"Monitoring and Evaluation System for CAADP Implementation", presentation by Babatunde Omilola at the CAADP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Validation Workshop held at the Indaba Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa March 1-3, 2010.

1. Monitoring and Evaluation
System for CAADP
Implementation
Babatunde Omilola
Coordinator, Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)
IFPRI
CAADP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Validation Workshop
Indaba Hotel, Johannesburg, South Africa
March 1-3, 2010

2. Outline
• What is CAADP?
– Principles
– Processes and implementation
• Why a M&E System for CAADP?
• What is the role of ReSAKSS?
• Implementation of CAADP M&E Framework
– Key indicators
– Data collection strategy
– Collaborators
– Results and Outcomes
• Next Steps

3. What is CAADP?
• The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture
Development Programme (CAADP) is the
African Union (AU)/New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD) vision and
strategy for the development of African
agriculture.
• CAADP puts agriculture at top of priorities of
African countries
• CAADP is African-owned and African-led

4. CAADP Principles
• Employ agriculture-led growth to achieve MDG1 of
halving poverty and hunger by 2015
• Pursuit of 6% average annual sector growth at national
level
• Allocation of 10% of national budgets to agriculture
sector
• Exploitation of regional complementarities and
cooperation to boost growth
• Policy efficiency, dialogue, review and accountability
(evidence-based policymaking)
• Partnerships and alliances to include farmers,
agribusiness, civil society

5. CAADP Process
• The principles are achieved through:
– the strategic functions of CAADP,
– the guidance and involvement of the Regional Economic Communities
(RECs), and
– the national roundtable process
• These activities surround four key pillars, led by Africa-based technical
institutions:
– Pillar 1: extending the area under sustainable land management
(University of Zambia)
– Pillar 2: Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for
market access (Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central
Africa (CMA/AOC))
– Pillar 3: Increasing food supply and reducing hunger (University of
KwaZulu-Natal)
– Pillar 4: Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption
(Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA))

6. Why a M&E system for CAADP?
• To regularly monitor CAADP goals
– Are countries achieving the targeted growth rates?
(6%)
– Are countries investing at the targeted level? (10%)
– Are these investments having their intended impacts
on poverty and hunger?
• To inform the review processes established by
CAADP-PP (mutual, peer and progress review)
• To further inform policy-making and dialogue

7. Idea behind M&E framework
Greater/better distributed
poverty reduction & food and nutrition t a r
security outcomes r n e
Other factors
a a p
Accelerated agricultural growth & c l o
Greater market access k y r
Other factors i s t
More enabling policies & n i i
Greater/more efficient allocation of g s n
agricultural investments g
Other factors More effective
National level
1
Processes
8
Roundtable
2 P4
P3
Regional level
7 P2
Africa-wide level
Global level P1 3
Early actions
6 Declarations
Commitments 5
4
Decisions
Page 7

8. Key questions for M&E
• Delivering on commitments
– Have commitments and targets been met so far?
• Effectiveness of interventions (policies, investments, etc.)
– How effective have different types of interventions been in any achievements
realized so far? What factors have shaped the achievements?
– What are the trade-offs and complementarities, if any, among different types of
interventions?
• Consistency with initial targets
– What are the projected impacts if interventions proceed as planned?
– Are the projected impacts compatible with the CAADP targets?
– If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track?
• Exploring better interventions
– Could greater or better distributed impacts be obtained by reconfiguring the
interventions?
– What are the different interventions that can lead to these outcomes?
Page 8

9. Main challenge and achievements
to date
 Main challenge
– Need indicators that are standardized, consistent and measurable
across different countries and regions for cross-country comparisons
and learning
• Main achievements
– CAADP M&E working group established, beginning with a workshop
at the AU (Addis Ababa, Dec 3-4, 2007)
– Draft M&E framework developed and presented at CAADP PP
meeting in Seychelles, March 2008
(www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP6.pdf)
– Framework based on CAADP principles and economic theory to
address issue of attribution/causality (i.e. inputs outputs
outcomes impacts)
– Developed data collection formats with which ReSAKSS nodes will
work with network of partners to collect data on indicators
Page 9

10. ReSAKSS Role in CAADP M&E
• M&E of agricultural development initiatives in Africa is key
element of ReSAKSS strategic analysis
• CAADP M&E Technical Working Group met in 2008 and
designed M&E Framework for CAADP
– See ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 6
• ReSAKSS has now outlined a plan for implementing this
framework
• As mandated by 5th CAADP-PP in Abuja, the CAADP M&E
framework will be validated in collaboration with
AU/NEPAD and other stakeholders in South Africa between
March 1 and 3, 2010

11. Types of indicators and rationale
• Input indicators: what is the overall level of effort invested?
– CAADP processes, policies, institutions, investments, etc.
• Output indicators: what is the level of provision, coverage, and
utilization of services?
– Access to infrastructure and services, adoption of technologies, etc.
• Outcome indicators: what is the effect on outcomes that affect
goals?
– Yields, production, wages, prices, trade, etc.
• Impact indicators: what is the ultimate effect on goals?
– Growth, income, poverty, food security, hunger, etc.
• Conditioning indicators: how confident are we that any observed
changes is due to the intervention?
– Total budgetary resources, climate, natural disasters, wars, etc.
Page 11

12. Input indicators:
CAADP roundtable processIndicators:
Program Key
Program
implementation scaling up and  Credible and relevant
and M&E out, etc.
evidence used in design
of investment program
National Focal
Point appointed  Inclusive participation
CAADP of stakeholders in
Pillar 4 process
Research & launched program design
Technology
Roundtable Pillar 3
 Investment program
conference Food security aligned with CAADP
held & Steering &
Pillar 2
Technical
principles and targets
compact Markets & trade
signed
Pillar 1
Committees  Investment program
appointed
Land & water technically reviewed
management
National
compact  Mechanisms in place
Cabinet memo
developed &
Stock taking discussed &
for implementation and
discussed
and gap analysis approved M&E of the program
completed
Page 12

13. Input indicators:
enabling conditions (other processes, policies, institutions)
Key Indicators:
National Policy • Policies for private
Gov’t Processes/Events Donors sector development
CAADP, SWAP, MTEF, (property rights, access to
Exp Reviews, Donor credit, contract enforcement,
Private harmonization, licensing, competition, …)
Others
Sector Elections, Law, etc. • Policies on equity
(access of poor and vulnerable
groups to resources, markets,
food, and nutrition)
Regional Level Africa-wide level Global level
• Governance (political
Actors Process Actors Process Actors stability, accountability,
Process
government effectiveness,
RECs, Reg Summit, AU, Int’l Assembly G-8, G-20, Conventi regulatory quality, rule of law,
Orgs., etc. Reviews, Orgs., etc. , Summit, WTO, etc. ons, etc. control of corruption)
etc. etc.
• Harmonized policies and
strategies
• Commitments met
Page 13

14. Input indicators:
investments and disaggregation
CAADP Sub-sector
Agriculture Pillar Crops, livestock,
Research, extension, 1, 2, 3, 4 fishery, forestry
irrigation, input support,
markets, ... Commodity
Staples, traditional,
Sector AGRICULTURAL high value, export, ...
Agriculture, roads, & RELATED
education, health, Other
INVESTMENTS
water & sanitation, ... Gender, socio-
economic groups
Space
Province, district, Source Economic
rural/urban, Agro- Government, Salaries, capital,
ecology Donors, Private operations and
Sector maintenance, …

15. Output indicators:
coverage and utilization of services
Investment / Provision / Utilization (e.g.) Disaggregation
Intervention Coverage (e.g.)
Research Number of Area under Commodity, gender, space
technologies dev’d technology
Extension Extension-farmer Number of visits Gender, space
ratio received per year
Irrigation Capacity of irrigation Area under irrigation Commodity, gender, space
(irrigable area)
Farm support Quantity of support Area under input Commodity, gender, space
Feeder roads Length or density of Space
roads
Market Distance to nearest Share of output sold Commodity, gender, space
market
Post harvest Capacity of storage Capacity utilized Commodity, gender, space
…

16. Outcome indicators:
agricultural sector performance
Production, trade and prices Sector growth and
by: contribution to
Growth returns to overall GDP by:
sub-sector, commodity, space
different types of
investments by: Space
sub-sector, commodity, Sub-sector growth
space AGRICULTURAL and contribution to
SECTOR AgGDP by:
Productivity of factors PERFORMANCE Space
(land, labor, capital)
and inputs by:
Commodity growth,
sub-sector, commodity, Use of factors (land, labor,
contribution to
gender, socio-economic capital) and inputs by:
AgGDP by:
group, space sub-sector, commodity, gender,
Space
socio-economic group, Space

17. Impact indicators
Unit costs by:
Returns to different
types of investments by: gender, socio- Distribution by:
economic group,
gender, socio-economic gender, socio-
space
group, space economic group,
space
Returns to sub-sector
growth by: INCOME,
gender, socio-economic POVERTY, Decomposition by:
group, Space FOOD AND sector (agriculture,
NUTRITION services, industry); sub-
Returns to commodity sector (crops, livestock,
growth by: SECURITY,
fishery, forestry);
HUNGER commodity (staples,
gender, socio-economic
group, Space high value, export, etc.)

18. Implementation of CAADP M&E
Framework
• Implementation is a system consisting of:
– Linked country level and regional teams, working
under clearly defined roles and using shared data
standards and protocols
– Regular collection, documentation and processing
of data at national and regional levels
– Timely publication of these indicators and related
monitoring reports

19. Key indicators
• Formal communications, declarations
• Compact signings (country and regional)
• Review and dialogue
Processes • Mutual accountability framework
• Levels and Shares
• Sub-sector
Agricultural • Spatial
Investments
Other factors:
• Levels and growth rates
trade, hunger,
Agricultural • Production and Productivity inputs, prices, etc.
Growth
• Headcount index
• Absolute numbers
Poverty • MDG projections
Reduction

20. Overview of methodology for
M&E
Key question Tools Data
Delivering on • Trends • National surveys
commitments • Simple correlations • Expert opinion surveys
Effectiveness of • Econometric methods • National surveys
interventions • General equilibrium • Targeted surveys
models • Expert opinion surveys
Consistency • Simulation models • Assessment of effectiveness
with initial • Participatory • Expert opinion surveys
targets approaches
Exploring better • Simulation models • Assessment of effectiveness
interventions • Participatory and consistency
approaches • Expert opinion surveys
Details in (www.resakss.org/publications/DiscussionP4&7.pdf)

21. Methodology:
delivering on commitments
• Trends, situation, and simple correlation analyses to monitor
progress (i.e. no attribution to interventions)
– CAADP Roundtable process
– Donor commitments
– 10% government agricultural expenditure
– 6% agricultural GDP growth
– Halving poverty and hunger, etc.
• Data
– National household surveys, accounts, etc.
– International public datasets (AfDB, World Bank, FAO, etc.)
– Targeted surveys (CAADP national focal points)
– Targeted expert opinion surveys
– …
Page 21

22. Methodology:
effectiveness of interventions (1)
• Main challenge is attribution
• Two complementary approaches
– Before and after treatment
• Baselines (2003, compact signed, program implemented)
• Mid-term, end of project, long after project
– With and without treatment
• Treatment: direct beneficiaries; indirect beneficiaries through
information/technology transfers, etc.
• Controls: can only be affected through general equilibrium effects,
e.g. prices, wages, etc.
• For poverty (pov), impact of intervention (INV) measured by
Average Treatment effect of the Treated (ATT):
ATTj = Ej [ povbefore, j – povafter, j | INVj =1] – Ei [povbefore, i – povafter, i | INVi =0]
Page 22

23. Methodology:
effectiveness of interventions (2)
• Underlying relationships to be estimated
– Intervention decision making and placement
– Household access to and utilization of services due to intervention
– Household production, marketing and consumption decisions
• Techniques
– Econometric methods (double-difference, instrumental variables,
matching) to assess direct impacts (mid-term, end of project, long
after project)
– General equilibrium modeling to assess economy-wide impacts
• Data
– National surveys
– Targeted household, market and other surveys to fill gaps
– Expert opinion surveys
– Case studies (selected countries and/or programs)
Page 23

24. Methodology:
consistency with initial targets
• Apply models developed for stocktaking and gap analysis
• What are the projected impacts if interventions proceed as
planned?
– Use mid-term estimated ex-post impacts and parameters and growth
patterns to project ex-ante impacts over period when target is
expected to be achieved
 Are the projected impacts compatible with the CAADP
targets?
– Compare above ex-ante impacts with initial targets
 If not, what adjustments are needed to get it on track?
– Use data and information from experts to identify plausible scenarios
– Simulate impacts under different scenarios to reach initial targets
Page 24

25. Methodology:
exploring better interventions
• Could greater or better distributed impacts be obtained by
reconfiguring the interventions?
– Even if interventions are consistent with the initial targets, can
simulate impacts under different composition of investments to
identify (in)efficiencies in implementation
– Use estimated ex-post impacts and parameters from cross-country
reviews and information from experts to identify plausible scenarios
– Value of indicators associated with simulated impacts of the desirable
scenarios can be used as guidelines to set new targets
 What are the different interventions that can lead to these
outcomes?
– Composition of investments associated with desirable scenarios from
preceding analysis
Page 25

26. Data collection strategy
• Short-term:
– Secondary sources
– These are already collected, updated and made
available on ReSAKSS website (www.resakss.org)
• Medium-term:
– ReSAKSS surveys and collection from country partners
via regional nodes and established country SAKSS
nodes
• Already started in many countries and regions
• Long-term:
– ReSAKSS data collection mechanism institutionalized
and implemented on regular basis (semi-annual,
annual or bi-annual depending on indicator)

27. Reporting and dissemination of M&E results
• ReSAKSS Annual Trends Report and briefs to be completed by
end of September of each year―timely for CAADP PP meeting
• ReSAKSS website (www.resakss.org) to view and download
trends, data, charts, supporting research publications, etc.
• Various other media and presentations to review M&E
information and results of analyses:
– CAADP PP (Africa wide)
– CAADP advisory councils (REC level)
– ReSAKSS steering committee meetings (REC level)
– Other regional- and country-level policy dialogues
Page 27

28. Tracking Progress of CAADP: ReSAKSS Website
www.resakss.org

29. Users can customize
the map and charts
The ReSAKSS website allows
based on the specific
users to easily track progress
information they are
against
looking for, whether
the CAADP and MDG targets
that be regional
while also accessing a wealth of
information or
knowledge and data on
country-specific
agricultural development in
information
Africa

30. Key collaborators
• The main collaborator at the country level will be the
SAKSS nodes, which will liaise with the planning units of
ministries, bureaus of statistics and private sector
institutions and think tanks
• Data quality will be guaranteed by working with partners
such as the AU, NEPAD, RECs, CAADP Pillar institutions,
CAADP country focal points, external partners such as UN
institutions, Universities, etc
• ReSAKSS will establish demonstrable agreements with
RECs and national centers of expertise on shared
platforms for benchmarking, collection…

31. Roles and Responsibilities in Implementation of
CAADP M&E Framework
• Need for serious efforts by the RECs and their member
countries to internalize the collection and provision of the
data within their own M&E systems
• This should be tied with serious efforts to meet
International standards in reporting
• Ultimately, the responsibility of collecting and analyzing the
data and reporting the results must be with the country
itself
• ReSAKSS and network of partners can facilitate this
– Consulting with the RECS and CAADP country focal points
– Strengthening capacity of national statistical bureaus
– …

32. Results and Outputs of M&E System
• Data collected are openly available for review,
analysis and download on ReSAKSS website
– 28 indicators already tracked and analyzed on
website

33. Results and Outputs of M&E System
• Data are analyzed and published in key
monitoring reports:
– Annual Trends report for each node
• Agriculture performance, investment and MDG targets
– Semi-annual report on CAADP process that will be
made available at each CAADP PP
– Joint publications with key partners, such as
AU/NEPAD

34. Where are we now?
• Almost 7 years after CAADP, has there been any
progress toward the goals?
• The Process:
– 13 countries and 1 region have signed CAADP compacts
• Agricultural Spending/Investment:
– The number of countries spending at least 10% of budgets
on agriculture has increased since 2002
• Agricultural Growth:
– At the continent level agricultural growth has increased
since 2002
– The number of countries with annual agricultural growth
rates of 6% or more has increased since 2002

35. The National CAADP Roundtable Process & Country
Status
Zimbabwe, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti,
Egypt, Comoros,
Libya, Eritrea Seychelles
Mauritius, DRC Madagascar, Sudan
2. REC and 3. Country Steering
1. Government 4. Cabinet Memo and
Government launch and Technical
appoints Focal Point(s) Endorsement
process Committee
8. Elaboration of 5. Stocktaking,
7. Roundtable Signing 6. Drafting of Country
detailed investment Growth, Invest.
of Compact CAADP Compact
plans Analysis
Benin, Burundi, Cape Verde,
Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau,
Gambia, Liberia, Mali, Niger,
Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Malawi,
Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia
Togo
Swaziland
10. Agreement on 11. Operational design
9. Post compact
financing plan, and other technical
review meeting and 12. Execution of new
financing instruments, studies and
validation of investment programs
and annual review assessment for
investment plans
mechanism program execution
Rwanda
14. Second annual 13. First annual review
review meeting meeting

36. Government spending on agriculture: Progress
towards the Maputo Declaration target
• The African continent as a whole has not met the
10% target (current spending at 6-8 percent)
• But, this varies by country Only 8
countries have
Agricultural Expenditures as a share of total (%), 2007 met the 10%
25 target
20
CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted)
15
%
10
5
0
Central African…
Madagascar**
Ghana****
Guinea Bissau***
Morocco**
Gabon***
Mali
Nigeria
DRC**
Egypt**
Swaziland**
Benin****
Burundi***
Tunisia**
Chad***
Kenya****
Uganda****
Tanzania**
Malawi
Sudan***
Zambia*
Gambia***
Senegal
Niger*
Cote d'Ivoire
Lesotho**
Togo
Mauritius**
Namibia**
Ethiopia**
Rwanda
Botswana
Mauritania***
Mozambique**
Guinea***
Cameroon**
Zimbabwe**
Burkina Faso*
*=2006; **=2005; ***=2004; ****=2008 estimates
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.

37. Have countries increased their spending in
response to the 2003 Maputo Declaration?
• At the continental level, Level of agricultural spending as a share of
total spending, 2002-2007
agricultural spending
nearly doubled between 70.0%
2000 and 2005 60.0%
% of reporting countries
• In 2003, only 3.2% of
countries allocated 10% 50.0%
or more of their budgets 40.0%
to agriculture
– This increased to 33.3% 30.0%
in 2006 before slightly
falling to 25% in 2007 20.0%
• 9 countries increased 10.0%
their allocations from
0.0%
less than 5% spending to
5-10% spending 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Less than 5% 5%-10% More than 10%
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.

38. Agricultural expenditure as a share of
agricultural GDP
• Measures government spending on agriculture relative to the size of that
country's agriculture sector
• Under this measure, more countries fall into the category of low budget
support to agriculture
Agricultural expenditures as a share of agricultural GDP, 2007
80
60 The range is
CURRENT, 2007 (Unless otherwise noted)
considerable
%
40
(1 to 60%)
20
0
*=2006; **=2005; ***=2008 estimates
On aggregate , Africa spends between 5-7%
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009.
of agricultural GDP on agriculture,
compared to 15% in Asia during its Green
Revolution

39. -36
-30
-24
-18
-12
-6
12
18
24
0
6
Eritrea
Gambia, The
Zimbabwe
Senegal
Source: WDI
Tunisia
Mauritania
2008:
Malawi
Lesotho
2002:
Cape Verde 6% CAADP target
6% CAADP target
Gabon
Mali
Kenya
Cote d'Ivoire
Ethiopia
Zambia
Madagascar
Algeria
CAR
Chad
Guinea-Bissau
Botswana
DRC
Seychelles
Swaziland
Niger
Burkina Faso
Djibouti
Sudan
Egypt
Cameroon
Page 39
Uganda
Ghana
Burundi
Nigeria
Comoros
Mauritius
Morocco
Tanzania
Agricultural GDP growth
Guinea
South Africa
Togo
Benin
Namibia
Only 9 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth
At least 20 countries achieved 6% or more annual growth
Mozambique
Sao Tome &…
Angola
Rwanda
Equatorial Guinea

40. What about poverty and hunger?
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Congo, D.R.
C. African Rep. Angola
Ethiopia Botswana
Guinea Algeria
Egypt
Kenya Malawi
Ghana
Mali Sao Tome and Principe
Mauritania
Morocco Tanzania
Namibia
Senegal
Swaziland
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Countries on track towards Countries on track towards
halving poverty by 2015 Only 6 Countries on track halving hunger by 2015
towards achieving both
Source: Omilola and Lambert, 2009
goals of MDG1

41. •
Next steps
Formal validation of M&E framework by all stakeholders under the
leadership of NEPAD and AU
• Regional network already established
• Next step is to fully operationalize country-level surveys and data analysis
in each region
– Establish country SAKSS nodes
• Harmonize efforts with other development partners doing similar M&E
work in Africa such as AGRA, World Bank, Pillar Institutions, Mutual
Accountability Framework, etc
• Track the contributions of the CAADP process to the achievements of
agricultural growth and poverty reduction
• Monitor how agricultural budgets are being spent
• Establish critical M&E information needed to enhance effective dialogue
and policy processes at all levels

42. Thank you.