source of most agricultural funding? – In WA, the Sahelian

countries (which largely spend on investments rather than recurrent), funding primarily comes from ODA/external sources

– Whereas the coastal countries’ agricultural spending mostly comes from internal sources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Shar

e o

f ag

ircu

ltu

ral e

xpe

nd

itu

res

(%)

From internal sources From external sources

Breakdown of agricultural expenditure by source of funding in selected West African countries (average 2003-2007)

Source : ReSAKSS 2010 data collection from various national government sources.

Disaggregation of agriculture expenditures: West Africa (WA)

• How are the agricultural expenditures spent?– Subsectors: most countries

in WA spend on the crop production subsector rather than livestock or fisheries and forestry

– Function: varies by country (see chart)• Only in Burkina Faso and

Mali is irrigation heavily favored

• R&D spending is limited in all countries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ghana Benin Togo Burkina Faso

Mali

Shar

e o

f to

tal a

gric

ult

ure

exp

en

dit

ure

(%

)

Research and Development

Other

Non Disaggregated

Irrigation

Inputs and Equipment

Extension

Admistration

Source: ReSAKSS data collection from various national government sources.

Resource efficiency

• Resource efficiency can be measured by the investment gap ratio = ratio of actual spending to budgeted spending

• Best practice is a maximum of 3% discrepancy between budgeted and actual (=97% investment gap ratio)

• From 2000 to 2004/5, Nigeria and Malawi (figure) had poor budget execution, within a range of 48 to 85%. – This means that up to 52% of

budgeted resources for agriculture were not being spent.

– In contrast, in recent years, both countries have overspent the budgeted amount.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Rat

io o

f ac

tual

to

bu

dge

ted

agr

icu

ltu

re e

xpe

nd

itu

res

(%)

Nigeria Malawi PEFA target

Sources: Mogues et al. 2008; Njiwa et al. 2008; Govereh et al. 2009. Note: The PEFA target is considered the threshold below which the investment gap ratio indicates underutilization of funds. It is set at 97 percent.

Donor spending on African agriculture• In Africa as a whole, donor

spending for agriculture as a share of total donor spending saw a consistent decline, from an average of 15% between 1980 and 1995 to 12% between 2000 and 2002.

• In 2006, the ratio had declined to about 4%.

• Total ODA for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa has hovered at US$1 billion a year since the 1990s.

• In comparison, the share of ODA spent on aid for emergencies has doubled and, in actual dollars, has more than quadrupled during the same period.

• Although investment in agriculture has increased in recent years, a large and increasing share is still devoted to short-term food aid interventions

2,103

1,906

1,688

2,034 1,9991,837

2,286

2,592

618692

894

625549

750668 688

378 242

764

1,704

1,433

2,040

1,5961,439

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Co

nst

ant

20

07

US$

(m

illio

ns)

Emergency food aid

Development food aid/food security

Agriculture and rural development

Chart Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2009.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Shar

e o

f O

DA

to

agr

icu

ltu

re (

%)

Co

nst

ant

20

07

US$

(m

illio

ns)

ODA commitments to agriculture

Share of ODA allocated to agriculture (%)

Total ODA commitments

Agricultural performance• Although agricultural performance varies within and across African countries, recent trends

indicate an increase in agricultural GDP growth at the continental and regional levels

• SSA’s agriculture GDP growth rate increased from an annual average of 3.0% in the 1990s and 2000s to 5.3% in 2008

• A similar trend can be observed at the regional level– All regions saw an increase in average agricultural growth rates from approximately 3.0% in the 1990s to 2008,

although Southern Africa has seen the most dramatic increase with a current agriculture GDP growth rate of 7.1%

– West Africa and East and Central Africa’s recent agriculture growth is also positive at 4.3 and 4.8%, respectively.

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Ave

rage

an

nu

al g

row

th r

ates

(%

)

GDP Agriculture GDP CAADP target for agriculture GDP

Source: World Bank 2009. Note: 2009 GDP estimates are from International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2009.

Agriculture GDP growth and CAADP

• The CAADP agriculture GDP growth rate target is 6%• In 2008, ten countries met the CAADP’s 6% target:

– Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda.

• Nineteen other countries attained moderate agricultural GDP growth rates of between 3 and 6 percent.

• In the same year, eight countries experienced negative growth in their agriculture sectors.

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Agr

icu

ltu

re G

DP

an

nu

al g

row

th r

ate

(%

)

2008 CAADP Target

Source: ReSAKSS calculations based on World Bank 2009.

Agricultural trade performance

• Sub-Saharan Africa has been a net food importer since the 1980s.

• In 2007, the value of the region’s trade deficit started to increase as a result of higher food prices.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

US$

bill

ion

Imports Exports

Source: FAOSTAT 2010.

Agricultural trade performance by regions: A snapshot of COMESA and ECOWAS

• Both the imports and exports of agricultural raw materials have increased over time in nominal value for the COMESA region

• But, the region has been exporting and importing relatively less agricultural products compared to non-agricultural products

• Exports of cash crops (tobacco, tea, coffee, vegetables) have increased in value since 2000

• Imports of wheat, maize and palm oil also increased since 2000

• The coverage rate (ag imports to ag exports) varies for the region from year to year

YearAgricultural

exports (US$)

Agricultural

imports (US$)

Net exports

(US$)

Share of ag.

Exports in

total exports

(%)

Share of ag.

Imports in

total

imports (%)

2000 945,426,069 1,007,971,576 -62,545,507 6.77 3.37

2001 892,311,614 912,441,887 -20,130,273 6.88 3.18

2002 1,085,743,413 897,860,082 187,883,331 3.13 1.97

2003 1,424,042,407 951,961,782 472,080,625 3.08 2.17

2004 1,745,443,839 1,067,728,616 677,715,222 3.06 2.15

2005 1,521,101,002 1,401,474,548 119,626,453 2.02 2.06

2006 1,528,029,010 1,675,221,277 -147,192,267 1.54 2.16

2007 2,056,217,333 1,933,331,954 122,885,379 1.96 2.01

2008 2,451,807,257 2,804,033,755 -352,226,499 1.58 1.85

COMESA Region

Source: COMESA 2010.

ECOWAS Region

• Agricultural exports account for a large share of total exports in WA countries with low or no mineral resources (e.g., ~80-90% in Benin, Burkina Faso, Gambia…)

• Only 1/3 of countries are able to cover their agriculture imports by their agriculture exports

• This ratio has been declining due to higher prices of food imports

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Cô

te d

'Ivo

ire

Gh

ana

Bu

rkin

a Fa

so

Mal

i

Togo

Ben

in

Sen

egal

Nig

er

Gu

inea

Nig

eria

Gam

bia

Cap

e V

erd

e

Eco

wasRat

io o

f ag

ricu

ltu

ral i

mp

ort

s to

ag

ricu

ltu

ral e

xpo

rts

(%)

2003-2007 2008 Target

Source: ReSAKSS data collected from various national government sources.

Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: MDG1

• The continent as a whole is not on track to achieving the first MDG of halving hunger and poverty by 2015

• ReSAKSS estimates use a simple “business as usual” linear projections based on previous growth rates to estimate current hunger and poverty rates

• These are compared to yearly benchmark rates that are required to meet MDG1 (halving the 1990 rates by 2015) to determine if a region/country is “on track” or not

• According to these estimations, current child underweight prevalence stands at 29.3% for SSA and current poverty is at 38.6%, both of which are higher than their benchmark rates

Which countries are “on track”?

Burkina Faso Cameroon

C. African Rep. Egypt

Ethiopia Guinea Kenya

Lesotho Mali

SenegalSwaziland Tanzania

Countries on track towards halving poverty by 2015

Countries on track towards halving hunger by 2015

Countries on track towards achieving

MDG1

Algeria AngolaBenin

BotswanaBurundiGambia

Guinea BissauMauritania

NamibiaSao Tome &

Principe

Ghana

•There are 2 components to MDG1: hunger and poverty•Great progress has been made in many countries that are meeting one or the other, but only one – Ghana – is currently meeting both

Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: The Global Hunger Index (GHI)

• The index is an average of

– The percentage of the population that is undernourished

– The percentage of children that are underweight

– The under-5 mortality rate

• Captures intra-household food security

• Countries with GHIs higher than 20 are considered to have “alarming” rates of hunger

Poverty, Hunger and Food and Nutrition Security: The Global Hunger Index (GHI)

• The majority of countries in Africa have seen a decline in their GHIs from 1990 to 2009 (improvement in hunger)– In the COMESA region, 2/3 of countries saw a decline– In SADC, nearly every country except for DRC and Zimbabwe saw a decline or

leveling off of GHIs– In ECOWAS, 10 out of 14 countries saw a decline

• Despite these reductions, all regions have multiple countries which remain above the alarming level

05

101520253035404550

Tun

isia

Alg

eria

Egyp

tM

oro

cco

Mau

riti

us

Gab

on

Sou

th A

fric

aSw

azila

nd

Gh

ana

Leso

tho

Bo

tsw

ana

Nam

ibia

Co

te d

'Ivo

ire

Uga

nd

aM

auri

tan

iaC

on

go, R

ep.

Ben

inSe

neg

alC

amer

oo

nG

uin

eaN

iger

iaM

alaw

iG

amb

iaM

ali

Sud

anK

en

yaB

urk

ina

Faso

Zim

bab

we

Tan

zan

iaD

jibo

uti

Gu

inea

Bis

sau

Togo

Lib

eria

Mo

zam

biq

ue

An

gola

Rw

and

aZa

mb

iaC

om

oro

sC

entr

al A

f. R

ep.

Mad

agas

car

Nig

er

Eth

iop

iaC

had

Sier

ra L

eon

eEr

itre

aB

uru

nd

iC

on

go, D

em. R

ep.

Glo

bal

Hu

nge

r In

de

x

1990 2009 Alarming

Source: IFPRI 2010.

Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages

• Does growth, spurred by investment, lead to poverty reduction?

– This is the theory behind much of the CAADP agenda (that higher agriculture expenditures will lead to agriculture growth and poverty reduction)

– In practice, higher overall economic growth has not always translated into poverty/hunger reduction

Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages

Countries meeting 10% spending target

Countries meeting 6% agriculture growth target

Countries meeting poverty MDG1 target

Countries meeting hunger MDG1 target

Burkina Faso Angola Burkina Faso Algeria

Ethiopia Ethiopia Cameroon Angola

Ghana Mali C. African Rep. Benin

Guinea Mozambique Egypt Botswana

Malawi Namibia Ethiopia Burundi

Mali Niger Ghana Gambia

Niger Rwanda Guinea Guinea Bissau

Senegal Senegal Kenya Mauritania

Tanzania Lesotho Namibia

Uganda Mali Sao Tome and Principe

Senegal

Swaziland

Tanzania

• Of the 13 countries on track for the poverty MDG1 target, 6 are also meeting the 10% spending target, and 4 are meeting the 6% agricultural GDP growth target

•3 of which are meeting both CAADP targets – Ethiopia, Mali and Senegal

•Of the 10 countries on track for the hunger MDG1 target, 2 are meeting the 6% agriculture GDP growth target

Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages

• Badiane and Ulimwengu propose 2 measures for tracking this: poverty overhang and growth deficit– They compare the rate of poverty reduction to that of

growth– When a country’s growth rate is less than that

required for maintaining the pace of poverty reduction the country is said to be experiencing a growth deficit.

– Where the rate of poverty reduction is slower than that of GDP growth the country is said to be experiencing a poverty overhang.

Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages in West Africa

Growth Deficit Poverty Overhang

Growth (%) required for achieving MDG1 or 6% Agriculture Growth

Most Propoor sub-sectorsGDP

GrowthAgric GDP

GrowthAgric Funding

Growth

Benin Less than 2.5 5.1 13.1 7.9 Food crops

Burkina Faso Greater than 20 – 303.2 7.1 9.1 Livestock

Cape Verde 2.5 – 5 5.4 2.6 11.2 Food crops

Cote d'Ivoire Less than 2.5

Gambia Less than 2.5 20.3 14.4 27 Cereals

Ghana Less than 2.55 4.2 19.1 Staple, fishery and

forestry

Guinea Less than 2.5

Guinea Bissau Less than 2.5

Liberia Greater than 30 – 40

40.5 26 27 Food crops (rice, cassavaand others)

Mali Greater than 10 – 207.2 12.5 8.2 Food crops and livestock

Niger Greater than 50 4 11.5 11.1 livestock

Nigeria Greater than 40 – 5011 12 24 Cereals

Senegal Greater than 10 – 205.7 6.8 7.6 Food crops

Sierra Leone Greater than 30 – 407.2 5.5 10 Cassava, rice

Togo Greater than 20 – 304.3 9.6 35.4 Food crops

Sources: Badiane and Ulimwengu, forthcoming and IFPRI CAADP analyses (see ReSAKSS WP series).

This column indicates the increase, in percentage points, which has to occur in GDP growth if the country’s pace of

poverty reduction in the 1990-2005 period is to be maintained

This column indicates the extent, in percentage, by which the poverty rate should have been lowered given the country’s growth rate in the 1990-

2005 period

Investment-Growth-Poverty Linkages in West Africa

• Among the West African countries experiencing a poverty overhang, the worst case is found in Niger where the poverty rate should have been lower than half of its current rate given the country’s growth rate between 1990 and 2005.

• The countries with the lowest overhang are Senegal and Mali where it has a value of greater than 10 to 20.

• The success of CAADP implementation is particularly critical for countries experiencing poverty overhang in the sense that it can bring about the necessary increase in agriculture funding and agriculture GDP needed to appreciably improve the pace of poverty reduction.

• Analysis carried out by IFPRI, ReSAKSS WA and their collaborators indicates that agriculture growth rates ranging from 2.6% (in Cape Verde) to 26% (in Liberia) would be needed to achieve MDG1 by 2015 in 12 countries.

Conclusions

• Increased attention to agriculture’s role is evident in donor and government pledges

• Yet this has been slow to translate into increased spending (8 countries meeting 10% target)

• Agricultural policies and programs must now take into consideration the complex combinations of factors such as more volatile food markets and prices, market distortions, and climate change

• The next phase of CAADP (post-compact) will emphasize these factors as investment plans are laid out in more detail

More information…

• Is available in the detailed draft of the Comprehensive M&E Report for CAADP

• A shorter, summarized version is available in the ReSAKSS 2009 Annual Trends and Outlook Report

– online at http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=42774

• All published CAADP analyses, briefs, brochures and signed compacts are available at www.resakss.org

Thank you!