By Samuel Benin

1. 2019 CAADP Biennial Review (BR) Process:
Overview of the Process and
Preliminary Results of the BR-Support Pilots to
Improve Data Systems and Quality for CAADP
implementation
Samuel Benin, IFPRI

2. Outline: 2-part presentation
Overview of the 2019 CAADP BR process
oActivities and outputs up to the draft report presented to the
AU’s Specialized Technical Committee (STC) in Addis Ababa
on 21-25 October 2019
BR-support pilots in five countries (Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Senegal, and Togo)
oSummary of activities and results—impact on reporting rate
and quality of data reported

3. Recommitment
to the principles
and values of the
CAADP process
Enhancing
investment
finance in
agriculture
Ending hunger
by 2025
Enhancing resilience of
livelihoods & production
systems to climate
variability and other
shocks
Strengthening mutual
accountability to
actions and results
The BR derives
from…
1 7
6
5
4
3
2
Boosting intra-African
trade in agricultural
commodities &
services
Reduce poverty by half, by
2025, through inclusive
agricultural growth
and transformation

4. AFRICA’S
AGRICULTURE
TRANSFORMATION
GOALS
Aspiration 1:
A prosperous
Africa based on
inclusive growth &
sustainable
development
Health &
nutrition
Ag. productivity &
production
Environment &
resilience
UN Sustainable Development Goal #2
1 7
6
543
2

5. CAADP
(Maputo
Declaration)
July 2003,
Maputo,
Mozambique
MALABO
DECLARATION
June 2014,
Malabo,
Equatorial
Guinea
1ST
BIENNIAL
REPORT
(2015–2016
Data)
January 2018
2ND
BIENNIAL
REPORT
(2015–2018
Data)
January 2020
FINAL
REPORT
January 2026,
Addis Ababa
The CAADP BR Timeline
GOAL FOR
ACHIEVING
MALABO
COMMITMENTS
3RD & 4TH
REPORTS

6. THE CAADP BIENNIAL REVIEW:
EVIDENCE-BASED AND PEER-DRIVEN
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate country
performance in
achieving the
CAADP Malabo
goals and targets
for agricultural
growth and
transformation in
Africa by 2025
7 thematic areas
23 performance
categories
43 indicators
7 thematic areas
24 performance
categories
47 indicators
1st Biennial
Review (2017)
2nd Biennial
Review (2019)
+4
+1

7. KEY MOMENTS IN THE 2ND BR PROCESS
Kigali,
February
2019:
training of
trainers on
tools Accra,
March 2019
Continental
training on
tools
March-
June 2019
support to
countries &
RECs on
report
April
2019
updated
technical
notes on
scores J’burg,
May 2019
structure of
the report &
products
June to
August 2019
validation in
countries &
RECs;
eBR
Sept
2019
writeshop
(Lusaka)
comm plan
(Nairobi) Addis
Ababa,
February
2020
release of
report

8. REPORTING ON the 1st & 2nd BRs
Submitted a report Did not submit a report
1st Biennial Review 2nd Biennial Review New member
states reporting
• Eritrea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Somalia
• South Sudan
Did not report
• Algeria
• Comoros
• Libya
• Sahrawi
• Egypt**
• Sao Tome and
Principe**
** Reported in 2017
47
8
49
6
Member states
that submitted
Members states
that did not submit

9. Next Steps in the 2019 BR
1.The draft 2019 CAADP BR Report and accompanying Africa
Agriculture Transformation Scorecard (AATS) were presented to
and endorsed by the 3rd Specialized Technical Committee (STC)
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Water and Environment
(ARDWE) in Addis Ababa, 21-25 October 2019.
2.The report will be presented to the Executive Council and then to
the AU Assembly in February 2020.
3.The AU Commission and the STC will hold consultative
meetings with the RECs and member states on the two
communication products that have been developed: a
Dashboard with 22 highlight indicators and a Toolkit (an online
user platform).

10. Introduction and objectives of the BR-support pilots
 Introduction: BMGF provided funding for IFPRI-ReSAKSS to strengthen
data systems and capacities in 5 pilot countries
 Goal: improve data systems and quality of data available for policymaking
in CAADP implementation
 Objectives: improve quality of data used in the 2019 BR process:
1.Identify gaps and challenges related to data, methodologies,
capacities, and systems
2.Strengthen human and institutional capacities in above
3.Improve the quality (accuracy, consistency, traceability, and
validity) of the data and reporting
4.Support countries to deliver a high-quality 2019 BR report
5.Develop a roadmap for countries to fill missing data for future BRs
6.Strengthen capacities in ICT for BR data management and sharing
7.Conduct strategic analysis for achieving key targets and objectives
Countries:
• Kenya
• Malawi
• Mozambique
• Senegal
• Togo
• Mozambique
• Senegal

11. Overview of pilot activities and results (1)
Submission
(eBR)
•July 15
•August 31
Assessment
of the
inaugural
(2017) BR
process and
report
BR Teams
(core, data
clusters,
review)
Training
(general,
focus on
gaps from
assessment)
•Data
collection
and
compilation
•Report
preparation
and
revision
Validation
(review
team,
senior mg’t,
ASWG, all
stakeholders)

12. Overview of pilot activities and results (2)
2017
parameters
reported of 166
Date;
Participants
(F, NSA, data
clusters)
Data compilation
retreat dates
Date;
Participants
(F, NSA)
2019
parameters
reported of 266
KEN 146 (88%) 33 (9, 12, 7) 6/7, 6/18 58 (23, 24) 244 (92%)
MWI 143 (86%) 23 (6, 2, 6) 7/1-2, 7/4-5 32 (7,12) 237 (89%)
MOZ 135 (81%) 50 (22, 2, 5) 5/27, 6/27 60 (15, 15) 218 (82%)
SEN 131 (79%) 27 (6, 3, 5) 6/11-14, 6/25 52 (10, 6) 239 (90%)
TGO 134 (81%) 41 (0, 0, 5) 6/6-8, 6/20 116 (18, 10) 247 (93%)
SubmissionAssessment BR Teams
Training
•Data
•Report
Validation

13. Methods for assessing impact of pilot activities
 Change in reporting rate (RR): difference-in-difference (DID)
oRR = data parameters reported as percent of total required
oCalculate change in RR between 2017 and 2019, and compare change
for pilot countries with comparable non-pilot (or like-pilot) countries
oLike-pilot = non-pilots with RR2017 similar to pilots
o+/- 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations of RR2017 mean for pilots
DID = (RR2019 – RR2017)pilots – (RR2019 – RR2017)like-pilots
 Improvement in quality of reporting (QR):
oAnalyze data issues (accuracy, consistency, validity, traceability) in
2019, count and compare incidence for pilots vs. like-pilots

14. Pilot vs non-pilot countries: some x’ics at 2017
List of countries (45)
Reporting
rate (%)
BR
score
ASCI agVA
(% GDP)
Pilot
Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal,
Togo (5)
83.0 4.52 60.1 21.7
Like-pilot
+/- 1sd
Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Eswatini,
Gambia, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Namibia, Tanzania (9)
81.7 3.78 53.4** 16.3***
Like-pilot
+/- 2sd
Like-pilot 1sd plus Benin, Burkina Faso,
Cabo Verde, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Morocco,
South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe (18)
82.4 4.06 53.2*** 9.7***
Like-pilot
+/- 3sd
Like-pilot 2sd plus Burundi, Gabon,
Ghana, Mali, Seychelles, Zambia (24)
83.2 4.07 53.8*** 10.6***
All non-
pilots
Like-pilot 3sd plus 16 others (40) 73.9*** 3.54** 51.8*** 15.2***
 Compared to like-pilots, pilots had similar BR
score in 2017, but higher ASCI and agVA/GDP.
ASCI = Agricultural Statistics Capacity Index
agVA = agriculture value added
** & *** = significant at 5% and 1% level

15. Number of data parameters required has
increased overall, with declines in two themes
All
Thematic area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2017 166 28 20 63 21 16 7 11
2019 266 27 28 153 29 16 8 5
Change (%) 60 -4 40 143 36 0 14 -55

16. Impact or improvement in BR reporting rate
2017 2019 Change (%pts)
Pilots 83.0 89.1 6.1
Non-pilots
All 73.9 79.0 5.0
Like-pilots (+/- 1sd) 81.7 78.9 -2.8
Like-pilots (+/- 2sd) 82.4 80.0 -2.5
Like-pilots (+/- 3sd) 83.2 81.5 -1.7
Difference between pilots
and non-pilots: (%pts)
All 9.1*** 12.5*** 1.0
Like-pilots (+/- 1sd) 1.3 10.2*** 8.9**
Like-pilots (+/- 2sd) 0.6 9.1** 8.5**
Like-pilots (+/- 3sd) -0.2 7.6** 7.8**
DID
Compared to like-pilot countries, BR-pilot support activities helped raise their
reporting rate by 8 to 9 %pts on average.
*, **, *** = 10%, 5% and 1% significance level

17. Relative improvement in BR reporting rate in
the pilot countries
2017 2019
Change
%pts % over 2018
Pilots (all) 83.0 89.1 6.1 7.3
Kenya 88.0 91.7 3.8 4.3
Malawi 86.1 89.1 3.0 3.4
Mozambique 81.3 82.0 0.6 0.8
Senegal 78.9 89.8 10.9 13.9
Togo 80.7 92.9 12.2 15.1
 The improvements were largest in Senegal and Togo;
 Moderate in Malawi and Kenya; and very little in Mozambique.

18. Improvement in reporting rate, by thematic area (%pts)
1 2 3 3 – fs 4 5 6 7
Change: 2017 to 2019
Pilots 6.4 12.7 3.8 6.1 4.7 10.0 2.5 -2.5
Non-pilots
Like-pilots (+/- 1sd) 6.3 1.0 -4.5 -0.5 -8.6 -1.4 2.6 3.4
Like-pilots (+/- 2sd) 2.9 4.9 -3.9 -0.7 -5.4 1.0 -4.6 1.9
Like-pilots (+/- 3sd) 2.9 3.4 -4.0 -1.6 -1.2 5.2 -2.9 0.4
Difference-in-difference
Like-pilots (+/- 1sd) 0.1 11.7** 8.4*** 6.6** 13.3 11.4 -0.1 -6.0
Like-pilots (+/- 2sd) 3.5 7.8 7.7** 6.8* 10.1 9.0 7.1 -4.5
Like-pilots (+/- 3sd) 3.5 9.3* 7.9*** 7.7*** 5.9 4.8 5.4 -2.9
 Bulk of gains derived from themes 2 (agriculture investment) and 3 (food
security and nutrition; with or without the new food safety indicators).
excl. food
safety
*, **, *** = 10%, 5% and 1% significance level

19. Relative improvement in BR reporting rate in pilot
countries, by thematic area (2017 to 2019, %pts)
1 2 3 3 – fs 4 5 6 7
Pilots (all) 6.4 12.7 3.8 6.1 4.7 10.0 2.5 -2.5
Kenya 0.0 7.9 5.7 5.5 2.8 -25.0 30.4 -20.0
Malawi 0.0 20.0 0.9 10.3 1.0 12.5 1.8 0.0
Mozambique 0.0 7.9 8.0 7.6 -7.2 0.0 -35.7 9.1
Senegal 32.1 2.9 3.1 3.1 -8.0 31.3 16.1 -20.0
Togo 0.0 25.0 1.4 3.9 35.1 31.3 0.0 18.2
 Kenya’s overall moderate progress due to declines in themes 5 and 7
 Malawi’s overall moderate progress due to no show in food safety indicators
 Low overall performance in Mozambique driven mostly by decline in theme 6
 Senegal (lowest RR in 2017) could have achieved even more, but for theme 7
 Improvements in Togo (same RR in 2017 as Mozambique) is laudable

20. Quality of data reported in 2019: pilots vs. like-pilots
5
8 9
12
5
3
8
5
1
8
10
20
7
13
11
16
9
8 8
12
3
1
3
12
0
5
10
15
20
1sd 2sd 3sd 1sd 2sd 3sd 1sd 2sd 3sd 1sd 2sd 3sd 1sd 2sd 3sd 1sd 2sd 3sd
Pilots Like-pilots Pilots Like-pilots Pilots Like-pilots Pilots Like-pilots Pilots Like-pilots Pilots Like-pilots
All Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5
Data parameters with issues, % of data parameters reported
 Overall, quality is higher in pilots than in the non-pilot countries; and
especially for themes 2 and 3.
 Mixed results for themes 1, 4, and 5; depending on the comparative like-pilot.
 No data issues or differences for themes 6 and 7 (results not shown).

21. Quality of data reported in 2019: pilot countries
Data parameters with issues, % of data parameters reported
 Overall, Kenya had the least issues, followed by Malawi, Togo, and Senegal;
with Mozambique having the most issues.
 Larger differences for themes 1, 4, and 5 (recall mixed results for these when
comparing with like-pilots).
 No data issues or differences for themes 6 and 7 (results not shown).
2 4
9
5 4
0 0
7
3
13
5
0
4
0 0 1
6 7 7
5
25
0
18
3
0 0
3
21
0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
KEN
MWI
MOZ
SEN
TGO
All Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5

22. Lessons and implications (1)
 Main factors contributing to the overall higher performance in
the pilot countries:
oCritical assessment of the gaps in the inaugural BR
oData clusters and targeted training and strategy to address the gaps
oEngagement of relevant stakeholders (including women, NSAs, and
non-agriculture experts) in the training and data compilation and
validation processes
As approach used in pilots shared with all member states  the
additional resources and hand-holding are critical
oIt is why the lower performance of Mozambique seems surprising; cited
lack of investments in data collection at national scale as main issue
Engaging all potential data providers (cluster idea) is critical

23. Lessons and implications (2)
 These raise a key challenge:
oHow to sustain the clusters to continuously update the data?
Engage them in using BR data to conduct policy analysis for
achieving national objectives  financial support and technical
assistance
 Some data inaccuracies/inconsistencies in 2019 will remain:
oNo time to internalize post-validation analysis to make
corrections
oLearning curve with eBR, as first time being implemented
Analysis of the data issues will be useful for improving the data
collection template and the eBR in the next round (2021)