Towards purposeful partnerships in African agriculture · 2019-06-29 · KWAMP Kirehe...

International Fundfor Agricultural DevelopmentVia Paolo di Dono, 4400142 Rome, ItalyTelephone: +39 06 54591Facsimile: +39 06 5043463E-mail: [email protected]

African Development BankAngle de l’avenue du Ghana et desrues Pierre de Coubertin, Hédi NouiraBP 3231002 Tunis Belvédère, TunisiaTelephone: +216 71 333 511Facsimile: +216 71 351 933E-mail: [email protected]

AfD

B/I

FAD

jo

int

ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

ag

ricu

ltu

re a

nd

ru

ral

de

ve

lop

me

nt

po

lici

es

an

d o

pe

rati

on

s in

Afr

ica

Towards purposefulpartnerships in African agriculture

A joint evaluation of the agriculture and ruraldevelopment policies and operations in Africaof the African Development Bank and theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development

April 2010


April 2010


2

Evaluation team

Overall responsibility

Colin Kirk, Director, Operations Evaluation Department (AfDB)

Luciano Lavizzari, Director, Office of Evaluation (IFAD)

Lead evaluators and evaluation coordinators

Ashwani Muthoo, Senior Evaluation Officer (IFAD)

Detlev Puetz, Principal Evaluation Officer (AfDB)

Andrew Brubaker, Evaluation Officer (IFAD)

Joint evaluation secretariat

Linda Danielsson, Administrative Assistant (IFAD)

Akua Arthur-Kissi, Research Assistant (AfDB)

Senior independent advisers

Robert Picciotto

Per Pinstrup-Andersen

Seydou Traoré

Consultant team

Hans Binswanger-Mkhize and Alex McCalla: working paper “The Changing Context and Prospects forAgricultural and Rural Development in Africa”

Roger Slade, Michael Carbon and Emelly Mutambatsere: working paper “A Meta-Evaluationof Past Performance”

Arthur Zimmermann and Baptist Sieber: working paper “A Review of Partnerships: Benchmark Study andEvaluation Template”

Julian Gayfer and Dorte Kabell: working paper “A Review of Partnership between AfDB and IFAD”

Manuel Penalver-Quesada and Chris Brewster: working paper “An Assessment of Business Processesand Their Impact on Results”

Andrew Shepherd, Nick Highton and Steve Wiggins: country studies, quality-at-entry review anddraft final report

3

Table of contents

Abbreviations and acronyms 5

Foreword 7

Acknowledgements 11

Executive summary 13

1 Introduction 17

2 Context for agriculture and rural development policies: implications for strategy 21Economic and agricultural growth in Africa: trends and implications 21Opportunities for agriculture and rural development in Africa 22Challenges to agriculture and rural development in Africa 24Changed policy context for agriculture and rural development in Africa 26Strategic implications for agriculture and rural development in Africa 30Addressing complexity: differentiating the agriculture and rural development agenda 32

3 Relevance of AfDB and IFAD in the changing agriculture and rural developmentcontext in africa 35AfDB and IFAD operations in agriculture and rural development in Africa 35AfDB and IFAD response to challenges in agriculture and rural development in Africa 39

4 Assessing performance 45Introduction 45Methods 46Project performance 47Country programme performance 53Lending agency and borrower performance 54Benchmarking performance 58

5 A review of partnerships 61Introduction 61The partnership between AfDB and IFAD in agriculture and rural developmentin Africa (1978-2008) 61Partnership with governments 65Other partnerships by IFAD and AfDB in agriculture and rural development in Africa 66Implication of the new partnership environment and aid modalities 69

6 Conclusions and recommendations 75Overview 75Conclusions 77Recommendations 80

Tables

1 Different agriculture and rural development intervention areas 322 AfDB and IFAD strategic objectives for agriculture and rural development in Africa 373 Aggregate project performance and impact in Africa 584 Country-level coordination and partnership mechanisms in agriculture and

rural development in Africa led by agencies and national partners 685 Overview of cofinancing mobilized by IFAD since 1978 in Africa 71

4

Figures

1 Countries with more than 10 per cent national expenditure on agriculture 272 Agricultural growth rates across sub-Saharan African countries compared to

CAADP 6 per cent target, 2007 283 Official development assistance (ODA) to agriculture and rural development in Africa

(commitments) 294 Areas where AfDB and IFAD are relatively more effective than other agencies 425 Project relevance, effectiveness and efficiency in IFAD and AfDB 476 Satisfactory effectiveness of components 497 Satisfactory impact in rural poverty impact domains 518 Factors limiting government performance 569 Schematic illustration of aspects of lender and borrower performance 57

10 IFAD-AfDB cofinanced projects: loan amounts by decade 6311 Multi-level and multi-sectoral governance 70

Boxes

1 Challenges and opportunities in Africa 332 The Bank’s new business plan for agricultural water development 383 Relevance of AfDB and IFAD in the changing agriculture and rural

development context in Africa 434 Gender in agriculture and rural development in Mozambique 505 Assessing performance 596 Definition of cofinancing 647 Rice production in The Gambia - an AfDB/IFAD partnership success 648 Working with governments on agriculture and rural development strategies: Rwanda 669 Partnerships in agriculture and rural development by IFAD and AfDB 67

10 Good practices for partnerships 7211 Review of partnerships 73

Appendices

1 Report of senior independent advisers 852 Joint AfDB and IFAD Management response 893 Bibliography 1004 Official development assistance to Africa 1015 Definition of the evaluation criteria used in the joint evaluation 1026 Comparison between the 1978 IFAD/AfDB cooperation agreement

and 2008 memorandum of understanding 1047 Performance of the AfDB–IFAD partnership 1058 Projects cofinanced by IFAD and AfDB, 1978-2009 1069 Joint evaluation approach paper, inception report and evaluation framework 112

10 Good practice examples from recent AfDB/IFAD country strategiesand project design 114

11 Evolution of sub-sector shares in AfDB’s and IFAD’s agriculture andrural development portfolio in Africa 122

5

ADF African Development FundAIDS auto-immune deficiency syndromeAGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in AfricaARD agriculture and rural developmentAfDB African Development BankARRI Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD OperationsAU African UnionBOAD West African Development Bank (Banque Ouest Africaine de Développement)BSF Belgian Survival FundCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development ProgrammeCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCOSOP country strategic opportunities programmeCPIA Country Policy and Institutional AssessmentCSP country strategy paperDFID Department for International Development (UK)ECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGDP gross domestic productGEF Global Environment FacilityGTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation

(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit)HIV human immune deficiency virusIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFI international finance institutionIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteKfW German Development Bank (Kreditanstalt fürWiederaufbau)KWAMP Kirehe Community-based Watershed Management Project (Rwanda)M&E monitoring and evaluationMCA Millennium Challenge AccountMDG Millennium Development GoalMINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Forests (Rwanda)MTEF medium-term expenditure frameworkMTS Medium-Term Strategy (AfDB)NEEDS National Empowerment and Economic Development StrategyMoU memorandum of understandingNEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNGO non-governmental organizationNRI Northern Regions InvestmentODA official development assistanceOE Office of Evaluation (IFAD)OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOPEV Operations Evaluation Department (AfDB)OSAN Agriculture and Agro-Industry Department (AfDB)PAPSTA Support Project for the Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture (Rwanda)PARPA Action Plan for the Eradication of Absolute Poverty (Mozambique)PCU project coordination unitPCR project completion report

Abbreviations and acronyms

6

PFM public financial managementPICOFA Community Investment Project for Agricultural Fertility (Burkina Faso)PROAGRI National Agricultural Development Strategy (Mozambique)PROMER Rural Markets Promotion Programme (Mozambique)PROSDRp Rural Production Sector Development Programme

(Programme Sectoriel du Développement Rural productif)PRSP poverty reduction strategy paperREC regional economic community RUMEDP Rural Microenterprise Development Programme (Mozambique)SADC Southern African Development CommunitySHDP Smallscale Horticulture Development Project (Kenya)SHoMaP Smallholder Horticulture and Marketing Programme (Kenya)SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threatsSSLDP Southern Sudan Livelihoods Development Project (Sudan)SWAp sector-wide approachUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVDCs village development committeesWFP World Food Programme WSRMP Western Sudan Resources Management Programme (Sudan)

Abbreviations and acronyms

7

Foreword

T his report presents the results of a major evaluation of support to agriculture and rural development inAfrica provided by two institutions: the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD). The evaluation set out to review the experience of the two institutions

in a region where major changes are taking place. It carefully assessed their relevance to Africa’s needs in the areaof agriculture and rural development, and also reviewed their performance, including the performance of theirsector partnership. However, the overriding aim throughout was to draw useful lessons and develop soundrecommendations to assist the two institutions to move forward, and in particular to consider how they mightwork more closely together to greater effect.

The origins of this forward-looking approach lie in a meeting between AfDB’s President, Dr Donald Kaberuka,and the President of IFAD at the time, Mr Lennart Båge, who agreed that it would be useful to review pastexperience and consider how to strengthen the partnership between the two institutions in the future. Followingdiscussions, the AfDB and IFAD Boards called for a joint evaluation to be undertaken by the independentevaluation offices of the two institutions. Work on the evaluation began in earnest in July 2007.

This was a timely decision. Although many development agencies had reduced their funding for agriculture andrural development in the 1990s, the international community was jolted by the sharp spike in food prices at thebeginning of 2008, and issues of agriculture and food security rose quickly up the agenda. The food price crisiswas linked to the sharp rise in fuel costs, and was followed by shocks generated by the global financial crisis andeconomic downturn. Meanwhile, as we write, there is rapidly growing recognition around the world of thechallenges posed by climate change, including the need to ensure sustainable development and better naturalresource management. This evaluation was therefore undertaken against a backdrop of great challenges anduncertainties. Yet this is also a moment of opportunity. The evaluation highlights the great untapped potentialafforded by agriculture in Africa. Although past performance has been only moderately satisfactory, there is nowan opening to rethink ways of working, to do things differently and to recommence the transformation of Africanagriculture. This report calls upon AfDB and IFAD to take action to deepen their partnership on agriculture andrural development at a moment when fresh impetus, drive and direction are required to address the challengesfacing Africa and the world.

Over the past 30 years, AfDB and IFAD have each played a major role in agriculture and rural development inAfrica, for which they have provided loans and grants with a combined total exceeding US$10 billion, whichincreases to US$17 billion when cofinancing and borrower contributions are included. This represents a verysubstantial contribution to development on the continent. The role of the institutions was particularly significantin the 1990s when funding for the sector from other institutions dropped sharply.

It was therefore important to review the experience of the two institutions in this area to ascertain what they have done well, assess whether they could have performed better and to consider what their role andcontribution might be in the future.

8

The evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations were informed by a series of desk reviews on key themes,by visits to eight countries in Africa, and by many interviews and discussions within the two organizations andoutside. An interim report was distributed widely for review: this provided a solid basis for discussion and dialoguewith management and staff in each institution. The evaluation also benefited from input from a wide range of Africanstakeholders. A regional consultation meeting, kindly hosted by the Government of Mali, provided valuable feedbackand validation of the evaluation results. The final report was considered by the respective Boards of the twoinstitutions, along with a formal Management response prepared jointly by management in the two organizations.

The evaluation draws attention to the many challenges confronting agriculture and rural development in Africa.But it also highlights the wealth of Africa’s natural resources endowment and emphasises agriculture’s great potentialto support economic growth and reduce poverty and hunger across the continent. The report highlights theimportance of African leadership in developing clear sector policies and strong institutions in the sector. It concludesthat AfDB and IFAD have distinct but complementary roles, and are, separately and together, highly relevant toAfrica’s current and future needs in the field of agriculture and rural development. Their contribution could befurther strengthened through focused attention to address the sector policy gap, to improve the performance of bothlenders and governments, and to strengthen the partnership between AfDB and IFAD and between these institutionsand other sector players. The report presents specific recommendations regarding each of these topics.

The joint evaluation draws particular attention to the complex regional context for intervention. Efforts tosupport development in Africa must recognize the region’s tremendous heterogeneity not only in terms of itsgeographical and agro-ecological dimensions, but more widely with respect to its diverse social, cultural,political and economic aspects.

Looking to the future, we have recommended that AfDB and IFAD should deepen their partnership, and basethis on their respective areas of comparative advantage, track record and specialization. Complementarityprovides the basis for a strong partnership. At the same time, differences of focus and approach can posechallenges for coordination and joint working. Accordingly, the evaluation advocates developing a deeper andmore strategic partnership with a strong focus on measurable results, with clear arrangements for managing andmonitoring the process, and with the commitment of sufficient human and financial resources to the partnershipto allow it to be effective. Both organizations also need to think carefully about the incentives required to buildsuccessful partnerships.

In this regard, it is worth reflecting on the experience of the joint evaluation itself. It was agreed from the outset thatthis should be a truly joint exercise, with clear objectives, common management arrangements, pooled funding,and a small secretariat. This in turn required arrangements to be set out in a memorandum of understanding signedby both parties. A focus on shared objectives, close and frequent consultations and a degree of flexibility ensuredthat differences of view were quickly resolved and a common approach was maintained throughout. A keyadvantage of the joint approach was the ability to view past and present partnership activities from a sharedviewpoint. It also allowed the evaluation team to look across a wide span of operations and total investments ofrelatively high volume.

As noted above, the evaluation has been widely discussed within the two insitutions. However, we trust that thereport will also prove useful to a wider audience beyond AfDB and IFAD, including African decision-makers anddevelopment partners working in agriculture and rural development in Africa. The report highlights theresponsibility falling to African decision-makers to ensure that sound sector policies are developed andimplemented, drawing where necessary on support from development partners. The evaluation concludes thatthere is an urgent need to strengthen sector institutions to ensure that intelligent, market-oriented policies can beeffectively and efficiently implemented, making space for the private sector to flourish to the benefit of Africanproducers and consumers.

9

Development partners have an important role to play, and we hope that colleagues in a range of developmentinstitutions will find this to be an informative report. In the report, we draw out the implications of the increasingnumber of organizations working in the sector and the need for a sensible division of labour based on comparativeadvantage and specialization, especially at country level. Development agencies need to avoid “partnershipproliferation” and, wherever possible, should find practical ways of aligning in an efficient and disciplined waybehind the relevant national authorities.

There are signs that private-sector involvement is increasing. This is a welcome development as transformation ofrural economies across Africa will depend to a great extent on private-sector investment and operations at alllevels. Governments need to create the right conditions for the private sector to grow, and the AfDB, IFAD andother donors should encourage more businesses to enter the sector and expand their activities.

Agriculture in Africa stands at the threshold of change and opportunity, after many years of neglect. This evaluationis intended to provide a substantial platform on which AfDB and IFAD can refocus and re-energize theirlongstanding sector partnership so that they seize the present opportunity. Working with others, AfDB and IFADcan play important roles in helping to take African agriculture over the threshold towards a fruitful future.

Luciano LavizzariDirector, Office of Evaluation

IFAD

Colin KirkDirector, Operations Evaluation Department

AfDB

11

Acknowledgements

The Directors of the Office of Evaluation of IFAD and of the Operations Evaluation Department of AfDB wouldlike to acknowledge Dr Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank and Mr Lennart Båge,former President of IFAD, for their inspiration in proposing this joint evaluation, and for their advice at

various stages; and Dr Kanayo F. Nwanze, President of IFAD, for his encouragement and support as the evaluationwas being completed. The Directors are also grateful for the interest, encouragement, guidance and support offeredby members of their respective Boards throughout the process.

Special thanks are extended to Mali’s Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Aghatam Ag Alhassane, who hosted and chaireda valuable consultation with regional stakeholders in Bamako, and arranged a visit to the national agriculturalresearch centre near Bamako.

The interest and engagement shown by management and staff in AfDB and IFAD helped to keep the evaluationfocused on operational realities during a period of rapid change in both institutions. At AfDB the Directors greatlyappreciate the commitment to the evaluation process shown by Zeinab El-Bakri, former AfDB Vice President, andher successor, Vice-President Kamal El-Kheshen, as well as Mr Aly Abou Sabaa, Director of the Department ofAgriculture and Agro-Industry. At IFAD, they are greatful for the interest and involvement offered by Kevin Cleaver,Associate Vice President, Programmes, Mohamed Béavogui, Director of the Western and Central Africa Division,Ides de Willebois, Director of the Eastern and Southern Africa Division and Nadim Khouri, Director of the NearEast and North Africa Division, as well as Shyam Khadka, Senior Portfolio Manager.

The evaluation was jointly managed by Ashwani Muthoo in IFAD’s Office of Evaluation and by Detlev Puetz inAfDB’s Operations Evaluation Department. Andrew Brubaker in IFAD’s Office of Evaluation also provided inputs atvarious stages in the process. They were assisted by Linda Danielsson of the joint evaluation secretariat in Rome,and by Akua Arthur-Kissi in Tunis. Work on the various studies including reports on country visits and the finalreport was conducted by the following consultants and staff members: Hans Binswanger-Mkhize, Chris Brewster,Michael Carbon, Julian Gayfer, Nick Highton, Dorte Kabell, Alex McCalla, Emelly Mutambatsere, Manuel Penalver-Quesada, Andrew Shepherd, Baptist Sieber, Roger Slade, Steve Wiggins and Arthur Zimmermann.

The Directors are especially grateful for the guidance provided by the joint evaluation’s panel of senior independentadvisers: Robert Picciotto, Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Seydou Traoré. Their advice helped to keep the evaluationfocused on strategic issues and to take account of the turbulent global context prevailing while the evaluation wasbeing undertaken.

However, in reporting on the results of an independent evaluation study, the evaluation report does not necessarilyreflect the views of the Boards and managements of the respective institutions. The Directors take overallresponsibility for the evaluation as heads of the evaluation offices of their respective organizations.

13

Agriculture and rural development are keyelements in African economies and provide animportant route towards achievement of the

critical development goals of promoting growth andreducing poverty in Africa. Yet the sector presents achallenging development agenda. This report presentsthe main findings, conclusions and recommendationsof a major evaluation of assistance to agriculture andrural development (ARD) in Africa provided by theAfrican Development Bank (AfDB) and theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD). The evaluation was undertaken jointly bythe evaluation offices of the two institutions.

The joint evaluation focused on the policies andoperations of AfDB and IFAD in ARD in Africa.The evaluation had four objectives. These were to:(i) determine the relevance of ARD policies andoperations, in the light of current and emerging issues;(ii) assess their performance and impact; (iii) evaluatethe strategic partnership between IFAD and AfDBand other ARD partnerships on the continent; and(iv) develop recommendations to enhance thepartnerships and development effectiveness of the twoinstitutions. While reviewing past experience, theevaluation was intended to be forward looking,with a view to strengthening future ARD policiesand operations.

Attention was devoted to analysing the changingcontext for agriculture and rural development in Africa,and to drawing out the relevant strategic implications.The evaluation found that although the economicsituation has improved in many parts of Africa in recentyears, and although sector policies have improved,many challenges remain, including poor infrastructure;weak sector institutions and insufficient regionalintegration; underdeveloped markets and limitedprivate-sector involvement; the low productivity ofsmallholder farmers; the need for effective managementof natural resources and the environment, in the face ofclimate change; high levels of poverty, exacerbated byrapid population growth and the continued prevalenceof HIV/AIDS; and pervasive gender inequality, whichundercuts the contribution of women in a region where

they play key roles in agriculture and agricultural trade.Access to both domestic and international markets isdifficult and constrains production. Recent shocks andcrises have compounded these challenges.

Actions required to address these challenges includeimproving the investment climate; better infrastructureand regional integration; supporting innovation; andstrengthening institutional capacity. However, theAfrican context in all dimensions is complex and highlydiverse, and solutions need to be tailored to fit localconditions. The country context is key.

Since they were founded, AfDB and IFAD haveprovided assistance to the sector in loans and grants witha combined total value of around US$10 billion.Although many donors and governments drew backfrom supporting agriculture in the 1990s, AfDB andIFAD continued to provide substantial support.Recent years have seen renewed support for the sector,including the launch in 2002 of the ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP),under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development(NEPAD), and the Maputo Declaration of 2003, whichcommitted African governments to allocate 10 per centof their national budgets to agriculture with the aim ofraising annual agricultural growth rates to 6 per cent.Major donors are returning to the sector, along with avariety of new donors and private-sector investors.Despite the wide consensus regarding the importance ofa country-led approach to development, the sector’shighly fragmented aid architecture requires the manyplayers to establish a well-coordinated division of labour,based on respective areas of comparative advantage,specialization and track record. Yet there has so far beena lack of far sighted vision and a coherent, widely agreedpolicy framework. Bold leadership and political will areboth needed to address this “policy gap.”

With regard to institutional policies and mandates,the evaluation concluded that the two organizationshave distinct but complementary roles, and are,separately and together, highly relevant to Africa’scurrent and future needs in ARD.

An assessment of the performance of past operationsassisted by each institution in ARD in Africa concluded

Executive summary

14

that, at the project level, past performance has beenmoderately satisfactory, but sustainability was weak.Inadequate attention was devoted to promoting genderequality and, in this regard, results were modest.At the level of country strategies and programmes,performance was found to be weak in bothorganizations, especially in terms of relevance tocountry needs, as well as with regard to policydialogue, knowledge management, and partnershipbuilding. Attention is needed to ensure better designand implementation of ARD strategies. In the case ofIFAD, overall performance in Africa was lower thanperformance in other geographic regions covered by theFund’s operations. For the Bank, the performance of itsARD operations was found to be less successful than inother sectors. Benchmarking evidence indicates that theperformance of other agencies working in ARD in Africawas at a broadly similar level, perhaps indicating thedifficulty of addressing ARD sectoral challenges.

The evaluation found that the past performance ofAfDB and IFAD as lenders, and of governments asborrowers, was generally unsatisfactory. This was arecurrent issue, with serious consequences for overallperformance. IFAD and Bank performance in projectdesign, supervision, problem solving and in makingoperational adjustments was found to be satisfactory inless than one out of every two projects financed. Anumber of recent reforms at IFAD and AfDB have beenoriented towards improving lending agencyperformance, and evaluation of recently approvedcountry strategies, programmes and projects found signsof improvement in quality. However, little attention hasbeen given to improving government performance.There is, in consequence, an urgent need to strengthengovernment capacity. This will be critical for achievingsuccessful results.

The evaluation also reviewed the partnership betweenAfDB and IFAD, which was formally established with thesigning of a partnership agreement in 1978. Activitieswere largely confined to cofinancing of investmentprojects, with AfDB also providing supervision servicesfor IFAD. Overall, the performance of the partnership wasweak. A new memorandum of understanding was signedbetween the two organizations in 2008, with a strongerfocus on results and joint action. But to channel effortsefficiently, there is a need for an action plan, backed byadequate resources and focused attention to management.

Each institution enjoys generally good relationswith governments in the region, and with a range ofsector partners. However, with many players nowactive in the sector, there is a tendency towards“partnership proliferation”. Future partnerships need tobe selective and purposeful, building on comparativeadvantage with a clear focus on results.

The two organisations have made and continue tomake major contributions to support ARD in Africa.Their contribution could be further strengthenedthrough focused attention to address the sector policygap, improve the performance of both lenders andgovernments, and to strengthen the partnershipbetween AfDB and IFAD, and between theseinstitutions and other sector players.

Recommendations

Recommendations for both agencies

The joint evaluation makes the followingrecommendations for both institutions, focusing on the“three Ps” of policy, performance and partnership.

Filling the sector policy gap. AfDB and IFADshould work together to address the ARD policy gapin the following ways: (i) maintain alignment withCAADP and provide a joint statement of support forCAADP; (ii) at country level, support the developmentof sound national ARD policies, and align assistancewith national strategies; (iii) at the level of globalpolicy, develop knowledge and capacity to engage ininternational advocacy on trade issues affectingAfrican producers.

Lender performance. AfDB and IFAD should makefurther efforts to improve their performance in thefollowing ways: (i) increase skills, knowledge andcapacity in the areas of policy, analytical work,knowledge management and managing partnerships;(ii) increase support to ARD in fragile states, givingcareful attention to choice and sequencing of aidmodalities; (iii) strengthen country presence;(iv) finance simpler, more tightly focused projectsand programmes, undertaken within the frameworkof coordinated sector plans.

Borrower performance. AfDB and IFAD shouldaim to strengthen borrower performance as follows:(i) support governments to undertake capacityneeds assessments in the ARD sector, and providesubstantial support for capacity building andinstitutional development; specifically, supportcapacity building in relation to (ii) politicaldecentralization; (iii) gender mainstreaming; and(iv) research and development.

Building purposeful partnerships. AfDB and IFADshould: (i) maintain and deepen their currentbilateral partnership, based on the memorandum ofunderstanding of 2008, setting clear, strategic regionalpriorities, backed by a clear Action Plan and adequateresources; (ii) focus their partnership on theirrespective areas of comparative advantage,specialization and complementarity, and strengthening

15

the focus on results; and (iii) at the regional level, takeforward their partnership within the wider partnershiparound CAADP.

Recommendations for AfDB

It is recommended that AfDB should: (i) remaindirectly engaged in ARD, but develop a more selectivestrategy, closely linked to the Bank’s medium termpriorities, and aligned with CAADP; and it shouldwidely publicise the revised strategy; (ii) expandsupport to regional and sub-regional development;(iii) ensure that sufficient human and financialresources are allocated for effective implementation ofthe revised strategy while seeking to leverage furtherfunding from the private sector, private donors, ArabStates and emerging donors. Steps should also be takento ensure provision of adequate resources to regionalmember countries and operational departments to takeforward important analytical work and sector studies.

Recommendations for IFAD

It is recommended that IFAD should: (i) engage morestrategically in analytic work, by building in-housecapacities and through strategic partnerships;(ii) differentiate allocation of administrative resourcesto allow increased support in developing strategies andoperations relating to fragile states; and (iii) plan jointactivities to share knowledge and experience betweenthe three divisions covering Africa.

Executive summary

17

Background

A t the suggestion of their Presidents, the Boardsof the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD) and the African

Development Bank (AfDB) requested a joint evaluationof agriculture and rural development (ARD) in Africaby their evaluation offices.

IFAD’s Office of Evaluation (OE) and the AfDB’sOperations Evaluation Department (OPEV) launchedthe joint evaluation in July 2007, when a memorandumof understanding (MoU) was signed by the directors ofOE and OPEV on behalf of the Presidents of IFAD andAfDB. An oversight committee,1 a senior independentadvisory panel2 and a joint evaluation secretariat3 wereestablished to implement the evaluation; consultantswere hired to support OE and OPEV. On the basis ofthe joint evaluation approach paper, an inceptionreport was produced and shared with IFAD and AfDBmanagement at the beginning of 2008; this set outobjectives, methods, key questions, timeframes,governance arrangements and communicationapproaches for the joint evaluation.

Undertaking the evaluation jointly made it possibleto pool resources for desk and field work, whichenhanced the quality and credibility of the evaluationand provided an opportunity to draw together thesubstantial volume of agricultural and rural knowledgeaccumulated by the two organizations and by otherplayers in ARD including the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO) and the WorldBank. The joint evaluation required ongoing consultationbetween OE and OPEV, agreement on common methodsand coordinated communication with stakeholders such

as the management and governing bodies of AfDB andIFAD. These requirements were addressed in the MoU,which also incorporated a number of risk mitigationmeasures, such as the implementation of the jointevaluation in phases and the employment of three seniorindependent advisers who gave their inputs andguidance throughout the process. The final report of thesenior independent advisers on the joint evaluation maybe seen in appendix 1.

Objectives

The joint evaluation had four objectives: (i) determinethe relevance of IFAD and AfDB policies and operationsin ARD in Africa in the light of current and emergingissues affecting ARD in the continent; (ii) assess theperformance and impact of AfDB and IFAD policies andoperations in ARD in Africa; (iii) evaluate the strategicpartnerships between IFAD and AfDB, and betweenthem and other prominent ARD actors in the continent;and (iv) understand the proximate causes of AfDB andIFAD relevance and performance in ARD, and developrecommendations to enhance their developmenteffectiveness, including partnership between themand other actors. The joint evaluation included anassessment of past and current relevance andperformance, but was also forward-looking in seekingto provide recommendations as to ways in which thetwo organizations can respond to a changingenvironment in line with their strategic objectivesand comparative advantages.

Unlike the independent external evaluations4

undertaken in the two organizations in the first part of

Introduction

1/ The Directors of OE and OPEV.2/ Senior independent advisers were mobilized to reassure the governing bodies that the evaluation was of the required quality and in linewith international good practice. The advisory panel consisted of three development professionals with wide experience in ARD in Africa andan understanding of evaluation. They were: Mr Per Pinstrup-Andersen (Denmark), former Director General of the International Food PolicyResearch Institute; Mr Robert Picciotto (Italy), former Director General of the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank; andMr Seydou Traoré (Mali), former Minister of Agriculture of Mali.3/ Set up in OE.4/ See http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/iee/report/e.pdf and http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Evaluation-Reports/02578228-EN-ADF7-9-EVALUATION.PDF.

18

the decade of the new millenium, this joint evaluationfocuses on IFAD operations in Africa and on AfDBactivities in the agriculture sector5 only. The jointevaluation included an initial analysis of selectedbusiness processes that had not been in place at the timeof the independent external evaluations, for exampledirect supervision and implementation support, countrypresence by IFAD6 and the accelerated decentralizationand reorganization of the knowledge managementfunction in AfDB.

Process and deliverables

To manage the process effectively, the evaluation wasundertaken in four phases, each of which includedcomplementary activities and deliverables. The fourphases were as follows: (i) preparatory: preparation ofan approach paper and thereafter an inception report;(ii) interim: production of the interim report based on adesk review of documents; (iii) country work: visits toeight countries in the continent; and (iv) preparation ofthe joint final evaluation report. In addition, a quality-at-entry review of a sample of recent country strategiesand projects designed by the two organizations wasconducted and the findings used in the preparation ofthe final report. The four main phases listed above werecarried out in sequence.

The interim phase consisted of a desk review ofdocuments from AfDB, IFAD and other organizations,complemented by group and individual discussionswith management and staff in both organizations.The interim phase entailed the production of workingpapers on: (i) contextual issues affecting ARD in Africaand emerging challenges and opportunities; (ii) ameta-evaluation7 of previous operations funded byIFAD and AfDB in Africa, based on a review ofexisting reports of independent evaluationsundertaken by OPEV and OE; (iii) review ofpartnerships between AfDB and IFAD and otherplayers in ARD in Africa; and (iv) analysis of businessprocesses (e.g., such as direct supervision andimplementation support) and their impact on results.The working papers were the basis for the interimreport and also informed the final report.Presentations of emerging results from the interim

phase were made to the management and staff as wellas to the Governing Bodies in IFAD and AfDB; andtheir feedback was duly considered in the finalizationof the interim report.

The country work phase, which built on the deskreview, involved country studies in Ghana, Mali,Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan andthe United Republic of Tanzania. It gave the evaluationteam an opportunity to validate the findings of theinterim report through interaction with partners ingovernments, donor representatives, project staff andcivil society organizations and beneficiaries, andthrough visits to project sites and activities. The countryvisits were complemented by a perception survey in sixof the eight countries, which aimed to collect feedbackfrom a range of partners and stakeholders about theoperations funded by the two agencies.8

At the same time, further desk work included aquality-at-entry review of a sample of recent countrystrategies, projects and programmes supported by thetwo organizations in Africa. The main aim of this studywas to determine the extent to which AfDB and IFADhad internalized key lessons learned and insights fromprevious evaluations into new strategies and projects.

The final report has been informed by thedeliverables outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Inparticular, it builds on the interim report and its fourworking papers, the country work and the perceptionsurvey as well as the quality-at-entry review. All thesemain deliverables from the evaluation can be found onthe evaluation website.9

The draft final report benefits from the commentsby the managements of AfDB and IFAD. Moreover,a consultation meeting was held in Mali to discussthe draft final report in September 2009 withrepresentatives of African governments, donors, civilsociety organizations, NGOs and others. Their maincomments have also been considered in preparing thisfinal joint evaluation report. The final evaluationreport was discussed at IFAD by the EvaluationCommittee and the Executive Board and at AfDB bythe Committee on Development Effectiveness inDecember 2009. The joint IFAD/AfDB Managementresponse to this evaluation may be seen in appendix 2.Chapter 2 of the final report analyses emergingopportunities and challenges affecting ARD in Africa.

5/ This joint evaluation reviews only the operations financed by the AfDB Agriculture and Agro-Industry Department (OSAN).6/ The IFAD supervision policy was approved by the Board in December 2006; a decision to establish country presence was made inSeptember 2007 following an evaluation by OE of the Field Presence Pilot Programme.7/ The meta-evaluation allowed the joint evaluation to assess performance and impact of IFAD and AfDB policies and operations as wellas understand the proximate causes of performance based on a thorough desk review of existing evaluative evidence.8/ Two hundred stakeholders in six countries were included in the survey, including government ministers, officials in concerned ministrieswith agriculture and rural development, private sector and civil society representatives, and multilateral and bilateral donors.9/ http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/index.htm

19

Chapter 3 provides an overview of AfDB and IFADstrategic priorities and comments on their relevance tomeet the challenges outlined in chapter 2. Chapter 4analyses the performance of past operations funded byIFAD and AfDB in Africa and outlines their work inrecent years to enhance their developmenteffectiveness through institutional reform. Chapter 5assesses the past IFAD/AfDB partnership andpartnerships with governments and other developmentactors. It also underlines the importance of the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda forAction and the Comprehensive Africa AgricultureDevelopment Programme (CAADP) in defining futureapproaches to partnerships in ARD. Chapter 6 containsthe main conclusions and recommendations.

Chapter 1 Introduction

21

T his chapter (i) sets out the ARD context in Africa,(ii) examines recent developments and currentand emerging opportunities and challenges, and

(iii) considers the implications for agencies seeking tocontribute to development. It draws on the jointevaluation working paper on The Changing Contextand Prospects for Agricultural and Rural Developmentin Africa by H. Binswanger-Mkhize and A. McCalla(2008) and findings from the country studies.

Economic and agricultural growth in Africa:

trends and implications

Economic growth, poverty, and food security

African economies have been growing in recent years.Economic growth was highly variable from 1980 to1993 but has subsequently increased, with smallerfluctuations. Since 2001, growth rates have exceededfive per cent a year. Twenty countries in Africa havegrown faster than the average rate for the developingworld since 1994. But economic growth in mostAfrican countries started from a low base. Wheregrowth improved it has reduced poverty, andagricultural growth has helped to reduce hunger. Yetsome countries still lag behind: landlocked resource-poor countries have the slowest growth rates. In general,however, the pessimism of past reports and studies isno longer justified in the light of the progress made inthe past 15 years even if the current global recession isa serious challenge for maintaining the pace.

Improved economic and agricultural performancecan be attributed to more stable macroeconomicconditions, less conflict since the mid-1990s,improved governance and market liberalization, andmore space for private initiatives thanks to animproved business environment and more appropriatedivision of labour between the public and privatesectors. This has contributed to a better investment

climate. There are also stronger regional, sub-regionaland civil society organizations that make governmentsmore accountable.

In terms of income, literacy, life expectancy andnutrition, too many Africans still live in unacceptablepoverty, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Poverty ismore prevalent and deeper in rural areas, where60 per cent to 80 per cent of the poor live, butcountries such as Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali,Senegal and Uganda have reduced poverty levels by15 or more percentage points since the early 1990s.Yet, food insecurity remains widespread. FAO estimatesthat in 2003–2005 the number of undernourishedpeople in Africa was 217 million, a quarter of thepopulation. The proportion of people living in hungerhas fallen since the early 1990s, but absolute numbershave been rising. Rates of stunting and under-weightamong young children are consistently higher in ruralareas than in towns. Progress towards meeting indicator1.9 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) –halving the proportion of people without an adequateintake of food – has been limited overall.

Most people living on US$1 a day rely on agriculturefor food and income. In sub-Saharan Africa, two thirdsof the labour force is employed in agriculture, whichcontributes a third of the continent’s GDP; agriculturesupports the livelihoods of 80 per cent of the Africanpopulation.10 Agricultural productivity has stagnatedor declined in much of Africa: the average farmer insub-Saharan Africa harvests at most 2 mt of grain perhectare, which is half of what an Indian farmer gets,a quarter of what a Chinese farmer gets and a fifth ofwhat an American farmer gets.11

Poverty in Africa leaves many of its inhabitantsvulnerable to shocks. Most of the food crises andfamines since the mid-1970s have occurred in Africa.In some cases, poverty has been a contributory factor inconflict; some of the worst conflicts have occurred inthe poorest countries.

Context for agriculture and ruraldevelopment policies:implications for strategy

10/ World Bank, 2008, p.27.11/ Ibid., p.15, fig.7.

22

African agriculture

There have been many signs of a real recovery in Africanagriculture since the mid-1990s, particularly in relationto the decline of the early 1980s, but progress has beenuneven. The evaluation found poor or modestperformance in central and eastern Africa; more solidgrowth in northern, western and southern Africa whichwas associated with better policies, more privateinvestment and higher demand for agricultural productsas a result of economic growth. In many parts of Africathe evaluation found labour productivity in agricultureincreasing from the early 1980s, even though output perhectare of maize, sorghum and yam are no higher todaythan they were in 1980.12 Like economic growth,agricultural growth varied between countries.

Yet, governments still do not give sufficient priorityto agriculture: budget allocations to the sector are verylow, in spite of the 2003 Maputo Declaration, and farshort of the 11–14 per cent of national budgets investedin agriculture that fuelled the Asian green revolutions.Government capacity remains weak and the quality ofARD institutions is generally poor, especially if they aredecentralized. New technology is often inappropriate forlocal conditions or not made easily available to farmers.Poor and unpredictable policies and chronic marketsfailures block access to markets for large-scale,intermediate and smallholder farmers alike, and deterfarmers and entrepreneurs from investing andinnovating. Demand at the farm gate is limited becauseof the high cost of getting goods to markets and inputsto farms. Insufficient attention is paid to the prominentrole of women in farming, even though the topic hasbeen on the agenda for years. International tradeconditions are especially unfavourable for Africa: this isevident in the protection and subsidy of farming by theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), and insistence that Africancountries open their borders to cheap imports, often atthe lowest prices: as a result, African agriculture receivesnegative levels of protection. Levels of aid and debt reliefare disappointing. All these factors apply in varyingdegrees at different times and places.

The global economic recession

The global economic recession that started in 2008, themost severe in 70 years, was not of Africa’s making,but the continent is nevertheless likely to suffer from it.Forecasts for economic growth for 2009 have beenrepeatedly revised downwards. In 2008, Africaneconomies grew at 5.4 per cent overall, or 3.4 per cent percapita; the most recent forecasts for 2009 indicate growthof 2 per cent with no increase in per capita output.

Growth in northern and southern Africa will bedepressed by falling demand for manufactured goods,reduced tourism and lower foreign direct investment.In other countries the threat comes from reducedremittances and aid flows and lower prices for exports.Lower prices for staple foods and oil will mitigate theseeffects in countries that import such items.

Rural areas will not escape the economic downturn:prices for agricultural produce will fall and remittanceswill decrease, with potentially severe effects in areas ofmajor emigration such as the Sahel. Demand forhigher-value foods will fall, and there will be fewer off-season and off-farm jobs. But villages that still producetheir own food and services, the norm in Africa, will besheltered from the worst effects and may even serve as asocial safety net and source of employment for urbanunemployed. Given the low income elasticity foragricultural produce, the economic downturn will nothit farming as hard as other sectors, so there is goodreason to look to maintaining the level of ruralinvestments and increasing agricultural productivityas a countermeasure.

Opportunities for agriculture and rural

development in Africa

In spite of the recession and some major challenges foragriculture, there are compelling arguments and long-term positive trends for enhanced investment in thesector. In particular, the prospects for growers oftraditional crops are good, which is encouraging giventhat such crops are the mainstay of Africa’s smallfarmers. Macroeconomic and sector policies haveimproved, providing a better investment climate for theprivate sector. The prices of agricultural products seemto be stabilizing above the relatively low levelsprevailing before the 2008 food price crisis, havingfallen from their peak because of demand created byglobal growth and the need for biofuels. This evaluationidentifies ample opportunities for farmers and agri-businesses and an important future contribution byAfrican agriculture to reducing poverty and hunger.

Despite modest progress to date, it is important torecognize the important role of agriculture in economicgrowth, employment and food security. Agriculture iscritical for household food security and povertyreduction, particularly in the African context in view ofthe vast numbers of people deriving their livelihoodsfrom agriculture. Most poor people in Africa are smalllandowners who produce for subsistence purposes and,increasingly, for the market. Development of these

12/ See http://faostat.fao.org/.

23

80–100 million smallholders13 is one of the main ways toreduce poverty, as indicated by the large body of researchevidence and field experience acquired in the last twodecades.14 According to the 2008 World DevelopmentReport, for the poorest people, gross domestic product(GDP) growth originating in agriculture is four timesmore effective in reducing poverty than GDP growthoriginating outside the sector. Agriculture is clearlysignificant, and its potential needs to be tapped.Consequently, investing in agriculture is one of the mosteffective and sustainable methods of combatingunemployment, which is often rural. The growth of theagriculture sector in several countries gives hope thatgood performance can be achieved in others that havemade less progress. The difference has much to do withdeveloping and adopting the right policies and havinginstitutions that can implement them.

Countries will require supporting macroeconomicpolicies such as an improved business climate andthe removal of negative protection of agriculturalcommodities, particularly for export, and adequateinfrastructures, all of which are important for investment.If agriculture is to contribute more widely to povertyreduction, smallholder farmers need to gain greater accessto market. Smallholders will need access to technologiesthat increase productivity and profitability, integratedinput and output supply chains, supporting institutionsand positive incentives to promote investment, and fairand open markets at home and abroad.

In the medium and long term, factors such asbiotechnology and production of biofuels providesignificant opportunities for agriculture. Dramaticchanges are already occurring in internationalagribusiness and agricultural research as a consequenceof the development of new varieties of high-yield,pest-resistant or drought-tolerant crops. This willprovide major additional opportunities for Africanfarmers, especially in domestic and regional marketsand in increasing South-South trade.

Advances in cooperation between countries inAfrica in the past 20 years, regionally and at the levelof the African Union (AU), have supported regionaltrade. Regional economic communities are committedto creating customs unions and common markets.As these moves progress, trade in Africa is increasing,although it is still well short of its potential. In theimmediate future, the main markets for Africanfarmers are in Africa: they are large and growing faster

than international markets for most agriculturalcommodities. Urbanization will increase demand forhigher-value foods.

Until recently, the large and growing Asianmarkets, particularly China and India, have beenlargely self-sufficient in food production. Economicgrowth and urbanization are resulting in increaseddemands for food and animal feed. Because they havelimited additional land – the best areas are alreadyused intensively – Asian countries are expected toimport more agricultural commodities in the future.15

In some parts of Asia, scarcity and increasing demandfor water will put pressure on irrigation systems andincrease the need for imports. With its extensive areasof under-used and potentially arable land, itsundeveloped irrigation potential and its long IndianOcean coastline giving access to Asia, Africa will bewell placed to meet this increasing demand.

The lack of a green revolution in Africa is frequentlylamented, but technical progress has been made:examples include improved, mosaic virus-free varietiesof cassava and new varieties of rice such as Nerica, thatcross the characteristics of African and Asian rice strains.Given adequate investment, conventional research andbiotechnology processes should be able to address thetechnical difficulties affecting African crops and livestock.There is a need to expand regional and nationalinstitutions of agricultural science, technology andresearch, particularly in view of the widening technologygap faced by African producers, which has to be reducedby technologies tailored to the different agro-ecologicalenvironments. Science and technology should be focusedon reducing poverty through increased productivity andgreater yields of food and on enhancing sustainability byaddressing natural resource issues such as soil fertility.

African governments, regional institutions anddevelopment partners are increasingly committed toARD. New private donors and emerging donors suchas Brazil, China and India are providing growingvolumes of aid and investment for Africa, even thoughthis increases the challenge of coordination indevelopment interventions and is further complicatedby the proliferation of donors. However, the emphasison country ownership in the Paris Declaration agendaoffers a realistic way forward.

Together, these factors provide a strong rationale forexpanded and more coherent engagement by AfDB andIFAD in ARD in Africa. As a growing agriculture sector

Chapter 2 Context for agriculture and rural development policies: implications for strategy

13/ They support a population of 400 million.14/ As stated by IFAD President Mr K. F. Nwanze, “given that around 80 percent of African food production takes place within smallholderfarms, which support about half the continent’s population, investing in agriculture is one of the most effective and sustainable methods ofcombating unemployment”.15/ There have been dramatic increases in imports to China of soybeans as animal feed and palm oil for cooking. China tries to ensureself-sufficiency in staples but is prepared to import higher-value items on a large scale.

24

is known to provide employment and reduce povertyand food insecurity, as there are many regional andworld wide markets opening up in the near future foragriculture commodities, and as new technologies andeven products (such as bio-fuels) are sweeping thecontinent, the only question is the scope and nature ofthe support for the sector, the kind of investments andpolicies required from regional governments, privatesector and civil society, as well as donors. For thisreason it is useful to take a look at the immediatechallenges, old and new, that agriculture and ruraldevelopment in Africa faces.

Challenges to agriculture and rural

development in Africa

Although Africa is developing and there are manyopportunities for agriculture, there are also somesignificant threats and lingering problems that makeARD a challenging task: these include increased climatevariability and the need to adapt to uncertainties aboutfuture trade, given that the World Trade OrganizationDoha round of trade negotiations is stalled. Longer-term problems include: (i) the difficulties of developingeffective and competitive rural input and outputmarkets, including provisions for rural finance andmarkets adjusted to new supply chains; (ii) patchyimprovements in governance and limited politicaldecentralization; (iii) inadequate financial commitmentto ARD by national governments; and (iv) severalarmed conflicts that defy resolution.

Progress in creating infrastructure is slow,particularly in terms of linking landlocked countriesand remote regions of coastal countries with the centresof demand and ports; regional integration is slow,and regional and sub-regional organizations continueto be under-funded. Vulnerability remains high,gender inequality is unresolved and there are difficultquestions of stimulating ARD in fragile states and otherlow income countries, where agriculture is particularlyimportant. To achieve the agricultural growth seenin other countries, many of these countries mustovercome additional challenges such as conflict.

And finally, although aid to ARD from traditionaland new donors in Africa is growing again, after thedeep cutbacks in the 1990’s, the current globaleconomic downturn is threatening the emergingcommitments, particularly if quality and effectivenessof aid to the sector cannot be proven and enhanced.

Rural institutions

In many African countries, cooperation among institutionsinvolved in ARD is neither efficient nor effective.

Governments, the private sector, communities and civilsociety ultimately have to work together to implementnew programmes and support systems for ARD andmust jointly and individually take on greaterresponsibility for providing services for small farmers.The institutional environment determines whocontributes to development and how successful it willbe, and it is also the most important determinant ofthe distribution of the benefits. Despite work bygovernments, donors and foundations, the bulk ofinvestment, initiative and innovation in agricultureand the rural non-farm economy comes from privateendeavour, whether small family farms, agri-businessesor multi-national food companies.

Underdeveloped markets with difficult access

Liberalization requires markets to coordinate prices,investments, production and sales. But market failurescan be particularly acute in rural areas in Africa.Potential suppliers of inputs and capital and buyers ofproduce often know little about farmers, particularlysmall farmers, and vice versa. Private investors are afraidto invest in processing and marketing facilities becausethey cannot be sure that farmers will produce enough torun a plant at capacity. Input suppliers stock too littlefertilizer or improved seeds because they do not knowenough about farmers’ needs. Rural financial systemsare underdeveloped because formal agencies face hightransaction costs in dealing with a new clientele of smallfarm households scattered over large areas.

This situation is made more pressing by changes insome agricultural supply chains, especially thoseserving export markets and supermarkets in towns.Here, the intermediaries and retailers increasinglyrequire standardized, high-quality bulk supplies totight schedules, and often with certification regardingconditions such as use of agro-chemicals and childlabour. Smallholders may struggle to meet theserequirements and end up selling in secondarychannels at lower prices.

Unequal and unfair trade

Limited access to markets – both domestic andinternational – undercuts African agriculture. Tradebarriers and export subsidies in OECD countries,inefficient production systems, and limited productquality assurance mechanisms in Africa combine tohamper trade and market access in the continent.Domestic policies also can harm farmers in Africa.Protection of farming in OECD countries depressesthe price of some commodities in world markets anddeprives African exporters of potential income.A notable case is cotton, where international priceshave been forced down by exports from large farmers

25

who benefit from generous subsidies. Moreover, Africanfarmers often cannot compete with imports of cheapsubsidized cereals and meat that benefit the urbanconsumer at the expense of the producer. In theory,more liberalized agricultural trade and deals shouldallow African farmers to export freely to the North.But in practice some exports – often those ofpromising non-traditional items such as horticultureand high-value fish – run into non-tariff barriers suchas very demanding sanitary and phyto-sanitaryregulations. Agro-industries in Africa consideringexports run into tariff escalation on processed goodswhereby there may be free access for unprocessedproduce, but tariffs rise rapidly with any additionalprocessing. These systemic market and trade issuesrequire a strategic response.

Population growth and HIV/AIDS16

Although population growth rates are falling, thepopulation of Africa is expected to grow from933 million in 2005 to 1.5 billion in 2030 and to2 billion in 2050. Agricultural growth needs to keeppace with increased demand for food, and for higher-value items as incomes rise. But the HIV/AIDSepidemic continues at high levels in eastern andsouthern Africa: although the worst fears about thepandemic have proved unfounded, countries with10 per cent or more of HIV-positive adults will incurcosts and will forego some of the economic growththey would otherwise have achieved.

Natural resource and environmental implications

Rising rural populations and intensified use of the landand water resources are already causing and likely tocause even worse environmental damage such as soilerosion and degradation, desertification, salination,deforestation, loss of biodiversity, depletion of aquifersand pollution of watercourses in the future. Watershortages may become more pressing as demand risesfrom growing populations, particularly in northern andsouthern Africa.

Land management

Land management and land tenure are a highlypolitically sensitive area in Africa. The acquisition offarmland from the world's poor by rich countries andinternational corporations is becoming a globalphenomenon that was even featured in the recentJuly 2009 G8 meeting. A number of multinational

groups are targeting the African continent fordeveloping bio-fuels production (ethanol, etc.). Theseoften involve a large demand in land acquisition andwater for irrigation. All these could severely affectsemi-commercial smallholder agriculture, unless theyare properly managed through proper land and otherpolicies that lead to a win-win situation for thecultivation of bio-fuels in Africa, in which farmers andlocal agri-business can participate.

Climate change

Farming is particularly vulnerable to climate change.It is difficult to forecast how the climate will change ingiven localities, but there is widespread agreement thatsignificant change will take place this century as aconsequence of global warming. During the 20th century,African farmers often had to cope with changingpatterns of weather from one decade to the next, butthe scale of change expected in the future is greaterthan the variations experienced in living memory.Vulnerability and risk management have always beenan important dimension of the livelihoods of manyrural Africans, who routinely face hazards fromdroughts to disease and accidents. But more and morehave to cope with multiple risks and few resources,a situation endemic in fragile states and other lowincome countries.

Agriculture and rural development in fragile states

and in other low income countries

How to stimulate agriculture and the rural economy infragile states17 and in other low income countries is animportant issue. In these countries incomes are verylow, households have often exhausted savings and otherassets and needs are widespread and pressing;governments are either weak or have few resources andlittle capacity, institutions have been undermined byshocks and private business fears to invest. Strategies insuch cases will have to be strictly sequential, focusinglimited capacity on the most pressing needs.

Agricultural research and innovations

Agricultural research, science, technology andinnovations are the keys to productivity increases andsustainability. Like other public goods, agriculturalscience and technology are under-supplied. In spite ofgood returns from agricultural research, the science andtechnology divide between sub-Saharan Africa agricultureand the rest of the world is growing because of:


16/ HIV/AIDS has the potential to decapitalize assets such as the land, savings and cattle of households and communities affected bythe disease. 17/ The World Bank lists the following states as “core” fragile states in Africa: Angola, Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republicof the Congo, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Sudan and Togo. The following are “severely fragile”: Central African Republic, theComoros, Liberia, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

26

(i) inefficient and under-funded science and technologyinstitutions in sub-Saharan Africa; (ii) a lack of effectiveidentification and extension of innovations that work;and (iii) rapid changes in the international researchenvironment towards biotechnology and privateagricultural research. This is of particular concern in viewof the role new technologies can play in adapting to thepoor climate and resource base in sub-Saharan Africa.

Regional activities

Many critical issues in ARD in Africa require regionalcooperation. For African farmers, the largestopportunities are arguably in food staples and livestockproducts for domestic and regional markets. Thisrequires adequate regional infrastructure and theremoval of trade barriers for foods, for examplethrough regional integration. Similarly, input markets –especially for fertilizer – require a regional solution.Trans-boundary collective action is needed to managenatural resources and the environment and counterplant and animal epidemics.

Gender roles and equity

African agriculture is widely differentiated in terms ofgender roles. Women have larger roles in farm andagro-industry management and in agricultural tradethan in most other parts of the world. In some caseswomen have joined the casual labour force in largenumbers. Governments and donor policies andprogrammes, however, tend to assume that farmers aremen working full time, and that information andservices need to be directed towards male heads ofhousehold. Women, often less well educated than men,are particularly disadvantaged in transactions with theoutside world: they have limited time to work becauseof household work and family responsibilities, and theyreceive less attention from extension and other services.It is not surprising that surveys show that womenfarmers often obtain lower yields than men.

Political will

There are many challenges in ARD. Some can betackled directly through good policy or well designedproject investments, others will need to be recognizedas risks to be managed. This has implications for theway sector assistance should be handled, particularlyin terms of mitigating the risks and adjustinginterventions to newly emerging opportunities andthreats. Moreover, as the challenges in ARD arenumerous and the agenda is large, it is not easy to getthe policies right, to prioritize and sequence themoptimally, and to avoid public interventions to be

spread thinly and to dissipate with little to show for.This is where political will, leadership, and goodpolicy and programme analysis and management byAfrican governments and their partners are called for.The will has clearly been increasing in recent years,as the next chapter points out, but leadership in thesector is still weak.

Changed policy context for agriculture and

rural development in Africa

Most donors and governments lost interest inagriculture in Africa in the 1990s, partly as a result ofmisguided ideas from the Washington Consensus thatthe keys to economic growth lay in overall economicpolicy and that there was little need for additionalpolicies for particular productive sectors. For much ofthe decade international food prices were low, whichdiscouraged major investments in agriculture in Africa.The importance attached to agriculture changed,however, when the MDGs were agreed in the early2000s. It was soon realized that poverty and hungerwere most prevalent and severe in rural areas and thatprogress towards MDG 1 depended largely on ARD.The recognition of the role of agriculture in promotingdevelopment has been supported by the 2008 WorldDevelopment Report, which was devoted to ARD, arecent World Bank evaluation,18 the FAO independentexternal evaluation (FAO, 2007) and this joint evaluationby AfDB and IFAD. The unexpected food price spike of2007/08 and the economic recession underminedarguments for obtaining cereals from the world market atlow cost. At a time of mounting awareness of the dangersof climate change, this has revived questions about theability of the world, and Africa in particular, to feed itselfin the medium and long term.

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme (CAADP)

The revival of interest in African agriculture wasmarked by the launch in November 2002 of CAADP,which aims to help African countries increase economicgrowth through agriculture-led development, and thesupport provided through the 2003 AU Conference ofMinisters of Agriculture in Maputo, where governmentsrecognized the need to increase their food andagricultural production to guarantee sustainable foodsecurity. By adopting the Maputo Declaration, countriesagreed to implement the CAADP agenda, whichincludes investment projects and action plans foragricultural development, at the national, regional and

18/ World Bank, 2007.

27

continental levels. These investments would be built onfour pillars: (i) land and water management, includingirrigation; (ii) market access, which involved buildinginfrastructure and the capacities of commercial andsmall farmers; (iii) food supply and hunger reduction,which included improving production and marketingand increasing trade; and (iv) agricultural research todevelop and disseminate technologies. Countriesagreed to allocate at least 10 per cent of nationalbudget resources to ARD within five years and aim toachieve a 6 per cent annual agricultural growth rate,which is seen as the minimum required if Africa is toachieve agriculture-led socioeconomic growth. CAADPwas started under the NEPAD, and is now part ofAU activities. It has taken time to implement the planfor Africa set out in the original document, but themain principles followed by CAADP include:(i) gradual rollout so that ownership is vested in

the AU and its governments; (ii) adoption of otherinitiatives, particularly the Alliance for a GreenRevolution in Africa (AGRA); and (iii) recognitionby leading donors as the pre-eminent forum fordiscussions of African agricultural issues.19

Government support for agriculture

Figure 1 shows that only eight countries have achievedthe Maputo Declaration target. In addition, nine othercountries (Benin, Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria, São Toméand Principe, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda and Zambia)are making good progress (5 per cent-10 per centtowards the target). It is, however, not clear that allthese governments are genuinely committed to theletter or the spirit of the 2003 Maputo Declaration:public spending on agriculture has been increasing, butas a share of public spending or agricultural GDP it isoften lower than in other parts of the developing world.


19/ This was clear from the attendance and the statement by the donor group at the most recent CAADP meeting in Centurion,South Africa, in March 2009.

Ethiopia

Comoros

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Niger

Senegal

Zimbabwe

2002

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Source: AU/NEPAD 2009

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 1 Countries with more than 10 per cent national expenditure on agriculture

% National expenditure on agriculture

Official development assistance support for

agriculture

Increased interest and greater spending by Africangovernments has been matched by increased officialdevelopment assistance (ODA) funding for agriculture(see figure 3). In 2002, ODA for ARD reached a low ofUS$991 million, but by 2007 it had more than doubled toUS$2,456 million. As a share of aid, the proportionallocated to ARD in the region declined from 11.8 per centto 3.5 per cent between 1995 and 2005; by 2007,however, it had recovered to 5.4 per cent. ODAcommitments for 2008 and 2009 are higher still and newbilateral donors and private foundations are becomingmore actively involved. Overall ODA is still anexceptionally low percentage compared with the11.8 per cent of ODA allocated to ARD in 1995.Finally, it is useful to underline that between 1998 and2007, IFAD and AfDB have together provided around50 per cent of total multilateral ODA for ARD inAfrica. This shows the sustained volume of support forARD by the two organizations, especially when otherdonors were drawing back in the 1990s and the earlypart of this decade.

28

Figure 2 Agricultural growth rates across sub-Saharan African countries compared to CAADP six per cent target, 2007

Source: UN Statistics Division, 2008; WDI, 2008 See http://www.resakss.org/content/AW_CAADP6_COUNTRY.gif

Agricultural growth rate, AVGAnnual %

AngolaSudanLesothoUgandaSenegalNamibiaEthiopiaDRCMalawiGhanaBeninKenyaTanzaniaMozambiqueSierra LeoneMaliTogoCongoGuinea BissauRwandaNigeriaBurkina FasoBurgundiCameroonMadagascarBotswanaZambiaNigerSwazilandGuineaSouth AfricaChadZimbabwe

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

In terms of the target for increasing agriculturalgrowth, the continent's agricultural growth ratesurpassed the CAADP 6 per cent target in 2007,reaching 6.5 per cent. Since 2003 the number ofcountries that have achieved the CAADP growth targetof 6 per cent has nearly doubled with ten countriesexceeding the 6 per cent annual agricultural growthrates (see figure 2).

Overall, the evaluation found significant support forenhanced investment in ARD in the case studycountries, though questions remain as to theeffectiveness of sector investments. The relationshipbetween past spending on ARD and agriculture growthin Africa is not straightforward: there were periods inthe 1970s and 1980s of high spending and low ormodest impact. The level of public spending on ARD isclearly important, but its composition and theeffectiveness with which it is used are critical. Thisissue requires thorough analysis and prioritization, forwhich many countries are ill equipped.

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Total ODA to agriculture and rural development in Africa

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 3 Official development assistance (ODA) to agriculture and rural development in Africa (commitments)

Note: ARD includes agriculture, forestry and fisheries.Source: http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW

OD

A to

agr

icul

ture

and

rur

al d

evel

opm

ent i

n A

fric

a(U

SS

mill

ion)

% o

f tot

al O

DA

to A

fric

a

% of total ODA in Africa

29

More external funding can be expected.Commitments for 2008 and 2009 will be higher still,given new initiatives such as the €1 billion allocationby the EU, promises of comparable amounts fromSpain and the Gulf States, and Africa’s considerableshare of the rapid-response funds for agricultureannounced by the international finance institutions(IFIs) in 2008. Private contributions have alsoincreased, notably under AGRA, with major supportfrom the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The newcentury has seen new donors such as Brazil, China,India, Korea, Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf Statesactive in Africa. The proliferation of donors is useful interms of bringing additional resources to ARD, but itentails challenges in terms of coordination in a sectorthat is often characterized by weak institutions.

Agriculture and rural development sector policy

and leadership gap

Although there was a concerted response to the foodprice crisis, and despite the useful CAADP policyumbrella, sound ARD policies and strong leadership inthe sector have been in short supply across thecontinent. Many governments, mostly in sub-SaharanAfrica, still lack adequate capacity to lead the


development and implementation of appropriate policiesand programmes in ARD combining growth and povertyreduction goals. The capacity to coordinate policies andmanage the division of labour within a complex aidarchitecture is also limited. This “policy gap” isexacerbated by the fact that there is also a “knowledgegap” in a sector which remains highly heterogeneous andknowledge intensive. This is further compounded by theregion’s heterogeneity, where local conditions andknowledge of what is needed varies widely. ARDquestions must therefore be answered on the basis ofcountry-specific knowledge such as the policy and role ofthe state in addressing market failures and unfavourableinternational conditions, the suggested role of the stateand the private sector in disseminating new technologiesand institutional innovations, and the implications of thegender-specific economic roles in African rural societies.Nevertheless, there are some positive examples ofleadership and significantly enhanced sector andinvestment strategies in several countries, includingRwanda and the United Republic of Tanzania.

CAADP holds out much promise, but still has toprove itself as a catalyst for action. Its role has evolvedover time, while its influence is still moderate.CAADP activities have been speeding up in 2009,

The sluggish entry of the private sector into inputsupply, marketing, rural finance, and technologydevelopment and dissemination in Africa has beenparticularly harmful to the development of the smallfarm sector, and determining the best ways in whichthese services should be provided remains a majorchallenge for ARD in Africa. Creating a favourableinvestment climate, spending on public goods andmarket infrastructure, fostering innovation andinstitutions, and expanding human capacity are at theheart of the agenda.

The four ʻIʼs: investment climate, infrastructure,

innovation, and institutional capacity

Increasing agricultural growth and productivity willrequire a wide range of actions to address the challengesset out in the previous sections. Priorities can besummarised in terms of “the four Is”: (i) improving theinvestment climate, through better incentives for farmersand private-sector engagement; (ii) infrastructure,including irrigation; (iii) innovation, the primary motorfor productivity growth and competitiveness; and(iv) institutional capacity. These are discussed in thefollowing paragraphs.

The investment climate for agriculture includesensuring: (i) adequate incentives for farmers from soundmacro-economic, trade and sector policies; (ii) increasedincentives for businesses and improvements in thebusiness climate; (iii) reduction of transport costs foragricultural products; and (iv) reduction of barriers tointer-regional trade. It also means confirming rights toland, particularly for women, to give farmers the securityto invest in their land. Farming should not be penalizedby the taxation, adverse international trade conditionsand negative protection for agricultural commodities thatoften harm African farmers.

Of particular importance is a fairer internationaltrade regime that would allow African farmers to tradewith the rest of the world on equal terms and thatwould prevent product dumping in Africa. This willdepend on the outcome of international agreements.Publicizing cases where African farmers are harmed byprotection and subsidies in OECD and some emergingdeveloping countries helps to ensure that Africaninterests are given due attention and that farmers andtheir associations can make their cases.

Investments in road and irrigation infrastructuresare particularly important.20 The unit costs of transportare reportedly far higher in Africa than in parts of Asia.High transport costs raise the cost of purchased inputssuch as fertilizer and bring down farm-gate prices,

30

though, and a series of country round tables organizedrecently by CAADP to develop national “compacts”could lead to increased momentum. CAADP compactsare high-level agreements between governments,regional representatives and development partnersfor a focused implementation of CAADP within therespective country (or region if it is a regionalcompact). They are meant to detail programmes andprojects addressing national priorities to which thevarious partners can commit resources.

To some extent, AfDB has been helping fill thevacuum of leadership in African ARD at theinternational level through its food price crisis, whichincluded efforts to coordinate donor support to thesector. For its part, IFAD has been actively working onthe High-Level Task Force and its coordinated responseto the food price crisis. The response to the food pricecrisis was timely, but has not been extended to addresslonger term strategic issues in the sector. The respectiveagencies have also taken the policy lead in some criticalsub-sectors in several countries in Africa, for example,in water management (AfDB) or in rural finance andcommunity development (IFAD). But neither agencyhas been capable of providing leadership in ARD as awhole, at regional or country level, nor is any otheragency doing so consistently. The World Bank has notyet regained its former leadership role in the sector afterits relative disengagement in the 1990s. The nextchallenge for AfDB and IFAD in Africa is to step upfrom niches of policy dialogue to the sector level, toactively engage with governments, with other donors,the private sector, and with regional and sub-regionalbodies including CAADP, and work towards moregovernment leadership and a more effective aidarchitecture for ARD in Africa.

Strategic implications for agriculture and


The ARD challenges, opportunities, and new policycontext described in the previous chapter suggesta strategic agenda for action that covers the rangefrom enhancing agricultural productivity and marketsthrough infrastructure, innovations andinstitutional changes to concerns for social andenvironmental vulnerabilities.

Any efforts to enhance African agriculture will haveto focus first on smallholders, particularly womenfarmers, and ensure that agri-businesses and other ruralinstitutions thrive and contribute to shared growth.

20/ Fan and Rao (2003) show that although public spending on agriculture raises agricultural growth rates in all developing countries, the effectcomes largely from particular forms of spending in agriculture, through investments in roads and irrigation, and in research and education.

31

which reduce incentives. Also, only 7 per cent of arableland in Africa is irrigated – the figure is even lower insub-Saharan Africa – compared with 33 per cent inAsia. Irrigation and water management promise to raiseproduction and help farmers to deal with a morevariable future climate. Given the poor record ofinvestments in large-scale public irrigation schemes,the focus should be on small-scale schemes that can bemanaged by groups of farmers themselves.

Studies show high returns for investment inagricultural research and innovation in Africa. They alsoshow that many countries in Africa spend smallerfractions of agricultural GDP on research than middle-income and high-income countries.21 There is a need toexpand regional and national agricultural science,technology and research institutions such as universitiesand bio-technology networks, particularly in view of thewidening technology gap faced by African producers.This gap has to be closed by technologies tailored tomany different agro-ecological environments and thelatest bio-technology research. Science and technologyshould be focused on reducing poverty by expandingfood production and enhancing sustainability.

Institutional and human capacity development iscritical. Four types of institutions need to collaborateto support farmers in gaining access to credit, extensionand markets, as well as in local and communitydevelopment. These include: (i) the private sector,including businesses and farmers’ and producers’associations; (ii) communities and civil societyorganizations; (iii) decentralized governmentinstitutions; and (iv) traditional sector institutions,which need reform to become more focused, efficientand effective. Collaboration among these institutionsmust be led and fostered by governments, with supportfrom donor agencies as necessary. Governments, whichhave policy and financial responsibilities, need to drivedecentralization and public-sector reform;opportunities to combine public and private initiativesshould become apparent and ways to link small farmerswith firms providing inputs, services and process ormarket outputs should emerge.

In developing institutional and human capacity it iscritical to improve the capacity and efficiency of corepublic institutions, partly by replacing capacity lost as aresult of past cuts in public spending, and to invest inthe education and health of the farming population,particularly in terms of girls’ schooling.22 Institutions thathelp to mitigate market failures need to be fosteredthrough the promotion of innovations and learning.


Developing institutional measures to remedymultiple market failures is a major challenge foragriculture in Africa. Solutions have been found tosome of them: examples include (i) contract farming,public training and underwriting of input suppliers;(ii) brokering by third parties in deals between groupsof small farmers and buyers; (iii) the formation offarmers’ associations; and (iv) group lending. Suchapproaches are often specific to local conditions, somodels cannot be transferred without adaptation.

Greater attention must be given to making ruralfinance and credit markets viable in a challengingenvironment. This is an area where innovation isneeded: new financial products need to be developedso that micro-finance can be profitable in rural areaswhere populations are dispersed and transaction costshigh. The solution to farm investment constraints needsto come from improved agricultural incentives, bettermarkets and increased profitability so that farmers caninvest in their farms and repay loans. This can besupported by accessible low-cost savings mechanismssuch as postal savings accounts.

Reducing risks and vulnerability

There is increasing awareness of the need to find moreeffective ways to reduce and manage the risks facingfarmers and rural people, and hence reduce vulnerability.Climate change, environmental and natural resourcemanagement issues will have to be addressed; themeasures required will vary according to locality andcontext, but they will involve conservation of soil andwater. Recent initiatives by other agencies includeweather-related insurance for small farmers and socialprotection programmes designed to prevent the vulnerablefrom slipping into destitution. The sooner this can bedone, the easier it will be to cope with altered climate inthe future. There is a need to focus on innovation, scienceand technology with a view to reducing poverty byexpanding food production and enhancing sustainability.

Gender equity

Remedying gender inequity remains a major challengebecause farm work is carried out to a large extent bywomen. Raising awareness is a priority; other activitiesshould include: (i) providing extension servicesoriented towards women farmers; (ii) helping todevelop financial systems that meet women’s needs inrural areas; and (iii) reducing the burden of householdwork and childcare by, for example, providing cleanwater close to settlements.

21/ Pardey et al. (2008) report 0.7 per cent of agricultural GDP for sub-Saharan Africa, compared with 2.4 per cent in high-incomecountries, 1.4 per cent in Brazil and 3 per cent in South Africa.22/ Fan and Rao (2003) record high returns on investments in rural schooling and primary healthcare.

resources, while engaging with more difficult issues.Much will depend on context. There will be a premiumon knowledge and understanding, which will involvethe participation of local people and use of theirexperience. The “blueprint” approach to planning andimplementation is risky: it is better to proceed by trialand error and to learn from experience.

The emergence of new donors and foundationsworking on ARD and increased funding requiresdonors and international aid agencies to work inpartnerships with each other and with Africancountries in the spirit of the Paris Declaration; eachshould identify its comparative advantages. Given thatdonors and foundations will vary by country,relationships and specializations need to be developedat country level. With more actors engaged, the value ofCAADP as a coordinating mechanism increases.

The complex, broad, and rapidly changing strategicagenda for ARD outlined in this chapter already pointto a set of characteristics of strategic support for ARD inAfrica that all international agencies, including AfDBand IFAD, and regional governments will have to dealwith in designing their programmes:

(i) Interrelationship. There are many things that need to be done, and some of them areclearly interrelated, such as increasedproductivity, enhanced market access, andinstitutional development.

32

Addressing complexity: differentiating the

agriculture and rural development agenda

The main elements of the agenda are clear, but thedetail has to be adapted to national circumstances. Inthis respect, it may help to bear in mind four differentintervention areas along two dimensions: (i) policiesthat do not require investments and programmes thatdo, and (ii) simple, proven approaches that can beimplemented with confidence and complex approachesrequiring adaptation to context. Table 1 illustrates thesedifferences; the listing is of course not exhaustive, norcan all actions be neatly divided.

Ideally, all of the agenda should be addressed at anygiven time, but in many countries, and especially infragile states, limited capacity to analyse, design andimplement policy and investments means thatdevelopment efforts need to be sequenced. What thenshould be the sequences? Unfortunately, while somebroad guides are evident – for example, when thebasics in Table 1 are lacking, then this is probablywhere the sequence starts, moving subsequently tomore difficult issues – the detail of sequences in givensituations is not well understood. Further questions ofsequencing can probably be answered only by moredetailed analysis at country level.

The ARD agenda can be seen in terms of proceedingwith the basics, given the political commitment and

BasicsRelatively simple; proven;low risk; widely agreed

ComplexMore difficult; high risk;complex; disputedneeds innovationand adaptation

• Stable macro-economy.• No disproportionate tax on farmers

whether direct and explicit or indirect. • Commitment to improving the

investment climate.• Inclination towards more open trade,

both with the world and especially withneighbouring countries.

• Kick-starting development by offeringadditional support to farmers such assubsidies on inputs and credit or byprotecting some activities fromcompetition from imports.

• Setting development strategies in fragilestates when needs are many, resourcesfew and capacity low.

• Agricultural research• Roads• Rural education• Primary health care• Irrigation, preferably small-scale and

locally owned

• Balance public investment between higherand lower potential areas.

• Deal with market failures, including those ofhigh transaction costs and coordinationfailures, counter monopoly power, throughinstitutional innovation.

• Promote rural financial systems. • Conserve natural resources.• Promote more equitable gender relations.• Protect land rights, promote tenure that is

fair and efficient.• Promote the rural non-farm economy.• Reducing risks faced by poor rural

households.

Table 1 Different agriculture and rural development intervention areas

Investments and programmesPolicies

(ii) Sequencing. Certain activities can besequenced, and many even need to be. But theright sequencing also points to the need forpriority setting within the sector at countryand other levels.

(iii) Complexity. Interventions vary in their degreeof complexity, from basic and relativelystraightforward and easy to implement tohighly complex.

(iv) Heterogeneity. The heterogeneity of Africasuggests very different kinds of interventionapproaches in different settings. This is mostevident in the different intervention areas formiddle income countries versus fragile statesand other low income countries, but appliessimilarly for agro-climatic conditions andmarket opportunities. Context analysis is key.

(v) Levels of intervention. There are differentlevels for policy and investment interventions,


ranging from the regional, sub-regional,national to the sub-national level. Forobvious reasons, the country level is themost important one, but needs to becomplemented more actively than so farby regional and sub-regional actions, aswell as by a decentralized focus at sub-national, local and community level.

(vi) Setting priorities. Flexibility and partnering.It is likely, that the strategic agenda can onlybe partly covered and over time. All agenciesinvolved need to set priorities, while at thesame time they need to keep the necessaryflexibility to respond to emergingcircumstances. Selectivity and partneringare essential.

What IFAD and the AfDB have been and arecurrently doing to address this agenda will be reviewedin the following chapter.

• African economies have been growing in recent years. This growth is not uniform. Landlocked and resource–poorcountries usually have the slowest growth rates.

• Macroeconomic and sector policies have improved, and commodity prices appear to be stabilizing at higher levels.

This provides a better investment climate for the private sector and opportunities for agricultural development, eventhough the current global recession poses a serious challenge for maintaining the pace of growth of recent years.

• Agriculture has the potential to be an engine for growth. Agricultural growth supports economic growth; it is essentialin reducing poverty, hunger and malnutrition and in achieving the MDGs. The prospects for growers of traditional cropsare good, which is the mainstay of Africa’s small farmers. To support agricultural growth, an enabling environment mustbe created and private-sector investment in agriculture must be enabled through improved roads to reduce transportcosts, scientific and technological advances to improve productivity, enhance sustainability, and market development togive access to input/output markets to all actors, including smallholder farmers and women.

• Development led by the private sector and commercialization of small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. This is one ofthe main ways of reducing poverty and contributing to agricultural growth. But there are numerous challenges forsmallholders, many of whom are women.

• Political will. This is required to prioritize and support agriculture; it is emerging through CAADP and theMaputo Declaration.

• Changing aid systems. These include: (i) re-engagement by donors in terms of support for ARD in Africa; (ii) consensuson the Paris Declaration and its focus on country-led policy and operations; and (iii) numerous new donors providingassistance for ARD, which is having an impact on transactions costs for countries in Africa.

• Other challenges. To support growth it will be necessary to: (i) cope with unfavourable external conditions such asnorthern countries’ subsidies and protectionist policies; (ii) resolve conflicts; (iii) mitigate the impacts of epidemics;(iv) cope with uneven improvements in governance and limited political decentralization; (v) address slow regionalintegration and the under-funding of regional and sub-regional organizations; (vi) deal with inadequate national fiscalcommitment to ARD; (vii) increase the volume and quality of aid from traditional donors; (viii) accelerate progress increating infrastructures linking land-locked countries and remote regions of coastal countries to the centres of demandand to ports; and (ix) deal with land management and land tenure issues. These issues are exacerbated in fragile states,which will require new approaches.

• Policy, leadership and knowledge gap. Barring in some countries, there is a policy, leadership and knowledge gapin ARD. This is a result of the complexity and heterogeneity of ARD in Africa, inadequate leadership, weakknowledge systems, poor institutional capacity, and insufficient policy formulation and implementation capacity inmany African countries.

Box 1 Challenges and opportunities in Africa

33

35

T his chapter describes how AfDB and IFAD areaddressing the ARD challenges outlined inchapter 2. This is preceded by an overview of

ARD operations and policies of the two organizations sothat readers can gain an appreciation of IFAD and AfDBstrategies, priorities, focus and approaches in Africa.

AfDB and IFAD operations in agriculture and


Overview

IFAD and the AfDB have been and remain significantplayers in ARD in Africa. They have provided thecontinent with a combined cumulative total of morethan US$10 billion in loans and grants for the purpose,which increases to about US$17 billion whencofinancing and borrower contributions are included.These are substantial amounts and do not includeancillary investments, mainly by the AfDB, in generalrural infrastructure such as transport, communicationsand power, as well as rural health and rural education.

The importance and relevance of IFAD and AfDB inrecent years is reflected in a comparison of officialdevelopment assistance commitments to ARD in Africaon the part of the largest international donors (seeappendix 4). Although uneven, there was a generallyupward trend in aid commitments to ARD by alldonors during the period 1976-1990. Thereafter,combined commitments by main donors declined bytwo thirds until the late 1990s when they again beganto recover. This recovery was driven by the combinedefforts of the AfDB and IFAD, which have more thandoubled their commitments since 1997: most otherdonors have more or less flat-lined or even reducedtheir aid. More specifically, and as mentioned before,between 1998 and 2007, the two organizationsaccounted for almost 50 per cent of all multilateral aidfor ARD to Africa. Since then, the contribution ofAfDB and IFAD has decreased to a certain extent, asother donors, in particular the World Bank, the EC,and new bilateral donors have increased their officialassistance to ARD. Yet, in terms of volume of aid

commitments to ARD, AfDB and IFAD remainsubstantial players in Africa.

The two agencies involved in this review are quitedifferent. IFAD is an inherently ARD sector-specializingorganization with defined niches, operating in all worldregions spanning over 100 countries. It supportssmallholder farmers, women and the rural poor, andfocuses on pro-poor innovation, gender mainstreaming,rural institutions, and community development. IFADalso works with small producers and entrepreneurs toenhance their access to markets. The Fund is relativelysmall, with about 250 professional staff.

AfDB is a multi-sector organization, although it isseeking to be more selective and narrow its scope. Itoperates in 54 African countries and has a much largercadre (about 700 professional staff) spanning severaldisciplines. Although AfDB has a broad agenda, it isincreasingly focusing on the provision of majorinfrastructure and improving governance. AfDB is alsoscaling up its operations with large scale enterprises.It seems clear that the mandates and policies of the twoinstitutions are distinct, but complementary, and are,separately and together, highly relevant to Africa’scurrent and future needs in ARD.

In 2008 alone, IFAD approved ARD financing ofUS$235 million (loans and grants) in 13 Africancountries, while in the same year AfDB providedUS$360 million to 17 countries. The total ARDportfolios for IFAD and AfDB in Africa in 2008 wereUS$2.09 billion and US$3.98 billion, respectively,with ongoing activities in almost all countries in thecontinent. These are substantial amounts and do notinclude, as mentioned above, ancillary investments,mainly by the AfDB, in general rural infrastructuresuch as transport, communications and power, aswell as rural health and rural education. AfDB’sindividual operations in ARD in Africa are typicallylarger than IFAD’s.

In IFAD, investment projects and programmes inAfrica comprise more than 40 per cent of its ongoingglobal portfolio and new annual commitments. Of allthe countries borrowing from IFAD around the globe,most are located in Africa, and most of these receive

Relevance of AfDB and IFADin the changing agriculture andrural development context in Africa

36

loans on highly concessional rates.23 The operations inAfrica are managed respectively by the Eastern andSouthern Africa, Western and Central Africa, and NearEast and North Africa divisions. IFAD was only allowedto undertake direct supervision and implementationfollowing the approval of the Fund’s supervision policyin December 2006 and is increasingly moving in thatdirection. Likewise, traditionally, IFAD has been aheadquarters-based organization. Only in the past4-5 years has it started to establish country presence,which is still quite limited though gradually expanding.

At the AfDB, the relative importance of newlyapproved investments specifically for agriculture in itsportfolio has declined somewhat over the past decadefrom about 13 per cent of all loan approvals in 2004-2006 (and an even higher 18 per cent for the periodbefore), to about 8 per cent for 2007/2008. This is dueto the rapidly increasing overall volume of lending atthe Bank over the past decade, whereas lending foragriculture remained relatively constant. The absolutevolume of investments for agriculture since 2001stabilized at around US$350 million annually (reachingUS$360 million in 2008 as mentioned above).24

Also, many ARD activities with relevance in the AfDBare financed through other sectors, such as publicinvestments in rural roads and transport, energy,communications or water for household consumption.Since 2006, AfDB’s expanded private sector operationshave been increasingly focusing on agri-businessinvestments, through large-scale private operations(above US$15 million) and public-private partnerships,particularly in middle-income countries.

Policies of IFAD and AfDB in agriculture and

rural development

Both agencies have adjusted and focused their policiesand strategies for ARD in Africa in recent years, to alignthem with the new unfolding economic andinternational aid landscape. The AfDB has recentlyredefined its vision and role in agriculture in the newMedium-Term Strategy for 2008-2012 and hassubsequently refocused its rather wide-ranging ARDpolicy of January 2000 on fewer activities. IFADformulated a new strategic framework for 2007-2010,building on a set of regional strategies issued in 2002.Both agencies are concerned about poverty reduction:

IFAD through directly targeting poor small and landlessfarmers and women, AfDB primarily by supporting thedrivers of stronger and more equitable growth, andeconomic integration. Table 2 summarizes and comparesthe strategic objectives and priorities of AfDB and IFAD.

IFAD’s main objective is that rural women and menin developing countries are empowered to achievehigher incomes and improved food security at thehousehold level, among other issues, by promotingbetter natural resources management, access tofinancial services, improved technologies, andtransparent input and output markets. Its mainprinciples of engagement are selectivity and focus,targeting, empowering the rural poor, innovation,effective partnerships and sustainability.

The new AfDB vision and strategy emphasizesinvestments in infrastructure, governance, privatesector and higher education. Investments in these corethematic priority areas are supposed to support theBank’s goals in poverty reduction, regional integration,human development, and agriculture. This new focuscompares with a stronger emphasis on rural andhuman development in the previous vision andstrategy of the early 2000s. In line with the newcorporate thematic priority areas the Bank’sDepartment of Agriculture and Agri-business (OSAN)developed a new departmental business plan in2007/08 to complement and update the oldAgriculture and Rural Development Policy of January2000. The extensive and efficient response by the Bankto the food price crisis in 2008 helped to further refinethe new priorities for the sector.

The OSAN is responsible for agriculture and thepart of rural infrastructure most closely connected toagriculture (e.g. rural feeder roads, irrigation or ruralfinance). Its current business plan and strategy isselective and focused on agriculture and agri-businessrather than on broader rural development issues asbefore. Under this new strategy, OSAN interventionsare largely concentrated on: (i) support for ruralinfrastructure; (ii) growth in crop productivity,particularly through water, rural roads, and fertilizer;(iii) development of post-harvesting technologies,markets, and agro-industry; (iv) livestock and fisheriesproduction; (v) natural resource management; and(vi) adaptation to climate change. The Bank’s new

23/ IFAD lends on highly concessional, intermediate and ordinary rates. The highly concessional rates do not entail an interest rate forloans, but just a service charge of 0.75 per cent. 24/ The African Development Fund (ADF) is part of the Bank Group. The African Development Bank Group provides a wide range oflending products. The relative decline in ARD funding noted above is more pronounced for the Bank’s non-concessional window formiddle-income countries than for concessional funds from its ADF window, which provides concessional loans and grants to Africa’spoorest countries. No interest is charged on ADF loans; however, the loans carry a service charge of 0.75 percent per annum onoutstanding balances.

37

business plan for agricultural water development andwater storage enhancement which was submitted tothe Board in July 2009 is a good example of the Bank’snew focus and partnership approach in agriculture(see box 2).

Its ambitious goals build on full alignment withCAADP, and the division of labour and financingamong a committed group of international partners,including IFAD, the World Bank, FAO, and theInternational Water Management Institute.

Chapter 3 Relevance of AfDB and IFAD in the changing agriculture and rural development context in Africa

Corporate goals

Main priorities for ARD

Principles ofengagement

“The Bank will increase selectivity, withparticular operational focus on infrastructure,governance, developing a more robust privatesector and higher education. Throughinvestments in these areas the Bank willcontribute directly to regional integration,middle income countries, and fragile statesassistance, human development andagriculture.”

“The Bank will have a focus on povertyreduction, primarily by supporting the driversof stronger and more equitable growth,opportunity and economic integration.”

For agriculture, the corporate focus of AfDB oninfrastructure, governance, private-sectorinvolvement and higher education translatesinto the following strategic priorities:• Expanded rural infrastructure and crop

productivity, particularly in terms of waterfor agriculture, rural roads, and fertilizer

• Special focus on rice, livestock, andfisheries

• Post-harvest technologies, markets, andagri-business investments

• Natural resource management and climatechange adaptation and mitigation

Through • Capacity-building and policy advice for

agricultural governance and trade• Stimulated private-sector investments and

public/private partnerships in agriculture • Promotion of African science, technology

development and agricultural research

• Gender mainstreaming• Climate change and environment• Knowledge generation and innovation

“Enable the poor to overcome their povertyby fostering social development, genderequity, income generation, improvednutrition, environmental sustainability andgood governance through empoweringpoor people, giving them more and betterknowledge, expanding their influence onpolicy and enhancing their bargainingpower in the marketplace.”

Strengthen the capacity of poor ruralpeople through empowerment andinstitution-building so that they have theskills and organizations required to:• Improve rural development policies• Raise agricultural and natural resource

productivity (land and water) andimprove access to technology

• Increase access to financial and othermarkets

• Reduce vulnerability to major shocks• Diversify rural employment

• Strategic focus• Targeting• Empowerment of poor rural people• Gender equity• Partnerships• Innovation, learning and scaling up

Table 2 AfDB and IFAD strategic objectives for agriculture and rural development in Africa

IFAD (since 199826)AfDB (since 2007/200825)

25/ From AfDB’s Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2012; the African Development Bank Group Response to the Economic Impact of theFinancial Crisis, 2009; and the draft 2007 Agriculture and Agro-Industry Department (OSAN) strategy and business plan. 26/ From the Strategic Framework for IFAD 2002-2006, Rome, 2002; and the IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010, Rome, December 2006.The new Strategic Framework rearranged, but did not fundamentally change, the objectives.

38

For IFAD, three quotations from the IFAD StrategicFramework 2007–2010 convey its strategy best:

(i) “IFAD’s overarching goal is that rural womenand men in developing countries areempowered to achieve higher incomes andimproved food security at the household level.IFAD will aim to ensure that, at the nationallevel, poor rural men and women have betterand sustainable access, and have developed theskills and organization they require, to takeadvantage of: (a) natural resources (land andwater); (b) improved agricultural technologiesand effective production services; (c) a broadrange of financial services; (d) transparent andcompetitive agricultural input and producemarkets; (e) opportunities for rural off-farmemployment and enterprise development; and(f) local and national policy and programmingprocesses, in which they participate effectively.”

(ii) “Selectivity and focus: IFAD will not workoutside rural areas. It will not target thenon-poor. It is not mandated to responddirectly to emergencies and provide relief.IFAD will finance social service delivery – localwater supplies, health and education facilities –only in response to the defined needs of localcommunities, where the facilities are limited inscope and critical for the achievement ofproject objectives, and where other financingsources are not available. IFAD’s expertise isspecific to the rural sector: it will engage inpolicy dialogue only in the areas of itscompetence, and it will not use general budgetsupport as a means for disbursing its resources.Targeting: Its target group is made up ofextremely poor rural people who have thecapacity to take advantage of the economicopportunities offered by IFAD engagements.”

Under the African Food Crisis Response the AfDB targets, among others, to develop an area up to 500,000 ha underimproved agriculture water management (AWM) which represents about 3.8 per cent of the total irrigated area in Africa.Meanwhile, investments in water storage capacity by at least 1 per cent (an additional storage of 8.5 Billion Cubic Meters-BCM) will provide enough water to irrigate new areas up to 767,000 ha and hydro-power generation of about 1,181 MW.

According to its new Business Plan for Agricultural Water Development, for 2008-2013 the Bank, in collaboration with otherpartners, is expected to embark on the preparation and implementation of operations aiming to achieve these targets.The Bank recognizes the need for a workable division of labour. A working group on ‘Investment in agricultural water forpoverty reduction and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa’ was established together with World Bank, FAO, IFAD andthe International Water Management Institute.

The development of Water Business Plan has been guided by the CAADP pillars and the African Water Vision 2025.It pays particular attention to the principles of integrated water resources management, enhanced regional integration andtrans-boundary water management, and effective mainstreaming of gender equality and impact of climate change.

The development of the work program was jointly prepared by the Agriculture and Agro-industry Department (OSAN),the Infrastructure Department and in collaboration with and Water and Sanitation Department.

The total estimated investment requirements of the proposed business plan for improved agriculture water managementand water storage is estimated at about UA 4,941 million of which the Bank could finance a share of about 30-40 per cent,in collaboration with other cofinancing partners and governments. In addition to cofinancing the infrastructure, the Bank willreach out for partners to support non-core competence activities including support of extension services, provision ofimproved seeds and agronomic practices, and the management of farmers’ organizations.

Box 2 The Bank’s new business plan for agricultural water development

39

(iii) “All elements of IFAD’s country programmeswill be expected to be innovative. Yetinnovation without scaling up is of little value”(IFAD, 2007a).

In recent years, IFAD has produced policy paperson indigenous peoples and rural finance (2009),improving access to land and tenure security (2008),sector-wide approaches (SWAps) (2006), knowledgemanagement and innovations (2007) and supervisionand implementation support (2006). The Private SectorDevelopment and Partnership Strategy (2005) containsan innovative definition of the rural private sector:“IFAD’s direct target group is the rural poor, who tendto be concentrated at the smaller end of the private-sector continuum. This group is considered part of theprivate sector because, in essence, it comprises agro- orrural-based micro entrepreneurs who make their owneconomic decisions regarding what to produce andhow to produce it, what to buy and sell, who to buyfrom and sell to, how much to buy or sell, and when.”

IFAD produced three regional strategies27 for Africain 2002; they tailored the Strategic Framework 2002–2006 to the regional contexts, and provided aframework for country strategy formulation and projectand programme design. But they have not beenenhanced since, even when the Strategic Framework2007–2010 was introduced. The decision bymanagement in 2006 not to develop further regionalstrategies may not have been appropriate.

The evaluation sees AfDB and IFAD and theirmandates as follows: (i) AfDB, the larger of the two,has a broader mandate that allows it to finance orcofinance certain types of programmes such as large-scale infrastructure projects and support for regionalinstitutions that are beyond the capacities of IFAD andhave benefits for poor and non-poor populationgroups. As a regional institution, it has influence at thecontinental level that it can leverage in partnership withinstitutions such as the AU and NEPAD andsub-regional organizations. (ii) IFAD focuses onempowering poor agricultural producers in all aspectsof their agricultural and development activities andorganizations. It aims at creating opportunities toinnovate and collaborate with others to scale upinnovations that have been successful piloted throughthe operations it finances. IFAD also provides fundingtowards various national programmes such asagricultural research and rural finance that have asignificant impact on rural poverty and policies.

In the last few years, both institutions haveincreasingly sought to use country strategies and aprogramme-based approach to guide their work.In 2005 and 2006, the two agencies introduced newresults-based formats for developing their countrystrategy documents. These country programmes reflecta shift in strategy: to make the country the principalunit of account in order that country portfolios ofloans and grants, complemented by knowledgemanagement, policy dialogue and knowledgemanagement, are designed to be well aligned with thepoverty reduction strategies of partner countries. Suchstrategies and programmes are expected to capturesynergies that render the results greater than the sumof the individual parts.

AfDB and IFAD response to challenges

in agriculture and rural development

in Africa

This section provides a snapshot of ways in whichAfDB and IFAD have responded to some of thechallenges affecting ARD in Africa. These include the“policy gap” identified above, under-supply of publicgoods, regional integration, access to markets, private-sector engagement, gender, international trade,challenges associated with the multi-dimensionalnature of poverty, and climate change.

The role of AfDB and IFAD in policy dialogue andfilling the leadership and policy gap has been limited:neither has seen policy dialogue as its mandate or itsstrength in the past, being concerned primarily withfunding investments. But both have been increasingtheir attempts to influence policy at the sub-sectorlevel, for example in artisanal fisheries (IFAD) andwater management (AfDB), drawing on the experienceof the investment projects funded.

There has generally been an under-supply ofpublic goods in ARD. Over the years, AfDB hasfinanced with priority the construction andmaintenance of rural roads and power supply, aswell as irrigation systems. With recognized capacityin these sub-sectors, AfDB is able to give valuedadvice to governments. IFAD has also supporteddevelopment of local infrastructures, for example byinvesting in feeder roads and small irrigation systems,as well as in health, education, and drinking watersupply in partnership with the Belgian Survival Fund.


27/ (i) West and Central Africa, (ii) East and Southern Africa, and (iii) North Africa in the framework of the strategy for Near Eastand North Africa.

40

But both organizations could do more to fill the largegap, particularly in closer cooperation with the privatesector. The evaluation found that good or promisingresults were achieved when investments were made inregional public goods such as agricultural research –examples include the IFAD roots and tubers programmein West Africa, AfDB funding for Nerica rice, and controlof animal diseases and locusts by AfDB and IFAD.

Both AfDB and IFAD are paying special attentionto farmers’ access to markets. The IFAD StrategicFramework 2007–2010 includes promoting access tomarkets and engagement of the private sector. Recentcountry strategies and operations have emphasizedcommodity value chain approaches, the provision ofrural finance and the commercialization of small farmersin general. AfDB specifically focuses on enhancedmarketing through better post-harvest technologies,rural market infrastructure, and agri-businessdevelopment, lately through its private sector window.Both agencies recognize the importance of the privatesector in promoting access to markets, but their effortsin the past have not matched the important role of theprivate sector in ARD.

Neither AfDB nor IFAD has systematically engagedin a debate on the issue of international trade. Thiswould not matter if there were other agencies active inthis area, but there are few and it is arguably a donor“blind spot”. Not much has been done by donors toremedy the imbalance of small African countries tryingto negotiate in Geneva with a team of one or two ofteninexperienced officials, while OECD countries arrivewith numerous staff. IFAD’s growing assistance forfarmers’ federations may contribute to this problembeing taken more seriously, because the federations canadvocate with governments and draw the attention ofinternational donors to the topic, but this is clearly notenough. Therefore, there are opportunities for the twoorganizations – in particular the Bank – to increasetheir involvement in this topic: for example, by helpingto build the capacity of African governments to engagein international trade negotiations.

In terms of land management, as mentionedbefore, IFAD has issued a policy in 2008 onimproving access to land and tenure security. In 2006the Bank, in collaboration with the AU Commissionand UNECA, initiated a process for the developmentof a framework and guidelines for land policy andland reform in Africa with a view to strengtheningland rights, enhancing productivity and securinglivelihoods for the majority of the continent’spopulation. This policy framework and guidelineswere adopted at the AU Summit in Libya recently.

AfDB and IFAD recognize the importance ofpromoting gender equity. Both have gender actionplans, as well as guidelines on gender issues for staffpreparing projects. Both agencies try to ensure that thepractical interests of women are taken into account intheir projects, with IFAD being particularly concernedabout poor women’s empowerment. But the social andpolitical environments into which these inputs aremade are often not receptive, though they arechanging, and it is especially difficult to ensure thatwomen have a say in decision-making. Current effortson gender by both agencies are not commensuratewith the scale and importance of this issue. Forexample, as mentioned in chapter 4, the jointevaluation found that only few past projects treatedgender mainstreaming with due attention.

Climate change is another area of challenge. BothAfDB and IFAD are addressing climate change andhave dedicated units at their headquarters, but staffhas little experience of policy and operational work inthis area. Given the varied nature of problems ofnatural resource management, it is difficult to judgehow well the work of AfDB and IFAD matches theneeds. AfDB plans to work more on these issues: ifthere is a focus on water management, this wouldcomplement its work on irrigation and drainage.Through its partnership with the United NationsGlobal Mechanism of the United Nations Conventionto Combat Desertification and the International LandCoalition, IFAD also has an opportunity to enhance itsactivities related to climate change.

In terms of vulnerability the Bank and IFADstepped up to the challenge of rising food prices in2008. Within three months the Bank developed acomprehensive US$600 million programme byrealigning its existing portfolio and providing quick-disbursing budget support. Similarly, IFAD alsoquickly committed funds to tackle the crisis, both forthe immediate and the longer term. But as a whole,programmes and projects that directly addressvulnerability are rare in AfDB and IFAD as theyremain focused on providing support for investmentsin agriculture which are part of the longer-termsolution to the food price crisis. Increasing socialprotection programmes is not needed from the twoagencies, given the many efforts by other donors andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) withgovernment to pilot social protection initiatives.A more pertinent issue is the extent to which risksconfronting poor rural households are treated withinprojects that are not primarily about risk. Ideally,given the prevalence and importance of risk, this

41

theme should be appearing in project design as amainstream concern. For instance, the use of farming as a safety net against vulnerable situations is not always appreciated.

In the context of vulnerability, the specialcircumstances of fragile states and other low incomecountries deserve more attention. Although the AfDBhas a focus in its 2008 Medium-Term Strategy onfragile states and IFAD has a strong mandate to workwith the poorest and most marginal, both agenciesseem to have favoured low-income countries that arenot fragile, AfDB to a greater extent than IFAD.However, AfDB now has a fragile states policy andIFAD operations in fragile states are currently guidedby its 2006 Policy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery.

The joint evaluation made an attempt to judge theextent to which the agencies design projects that takeinto account recent thinking about pertinent issues.Four topics in ARD were selected – community-basedrural development, irrigation, livestock and ruralfinance. For each of these, the literature was reviewedto establish the main recommendations fromcontemporary understanding of the topic, and thenfour or more recently planned and approved projectsin each of the areas were compared against thesecriteria. The findings did suggest that in many respectsmost of the programmes did indeed incorporate theimplications of current wisdom. Put otherwise, none ofthe programmes appeared to ignore many of thecritical points.

In sum, both IFAD and AfDB have a clear corporatevision of what they should do, and also – importantly –what they should not do with regard to ARD in Africa.Although there is some room for improvement, asnoted above, both institutions are nevertheless highlyrelevant to the challenges facing the sector.

The challenge of multiple problems and complexity

Both IFAD and AfDB face a heterogeneous and complexARD context in Africa. Rural poverty is multifaceted,and the institutions often confront situations ofmultiple disadvantages. In response to this, bothagencies in the past adopted a comprehensive approachto agriculture development and combating povertyrather than defining a clear strategic focus and beingselective. A common reaction in IFAD and AfDB hasbeen to design interventions that tackle many of theproblems seen, resulting in projects with multiplecomponents. (See appendix 11 for the evolution of sub-sector shares in AfDB’s and IFAD’s agriculture and ruraldevelopment portfolio in Africa).

This is also partly due to the insufficiency ofanalytical work undertaken by the two organizations.Better analysis could assist in determining prioritiesbased on their respective comparative advantages andareas of specialization.

IFAD, in line with its mandate, tends to operate inremote regions with low levels of development andsometimes poor natural resources, where it workswith some of the most disadvantaged groups.Accordingly, problems are many and complex anddonors and government interventions are often few. It is therefore not surprising to find a major increasein IFAD rural development projects in the presentdecade addressing many dimensions of rural povertysuch as agriculture, community infrastructure,institution building, empowerment and capacity-building and off-farm employment. Similarly, theAfrican Development Bank increased over time theshare of multi-subsector interventions in its ARDportfolio although it has less of an area-focusedapproach than IFAD does.

The danger with the resulting multi-componentprojects is that they are usually difficult to manage, andresources can be dissipated in an attempt to address allproblems instead of focusing limited capacity on themost pressing issues or on activities most likely tosucceed. One alternative is to address difficult situationswith sequential actions. There are examples in Ghanaand the United Republic of Tanzania, where IFAD firstpromoted agricultural production and subsequentlyfinanced projects to deal with market access.

Another alternative to multi-component projectsis to engage in strategic partnerships based on eachorganization’s comparative advantage andspecialization, in which different agencies tackledifferent aspects of the problem with coordinated butseparate or parallel projects. Yet, the potential ofpartnerships to address the multi-faceted nature ofpoverty has not yet been sufficiently recognized byAfDB and IFAD. Looking at ongoing investments, manyof AfDB’s projects concern basic investments, such asroads and irrigation, whereas much of IFAD’s work fallsinto the more complex category, such as communitymobilization, dealing with market failures, buildingrural financial systems, and protecting land rights.This could suggest a possible division of labourbetween AfDB and IFAD. Given the prominence ofIFAD and other agencies in addressing more complexissues, there is a good case for AfDB concentrating onbasic investments such as infrastructure where it hasexperience and a comparative advantage.


The perception survey carried out by the jointevaluation among African decision-makers alsoindicates that both agencies have clear perceivedcomparative advantages which suggests thatpartnership and a clear division of labour offers a wayforward in ARD (see figure 4). IFAD was seen as mosteffective in targeting the poor, community-baseddevelopment, and rural finance, each topic beingmentioned by more than half of the respondents.For the Bank, only rural infrastructure achieved morethan 50 per cent of responses as a comparativeadvantage area, followed by targeting the poor(40 per cent) and community-based development(36 per cent). In sum, IFAD and AfDB have been andremain significant players in ARD in Africa. This showsin the sustained volume of support for ARD when otherdonors were drawing back in the 1990s and early2000s, and their willingness to address a wider range ofissues in partnerships. The Bank and IFAD were amongthe first institutions to rally around and respond to thefood price crisis of 2008. The policy and programmingfocus of each institution is fairly focused, and becomingincreasingly so. It addresses relatively small, butimportant parts, of the overall agenda.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Rural Targeting Community-infrastructure the poor based

development

Figure 4 Areas where AfDB and IFAD are relatively more effective than other agencies

Source: Perception survey (2008). Out of the 200 individuals surveyed, 162 and 164 expressed their perceptions about AfDB andIFAD operations, respectively.

Per

cent

age

of

resp

ons

esA

fDB

(162

)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Targeting Community- Ruralthe poor based finance

development

Per

cent

age

of

resp

ons

esIF

AD

(164

)69%

40%36%

68%

56%52%

IFAD concentrates on activities of a more complexnature, including targeting the poorest and innovating,while AfDB focuses more on basic investments,in roads, irrigation, and markets; and complementingor upgrading other interventions.

Yet, a tendency remains in both agencies to addressmultiple problems with multi-component projects.While these may be appropriate under somecircumstances – such as in IFAD’s targeted communityapproach – a focus on everything can also mean thatprojects become relevant to nothing in particular.Secondly, while investment programmes are importantand the two agencies are ‘keeping abreast’ of policydevelopments, it is not clear that AfDB and IFAD arewell-equipped to deal with wider policy questions andthe policy and leadership gaps in ARD found by theevaluation. Both agencies have also so far neglectedsome important policy questions, notably around trade.And thirdly, AfDB’s corporate focus on fragile states andIFAD’s agenda of working with the poorest and mostmarginal population groups suggests a much strongerinvolvement in fragile and post-conflict states. These arethe three major areas where relevance of IFAD and AfDBin ARD in Africa could be enhanced.

42


43

• IFAD and AfDB have different mandates and strategic priorities. AfDB is a regional multi-sectoral lending institution;IFAD is a global lending institution targeting poor smallholder farmers and women.

• AfDB’s broader mandate allows it to finance or cofinance large-scale infrastructure projects and support regionalinstitutions. Even though IFAD finances national programmes in some countries, it focuses on empowering pooragricultural producers in all aspects of their agricultural and development activities and organizations; it has manyopportunities to innovate and collaborate with others to scale up successful innovations.

• A snapshot of the ways in which AfDB and IFAD have responded to some of the ARD challenges in Africa:

- The role of the two organizations in providing policy advice has been limited, but both have increased theirattempts to influence policy at the sub-sector level, for example in rural finance, artisanal fisheries and irrigationmanagement, drawing on the experience of the investment projects funded.

- Both organizations could have done more to fill the large gap in supply of ARD public goods such as infrastructure,science and technology, and market development.

- There have been good or promising results when investments have been made in regional public goods such asagricultural research at the regional level and control of animal diseases and locusts.

- Both organizations recognize the importance of the private sector in promoting access to markets, but their efforts toengage the private sector have not been commensurate with the role it can play in promoting ARD.

- Neither AfDB nor IFAD has systematically engaged in debate on international trade, in spite of the fact that a fairertrade regime would allow Africa and its farmers to trade with the rest of the world on equal terms and prevent productdumping in Africa.

- IFAD has a new policy on land tenure and the Bank is working towards developing a framework and guidelines on thesame topic.

- Both organizations are addressing climate change and have dedicated units at their headquarters, but staff has littleexperience of policy and operational work in this area.

- Both organizations recognize the importance of gender in African agriculture, but greater efforts are warranted giventhe extensive role of women in African agriculture.

• In response to the challenges associated with the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, AfDB and IFAD in the pastadopted a comprehensive approach to combating poverty rather than defined a clear strategic focus and beingselective. In recent years the policy and programming focus of each institution is becoming more focused, with thecountry level considered as the unit of account rather than individual investment projects.

• A tendency remains in both agencies to address multiple problems with multi-component projects, which may beappropriate under some circumstances but also tended to lead to co-ordination challenges and eventually a dilution ofrelevance in the past.

• The two agencies are keeping abreast of policy developments, most clearly shown in their quick and effective responseto the 2008 food price crisis. But it is not clear that AfDB and IFAD are well-equipped to deal with critical policy questions,such as trade.

• AfDB corporate focus on fragile states and IFAD’s agenda of working with the poorest population groups suggests amuch stronger involvement in fragile and post-conflict states, for which the policies are in place in both agencies.

Box 3 Relevance of AfDB and IFAD in the changing agriculture and rural development context in Africa

45

Introduction

This chapter assesses the performance of pastcountry strategies28 and projects funded by IFADand AfDB in Africa and identifies reasons for that

performance, mainly on the basis of existing evaluationreports. The chapter draws on the findings in thededicated report on the meta-evaluation of pastperformance29 undertaken in the interim phase of thejoint evaluation. The meta-evaluation was based onproject and country programme evaluationsundertaken by OE and OPEV between 2003 and 2007.The chapter also includes information from the eightcountry studies carried out by the joint evaluation teamand the production of a report on the quality-at-entry30

of new country strategies and project designdocuments.31 A statistical analysis of data from themeta-evaluation was carried out to identify correlationsbetween IFAD and AfDB project performance andfactors that could be associated with high or lowperformance.32

In spite of the forward-looking nature of the jointevaluation, this chapter on past performance isimportant as it provides a benchmarking for IFAD andAfDB, using the same methodology for meta-evaluating aset of projects. The past performance of IFAD operationsin Africa has been documented in other evaluationreports such as the ARRI, and the AfDB synthesizedmuch of its ARD project experience in country sectorreviews and evaluations. This meta-evaluation alsofacilitates benchmarking of performance between AfDBand IFAD, and other donors working in ARD in Africasuch as the World Bank.

Evidence considered for assessing project

performance

The meta-evaluation in the interim phase of theevaluation was undertaken to ensure broad coveragein assessing the performance of ARD strategies andoperations in AfDB and IFAD. The use of existingevidence enabled a relatively rapid assessment, whichwould have otherwise been costly and time-consuming.

The meta-evaluation was based on project andcountry programme evaluations undertaken by OE andOPEV between 2003 and 2007. This period wasspecified because of the introduction by OE of itscommon project evaluation methodology in 2003,applied in all evaluations since then. Evaluation reportscovering 55 projects by AfDB and IFAD were reviewed;of these, 28 had previously been evaluated by IFAD and27 by AfDB. For IFAD, 24 of the 28 projects wereassessed through independent OE evaluations; for theremaining four, project completion reports (PCRs)prepared by IFAD’s Programme ManagementDepartment were utilized, after review and validationby the meta-evaluation team. The assessment of AfDB’sproject performance was mainly based on PCRs, whichhad been reviewed and validated independently byOPEV. Project performance evaluation reports preparedby OPEV were available for six of the 27 AfDB-fundedprojects under consideration.

Portfolio age

The selection of the period 2003–2007 for the meta-evaluation entailed consideration of country strategiesand projects approved and implemented some yearsbefore. It would not have been possible to assess the

Assessing performance

28/ Strategies are known as country strategic opportunities papers/programmes in IFAD and country strategy papers in AfDB.29/ Available at: http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/annex2.pdf 30/ Available at: http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/porfolio.pdf31/ Based on the quality-at-entry review, examples of good practices followed by the two organizations in recent country strategies andproject design may be found in appendix 10.32/ These include government performance, lending agency performance, complexity of the project and income group of the partner country.

46

development results of AfDB and IFAD had morerecently approved projects been selected for review inthe meta evaluation, given that at the time of the jointevaluation they would have been underimplementation only for a limited period of time.

The IFAD-funded projects analysed in the meta-evaluation were approved between 1990 and 2000;the AfDB-assisted projects were approved between1988 and 1996. The design of these earlier projectsmay not reflect the characteristics of more recentprojects and so could reduce the usefulness of thelessons from the meta-evaluation. But several projectsdesigned in the early 2000s at IFAD and in the lastpart of the 1990s at AfDB had characteristics similar tothose of the operations considered in the meta-evaluation, and several of the projects were beingimplemented and disbursing funds until 2005–2007(IFAD) and 2005–2006 (AfDB). Development projectscan also be adjusted during implementation to reflectthe latest thinking and experiences. So, in spite of theage of the projects reviewed, the assessment could beof significant value in discerning patterns of problemsand their causes, especially where the issues have notbeen addressed in recently approved operations.

Evidence for assessing country programme

performance

In addition to project performance, the joint evaluationanalysed performance at the country programme level.Eight country programme evaluations by OE and 13country assistance evaluations/agriculture sectorreviews by OPEV were considered in the meta-evaluation. Some previous corporate-level evaluationssuch as that of the direct supervision pilot programmeand the field presence pilot programme in IFAD (2007)were used to supplement evidence on performance atthe country programme level.

The country work phase

The objectives of the country visits were to test thehypotheses in the interim report and hold discussionswith stakeholders in Ghana, Mali, Morocco,Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sudan and the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania. Working papers for each countryand a synthesis report on the country visits wereproduced. As mentioned in chapter 1, a perceptionsurvey was conducted in six countries (Ghana, Mali,Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Tanzania) out of theeight covered by the country studies. The perceptionsurvey was based on responses by 200 governmentofficials, donor representatives and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) in the six countries, who wereasked questions about the relevance, performance andpartnerships of AfDB and IFAD, including aspects

such as their role in policy dialogue, promotion ofinnovations, provision of technical assistance,support by country offices and attention to gender mainstreaming.

Quality-at-entry review

The objective of the quality-at-entry review was toassess the extent to which lessons from past evaluationsand recent reform initiatives (e.g., in terms of betterquality assurance systems, supervision approaches,knowledge management) were addressed in recentlydesigned country strategies and operations. This reviewenabled the evaluators to assess whether AfDB andIFAD are learning effectively from past experience.

The analysis consisted of a review of new results-based IFAD country strategic opportunitiesprogrammes (COSOPs), AfDB country strategy papers(CSPs) and a selection of ARD programmes andprojects approved since 2005. The sample comprisedall available country strategies and two or three recentARD projects of each organization in the eight countriescovered during the country work phase includingBurkina Faso and Kenya. So, a total of ten countrieswere covered in the quality-at-entry review.

The quality-at-entry of the country strategies andprojects was assessed against indicators such astargeting of beneficiaries, participation of stakeholders,knowledge management, results-based management,sustainability provisions and risk management, whichare some of the main lessons and concerns flaggedin past evaluations.

Methods

The following evaluation criteria were applied toassess project results: relevance, effectiveness,efficiency, rural poverty impact, sustainability,innovations, replication and scaling up, and partnerperformance including lending agency (AfDB andIFAD) and government performance. The criteria wererated on the standard six-point scale: 1 – highlyunsatisfactory; 2 – unsatisfactory; 3 – moderatelyunsatisfactory; 4 – moderately satisfactory; 5 –satisfactory; 6 – highly satisfactory.

In terms of assessing country strategy performance,the joint evaluation focused on assessing fourdimensions: previous relevance of country strategies,policy dialogue, aid coordination and harmonization,and the choice of development instruments deployed toachieve the objectives.

The general absence or low quality of baseline dataand monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems at theproject level made the work of the independent

47

evaluators harder. During the independent evaluationsthat formed the basis for the meta-evaluation,the teams in IFAD and AfDB relied on assessment ofperformance and impact through triangulation, forexample by capturing the views of governments andbeneficiaries and by conducting sample surveys in theprojects being reviewed.

Project performance

Broadly speaking, the projects analyzed in the meta-evaluation have the overall goal of contributing topoverty alleviation, improving food security, andproviding alternative sources of employment andincome for poor people. Many projects have similarobjectives of enhancing agricultural and rural sectorproduction and the productive capacity ofsmallholders, protecting and managing theenvironment and natural resources base, promotinggrass-roots institutions and enhancing localgovernance; as well as improving access to basicconsumer goods, safe water supplies, and healthfacilities. The most common project componentsinclude: (i) agricultural development, including

research and extension, (ii) rural finance and ruralenterprise development, (iii) development of smallscale infrastructure, including irrigation and ruralroads; (iv) local and institutional capacity building;and (v) project management.

The evaluation found that 90 per cent of the IFAD-funded projects assessed were moderately satisfactory orbetter in terms of relevance, compared with 70 per centof AfDB projects. In terms of effectiveness, around60 per cent of the operations evaluated in each organizationwere considered to be moderately satisfactory or better,but a high proportion were rated moderately unsatisfactory.In terms of efficiency, 50 per cent of AfDB projects and66 per cent of IFAD projects assessed were moderatelysatisfactory or better.

The overarching criterion of project performance –a composite of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency –shows better performance in IFAD operationscompared with those of AfDB: 72 per cent of IFAD-funded projects were moderately satisfactory or better,compared with 60 per cent of AfDB-funded projects.This is a result of the higher relevance and efficiencyratings of operations funded by IFAD. See figure 5 fora graphical illustration of project performance by theaforementioned evaluation criteria.

Chapter 4 Assessing performance

AfDB

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency

Figure 5 Project relevance, effectiveness and efficiency in IFAD and AfDB

Source: Meta-evaluation (2008)

IFAD

% o

f sa

tisfa

cto

ry r

atin

gs

Evaluation criteria

62%

70%

90%

66%61%

50%

48

Relevance

In terms of relevance, good attention was devoted toensuring the alignment of projects with national ARDstrategies, the needs of the rural poor and the strategiesof AfDB and IFAD. But ambitious objectives, limitationsin design logic, multiple components and institutionalarrangements were factors that limited relevance insome cases: for example the IFAD-funded Rural Micro-Enterprise Development Programme in Nigeria sufferedlong delays in loan effectiveness as a result of challengesassociated with its unclear institutional arrangements.Project design quality was determined by the designprocess practiced by the lending agencies and theresources committed to it. Although during projectdesign, importance was usually given to interaction withgovernment and in-house technical review, inadequateanalysis of country capacity, sector context and lessonslearned from former experience were mentioned inabout half of the cases reviewed both for AfDB andIFAD as causes for design problems. Although notevident from the evaluation report sample, consultationswith operations brought forward limited involvement ofbeneficiaries and other partners, and insufficient qualityassurance mechanisms as other frequent causes for poorquality-at-entry.33 At the origin of these problems laidthe lack of resources to invest in country economic andsector analysis, stakeholder consultations, technicalexpertise, and partnership development.

Often multiple-component projects addressingseveral dimensions of poverty were found to posechallenges in terms of implementation andcoordination among the implementing agencies andother stakeholders, and to limit effectiveness. However,sometimes AfDB and IFAD address the complexity ofprojects with multiple components by financingprojects that treat sub-sectors sequentially. Oneexample is IFAD’s long-term participation in The GhanaRoots and Tubers Programme, which contributedmainly to improving smallholder productivity but gaveinadequate attention to processing and marketing; inspite of good results in terms of household foodsecurity, the programme could have led to greaterincomes and better market access for producers andbuyers. As a result, IFAD and the Government ofGhana funded an additional operation that emphasizedaccess to markets. This sequencing of interventions wasrational in that it created the production surplus first,followed by more concerted efforts in undertaking

processing and marketing. For AfDB, the twoarguments for multiple component projects are theessential complementarity of the components andsecondly, the capacity of the beneficiaries, governments,and project implementation teams to sustainablymanage the interventions. Yet, management capacity isoften the binding constraint.

Effectiveness

The evaluation analysis of project effectiveness bycomponent and sub-sectors (see figure 6) foundlivestock components to be the most successful,followed by community development and capacity-building for the rural poor and their organizations,and irrigation development. A common element in thesuccess of these components was the attentiondevoted to promoting participatory processes for themanagement of activities. The least successfulcomponents were those related to rural finance andwomen-specific activities (which is considered a proxyfor gender activities in the two institutions), followedby natural resources management and theenvironment more so in IFAD. This was partlybecause rural finance services did not always benefitthe neediest as a result of limited institutionaloutreach capabilities in rural areas and because ofhigh transaction costs with dispersed populations forwhom innovative financial products have not beenfully developed. In April 2009, IFAD adopted a newrural finance policy with a view to providing betterguidance on the formulation and implementation ofrural finance activities.

Other factors affecting effectiveness included theextent to which prior conditions of loan effectivenesswere fulfilled, the performance of technical assistanceand other service providers, and the presence orabsence of complementary projects, programmes andpolicies. Additional factors to be mentioned are theavailability of markets and marketing infrastructurein production based projects, administrativerestructuring, political stability and the security ofproject facilities. Less frequently, exogenous factorsplayed a part, for example, drought, flood, landslidesand even spontaneous out-migration of projectbeneficiaries. Finally, effectiveness was also associatedwith high quality project supervision andimplementation support, country presence and goodborrower performance.

33/ The two organizations have introduced in the past few years more systematic and rigorous quality-at-entry assurance mechanismsand systems.

49

As mentioned before, past performance inpromoting gender equality and women’s developmentwas unsatisfactory and well below expectation. Withregard to gender activities and those specific to women,it was found that only eight of the 55 projectsexamined included objectives, activities and resourcesto support the advancement of women and that onlyfour projects showed a positive impact on women’sempowerment, incomes and nutritional status. Tenadditional IFAD-funded projects were identified thathad at least one component with a substantial focus onwomen in terms of components involving foodprocessing equipment, sanitation and health, ruralwater supply and household food security. Of thesecomponents, half had a measurable effect on thewelfare of women. Box 4 illustrates what can be donewhen there is consistent commitment to gendermainstreaming. There are several reasons for limitedperformance in promoting gender equality andwomen’s empowerment, including the lack of adequate

gender analysis in country strategy formulation andproject design, limited attention by governmentexecuting agencies, and weak monitoring andevaluation systems to track performance in this area.

At AfDB, an OPEV desk review of gendermainstreaming in AfDB-funded ARD projectsundertaken in 2008 found that some progress had beenmade, particularly at the level of institutional policies inthe form of a gender policy and plan of action adaptedto gender issues in Africa; yet, the gender-relatedcomponents of projects were still small-scale, mainlywomen oriented, and often poorly designed. Theperformance in meeting gender equality objectives [was]more directly linked to (i) overall project performance,(ii) the presence of specific women-favouring actions,(iii) careful gender analysis/needs assessment, (iv) use ofparticipatory processes and (v) involvement of genderexperts, or presence of gender expertise in project staff.Impact on women’s livelihoods [was] highest in projectstargeting women exclusively (though evidence is thin),


Figure 6 Satisfactory effectiveness of components

AfDB and IFAD compared

Rural finance

Agriculturaldevelopment(crops)

Micro-enterprisedevelopment

Ruralinfrastructure

Institutionaldevelopment

Natural resources

Livestockdevelopment

Woman-specificactivities

Communitydevelopment/capacity-building

Irrigationdevelopment

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

N=10N=20

N=2N=6

N=10

N=18

N=18N=22

N=22

N=15

N=6

N=19

N=8

N=7

N=8N=11

N=6N=0

N=13

N=17

Satisfactory performance for IFAD

Source: Meta-evaluation (2008)

Satisfactory performance for AfDB

Gender issues are well addressed in Mozambique’s policies. The Action Plan for the Eradication of Absolute Poverty(PARPA), the rural development strategy and sub-sector strategies such as the National Agricultural Extension Programmeand the National Agricultural Development Strategy (PROAGRI) all give emphasis to gender issues; in PROAGRI, a specialgender unit was created at the central level. The problem is the practical implementation of the intentions. In implementingPARPA, gender approaches have focused on access to education, healthcare and potable water. Gender issues inagriculture seem to be complex, even though women constitute the major part of the agriculture sector. Public extensionofficers interact with men and women, individually or through groups of farmers, but there is little evidence that genderissues have been pursued diligently in the context of extension.

There are examples from IFAD and AfDB of interventions being designed to be pro-women. The agro-processing extensionprogramme (2000–2006) consisted of field demonstrations and training for farmers in improved processing of cassava andsweet potato and vaccinations against Newcastle disease in poultry: women were promoted as vaccinators, agents andbeneficiaries. IFAD ensured that the unified extension system under PROAGRI I (1999–2006) contributed to thedissemination of technologies useful to men and women farmers. Other examples of gender issues being taken intoaccount by IFAD and AfDB include the comprehensive fisheries programmes in Sofala and Nampula and Cabo-Delgado:this included development of roads and market linkages in support of women, who are powerful in rural and provincialtrade, and access to potable water for fishing communities. Combining different components in a project, for exampleimproving irrigation, extension, credit and farmers’ organizations, was also a successful modality for promoting genderissues because women were able to participate to a greater extent.

Box 4 Gender in agriculture and rural development in Mozambique

Source: Country Synthesis Report

50

and those exhibiting a larger number of the desireddesign features. At institutional level, performance inmeeting gender equality objectives [was] believed to bemostly driven by leadership commitment; financialresources; human resource capacity, and operationssupport tools. Since 2008, AfDB has been addressinggender equality with new efforts through theestablishment of a unit for gender, climate change andsustainable development and the preparation of anupdated gender plan of action.

The joint evaluation team found a similar situationin terms of gender mainstreaming in other internationalagencies working on ARD, which suggests a generallimitation to adopt an effective gender approach to ARD;one of the reasons is borrower performance. In-countrycapacity on gender is often limited; demand fromborrowers for gender inputs from AfDB and IFAD is alsominimal. The country visits revealed that governmentpolicies and strategies for gender mainstreaming variedfrom country to country, which suggests that it may beborrowers who need to improve their performance ongender issues and that agencies should concentrate ontheir normal activities in gender mainstreaming anddevelop greater outreach to country stakeholders.

IFAD and AfDB have taken the issue on boardthrough updated gender action plans, working groups,networks, high-level management leadership, centralsupport units and staff training.34 In IFAD, OE iscurrently undertaking a corporate level evaluation ongender equity and women’s empowerment, whichshould reveal further insights and lessons on the topic.

Efficiency

With regard to efficiency, there is room for improvementin the operations of both organizations, given that66 per cent of IFAD operations are moderatelysatisfactory or better as compared to 50 per cent at theAfDB. Common challenges include implementationtime overruns, delays in staff deployments and rapidturnover of project management personnel, widegeographic coverage, multiple components, and lackof timely allocation of counterpart funds. The evaluationfound, however, that promotion of participatorymethods and community-driven development led tolower costs and better quality in terms of infrastructuredevelopment, such as in Nigeria, compared with moretraditional methods of infrastructure development usedby contractors.

34/ Discussion with AfDB and IFAD gender focal points, 29 May 2009.

51

Poverty impact

In AfDB and IFAD, 55 per cent of operations have amoderately satisfactory or better impact on poverty.The evaluation found that impact was good in areassuch as agriculture production and development ofphysical assets, but less positive in promoting access tomarkets, improving formal institutions such as researchinstitutes and government agencies and enhancingnatural resource management (see figure 7). One reasonfor the lack of impact in these areas is that projectimplementers and supervision often give more attentionto achieving physical and financial output targets thanto ensuring sustained improvements in project impact,such as farmers’ incomes, rural livelihoods and foodsecurity as the ultimate development objectives.

Predictably, when projects were notably welldesigned with respect to participation and self-helpand social capital formation, and accurate diagnosesof the needs of the rural poor were coupled witheffective targeting, these determinants did help toincrease the likelihood that a project would be ratedsatisfactory for poverty impact more often than not.But the strongest associations with satisfactory ruralpoverty impact were found in the realism andinternal logic of a project and its alignment andcongruence with country policy. What all this meansis that it is important to get the logic of a projectright, to be sure it is going in the same direction asthe government and to be sure that it is well focussedon the poor and their particular circumstances.


Figure 7 Satisfactory impact in rural poverty impact domains

AfDB and IFAD compared

Markets

Environment

Institutions andservices

Social capital andempowerment

Food security

Financial assets

Human assets

Physical assets

Agricultureproduction

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

N=7N=14

N=27

N=20

N=18N=28

N=10

N=28

N=23

N=18

N=27

N=28

N=17

N=22N=24

N=27

N=23

N=28

Satisfactory performance for IFAD Satisfactory performance for AfDB

The quality-at-entry review showed that AfDBand IFAD are redressing areas where sub-sectorperformance is weak. IFAD introduced newenvironmental and social assessment guidelines in2009 and is planning to develop a policy on the topicin 2010, which together are measures that canstrengthen performance in this important area for ARDin the future. Recent country strategies and operationsin both organizations are given more emphasis tocommodity value chain development, to promotinginput and output markets and to the commercializationof small farmers, for example in Ghana andMozambique. AfDB has improved its focus onpoverty and the selectivity of interventions.

Innovation

IFAD was found to pay more attention than AfDB topromoting pro-poor innovations. Examples ofsuccessful innovations at the grass-roots level include:(i) IFAD’s grant-funded support for the InternationalInstitute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria, which hascontributed to the development of pest-resistant, high-yield cassava varieties that have improved rural incomes;(ii) the promotion of small-scale participatory irrigationsystems in the United Republic of Tanzania; and(iii) public-private partnership in the development ofoil palm in Uganda.

OE evaluations have also identified areas thatneed attention to enhance the identification andpiloting of innovations in IFAD operations. Theseinclude the need for incentives and opportunities forstaff to promote innovations in ARD, greaterparticipation by communities in project design andimplementation, low-cost innovative approaches andlarger budget allocations for seeking innovations thatcan be piloted in IFAD operations.

IFAD’s ability to ensure the replication and scalingup of successful innovations was constrained in thepast by an operating model that did not devoteadequate attention and resources to critical elementssuch as partnerships, knowledge management andpolicy dialogue. The lack of country presence and thefact that, until recently, IFAD was obliged – accordingto the Agreement Establishing the Fund – to contractall project supervision to cooperating institutions aretwo important factors that limited IFAD’s capabilitiesto promote the replication and scaling up ofsuccessful innovations in the past. The Action Plan toImprove IFAD’s Development Effectiveness wasapproved by the Board in December 2006 with a viewto introducing a new operating model to redressshortcomings. This includes strategies for knowledge

management and innovation, the undertaking ofdirect supervision and implementation support, andexpanded country presence. This was followed by anew approach to partnership, developed as part ofthe Eighth Replenishment consultations in 2008.The forthcoming OE evaluation on innovations willprovide a further opportunity to discuss issuesrelated to the promotion of innovation, replicationand scaling up.

Sustainability

The area of greatest concern is sustainability. Lessthan half of the AfDB and IFAD projects evaluatedwere found to be moderately satisfactory or better inthis critical area; the performance of IFAD’soperations was marginally better than AfDB’s (seetable 3). Among other issues, low sustainability wasattributed to unresolved land tenure issues, lack ofownership, unclear responsibilities for maintenanceof project facilities (especially infrastructure),inadequate transfer of technical skills to beneficiaries,fragility of grass-roots institutions, inadequateauthority of local management units, and lack ofpost-project maintenance funds. The sustainability ofWorld Bank operations in ARD in Africa is similar tothat of IFAD. In fact, the Fund’s global performancein sustainability has improved in recent years (see the2008 ARRI), but it remains an area that requiresfurther attention not only in Africa but also in othergeographic regions covered by IFAD operations.

The quality-at-entry review showed that projectsustainability is treated more systematically in recentcountry strategies and project design documents, butinadequate appreciation of the changing countrycontext is often evident. More attention needs to begiven to defining clear exit strategies: the commonassumption is that local ownership, beneficiaries’participation in projects and partnerships withdomestic stakeholders are essential to ensuringsustainability. The Rwanda COSOP indicates thatsustainability will be built by ensuring that projectsare integrated into institutional frameworks and thatassistance is directed primarily to exiting fromnational and local structures, which must build uptheir capacity and autonomy. In Morocco, strongparticipatory approaches have promotedsustainability – but sustainability also depends ontechnical and financial support from governmentagencies, which is not always available. In TheSudan, the limited budget allocation for meetingrecurrent costs for government services was anobstacle to the financial sustainability of projects.

52

53


The evaluation associated the lack of economicviability35 observed in many projects with the absenceof market and profitability analyses for private actors inproject design and management, which was expected tohave changed in recent projects. With governments andcommunity-based organizations, the private sector hasa role in ensuring the sustainability of activitiesentrusted to it. Increased market analysis in projects isneeded to create an understanding of the likely role ofprivate-sector actors in sustaining activities orinvestments and the incentives that might be neededto alter behaviour.

In IFAD and the AfDB, the issues such as countryownership and risk management that determinesustainability have been recognized. For IFAD, its newGuidelines for Design and Quality Enhancement (2008)and the paper on IFAD’s approach to promotingsustainability,36 developed also in 2008 based on arecommendation on the topic contained in the 2007ARRI, address many of the concerns. In the Bank, thenewly generated Results and Quality AssuranceDepartment (ORQR) took on quality-at-entry as one ofits main tasks and new guidelines were issued. Theneed for rigorous adherence to the guidelines duringdesign and implementation must be emphasized.

Country programme performance

Relevance of country strategies

The relevance of country strategies in AfDB and IFADwas lower than that of their projects; AfDB performancewas slightly better than IFAD’s. In terms of relevance,53 per cent of AfDB’s country strategies were assessedas moderately satisfactory or better, compared with42 per cent of IFAD’s. The significant difference inrelevance between projects and country strategies canbe considered as a macro-micro paradox that needsattention if the two organizations are to make a seriouscontribution in reducing poverty in Africa.

The macro-micro paradox is partly a result of thefact that in the past IFAD and AfDB funded projectswithout sufficient attention to synergies betweenoperations and between projects and non-lendingactivities, and that country strategies were oftendeveloped without sufficient participation by thepartner country. Results-based COSOPs wereintroduced at IFAD in September 2006 with a view toensuring greater coherence and relevance in countryprogrammes, which would be developed inconsultation with and owned by the partner country.

Similarly, a new generation of results-based countrystrategy papers at the AfDB has been concerned withmore interaction with a variety of country partners andtheir full buy-in into the Bank’s country programmes.

Policy dialogue

Policy dialogue on ARD at the country level wasgenerally found to be inadequate: it was ratedmoderately satisfactory or better in no more thanten cases out of the twenty-one countryprogramme/assistance evaluations reviewed in eitherIFAD or AfDB, though there are good examples ofpolicy dialogue at the project level, for examplethrough IFAD-supported activities in rural finance andlivestock development in Mozambique. This is a resultof limited analysis and insufficient attention to the issuein the past, weak performance of M&E systems at theproject level and lack of systematic attention toknowledge management. Improvements in recent yearshave resulted from the allocation of more resources andthe establishment of country presence. Some examplesof good practice to promote policy dialogue wereevident from the country visits. For example, in thecontext of IFAD operations, a policy dialogue unit hasbeen established with the responsibility for knowledgedevelopment and sharing and disseminatinginformation, feeding project-related information intoregional knowledge networks.

Aid coordination and harmonization

In only a few past operations was performance in termsof donor coordination and harmonization, ratedmoderately satisfactory or better. At IFAD, the pictureis changing and a recent study by OECD (2008) showsthat IFAD performance is rated highly across mostindicators (although unfortunately the data is notdisaggregated for Africa). AfDB’s results in this area aremore mixed. Having said that, IFAD and AfDB areworking to participate in the development of jointcountry assistance strategies and engage in SWAps,especially in Eastern and Southern Africa. Moreover,in Mozambique, AfDB’s M&E framework is based on thegovernment’s performance assessment framework for thepoverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP). Partnershipwith governments has been generally satisfactory: AfDBand IFAD have good relations and communications withthe main government agencies involved in ARD. Butpartnerships with other development organizations,particularly United Nations agencies and IFIs, have notbeen systematic. Issues of aid coordination andharmonization are further discussed in chapter 5.

35/ Economic viability is one of the indicators of sustainability.36/ See http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/repl/8/iii/e/REPL-VIII-3-R-3.pdf

Choice of development instruments

The evaluation found limited use at the country levelof grant and lending instruments for policy andknowledge development beyond traditional projectinvestments. Grant activities have not beensystematically linked to programme and projectdevelopment in the past, particularly at IFAD. TheFund has developed a new grants policy, which wasapproved by the Board in December 2009 with a viewto improving the links between grant-funded and loan-funded activities. The AfDB more often used grantfacilities in its African Development Fund operationsfor the development of pipeline projects, but funds areseen as inadequate for the tasks at hand.

The quality-at-entry review showed that a clearercountry focus has emerged in both organizations, withcommendably stronger commitment to ensuring anintegration of lending and non-lending activities.IFAD’s new operating model comprises results-basedcountry programming jointly owned with countrystakeholders, enhanced country presence, directsupervision, improved quality enhancement andassurance mechanisms, and a knowledge managementstrategy. The Strategic Framework 2007–2011 identifiescountry programmes as IFAD’s main deliverable – aclear move away from a project focus. But the enhancedcountry focus is constrained in some divisionsresponsible for IFAD operations in Africa by slowdevelopment of country presence. AfDB has taken adifferent route: it has divided operations between avice-presidency for country and regional programmesand policy and two sector vice-presidencies, and isdecentralizing staff to country offices. Some of thesestructural changes, which include delegation ofauthority to country offices, are taking longer thanexpected and have created some significantdiscontinuities that need to be managed. AfDB has alsoinstituted a number of business process changes suchas far reaching reforms in human resource managementand a new review process for operations consisting of ahigh-level Operations Committee, country teams, and adedicated Quality Assurance Department to improveproject design and supervision. The Bank has furtherstrengthened its managerial and staff capacity primarilyin operations and provided more direct operationssupport to expand capacity to deliver programmes.

The quality-at-entry review also found a significantamount of change that would increase the countryfocus. Recent programmes and operations pay moreattention to analytical work, though it is still notenough. AfDB has devoted resources to analysis of

macro-level and national-level issues; IFAD hasconcentrated on ARD matters and rural poverty. AfDBhas projects addressing government capacityconstraints, though few in the ARD sector; there havebeen few IFAD-funded projects or measures to addressissues identified in its contextual analyses. IFAD’sknowledge management strategy is being implementedthrough actions to incorporate knowledge managementinto business processes, with uneven progress in thedifferent divisions. Moreover, although CPEs indicatethat attention to knowledge management and lessonlearning has generally been limited in the past, there isevidence of improvements in new results-basedCOSOPs and recent operations. New (post-2006)results-based COSOPs have a dedicated section onknowledge management and communication whichbroadly defines the strategy for promoting informationsharing, lessons learning and dissemination, albeit withvarying degrees of depth. In AfDB, the Office of theChief Economist leads knowledge management and atask force has produced a knowledge-managementstrategy; little has changed so far, however, with regardto country operations.

In sum, there is significant work in IFAD and AfDBto improve country programming, with a focus oncountry strategies. This report questions whethercountry programming is now the priority for resourceallocation. The policy and knowledge deficit in ARD isfelt most at the country level; current efforts by IFAD andAfDB to improve stand-alone country strategies wouldbe better directed to supporting knowledge to underpinimproved country policies, whether it is derived frominnovative projects or from analytical work. For AfDB,the enhanced country programme is constrained by slowdecentralization of ARD technical staff and slowdelegation of authority to country and regional teams; forIFAD, it is constrained by limited out-posting of countryprogramme managers in some divisions and the processfor integrating country presence staff more widely intothe overall IFAD work force.

Lending agency and borrower performance

A statistical analysis of the performance of IFAD andAfDB operations by the joint evaluation revealed thatlending agency (IFAD and AfDB) and governmentperformance were the most significant determinants ofproject and country programme performance in ARD.The evaluation also found that the recent reforms inthe two organizations had primarily aimed to improve

54

55


their own development effectiveness, rather than tacklethe weaknesses in government performance(see following paragraphs). There remains a need toaddress the critical issue of government performanceand capacity, which is fundamental for achievingsuccessful development results.

IFAD and AfDB performance

Lending agency performance was mainly measuredagainst their contribution to project design, supervisionand implementation support (including contribution toresolving bottlenecks and making the necessaryadjustments to design during execution) and non-lending activities – knowledge management,partnership building and policy dialogue. IFAD andAfDB performance was found moderately satisfactoryor better only in 40 per cent (IFAD) and 48 per cent(Bank) of projects reviewed in the joint evaluation.This implies that lending agency performance wasmoderately satisfactory or better in less than one outof every two projects financed. In other words,the performance of projects funded by the twoorganizations was moderately unsatisfactory or worsein one out of two cases.

A number of reasons lie behind the weakperformance found in past years. For example, designweaknesses were attributed to the two lending agenciesin 70 per cent of the past projects reviewed. Thereasons for this included inadequate analysis of thecontext and risks as well as ambitious design objectives.Past country strategies and design documents sufferedfrom limitations such as: (i) lack of emphasis onpromoting gender equality; (ii) lack of countrypresence; (iii) ineffective supervision – in the case ofIFAD supervision was outsourced to cooperatinginstitutions until very recently; (iv) unsystematicinternal quality enhancement and assurance methods;(v) attention largely limited to physical and financialoutputs in the results chain rather than impact, includingweak M&E, as well as an underdeveloped qualityassurance system for self evaluation products duringimplementation in IFAD; and (vi) lack of attention torigorous portfolio management such as termination ofnon-performing projects before the closing date.Performance was weak in non-lending activities, largelybecause of limited attention, few resources allocated,and the absence of objectives and indicator to monitorprogress in the delivery of such activities.

The evaluation does, however, confirm that changeis under way in IFAD and AfDB: there are manyongoing initiatives aimed at improving performanceand development effectiveness. Design processes are

being adjusted in line with new policy directions andbusiness process models. Country strategies arebecoming more closely aligned with country policypriorities, and improvements are evident in contextanalysis, lesson learning, focus on poverty outcomes,emphasis on policy dialogue and management forresults. Project design is being enhanced: IFAD isfocusing on improved targeting and on buildingknowledge management and policy engagement intoproject components. It has also embarked on directsupervision and implementation support of projects,which has proven to be more effective than supervisionthrough cooperating institutions, yet this has increasedburden of staff both at headquarters and in the field,where country presence exists. These improvements inIFAD noted by the joint evaluation are consistent withthe results in recent ARRIs, which documentimprovements in IFAD’s performance, even thoughsustainability is an area of concern in Africa. But thisonly reinforces the notion that the change initiativeswere largely intended to improve IFAD’s ownperformance and did not address inherent weaknessesin government performance. The same can be said ofthe AfDB’s reform agenda.

AfDB has improved its focus on poverty and theselectivity of its interventions; IFAD and AfDB haveintroduced new quality assurance and enhancementsystems. Both have gradually expanded their countrypresence, even though the pace of decentralisation isrelatively slow in IFAD. This is partly due to the need toadjust internal processes that would allow theorganization to operate in a decentralised manner, ratherthan entirely out of headquarters. AfDB and IFAD arealigning operations with country policies, increasingstakeholder participation and building up M&E systems;more work is required in the latter area, however.

There is still room for improvement in critical issuessuch as risk analysis and management, scaling up ofpro-poor innovations, sustainability and exit strategies,analysis of policy context and processes, capacities andskills for policy engagement and responsiveness to thechanging operational context.

In continuation to the above, the 2009 AnnualReport on Result and Impact of IFAD Operations(ARRI) found relatively weaker performance insub-Saharan Africa, as compared to the othergeographic regions covered by IFAD operations.This may be partly explained by the challengingcontext in terms of weak ARD institutional capabilitiesand policies among countries across the continent,as compared to other regions.

The ARRI also underlines that, by and large, IFAD haspursued something of a “one size fits all” approach, interms of the allocation of administrative resources forcountry strategy formulation, project design, andsupervision and implementation support, irrespectiveof the country’s institutional and policy contexts.The picture at the AfDB is broadly similar. This limitsthe amount of comprehensive analytic work in ARDconducted by AfDB and IFAD, particularly in fragilestates and other low income countries. Such analyticwork is essential to underpin country strategyformulation, and undertaking of supervision andimplementation support activities. It is also importantfor IFAD and AfDB’s effective engagement in non-lending activities including policy dialogue,knowledge management and partnership building.In view of the foregoing, there are valid reasons topursue a differentiated approach in the allocation ofresources (including staff) to the formulation ofcountry strategies and projects, as well as supervisionand implementation support, in countries withcomplex and difficult contexts (e.g., fragile states andcountries with low CPIA scores).

Borrower performance

The performance of governments or borrowers is oneof the most critical factors for achieving effectivenessand combating poverty. Their contributions and inputsare fundamental in country strategy formulation andproject and programme design and execution, forexample in terms of commitment and resourceallocation to ARD, project management capabilities,and ability to coordinate actions among stakeholders.Moreover, ultimately governments are primarilyresponsible for project execution and providing therequired policy and institutional environment toachieve results on the ground.

The joint evaluation assessed governmentperformance by reviewing the quality of projectmanagement, including M&E. It found governmentperformance to be moderately satisfactory or better inonly 30 per cent of the projects reviewed. Only oneevaluation in four considered government commitmentand ownership to be particularly strong and animportant factor in project effectiveness andsustainability. The borrower was criticized in 45 per centof the projects for not providing an enabling political,

Figure 8 Factors limiting government performance

Source: Joint evaluation perception survey. Out of the 200 individuals surveyed, 162 and 164 expressed their perceptions aboutAfDB and IFAD operations, respectively.

Percentage of responses

AfDB (162)

Institutionalcapacity

Populationvulnerability

Aiddependency

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of responses

IFAD (164)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

51%

27%

27%

26%

26%

48%

38%

33%

32%

29%

Poorgovernance

Corruption

Institutionalcapacity

Poorgovernance

Populationvulnerability

Aiddependency

Corruption

56

57


legal or institutional environment; in 38 per cent of casesthe evaluation considered that borrowers had not fulfilledall agreements made during project design. Explanationsof weak borrower performance include: (i) inadequaciesin the staffing of project management units, and high staffturnover; (ii) inadequate training and support for projectstaff in participatory planning, procurement proceduresand financial management; (iii) slow staff recruitment;(iv) weak institutional support; (v) inexperience withlenders procedures; and (vi) ineffectiveness of M&Esystems as instruments of management.

The joint evaluation gained further insights intogovernment performance during the country visits.Government capacity was generally seen to be limited,especially at decentralized levels of government. Sectorstrategies and policies were frequently not clear or notuseful in terms of identifying priorities or sequences.The political will to support ARD was found to be weakin some cases; a government’s failure to coordinatedonor-assisted projects can lead to misunderstandings.The perception survey undertaken during the jointevaluation identified institutional capacity as the leadingconstraint to government performance (see figure 8).Combined with poor governance, corruption and aiddependence, which is a consequence of failure to raiseadequate revenues, the nature of the major performanceconstraints is clear and overwhelming.

Limited borrower performance may help toexplain why it has been so difficult to producebeneficial outcomes from gender mainstreaming.In many countries, weak attention was devoted topromoting gender equity and women’s development,with inadequate policies and implementation.The perception survey found that absence of borrowerdemand for a gender perspective was one of theconstraints on effective operational gendermainstreaming. In the United Republic of Tanzania,the joint evaluation found that local governmentscharged with implementing the agriculture SWApwere not receptive to such ideas, and that Ministry ofAgriculture and extension agencies have been slowto take on gender mainstreaming.

IFAD and AfDB have given due attention togovernment performance in ARD, and a few projectsare devoted to this issue. But there are few efforts toimprove borrower performance that match theprocesses in place to address lender performance.This is not an issue affecting AfDB and IFAD only:it affects all international agencies engaged in ARD.Overall, it is clear that much focused attention needsto be given towards building institutional capacity.Without this, there will be only minimalimprovements in the performance of developmentinterventions, even if lender performance improves.

Impact on poverty

Figure 9 Schematic illustration of aspects of lender and borrower performance

Lending agenda (IFAD, AfDB) performance

• Rigorous analytic work• Quality at project entry• Timely and quality of supervision and

implementation support• Appropriate country presence

arrangements

Government (borrower) performance

• Quality of ARD policies, strategies andprojects

• Government commitment• Quality of public financial management• Quality of project and programme

management including M&E• Coordination among stakeholders

58

Benchmarking performance

Work has been done on benchmarking theperformances of AfDB, IFAD and the World Bank inAfrica. These organizations were chosen for thesimilarity of their approaches and the availability of datafrom independent evaluations. Data from AfDB and theWorld Bank relate to their operations in the agriculturesector only, which makes them comparable with theIFAD data. Table 3 illustrates the performance andimpact of the AfDB, IFAD and World Bank operations.

IFAD’s performance in the other three regions37

where it operates is better than in the two sub-Saharanregions38 (see 2009 ARRI). This finding is similar tofindings for the World Bank, which also has operationsin regions other than sub-Saharan Africa. In AfDB, theperformance of agriculture projects compares well withless risky projects in the social sectors; they performbetter than economic adjustment projects, but lagbehind transport projects.

Table 3 shows that lending agency performanceand sustainability were two areas of major concern inpast operations. AfDB and IFAD continue to addressthese areas of weakness, but there is no room forcomplacency given the small number of past projectsand country programmes that had satisfactory ratingsfor these criteria.39

37/ Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near East and North Africa.38/ East and South Africa and West and Central Africa. 39/ The characteristics and causes of lending agency performance are discussed in this chapter under the “IFAD and AfDB performance”section; sustainability issues are covered in this chapter under the relevant section.40/ Project performance is calculated as an average of the scores given to relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.

IFAD

Based on evaluations in 2003–2007

AfDB World BankBased on evaluation of

projects funded 1991–2006

72 61 60

90 70

61 62

66 50

41 48

54 55

40 35 40

Table 3 Aggregate project performance40 and impact in Africa(per cent of projects assessed as moderately satisfactory or better)

Project evaluations

Overall project performance

Relevance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Lending agency performance

Poverty impact

Sustainability

59


• Past project performance (micro-level) has been moderately satisfactory; IFAD operations performed slightly better thanAfDB’s, especially in terms of relevance and efficiency; sustainability remains a serious challenge in the operations ofboth organizations, however.

• Country programme performance (macro-level) was found to be weak in both organizations, especially in terms of policydialogue, knowledge management and partnership enhancement; work is under way to improve country strategy andprogramme formulation and implementation.

• There is therefore a micro-macro paradox, given that the performance at the country level has been inadequate in thepast as compared to performance at the project level, even though important adjustments are being made to the twoorganizations operating models that go in the right direction and could lead to better performance at the macro levelin the future.

• Benchmarking performance with other organizations working in ARD in Africa shows that the performance of otheragencies is broadly the same as the Bank’s and IFAD’s performance

• Inadequate attention was devoted to promoting gender equality in past projects, and results are modest.• Reasons for modest performance at the project level include certain project design aspects (in particular overly complex

designs), unfavourable external sector, macro-economic and social conditions, and in particular management andimplementation problems by lending agencies and borrowers.

• IFAD and AfDB have made useful reforms to redress the challenges in past operations such as project design, targeting,knowledge management and innovation.

• The evaluation found that the performance of lending agencies and especially of governments are two among the mostcritical factors underlying country programme and project performance.

• Recent reforms in the Bank and at IFAD have been mainly oriented towards enhancing their own developmenteffectiveness, however, with little attention to improving borrower performance, which is weak and essential forpoverty reduction.

Box 5 Assessing performance

The joint evaluation attempted to identify themain lessons from recent evaluations in ARD by theEU, the United Kingdom Department for InternationalDevelopment, FAO and the World Bank. Theseevaluations are consistent with the findings of thejoint evaluation in that the performance of pastinterventions in ARD had been generally low; the areaof deepest concern related to the sustainability ofbenefits. In general, ARD performs worse than thesocial sectors, and ARD performance in Africa is notas good as elsewhere.

As discussed before, some of the determinantsof performance are common to AfDB and IFAD:weaknesses in project design, limited institutionalcapacity-building, lack of focus on agriculturalproductivity, environment and gender, weak borrowercapacities and insufficient analytic work and riskassessment. All the evaluations acknowledgedifficulties specific to the environment in which ARDprojects are implemented in Africa, including lack of

interest and commitment among partners andgovernments, physical and environmental constraintssuch as low soil fertility and weak transportinfrastructure, and the negative effects of northernsubsidies to African agriculture. The implementationof gender-sensitive policies by the agencies reviewed ison the whole weak.

The review by the World Bank’s independentevaluation group of its assistance to agriculture inAfrica recommended that the World Bank should:(i) focus on increasing agricultural productivity byestablishing realistic goals for the expansion ofirrigation and recognize the need to improve theproductivity of rain-fed agricultural areas; (ii) increaseand improve the quality of analytical work onagriculture; and (iii) establish benchmarks formeasuring progress, for example by extending M&Eto report on project activities in various agro-ecological zones and for different crops and farmercategories, including women.

61

Introduction

This chapter on partnerships reviews theperformance of the past partnership between theAfDB and IFAD, and the two agencies’ partnerships

with the government and other private and public sectoractors working in ARD in Africa. It examines the newpartnerships environment and identifies good practices forpartnerships. It identifies opportunities and challenges fordeveloping the AfDB/IFAD partnership and partnershipswith other actors in future. The chapter is based on thecountry studies implemented by the joint evaluation andseveral background papers on the topic. These included abenchmarking study that identified good partnershipexperiences and practices from other organizations, as wellas a performance review of the IFAD/AfDB partnership.

The partnership between AfDB and IFAD in

agriculture and rural development in Africa

(1978-2008)

IFAD and AfDB have a 30-year relationship that hasevolved with the international development agenda; itis set to continue in line with the “new paradigm fordevelopment” embodied in the MDGs and the ParisDeclaration and the Accra Agenda for Action. In recentyears the relationship has moved from collaboration atthe operational level to the corporate and political level.The first cooperation agreement was signed in 1978.The agreement was input- and activity oriented,priority areas of cooperation were not identified andthe agreement lacked explicit outcome or performancetargets. The partnership experience of AfDB-IFAD hasbeen largely confined to cofinancing operations, withAfDB playing (with limited success) a supervision rolefor several IFAD-initiated projects. Since 1978, 38projects were cofinanced to a value of about US$900million, representing close to one-10th of theircumulative investment in ARD in Africa. Of these,12 are still ongoing. Two cofinanced operations areplanned, but not yet off the ground in both agencies.There has been relatively little cooperation in the past

in terms of policy dialogue, knowledge management andjoint country programming, but more recently bothorganizations have sought opportunities to worktogether in these areas: IFAD and AfDB are, for example,participating in the first agriculture SWAp interventionin the United Republic of Tanzania and have contributedto the development of the joint assistance strategy incountries such as Ethiopia and Ghana.

Overall, the 30-year long partnership between AfDBand IFAD has been narrow in scope, limited inintensity, and has not performed well. Key issuesidentified as having hindered smooth cooperation inthe past were underlying differences in managementculture, operational modalities and internal procedures,including approaches to project design andimplementation. Weak consultation and coordinationbetween the agencies was also noted (see appendix 8).Until 2004, IFAD had a single liaison officer at AfDBheadquarters, which to some extent facilitatedcommunication and coordination. Since then, relationshave been managed by a dedicated officer in IFAD andvarious staff in the agriculture department in AfDB.Supervision performance by AfDB was particularlyunsatisfactory, as confirmed in the two corporate-levelevaluations on supervision by OE between 2003 and2005, leading IFAD to undertake its own supervisionand to both agencies improving their individualcapacity. This, in combination with other difficulties,led to a fundamental questioning of the merits of the1978 partnership agreement.

To reorient the partnership, a new MoU was signedby IFAD and AfDB in 2008 containing a broad list ofpriority sectors and themes and providing a clear shift infocus to results and outcomes. New targets relate to jointCSPs and a new pipeline of cofinanced projects withplans for IFAD staff to move into AfDB offices. Theinitiative to reset the relationship, partly in recognitionof these weaknesses, is still very recent. Yet, theevaluation found still limited evidence in the new MoUof: (i) recognition of context as key, with adaptation ofapproaches to changing context; (ii) clear understandingof incentives and conflicts on each side of therelationship; (iii) active management of assumptions and

A review of partnerships

62

expectations underlying the partnership; (iv) an effectivefocus on results, including through reassignment of thestock of numerous other strategic partnerships; and(v) recognition of the amount of time and energyneeded to make the partnership effective by movingforward on concrete measures.

In principle the new 2008 memorandum ofunderstanding between IFAD and the AfDB opensthe way to a more strategic approach to partnering,driven largely by a special initiative of the Presidentsof the two organizations and the 2005 Paris Declarationon Aid Effectiveness. The joint evaluation itself is amanifestation of the commitment of the twoorganizations to find ways and means to strengthen theircollaboration. But, despite the political will and expressedintentions, progress on the ground has so far beenlimited, as guidance to staff on how to select, developand manage this partnership, as others, remains weak.

AfDB/IFAD cofinancing

The 38 cofinanced projects so far demonstrate thepossibilities and limitations of cofinancing by IFADand AfDB in ARD in Africa. Since 1978 AfDB and IFADcontributed US$472m and US$432m to cofinancedprojects with a total value of US$1.77 billion(including other donors, governments and beneficiariescontributions). Thirteen out of 22 AfDB/IFAD cofinancedprojects since 1990 have also received funds from otherdonors, somewhat down from 12 out of 16 before 1990.In fact, in both organizations only a relatively smallproportion of all cofinanced projects in ARD in Africawere exclusively cofinanced between IFAD and AfDB, andfor instance the World Bank International DevelopmentAssociation (IDA) was by far a more prominent partner.

AfDB had been responsible for providing supervisionservices for IFAD, including loan administration andprocurement, in 13 of the 38 cofinanced projects.But these arrangements were discontinued in 2007when IFAD started direct supervision of its projects.Supervision for IFAD in the other projects was mainlycarried out by the World Bank or the United NationsOffice for Project Services (UNOPS).

The AfDB/IFAD cofinanced projects are distributedacross the continent, with North-Africa being somewhatunder-represented: 20 projects are located in West andCentral Africa, 14 in East and Southern Africa and 4 inNorth Africa, with 40, 52, and 8 per cent of combinedIFAD/AfDB funds going to the respective regions. Since1990 the countries with the highest concentration ofcofinanced projects were Ghana (3, plus 1 pipeline),The Gambia (3), Guinea (3), United Republic ofTanzania (2) and Uganda (2).

After a slump of cofinanced activities in the 1990’s,cofinancing by AfDB/IFAD picked up substantially in

the 2000s. Fifteen of the 38 cofinanced projects wereapproved in the 2000s, compared to only 7 in the 1990sand 12 in the 1980s. The volume of cofinancedassistance by IFAD and AfDB quadrupled since 2000(see figure 10). This indicates the renewed interest incofinancing in the 2000s, as IFAD started its ownsupervision and the Bank resolved many of theproblems of the 1990s in managing its portfolio.Other important factors were the temporary withdrawalof other donors from ARD and the new partnershipenvironment that encouraged more cooperation.The trend also reflects the evolution of IFAD from afinancing institution to a more full-fledged developmentorganization. Over time IFAD gained more experienceand became increasingly involved in designing andmore recently in supervising the projects it finances.

The 12 ongoing and 2 newly planned projects rangefrom more traditional area-based integrated ruraldevelopment projects with multiple components (i.e. inUganda) to ones that are focused on specific sub-sectors,such as rural finance, rural enterprises, or irrigation(i.e. in Ghana, Mozambique, Ethiopia or The Gambia).They also include a large sector SWAp in the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania.

The main rationale for cofinancing by the twoagencies over the years remained the same: to leveragefunds and generate more effective projects, particularlyin small countries with relatively small budgetallocations and to scale up successful activities.Cofinancing by the two organisations is regarded as auseful method for increasing the effectiveness ofresources by broadening the scope of investmentopportunities beyond those that are within the capacityof a single organization. In some countries, the newpartnership environment encouraged cofinancing orparallel financing to contribute to larger ARD sectorprogrammes (such as in the United Republic ofTanzania, and to a lesser extent in Rwanda and Ghana).

Overall, with a few notable exceptions (for instance inThe Gambia), the evaluation found little evidence of jointdesign work, joint implementation arrangements, orjointly conducted ex-post review of cofinanced projectsby AfDB and IFAD in the past. The large majority of theseprojects were initiated by IFAD, with design often sub-contracted to the FAO-Investment Centre or done jointlywith other donors, in particular the World Bank (IDA).The AfDB came in mostly at a later stage, as a cofinancierusually augmenting the total project investment. In somecases, the AfDB took on the specific financing of certainproject components, particularly in infrastructure, or forspecific sub-regions in a country. In several cases, the twoagencies cofinanced two to three different consecutivephases of the same or a similar project in a country.Sometimes joint appraisal missions took place, but

63

often not. In several cases joint mid-term reviews weredone. Few joint PCRs were found. Joint procurementwas not possible in the past, due to differentprocurement requirements that have only recentlybeen alleviated on the side of the Bank.41

No projects were truly jointly cofinanced in thesense that the funds of all donors finance a common listof goods and services in agreed-upon proportions (seedefinition of cofinancing, box 6). The common form wasparallel cofinancing. While maintaining joint objectives,projects were usually divided into specific identifiablecomponents and separately financed from IFAD and Bankresources, with different procurement policies andprocedures. For the moment, this seems to be thepreferred way of cofinancing, not only because of differentprocurement systems, but also because of difficulties inreconciling the two agencies’ project and funding cycles.

The joint evaluation was not in a position toundertake a dedicated performance and impactassessment of the cofinanced projects as there werevery few independent evaluation reports or PCRsavailable for the 24 cofinanced projects closed to date,which is a reflection of the limited attention to andquality of PCRs in the past. Only two co-financedprojects could be reviewed in the meta-evaluation(see chapter 4), one of them in The Gambia eventuallyturning out as a success-story for long-time

cofinancing commitments (see box 7). But it is highlylikely that the performance of the closed projectscofinanced by IFAD and AfDB is very similar to themodest results of the projects analysed in the meta-evaluation, as most of them were designed in the1980s and 1990s, the period covered by the meta-evaluation.42 One indicator of performance is the timelag between loan approval by the Board and projecteffectiveness, which was the same for the cofinancedprojects as for other projects in Africa financed byIFAD and AfDB. Similarly, the average duration ofcofinanced projects between loan approval andcompletion of 8.5 years was not notably different fromthat of other projects.

In sum, cofinancing between IFAD and AfDB inAfrica has been a mixed picture, with very differentforms and intensities of cofinancing and jointarrangements, often involving other partners.Overall, IFAD seems to have been the ‘driving force’ incofinancing, particularly with the design of projects,taking AfDB on board as a cofinancier only at a laterstage. Some appraisals were done together. TheAfDB/IFAD partnership worked well in some cases,but was lukewarm in many others. Future cofinancinghas to include options beyond a narrow IFAD/AfDBcofinancing partnership, given the proliferation ofdonors and their priorities in the ARD sector in Africa.

Chapter 5 A review of partnerships

IFAD

100

0

300

200

600

500

400

1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009

Figure 10 IFAD-AfDB cofinanced projects: loan amount by decade

AfDB

US

$ m

illio

n

41/ The Bank was obliged to limit procurement only to member countries, inhibiting joint procurement. The regulation has now been relaxedwith respect to financing through ADF.42/ Most of the projects analysed in the meta-evaluation were designed in the 1990s; a few were designed in the early 2000s.

88 72

288

10677

220

64

The term ‘cofinancing’ refers to a financing arrangement whereby one or more sources of official or commercial funds(other than contributions or loans from the borrowing country) join in financing a project or programme.

In parallel cofinancing, the project is divided into specific, identifiable components, each of which is separately financed.Parallel financing is often used when cofinanciers stipulate different procurement policies and procedures. In such a case,the cofinanciers administer their financing themselves. For joint cofinancing, the funds of all donors finance a common list ofgoods and services required for the project in agreed upon proportions. This mode is suitable only when cofinanciers do nottie their assistance, or impose any special procurement restrictions.This means that there are different models of cofinancing: with separate or common disbursement mechanisms; with orwithout a common pool of resources. Cofinancing may, but does not have to include common design and implementation,common conditionalities, and ex-post evaluation.

(Based on the Asian Development Bank Operations Manual)

Box 6 Definition of cofinancing

The development of lowland rice production in The Gambia is an example of a long-term, and ultimately successfulpartnership of IFAD and AfDB in a cofinancing arrangement. It ranges over more than 25 years, starting with the cofinancingof irrigation technologies in the early 1980s together with other donors (Netherlands and KfW) that ultimately proved to beill-suited to the capabilities of the growers, most of whom were women.

A redesign of this early project took place from 1992 to 1995 which resulted in the Lowlands Agricultural DevelopmentProgramme (LADEP), for which IFAD and AfDB shared the project costs equally. During the design phase the Bank andIFAD efficiently coordinated their activities. The Government supported, actively participated and owned the project at allstages of the project cycle, which contributed significantly to project success. Technical design included detailed studies toprecede the project preparation. This led to an excellent project design. Flexibility in project design contributed positively toproject implementation.

The Bank took over the implementation and supervision of the entire LADEP and efficiently implemented the programme atall stages. The cofinancing arrangements and cooperation agreement between IFAD and the Bank were explicit enough toenhance operational efficiency. The Bank conducted 14 field missions between 1997 and 2004, including the appraisal,launching and MTR missions, some of them jointly with IFAD. PCRs were done separately by IFAD and AfDB in 2005 and2006, but came up with similar conclusions.

The implementation of LADEP attracted massive support, participation, commitment and ownership by the Government,local communities and beneficiaries. It was cost-effective, although evidence on impact was largely circumstantial as theproject M&E never took off. LADEP was a successful project and the lessons learnt have been incorporated into the designof the Participatory Integrated Watershed Management Project (PIWAMP). The PIWAMP derived largely from the LADEP –its achievements, strengths and shortcomings, as indicated in the mid-term review of the LADEP (2002).

A joint appraisal mission by IFAD and AfDB took place in November 2003, after different project design studies and a high-level meeting in Tunis. The project became effective in 2005. The project is now jointly implemented and supervised by IFADand AfDB. In this case the combined know-how, financing, and long-term commitment of both IFAD and AfDB in closepartnership with the Government and the beneficiaries has been bearing good fruits.

Box 7 Rice production in The Gambia – an AfDB/IFAD partnership success

65

Partnership with governments

Their partnership with governments in Africa is withoutdoubt the most important one for IFAD and AfDB.The two agencies have developed strong relations withborrowing country governments, which find the twoorganizations to be reliable and trustworthy partners.This was the clear message from the country visits ofthe joint evaluation teams. Both agencies share theadvantage that they are seen as neutral in their policythinking and not involved in leveraging change thoughpolicy conditions imposed from outside. IFAD isseeking to capitalize on its distinctiveness from otherIFIs as a United Nations agency “plus fund”, using itslegitimacy in conversations with governments and civilsociety. AfDB is perceived as a valued African voice dueto its pre-dominantly African staff and its corporatemembership structure.

The main instrument of collaboration withgovernments is still the investment project, but therehas been some movement towards programmatic andportfolio approaches in both agencies. Results-basedcountry strategies, based on the new platformsprovided by PRSPs and other national developmentplans, now provide the central guiding approach fordoing business. Greater attention has been devoted tonon-lending activities to support the development ofbetter policies and achieve deeper results on poverty.In a few cases, IFAD and AfDB are collaborating withgovernments through SWAps, which raises newoperational and policy challenges. AfDB alsocontributes resources for ARD through budget supportfor governments, as in Rwanda (see box 8).Yet, reflecting concerns over accountability for use ofinvestment resources, both agencies still rely stronglyon mechanisms and procedures in their projects notfully embedded in government systems, such as projectmanagement units (PMUs), specific procurement rulesand special bank accounts, rather than on commonprocedures as envisaged in the Paris Declaration. Thispartly reflects the lack of quality government systems inARD compared with other sectors, and the need forimproved government performance (see chapter 4).

A major challenge to effective partnering withgovernments is that stakeholders such as farmers’organizations, the private sector and community-basedorganizations are not always sufficiently represented incountry strategy formulation, programme design,policy formulation and project execution. This hasallowed gaps in ownership which undermines theeffectiveness of investment projects and other donor-funded interventions. Despite the original intentions,SWAps are generally confined to agriculture ministriesand have concentrated attention on the use of central

government resources while neglecting the needs offarmers’ organizations and the private sector. Moreover,building political consensus on sector policy andstrategy is often complicated by the involvement ofmany different ministries and government institutions,including decentralised agencies, local governments,and a multitude of other national and internationalactors, and in particular the private sector. Debates asto the appropriate mix of public and private investmentcontinue, but little has been achieved in terms ofimproving the public–private sector interface.

But there also have been some improvements in ARDpartnering activity and government leadership. Second-generation PRSPs are placing increasing emphasis onARD helping throw light on the kind of institutional andpolicy developments required. An important sign ofrecent progress in partnering is the inclusion of ARD inJoint Country Assistance Strategies (JASs) led by nationalgovernments (e.g. in Uganda, United Republic ofTanzania and Rwanda). IFAD and AfDB have made effortsto participate in JASs in some countries, though to arelatively limited degree to date. There is scope for more.

Fragile states present a different set of challenges forcooperation with governments; common lessons areemerging from the experience of donor engagement.An understanding of the causes of tension and conflict,based on analysis of national political economies, isneeded. State building must be a priority, but capacity-building and technical assistance require significanthuman and financial resources over a long period.Because agencies typically initiate interventions inresponse to needs such as emergencies, there arenumerous interventions, which become unwieldy anddifficult to coordinate. Establishing coordinatedstrategies and common goals with recipient governmentsand lead partners is particularly important in situationsof fragility, but it is easily neglected. The implications arethat operations in fragile states need agency presence, aidcoordination, additional human resources, patience, along-term perspective and achievable objectives instraightforward areas of investment or policy.


66

Other partnerships by IFAD and AfDB in

agriculture and rural development in Africa

Public and civil society partnerships. IFAD and AfDBhave partnerships with many other public developmentand civil society agencies working in ARD in Africa at thecorporate and country levels. IFAD has partnerships withagencies such as the Belgian Survival Fund (BSF), AGRA,the Coordination Secretariat for the United NationsHigh-Level Task Force on Food Security and theInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).As a United Nations agency, IFAD has a responsibilityto take forward the “One UN” reform agenda; inconformity with its mandate it has also establishedpartnerships with organizations that advocate thecause of the rural poor such as the Farmers Forumand national farmers’ associations. AfDB has regionalpartnerships such as those with NEPAD and CAADP,the AU and regional economic communities (RECs).43

In 2009, IFAD and AfDB signed a letter of intent withthe French Agency for Development and AGRA toestablish an equity fund in Africa to promote privateoperators involved in the development of foodproduction in Africa (for more details on IFAD andAfDB partnerships see box 9).

On the other hand, partnerships with FAO, WFPand the World Bank, all important actors in promotingagriculture and food security in Africa, have not beenprominent in the past. IFAD and AfDB have often notcoordinated at the country level. The numerouscountry-level coordination and partnershipmechanisms in ARD in Africa reflect the changes inthe international aid agenda, which increasinglyemphasises common aid coordination platforms led byIFIs and bilateral agencies such as the World Bank,the EU and national partners (see table 4). Except forMozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania, thepast focus by IFAD and AfDB on traditional investmentprojects and limited country presence meant they havenot played a lead role in these mechanisms. Partneringwith other donor agencies was initiated mainly at thecorporate level rather than the country level, which isone of the reasons why IFAD and AfDB have not helpedmuch to fill the policy and leadership gap in Africa.

Private sector partnerships. Partnership withthe private sector is not sufficiently developed ineither IFAD or AfDB. Neither has engaged with theprivate sector to a degree commensurate with itscentral role in agriculture in Africa. This reflects a lackof clear corporate approaches and the difficulty of

43/ Such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Preparation of the AfDB CSP 2008–2011 and the IFAD COSOP 2008–2012 included dialogue on government policies withministries, project coordinators and other donors. IFAD put in place a country programme management team that includedgovernment staff, donors and NGOs to assist in preparing the COSOP.

Like AfDB, IFAD has started to harmonize its interventions with sectoral programmes, particularly in agriculture: recentlydesigned projects adopt a programme approach instead of being designed and implemented as stand-alone projects. Inthe past, harmonization of interventions with sectoral programmes, and their performance, were constrained by lack of clearsector programmes, which reduced synergy among interventions.

AfDB has been in dialogue with donors and the Government through a budget harmonization group in the framework ofbudget support. Consultation with the Government led to an agreement to adopt clear criteria for prioritization in AfDB’s CSPand a project implementation “readiness filter” for enhanced quality-at-entry.

The Government and AfDB also agreed to concentrate AfDB resources on budget support and four large-scale projects forroads, energy, water and sanitation rather than dispersing them on small projects with little impact. AfDB agreed to workwith other donors to enhance the capacity of the new Public Investment Commission and the Central Public Investmentsand External Finance Bureau and to conduct joint annual country portfolio reviews with the Government and otherdevelopment partners.

AfDB, the World Bank, DFID, Japan and the Government also plan to analyse impediments to growth in Rwanda with a viewto prioritizing government actions under the PRSP to enhance analytical capacity at the Institute for Policy Analysis andResearch and increase harmonization with government priorities and donor strategies.

Box 8 Working with a government on agriculture and rural development strategies: Rwanda

supporting country-led approaches if governmentsoffer insufficient support for private-sectorparticipation in small-scale ARD. In response,IFAD introduced its Private Sector and PartnershipDevelopment Strategy in April 2005 and supportsfarmers’ associations and the commercialization ofsmall farmers. AfDB’s Medium-Term Strategy 2008–2012 makes private-sector operations a focus for thefuture: it has a large department and a range of

financial instruments to this end. The Bank’s private-sector operations have increased sharply in numberand volume in the last two years. But the conditionsattached to loans do not favour small-scale business,and the department’s activities are not well coordinatedwith other AfDB departments concerned with ruraldevelopment. Partnering with the private sector opensup new roles and fresh opportunities for IFAD andAfDB, which need to be developed further.


IFAD partnerships

IFAD has had a partnership with BSF since 1984 to provide grants as cofinancing for IFAD-funded investment projects,of which there are 30 in 15 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The partnership with BSF, which focuses on health, education,water supply and sanitation, is an example of a way to address the multi-faceted nature of rural poverty in Africa. Thepartnership with AGRA is an example of a “non-traditional” strategic partnership at the regional and country levels.With the Gates Foundation, IFAD is supporting AGRA’s work with small farmers to address gender inequalities, improve ruralservices and market access and promote technical innovation. Another example is the 2006 Farmers’ Forum Initiative, anongoing process of consultation and dialogue between farmers, rural producers, IFAD and governments that provides IFADwith a tool for advancing policy dialogue and enhancing the role of targeted groups in policymaking and advocacy.

IFAD has also established a significant partnership with IFPRI that enables IFPRI research in IFAD-funded projects. IFADbenefits from IFPRI research findings, capacity-building and country dialogue initiatives. To promote its environment agenda,IFAD has a long-standing partnership with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as an “executing agency”, which enablesIFAD to influence GEF and gives added visibility to IFAD. AfDB is also involved with GEF, but to a smaller extent.

IFAD has a particular role in working with FAO and the World Food Programme (WFP), the two other Rome-based UnitedNations organizations. The potential advantages of the combined finance capacity of IFAD, the logistics capability of WFPand the technical expertise of FAO are recognized, but issues of confidence in the ability to deliver and apparentdifferences in operating models have acted as constraints at operational and institutional levels. There are examples ofpartnerships between the organizations at the country level, but they still lack broad institutional backup.

AfDB partnerships

In its ARD partnerships, AfDB has a consistent interest in cooperating with bilateral and multilateral donors. AfDB’spartnerships are policy and operations oriented, but a major “selling point” has been its capacity to leverage its own fundsto generate more resources. To some extent partnerships are measured in terms of their multiplier effect, which for theAfDB’s is weaker in agriculture than in other sectors: since 2007, the multiplier effect has been 1.95 compared with anaverage of 3.26 for the organization as a whole. In AfDB and IFAD, US$2 is mobilized for each dollar lent.

AfDB has developed partnerships with NEPAD, the AU and RECs. At the regional level, CAADP, which is led by the AU andNEPAD and implemented by RECs, is an example of developing ownership by national and regional institutions. Thesepartnerships are managed by dedicated units such as AfDB’s NEPAD Unit and Partnerships and Cooperation Unit. ARDdoes not feature prominently among AfDB themes or priority areas for partnering, however. Knowledge partnerships, whichare to be managed by the Chief Economist’s Office, are at an early stage of development.

OSAN has partnerships with AGRA and to a lesser extent with FAO. It convened an international workshop in 2008 in anattempt to get international partners and donors to discuss and coordinate the international response to the 2007–2008food price crisis, but it proved difficult to institutionalize this event and ensure follow-up. AfDB’s Technical Unit on Gender,Climate Change and Sustainable Development has partnered IFAD and others through the Women Organizing for Changein Agriculture and Natural Resources project, in which a small investment has brought visibility and engagementopportunities, attracted other sponsors and leveraged substantial additional resources.

Box 9 Partnerships in agriculture and rural development by IFAD and AfDB

67

Table 4 Country-level coordination and partnership mechanisms in agricultureand rural development in Africa led by agencies and national partners

Country

Burkina Faso

Ethiopia

Ghana

Kenya

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mozambique

Niger

Senegal

Sierra Leone

UnitedRepublic ofTanzania

Donor leads

Denmark

GTZ,Netherlands

GTZ

Sweden

EU

EU

WFP

CIDA (EUand Finland)

EU, France

EU, France

Min. of Ag.and FoodSec., FAO

World Bank,Ireland

World Bank,EU

Top 3financiersof agriculture

World Bank,AfDB,Denmark

World Bank,USAID, EU

CIDA, WorldBank,AfDB/USAID

World Bank,EU, USAID

EU, WorldBank, MCA

EU, WorldBank, DFID

EU, MCA, KfW

EU, WorldBank, USAID

EU, Denmark,France, USAID

EU, AfDB,France, WorldBank

IFAD, AfDB,FAO

World Bank,IFAD, AfDB

World Bank,EU, AfDB

Donor/Govt. CoC

-

-

In preparation

Yes

-

Draft

-

In preparation

Cadre departenariat

-

-

Terms ofreference forAgricultureWorking GroupofDevelopmentPartnersGroup

Yes (no detailsavailable)

Multi-stakeholderagricultureCoordination

Yes

No

Yes(ineffective)

Yes

No

Yes (limited tofood and nutritionsub-sector)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

AgricultureSWAp

No(in thepipeline)

No

No (roadmapexists)

No

No (to bedevelopedwith strategy)

No (to bedevelopedwith policy)

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

ARD policy framework

PROSDRp

Rural Development Strategy

Food and AgriculturalDevelopment Policy

Medium-Term Sector Planand Strategy for RevitalisingAgriculture

Agricultural Strategy(in preparation)

Agricultural DevelopmentPolicy (in preparation)

Loi d’orientation agricole

As sector strategy(in preparation)

Rural Development Strategy

No overallstrategy

Medium-term Strategic Plan

Agriculture SectorDevelopment Strategy

Plan for Modernisationof Agriculture

68


Table 4 (continued) Country-level coordination and partnership mechanisms in agricultureand rural development in Africa led by agencies and national partners

UgandaCountry

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Donor leads

USAID,Sweden,WorldBank/AfDB

Netherlands

Top 3financiersof agriculture

USAID,SwedenWorldBank/AfDB

EU, DFID,USAID

Donor/Govt. CoC

Terms ofreference forcoordinationbetweenMinistry ofAgricultureandCooperatives

Principles forGoodInternationalEngagementin FragileStates

Multi-stakeholderagriculturecoordination

Yes

Yes (limited tohumanitarianassistanceprogrammes)

AgricultureSWAp

No

No

ARD policy framework

National Agriculture Policy

Notes: GTZ = German Agency for Technical Cooperation; USAID = United States Agency for International Development; CIDA = CanadianInternational Development Agency; MCA = Millennium Challenge Account; KfW = German Development Bank; PROSDRp = ProgrammeSectoriel du Développement Rural productif; CoC = code of conduct.

69

Implication of the new partnership

environment and aid modalities

The development context changed significantly duringthe period covered by the joint evaluation, notablythrough the 2005 Paris Declaration on Harmonizationand Alignment and the subsequent high-level forum onaid effectiveness in Accra in September 2008. Theseevents provided a common framework for partnerships,including by now well known principles andcommitments such as country ownership, alignmentwith recipient country policies and systems, commonarrangements for delivering aid, simplification ofprocedures, management for results and mutualaccountability. The complexity of the ARD sector, thestrategic necessity for a broad set of actions (see chapter 2)and the enormous investment requirements must beaddressed through strategic partnerships and planningwith clear priorities at the country level and support atthe regional level. Successful partnerships fordevelopment have to adopt a multi-stakeholderapproach at different levels and across different players(see figure 11): partners range from the global to thelocal level and from the state, civil society to the private

sector. Decision-making processes affecting ARDpolicies and strategies in the countries have to beinclusive, yet stay manageable. This will require cleardefinitions of aid modalities and division of labour forARD, with clear roles for governments, internationalaid agencies, the private sector, local stakeholders andAfrican regional institutions such as CAADP.

African governments and development partnershave to work with a rapidly increasing number ofdevelopment organizations, development assistanceactors and new donors. Private foundations andphilanthropic organizations are becoming increasinglyimportant in agriculture in Africa, and Brazil, Chinaand India are rapidly becoming important investmentpartners. In response to these developments, Africannations working through the AU have identified jointaction as critical: they have created NEPAD, CAADPand other institutions for regional integration andspecialized development tasks. This raises the issue ofways to bring these actors into effective partnershipsto support sustainable ARD in Africa. IFAD and AfDBwill need to reflect on this and ensure that theycontinue to make a significant contribution toreducing poverty in Africa.

Partnership drivers and constraints

There are strong corporate drivers in IFAD and AfDBfor expanded partnerships between themselves andwith others. These include: (i) recognition that IFADand AfDB cannot fulfil their mandates alone; (ii) theemergence of new players in ARD, particularly in theprivate sector; (iii) the need to implement the ParisDeclaration with its focus on new modalities; (iv) theimportance of greater selectivity and focus in ARD;(v) the increased country focus; (vi) the move towardsmore systematic knowledge management; and (vii) theneed to fill gaps in specialized skills. But there are alsomany classical constraints working against effectivepartnership in both organizations, in particular(i) different institutional cultures; (ii) inconsistentprogramme and budget cycles; (iii) differentprocurement guidelines; (iv) the need to achieve annuallending targets; (v) limitations in staff competencies;(vi) different experiences and incentives with regard to

44/ IFAD produced a position paper on partnerships in 2008 in the context of the 8th Replenishment, which is an indication of its growingrecognition of the topic.

Figure 11 Multi-level and multi-sectoral governance

Civil society Private sector

State

MULTI-SECTOR GOVERNANCE

Global/Regional

National (macro)

Departmental (meso)

Local (micro)MU

LTI-

LEV

EL

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

Vert

ical

coo

rdin

atio

n an

d h

arm

oniz

atio

nth

roug

h re

pre

sent

atio

n an

d p

artic

ipat

ion;

syst

emat

ic u

se o

f exp

erie

nces

(sc

alin

g u

p)

Horizontal integration and networking: participationand mutual dependency between state, civil society

and the private sector

70

developing partnerships; and (vii) different corporatepriorities and lending instruments.

Yet, as a result of a certain degree of “partnershipfever” evident in the development community in thelast decade, IFAD and AfDB have developed a diverse,unstructured and loosely defined mix of opportunisticpartnerships, which is becoming a burden on thelimited resources at their disposal, especially staff time.Such partnerships emerge primarily to leverageadditional resources than for strategic or programmaticreasons. Neither IFAD nor AfDB has a partnershippolicy or guidance on selecting, developing andimplementing partnerships and measuring the resultsachieved.44 Incentives for partnership work areuncertain: neither organization has a history ofestablishing clear objectives for partnerships, withtargeted results and tracked indicators. Nor are theirpartnerships clearly based on comparative advantagesand specialization.

71


45/ The average total cofinancing across all donors in the period 1978-1993 was US$68.8 million per year for 7.1 projects, US$109.3 millionper year between 1994-2001 for 8.6 projects, and US$112.3 million per year between 2002-07 for 8.7 projects. The cofinancing fromthe AfDB/AfDF for the same periods was US$13.2 million (1.4 projects), US$11.7 million (0.9) and US$15 million (1).

Cofinancier

Belgian Survival Fund

African Development Bank

West African DevelopmentBank

OPEC Fund for InternationalDevelopment

Global Environment Facility

World Bank

World Food Programme

Arad Fund for Economic andSocial Development

Total

No. Projects

3

22

5

15

49

16

2

113

US$

36

211

59

155

446

171

22

1102

No. Projects

14

7

10

13

2

18

4

1

69

US$

158

94

126

188

30

208

64

8

874

No. Projects

11

7

6

11

7

6

2

1

52

US$

166

90

80

167

77

63

19

11

674

Table 5 Overview of cofinancing mobilized by IFAD since 1978 in Africa45

1994-2001 2002-20071978-1993

Source: IFAD/Project and Portfolio Management System.

Key partnership principles

The observed practice of partnerships in IFAD andAfDB lends strong support to the following conditionsfor successful partnerships as gleaned from the jointevaluation review of good partnership practices:(i) Partnership is a means to an end: partnershipagreements need to set clear goals for the partnershipand expectations for value-added; (ii) Selectivity is key.Partnerships need specific and bounded objectives,with one or more clear outcomes that are being trackedregularly. This requires monitoring and evaluation;(iii) Strong partnerships are dynamic in nature. Theyoften bring a particular intensity of effort and sharpnesswhen evolving conditions demand. This requiresflexibility among partners; and (iv) Adequateresourcing, including appropriate and adequate humanresources, and organizational incentives, which need toalign across partners, are crucial (see box 10).

Organizational and business process implications

AfDB and IFAD have clear corporate messages as tothe importance of partnering, but this has not been

prioritized in organizational reform and businessprocesses, nor sufficiently operationalized inguidelines. Corporate intention to invest more inpartnerships is not well reflected in policy frameworksthat rationalize existing partnerships in relation tocorporate strategy and country-driven needs.Rationalization of existing and future partnershipswill be needed to ensure that staff time is used tomaximum effect.

IFAD and AfDB have already reformed many oftheir business processes. But further reform will beessential to enable more effective partnerships throughincreased country presence and better knowledgemanagement. Integrating knowledge into policies andoperations is a major challenge. These changes havesignificant implications for the management of humanand financial resources. The increasing role indevelopment of the private sector, farmers’associations and communities calls for significantchanges in policies and the orientation of partnershipsamong donors and recipient governments, andadaptation of business models.

72

Partnership is not an end in itself: it is a mechanism for delivering corporate, programme and project objectives, which mustbe clear to all partners. The aim should be long-term, performance-based partnerships rather than short-term projectfunding. Operational environments are complex and make various demands on partnerships and partnership projects;economic and political situations, for example, have to be thoroughly understood. The elements necessary for goodpartnerships are as follows:

• Context is fundamental. Partnerships are effective when they are based on the resources available on the ground, whenthey enhance the capacities, determine the best ways to fill gaps and are open to modifications as the partnershipmatures and capacity develops. This is particularly important in the heterogeneous and knowledge-intensive context ofARD in Africa (see chapter 2).

• Understand incentives and conflicts. From the outset, partners must understand their individual and institutionalincentives, negotiable issues, obstacles, assets and reputations. IFAD and AfDB have not given this matter adequateattention, in spite of their commitments to enter into a partnership;

• Differentiate between individuals and institutions. Partnerships need to be developed beyond the individual level andbecome part of the organization. Each partner needs to develop effective internal communication channels.

• Manage assumptions and expectations. Develop clarity in the partnership model from the start and recognize theincentives and disincentives of partnership. The existence of a partnership agreement does not mean that a model ofpartnership has been considered at the outset; this was the case of the MoU between IFAD and AfDB;

• Focus on results. Partners must jointly determine targets for the delivery of shared objectives and the quantity andquality of outcomes expected; they must understand where interests converge as anticipated. Decision-makers mustobtain authentic information about processes and results from operators in the field.

• Reconcile single-partner interests with collective interests. Unless a problem is regarded as urgent by all partners,individual missions are likely to outweigh collaborative missions. Reconciling individual interests with collectiveinterests is possible only when partners appreciate the high risk related to not engaging in a shared solution.

• Create partnerships on the basis of complementary contributions and comparative advantages. Organizations shouldconfine their contribution to their core business, which they do best, contributing their competencies, experiences andcomparative advantage to the partnership. They must determine which core competencies add value to thecomplementary contributions of other partners.

• Recognize time and energy as critical resources. The most costly resources of collaboration are the time and energyrequired for negotiating with partners on the five dimensions of collaborative action – governance, administration,autonomy, mutuality and trust.

• Apply practical measures. Working in partnership requires measures for accountability, clarification of roles andresponsibilities, continuous exchange of information, clarification of expectations and a list of possible sanctions.

Box 10 Good practices for partnerships

Source: Partnership benchmarking study undertaken during the joint evaluation, 2008.

IFAD/AfDB partnership options

In the short term, IFAD and AfDB are likely to needselective, focused partnerships: IFAD could devoteattention to smallholder farmers’ productivity,community development, gender equality andempowerment; AfDB could provide support forinfrastructure development, improved macro-economicand sector governance, and engagement with theprivate sector. But it is not clear how far this willdeliver immediate gains in improved developmenteffectiveness. Improvements in business processes arelikely to lead to increased capacity for effectivepartnering in the medium and long term. Theevaluation proposes five approaches to developingfuture IFAD/AfDB partnerships:

(i) Build on the comparative advantage of eachagency and develop a complementaryengagement in one or more priority areas, inline with the strategic frameworks of IFADand AfDB.

(ii) Facilitate private-sector involvement inagricultural development and developinnovative financing instruments.

(iii) Consider the value added of joint countryassistance strategies and assess the viability ofjoint business processes to implement them,particularly joint supervision andimplementation support and joint countrypresence.

(iv) Find ways to leverage the increasing fundingfor ARD in Africa.

(v) Document good practice and experience with aview to the replication and scaling up by AfDBand others of innovations promoted by IFAD.


• IFAD and AfDB have had two formal partnership agreements dated 1978 and 2008. The 1978 cooperation agreementwas largely input- and activity-driven; more attention is devoted in the more recent 2008 MoU to results and joint action.

• Past partnership between AfDB and IFAD was largely confined to cofinancing of investment projects and in AfDB toproviding supervision services for IFAD; 38 projects were cofinanced over 30 years at an overall project cost of close toUS$1.77 billion.

• The performance of the partnership has been generally weak: there was limited communication and co-ordination,inadequate supervision of projects and little cooperation in policy dialogue, joint programming and knowledgemanagement.

• Performance of cofinancing of projects has been mixed, with different forms and intensities of cofinancing and jointarrangements, often involving other partners.

• AfDB and IFAD have had good partnerships with borrowing governments in Africa, who have confidence in them andconsider them trustworthy.

• AfDB and IFAD have a range of partnerships with other development agencies working in ARD in Africa: for example,IFAD has partnerships with BSF and the Farmers’ Forum; AfDB has partnerships with NEPAD and the AU. These arecritical in addressing the multi-dimensional nature of poverty. Partnerships with FAO, WFP and the World Bank,however, have not been prominent in the past.

• There are encouraging recent signs in both organizations of enhancement and extension of their partnership in ARD tocombat poverty in Africa. But new aid modalities, “partnership fever”, the many donors in Africa and the ParisDeclaration have implications for the AfDB and IFAD business models in Africa.

• The evaluation proposes five approaches for developing IFAD/AfDB partnerships: building on the comparativeadvantage of each agency and developing a partnership in priority areas, facilitating private-sector engagement,reflecting on the value added of cooperation in some business processes, leveraging the increased funding for ARDin Africa and documenting good practice with a view to replication and scaling up by AfDB of innovations promotedby IFAD.

• There are good practices that should be considered in future partnerships, including ensuring a results focus, buildingon comparative advantage and managing assumptions and expectations.

Box 11 Review of partnerships

73

75

Overview

A frica is a continent on the move asdemonstrated by the accelerated economicgrowth of a number of countries: in their

agricultural sectors, this occurred when governmentswere in control. Specifically, major progress has beenachieved over the past 15 years by African countriesthat have taken charge of their economic destinies andreformed their approach to economic management.Given this evidence, the joint evaluation concludes thatthe pessimism that has characterized prior assessmentsof Africa’s ARD prospects is no longer justified.

To be sure, the global economic crisis that is stillunfolding constitutes a serious setback. Equally,the agricultural trade practices of OECD countriesconstitute a major disincentive. Agro-industries inAfrica considering exports run into tariff escalation onprocessed goods whereby there may be free access forunprocessed produce, but tariffs rise rapidly with anyadditional processing. This situation is exacerbatedbecause some African countries still discriminateagainst agriculture through domestic policies thatcreate a negative rate of protection for agriculture,particularly for exportable commodities.

Moreover, Africa, and in particular sub-SaharanAfrica, faces serious challenges – some old, some new;these include low levels of human development, deepand chronic poverty, an unfavourable and unequaltrade regime, and more recently, natural resourcedegradation, climate change and volatility ofcommodity markets. Disease, malnutrition andilliteracy still persist in the continent. State fragilityis a major constraint. Violent conflict has not beenbanished. Most economies in Africa are still highlyvulnerable to exogenous shocks so that officialdevelopment assistance still has a major role toplay in nurturing ARD.

Nevertheless, in spite of the recent food processcrises and ongoing recession, the medium and longterm prospects of Africa’s agricultural sector are gooddue to a better investment climate, greater economicstability, growing private-sector activity, fewer armed

conflicts, more democracy, the emergence of strongerregional organizations, the advent of a vocal civilsociety, the vitality of the private sector and a renewedinterest in ARD by governments and donors alike.

Against this background, the joint evaluationconcludes that Africa’s agricultural sector, includingthe traditional crops that are its mainstay, has greatuntapped potential. Agriculture, long neglected, shouldbe recognized as the critical driver of economic growth,increased employment, poverty reduction andenhanced food security in Africa. The foundation of thecontinent’s agricultural potential rests on its rich naturalresources and on the dynamism and resilience of itssmallholders and rural entrepreneurs including women,who constitute the majority of the rural population.

A major constraint to sustainable economic andagricultural growth remains the low productivity andlimited access to markets of small farmers and smallrural businesses. In this regard, underinvestment inresearch and development oriented towards increasedproductivity of poor farmers at both the country andregional levels has also held back improvements infood security and higher incomes. Coupled with arange of institutional constraints, insufficient researchand development tailored to local conditions haslikewise constrained the expansion of large scalecommercial agriculture.

To exploit the untapped potential of Africanagriculture requires the establishment of an appropriatepolicy environment. However, the conclusion of theevaluation is that there is a large “policy gap”: there aresignificant shortcomings in policies, institutions andultimately leadership which are constraining successfuldevelopment of the ARD sector. Related to this, theevaluation found that there is an undersupply of publicgoods, for example in terms of infrastructure andinvestment in research, which further hindersagricultural growth and improvement in incomes.Given the complexity and heterogeneity of agriculturalconditions in Africa and the risks involved in theadoption of new practices, harnessing new agriculturaltechnologies and disseminating them will also call formajor investments to fill the extensive “knowledge gap”.

Conclusions and recommendations

76

Despite important exceptions, the evaluation didnot find evidence of strong political will supportingARD within the region. For instance, few governmentshave allocated 10 per cent or more of their ownbudgets for ARD or put in place effective ARD policiesand strong institutions to implement them, as calledfor by the AU resolution adopted at the MaputoConference in 2003 by African Ministers ofAgriculture. Strong political will is also consideredessential to ensure that donors align their support andinterventions within the overall priority areas definedfor the ARD sector by national policies.

Faced by this multi-faceted challenge, theevaluation concluded that strong and effectivepartnerships between the public, private and voluntarysectors are not yet forthcoming in the amount andfrequency that would be required to sustain themomentum of change and achieve broad based successin ARD. International donors have also not on thewhole realigned their priorities to promote ARDin Africa. African governments need trusted,knowledgeable and competent development partners,who will work with them to address the ARDchallenges and seize its opportunities.

There is a proliferation of donors in Africa, which iscausing severe strain on national systems and resources.Donors are bringing additional resources, but they alsocome with high transactions costs to governments forco-ordination and dialogue with respective donors,including receiving donor missions and following upon their reports and recommendations. In theory,partnerships among donors based on their respectiveareas of comparative advantage and specialization andled by governments would be an asset. But, in reality, inspite of the adoption of the Paris Declaration and AccraAgenda for Action, donor co-ordination remains achallenge, partly due to weak government capabilitiesto co-ordinate their actions.

The evaluation highlights that AfDB and IFAD areimportant actors in ARD in Africa, as until recentlythey used to contribute about 50 per cent of the totalmultilateral ODA to the sector in Africa. Both are trustedand respected partners in most countries of the region.They are well placed to work with regionalorganizations and governments to address frontally thepolicy leadership and capacity gaps that must be filled.Based on their extensive experience “on the ground”,they have recently done a great deal to improve theirown capacities so that, working together, they can makedistinctive and significant contributions in addressingthe challenges of the sector. Their policy competence,their capacity for dialogue and their knowledgemanagement processes however are still weak.

For this, both organizations need to go beyond theircurrent role as project investment agencies to reach tothe higher plane of sub-sector and sector-wideinterventions including policy advice. The next stepshould be to bring this experience to bear on key policyissues and contribute more substantially to the debatearound the policy table. For this purpose, moreattention to non-lending activities, including knowledgemanagement, partnership development and policydialogue and the development of analytical capacitywhich should underpin these activities, will be required.

The joint evaluation also concludes that bothagencies have undertaken important reforms in therecent past, even though further improvements inpolicies, processes and systems can be achieved. Thiswill require adequate resources. Through their on-goingbusiness process reforms, both agencies have madesignificant strides towards putting themselves in aposition to work closely with governments on thechallenges facing ARD. Both IFAD and AfDB arecommitted to become knowledge organizations, toenhance their country presence and strengthensupervision and implementation support, and to maketheir operating processes more businesslike andefficient. Both agencies also recognize that they havedifferent contributions to make and that a strongerpartnership between them would yield major benefitsto their member countries. They recognize that theirown comparative advantages and their chosenspecializations can provide the basis for an effectivepartnership in support of filling the ARD policy gapand improve borrowers’ performance – a majorconstraint to improved development effectiveness.

The evaluation found that in the past quality oftheir assurance systems, as well as supervision andimplementation support were weak. Efforts have beenmade to improve these business processes, which areessential to enhance country programme and projectperformance so that performance continues to improve,especially in terms of the sustainability and efficiency oftheir interventions. Moreover, in the past both agenciesopted often to use a comprehensive multi-componentapproach to policies and programmes, instead of takinga sharper strategic focus based on their comparativeadvantage and specialization. This standard responsehas not proven felicitous in all cases.

The evaluation also underlines that each agencyindeed has their own comparative advantages, butthey have not invested in the development of newareas of competencies to fulfil a more nimble andresponsive role in ARD. Specialization implies greaterpriority to partnerships as an alternative to thecomprehensive, multi-component approach of the past.

77

Specialization in areas of comparative advantagewould also generate new possibilities for cooperationbetween IFAD and AfDB.

Conclusions

Good policies matter, but there is a policy andleadership gap. Since 2001, economic growth rateshave exceeded 5 per cent a year, and no less thantwenty countries in Africa have grown at rates fasterthan the average for the developing world since 2004.High economic growth has led to reduction in poverty,and in particular agricultural growth has contributed topromoting food security as well as reducing hunger andmalnutrition. But, economic growth in most Africancountries started from a low base; it varies across thecontinent and remains fragile as a result of the manychallenges the continent still faces.

Increased agricultural growth since the 1980s islargely the result of improved agricultural conditions,particularly the improved macro-economic and sectorpolicy environment, the enhanced investment climateand commitment by governments to make ARD as theengine for growth and better lives. The fact that adozen countries have done well in agricultural growthgives hope that good performance is achievable morewidely. The difference between these countries andthose making less progress has to do with developingand adopting the right policies and strengthening theinstitutions that implement them.

Economic and agriculture growth have beenfacilitated by fewer armed conflicts, greater politicalstability, democratically based legitimacy, and enhancedcivil society participation. There have also beenimprovements at the institutional level, with theemergence of regional and sub-regional organizations.

African economists46 have long emphasized theneed to promote widely shared agricultural growth,based on the ‘Four Is’: improving the investmentclimate, closing the infrastructure gap, promotinginnovation and building institutional capacity (seerelevant section in chapter 2). African states have notdevoted adequate attention to these principles in theirARD activities, nor have these principles been the maindrivers of cooperation in the sector.

Despite the recent global economic crisis,47 themedium and long term prospects for Africa and its

agriculture are positive because macro-economicpolicies have improved and because commodity priceshave stopped declining. They are expected to stabilizeat slightly higher levels because of demand from globalgrowth and for bio-fuels. Another positive factor is thepolitical will evident in some African governments toprioritise and support ARD activities with soundpolicies, national plans and budgets. The 2003 AfricanUnion Conference of Ministers of Agriculture inMaputo has recognized the need to increase food andagricultural production in order to guaranteesustainable food security.

By adopting the Maputo Declaration, countriesagreed to implement the CAADP agenda, includingspecific investment projects and action plans foragricultural development, at national, regional andcontinental levels. Specifically, countries agreed toimplement the CAADP agenda and achieve its targets of6 per cent annual agriculture growth rate and allocate atleast 10 per cent of national budgetary resourcestowards ARD within five years. But while eight countriesare living up to the Maputo Declaration commitment tofuel their own development, ARD is not yet high on theagenda of many governments, despite the fact that a vastmajority of the poor derive their livelihoods and incomefrom agriculture-related activities.

Interest in the sector decreased to dramatically lowlevels in the 1980s and 1990s. While policy shifts areunderway, resources going towards ARD are still toolow, given the importance of agriculture for growth andpoverty reduction. Equally, donors have stressed theneed to give greater priority to country led approachesin support of the principles of the Paris Declaration butagain meaningful actions have not always followed thewords. Moreover, insufficient efforts have thus far beenmade to truly put countries in the driver seat of povertyreduction policies and programs.

In a number of countries these changedconditions have provided incentives and createdmore space for the private sector which has been akey element in promoting agricultural growth, forexample in the United Republic of Tanzania.

In general, the evaluation finds that in manycountries more can be achieved in terms of private-sector engagement. In particular, governments have amajor role to play in establishing the enablingenvironment through adequate policies and theprovision of public goods such as research.

Chapter 6 Conclusions and recommendations

46/ Ndulu, B. et al. (2007).47/ The recent financial crisis is having a negative effect on Africa particularly in countries with developed manufacturing and tourismindustries or those receiving significant remittances from abroad. Rural areas and more agrarian countries are likely to be buffered as theyare less integrated into global markets.

78

Governments have not yet done enough in terms ofpromoting access to input and output markets,creating better opportunities and incomes andlower transactions costs for all ARD actors, such asfarmers, women and small and larger businessentities. On the whole, governments have not yetdone enough to alleviate the constraints to marketdevelopment, by increasing the provision of publicgoods such as roads to reduce the high transportcosts that prevail in the continent, as well as byencouraging the participation of agribusinessesand access to market information.

The evaluation concluded that there is a largepolicy, institutional and leadership gap. Manygovernments still lack adequate capacity to lead thedevelopment and implementation of effective andrelevant pro-poor policies and programmes in ARD.There is even a bigger gap in relation to ruraldevelopment policy, which is not generally coveredby CAADP, in most countries in spite of its overallimportance for poverty reduction. One of the reasonsfor this gap is the limited knowledge about thecomplexity and heterogeneity of the ARD context.The nature of ARD opportunities and challenges islocation specific. Questions cannot be settled a priori.They must be tackled based on location specific ARDknowledge. Technological solutions vary widely fromlocation to location. Similarly, the nature of the state’srole in addressing market failures, developingresponses to unfavourable international conditions,mobilizing private-sector resources varies fromcountry to country. The policy implications of thegendered economic roles typical of African ruralsocieties can also only be drawn case by case.

The evaluation believes that overcoming thepolicy gap and the capacity to follow through willcontribute to addressing the challenges listed aboveby providing the enabling environment in which ARDcan flourish. Improving the policy and strengtheningthe institutions requires strong country ownershipand political will, which is not evident in manycountries of the continent. It also deserves moreassistance from donors. Progress in CAADP inestablishing national country-led ARD strategies andcorresponding compacts for implementation has beenslow for example. Translating these compacts intonational investment programmes that can besupported by donors has yet to happen. Given themagnitude of the challenge no single donor actingalone would be able to provide the required support.

In spite of the more favourable operatingenvironment, there are still many obstacles toovercome - low levels of human development andchronic poverty, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.African agriculture faces multiple challenges such asthe need to improve productivity and yields, naturalresource management, making markets work, andensuring a wider participation of women, who play asignificant role in agriculture. A particular challenge isto enable small farmers to move from subsistence tocommercial farming. Managing the risks involved inthe transition is the best way for small farmers to raisethemselves out of poverty.

Other challenges affecting agricultural growthinclude resolving the remaining armed conflicts,mitigating the impacts of epidemics such as HIV/AIDS,addressing the uneven improvements in governanceand limited political decentralization, the slow regionalintegration with a persistence of under-funded regionaland sub-regional organizations, inadequate fiscalcommitments to ARD by national governments, andslow progress in creating the infrastructure linkingland-locked countries and remote regions of coastalcountries to the centres of demand and to ports. Theseissues are further exacerbated in low income countriesincluding fragile states, where capacity and institutionsare generally weak and policies unstable.

One overarching challenge is the unfavourable andunequal international trade regime and its negativeprotectionism for agriculture, which is a major obstacleto enhancing African productivity and incomes in thesector. Trade barriers and subsidies in OECD countries,as well as the inefficient production systems andlimited product quality assurance mechanisms inAfrica, combine to hamper the development ofagriculture in the continent. The two organizationshave not devoted much attention to supporting Africancountries and regional organizations to address therange of issues and policies in OECD countriesaffecting trade imbalances in Africa.

Project and country programme performance.The evaluation found that project performance was onthe whole moderately satisfactory, but serious concernsremain related to sustainability and efficiency of theirinterventions. These two areas merit close attention inthe future. Furthermore, the relevance and performanceof country strategies was weaker than performance atthe project level, creating a “micro-macro paradox”.That is, in spite of the moderately satisfactoryachievements at the project level (usually restricted tothe geographic areas and communities targeted by Bankand IFAD operations), less satisfactory results arediscernable at the aggregate country programme level.

79

This raises the issue of relevance of both agencies atthat level, which has become the unit of account inboth organizations.

While the relevance of past country strategies waspoor, efforts in recent years have been made toimplement country strategies with a better focus onresults. Further efforts will be required to ensure thatcountry strategies truly integrate investment operationswith non-lending activities which, when combined andsupported by sufficient analytic work, should moreeffectively support the relevant national priorities andobjectives for ARD.

In the past, both agencies frequently opted to use acomprehensive multi-component approach to projects.This standard response has generally proven neitherefficient nor effective, given the coordination,implementation and supervision challenges it brings.A more selective approach based on their comparativeadvantage and specialization that identifies the keydisadvantages, requirements and market failures atlocal level and that concentrates efforts on the removalof the most serious policy and institutional bottlenecksholds greater promise.

At the AfDB, project performance is generallystronger in the middle income countries of the region.This is attributable to the stronger institutional andhuman resource capacity of these countries. Similarly,at IFAD, performance in sub-Saharan Africa (West andCentral, and East and Southern Africa) is lower than theother three regions of the world covered by IFADoperations. This also appears to be the case for the othermultilateral donors. The relatively weaker performancein sub-Saharan Africa may be partly explained by thechallenging context and the diverse character ofcountries in sub-Saharan Africa, as compared to otherregions. Within sub-Saharan Africa, most countries withIFAD operations are classified as fragile states and low-income countries with weak policy and institutionalenvironments. In particular, a large number of countriesin sub-Saharan Africa have relatively weak governmentcapacity, knowledge institutions and national statisticsystems, which limits their ability to formulate andimplement pro-poor policies in the agriculture and ruralsector. This also constrains country strategy formulationand project design as well as supervision andimplementation support.

However, the complexity of the context at thedesign stage or its evolution during implementationcannot be the rationale for less positive results atproject completion. Rather, design teams should factorin context issues up front, and avoid settingunrealistic objectives while preparing countrystrategies and projects.

This again points to the need for morecomprehensive analytic work and skills as well asresources to generate the knowledge required for thispurpose. In depth analytic work would also strengthenthe engagement of the two institutions in policydialogue. Partnerships with other institutions can helpin generating sharper and more comprehensiveanalysis. But capacity is needed to make best use ofsuch analysis and adapt it to the specific needs of thetwo institutions. Accordingly, while knowledgepartnerships are part of the answer, capacities foranalytical work will also have to be strengthened withinthe Bank and the Fund themselves. Unless they havethe capacity to undertake adequate analytical work toinform their policy dialogue, partnerships, innovationand knowledge management, the two organizations willachieve only limited success in improving the relevanceof their strategies or in stepping up the performance ofthe operations they finance.

Neither in IFAD nor at AfDB is the complexity anddifficulty of the country context normally used as acriterion for determining the allocation of administrativeresources for project, programme and country strategyformulation or for supervision and implementationsupport. A more differentiated approach may prove tobe useful in the allocation of resources to countries witha more complex and difficult context and weakinstitutions, rather than following the current “one-size-fits-all” approach. This could help the institutions toformulate better country strategies and projects, andimprove supervision and implementation support indifficult settings. Specific staff skills, experience andcompetencies are also required for working in morechallenging environments.

The need for effective partnerships. Thepartnership between AfDB and IFAD in the past wasweak. It was more opportunistic, rather than a strategicone based on comparative advantage and provenspecialization. There was limited cofinancing over the30 year period, collaboration in policy dialogue andknowledge sharing was rare, and the Bank’s role asIFAD’s cooperating institution responsible for projectsupervision was on the whole weak. Cofinancing onlyrarely worked well and the partnership lacked astrategic focus. However, with the signing of a newMoU in 2008, and given the imperatives of the ParisDeclaration, there is scope to develop a more strategicand more strongly results-oriented partnership basedon the respective areas of comparative advantage andspecialization of the two institutions.


80

The evaluation identified five principles for furtherdevelopment of the IFAD/AfDB partnership: (i) a focuson the comparative advantage and specialization ofeach agency; (ii) facilitating private-sector engagement;(iii) seeking greater efficiency through harmonization ofkey business processes; (iv) leveraging increasedfunding for ARD in Africa; and (v) documenting goodpractices with a view to replication and scaling up byAfDB of innovations promoted by IFAD. Partnershipsby both agencies with other development partnerscould most effectively be built around similar principlesof complementarity and comparative advantage.

The new agreement signed in 2008 contains a broadlist of priority sectors and themes and it points to aclear shift in focus on results. But the evaluationconcludes that the partnership between the twoorganizations has not yet taken adequate account ofcomparative advantages and specialization. Inparticular, more needs to be done in terms ofcofinancing and collaboration in supervision and policydialogue and the innovation-scaling up interface needsexplicit attention.

Recommendations

Recommendations for both agencies

The joint evaluation makes the followingrecommendations for both agencies, focusing on the“three Ps” of policy, performance and partnership forconsideration by IFAD and AfDB management.

Filling the sector policy gap

The evaluation has concluded that leadership, stronginstitutions and good sector policies all matter, but thata “policy gap” has been holding back progress. AfDBand IFAD should work together to address the ARDpolicy gap in the following ways:

(i) At the regional and sub-regional levels,step up support to CAADP in implementingits mandate. Provide a joint statement ofsupport for CAADP. CAADP provides a clearand comprehensive ‘Africa-led, Africa-owned’policy framework for ARD in Africa. IFAD andAfDB should issue a joint statement of firmsupport for CAADP, and ensure that theirpolicies and operations are clearly aligned withCAADP’s policy pillars.

(ii) At country level, support government andother stakeholders to develop sound,national results-based ARD policies.These should be relevant to national needs andconditions, based on thorough sector analyses,and aligned with the CAADP policyframework, including the commitment towardsallocating 10 per cent of national budgetstowards agriculture and achieving 6 per centagricultural growth, in line with the MaputoDeclaration. Recognizing that the opportunitiesand challenges are different from country tocountry, IFAD and AfDB should, working withothers, contribute towards strengthening thecountry-specific knowledge base underpinningnational sector policies and in promotingpolicy reform where sound policies are notalready in place.

(iii) At country-level, support-sectorcoordination and harmonization and alignAfDB and IFAD strategies and programmeswith national policy frameworks whereverpossible. A country-led approach requiresAfDB and IFAD to align their strategies andprogrammes with national priorities, wherethese are appropriate, and, where possible, tosupport the development of sectoral jointassistance strategies led by government. Thisshould help to strengthen the relevance ofcountry strategies, which the evaluation foundto be a point of weakness. AfDB and IFAD willneed to be selective, focusing on sub-sectorsand themes in line with their respective areasof comparative advantage and specialization.The evaluation findings indicate that the twoinstitutions need to give greater attention toinvestment in non-lending activities includingpolicy dialogue, building partnerships andknowledge management, and to disseminatingand scaling up successful innovations.Both institutions should use their influence tobring civil society and private-sector players tothe policy table.

(iv) At the level of global policy, developknowledge and capacity to engage ininternational advocacy on trade issuesaffecting African producers.The evaluation noted that the prevailinginternational trade regime undercuts agriculturein Africa. Although the two institutions havelimited experience in this area, it is of criticalimportance to the sector. Accordingly, the two

81

agencies need to develop their respective policypositions on the issue, and support borrowingcountries to strengthen their capacity tonegotiate on trade issues in international fora.Moreover, there is room for the two agencies –in particular the Bank – to engage in policydialogue with individual African countriesregarding export taxation for agriculture.

Improving performance

As the evaluation noted, in recent years IFAD and AfDBhave undertaken wide-ranging internal reforms toimprove their own development effectiveness,strengthening internal business processes with a viewto achieving better results on the ground. They need tocontinue efforts to improve their performance aslenders, mainly by taking further steps to align theirbusiness processes more fully with a country-ledapproach. However, the performance of borrowersremains weak, which neither agency has so far takensufficient steps to address. Both agencies need to domore to address capacity gaps constraining borrowerperformance, and to promote local ownership ofinterventions with a view to improving performanceand sustainability. For their part, governments in manycases need to do more to address organizational andcapacity issues in the sector, and must provideleadership for sector reforms where these are needed.

Lender performance

Building on recent reforms, AfDB and IFAD shouldmake further efforts to improve their performance inthe following ways:

(i) Develop increased skills, knowledge andcapacity in the areas of policy, analyticalwork, knowledge and partnershipmanagement, with a view to sharpeningthe relevance and effectiveness ofstrategies and operations. To deliver on thepolicy and performance recommendationslisted above, there will be a need for skills andknowledge beyond the existing projectmanagement skill set. Skills in gender analysisand gender planning are required across manyof these areas. AfDB and IFAD should developknowledge and expertise in selected sub-sectors and themes, and establish ‘knowledgepartnerships’ with other institutions, includingFAO and the World Bank, to acquireknowledge in wider fields. All of this carriesimplications for staff development, deploymentand recruitment.

(ii) Provide increased support to ARD infragile states, giving careful attention tochoice and sequencing of aid modalities.AfDB and IFAD are both committed toincreasing support for fragile states, whereagricultural growth and support for rurallivelihoods can play a key role. Coordinatingtheir actions with others, IFAD and AfDB needto ensure that assistance to fragile states isprovided using approaches which are flexibleand responsive to changing local needs,making effective use of a range of aidinstruments. Rapid and well targeted provisionof technical assistance and capacity buildingshould be followed by substantial investmentsas local circumstances allow.

(iii) Strengthen country presence. Assisting acountry-led approach to ARD will require aneffective country presence, with delegatedauthority, resources and out-posting of staff withthe required seniority to engage in policydialogue at various levels of governance. Amongother advantages, improved country presencewill support better diagnostic and analyticalwork, including better understanding of contextand risk management, and contribute to betterresults on the ground both in investment andnon-lending activities. To strengthencollaboration at the field level, pooling ofresources and sharing of office accommodationshould be piloted at the country level.

(iv) Finance simpler, more tightly focusedprojects and programmes, undertakenwithin the framework of coordinated,results-oriented sector plans. Ruralpopulations often face an array of toughchallenges and multiple forms of disadvantage,and development agencies have oftenresponded with multi-component projects toaddress the spectrum of needs. But suchprojects often prove complex and difficult toimplement and tend not to perform well.In cooperation with partner governments,AfDB and IFAD have recently begun to prepareand undertake projects of simpler, more clearlyfocused design, each intended to becomplemented by other interventions within acoordinated framework, reflecting a division oflabour based on comparative advantage.


82

AfDB and IFAD should continue to developthis approach, taking care to integrate carefulrisk analysis. Priority attention needs to bedevoted to ensuring the efficiency of operationsfunded by the two agencies and thesustainability of benefits.


AfDB and IFAD have paid only limited attention tobuilding the government capacity to manage moreeffectively the implementation of policies andprogrammes. Yet the evaluation identifies weakborrower capacity as a critical constraint. It isrecommended that AfDB and IFAD should, incollaboration with other agencies with the requiredskills and experience:

(i) Support governments to undertakecapacity needs assessments in the ARDsector, including diagnostic assessments ofinstitutional arrangements, and providesubstantial support for capacity buildingand institutional development. Theevaluation identified shortfalls in the capacityof Government to implement projects andprogrammes effectively and to ensure thatbenefits are sustainable following projectcompletion. Given the wide array of ruralstakeholders and institutions, it is often thecase that other players in the sector also havelimited capacity. Training alone is rarelyenough to address capacity gaps. In manycases, institutional development is required,linked to wider public sector reforms. Thefocus needs to be not only on programmemanagement, including monitoring andevaluation, but also on policy formulationand implementation.

(ii) Specifically, support governments toaddress capacity issues relating to politicaland administrative decentralization.Where decentralization of governance isbeing introduced, available capacity is oftenfragmented in allocating staff and resources tothe local levels. This has a critical bearing onthe success of rural development efforts.AfDB and especially IFAD need to supportgovernments to manage the process effectivelyand build capacity where it is needed.

(iii) Gender equality was a significant area ofweakness in borrower performance. In thisregard, IFAD and the Bank should initiateefforts in selected countries to work closelywith governments and other stakeholders to

undertake joint diagnostic analyses of thecauses, characteristics and consequences ofgender inequalities in ARD, and assist indeveloping practical policies and measures toaddress the issues identified. If this approach issuccessful, it could be extended to a widerrange of countries over time.

(iv) Support deeper investment in research anddevelopment to improve agriculturalproductivity and innovation geared towards promoting inclusive growth andpoverty reduction.

Building purposeful partnerships

AfDB and IFAD already have many partners at everylevel. In the context of country-led development, themost important IFAD and AfDB partnerships are at thecountry level with governments, civil society and theprivate sector. Such partnerships must be led by thegovernments, with support from donors anddevelopment organizations, who need to give attentionto establishing an appropriate and efficient “division oflabour” based on comparative advantage andspecialization.

On the basis of the findings of this evaluation,the following recommendations are made. AfDBand IFAD should:

(i) Maintain and deepen their currentbilateral partnership, based on the MoUof 2008, setting a limited number of clear,strategic regional priorities, backed by aclear Action Plan and adequate resources.The MoU of 2008 sets out a broad agenda foraction. Successful implementation willdepend upon selecting strategic regionalpriorities, and translating these into ajudicious selection of activities forimplementation. Sufficient resources arerequired not only to deliver specific activities,but to ensure effective liaison, monitoring andoversight. Success will depend on compliancewith a realistic, well-defined, adequatelyresourced Action Plan setting out clearobjectives and deliverables, with clearaccountabilities, monitorable timelines andtransparent budget commitments.

(ii) Focus their partnership on their respectiveareas of comparative advantage,specialization and complementarity,and strengthening the focus on results.These include:

83

a) AfDB’s competence in macroeconomic andinfrastructure issues and IFAD’s focus onthe social, micro-economic andcommunity-based aspects of ARD;

b) AfDB’s support for (large scale) private-sector operations, including agri-business,and IFAD’s support for small producers andtheir organizations, including rural creditschemes and small enterprises; and

c) IFAD’s role in pioneering pro-poorinnovations and AfDB’s capacity toscale these up in areas where it has thenecessary competence.

(iii) At the regional level, take forward theirpartnership within the wider partnershiparound CAADP, and in support of CAADP.IFAD and AfDB should play a role amongdonors and development organizations inrallying and coordinating global support forARD in Africa. In line with the ParisDeclaration and the Accra Agenda, the twoinstitutions must work with major playerssuch as FAO, the World Bank, the EuropeanUnion as well as bilateral donors (notablyUSAID)48 and policy and research institutessuch as IFPRI.


ARD is not a core area of operational focus under theAfDB’s Medium-Term Strategy 2008-2012, and the Bankhas reduced the proportion of its budget allocated to thesector. Nonetheless, the Bank continues to allocatesignificant resources to the sector, and AfDB respondedeffectively to the food price crisis in 2008 with a set ofshort term measures and a refocused medium termagenda. A new strategy for agriculture was developed atthe end of 2009, drawing on findings from thisevaluation. The strategy was approved by AfDB’s Boardin February 2010.49

It is recommended that AfDB should:(i) Remain directly engaged in ARD, but

develop a more selective strategy, closelylinked to the Bank’s medium termpriorities, and aligned with CAADP.In view of the importance of the sector and itscontribution to growth and poverty reduction,AfDB should maintain its support for ARD,particularly in the aftermath of the successivefood, fuel and financial crises. But the Bankshould not try to work across the entire region

on all ARD issues, or with all partners. Arevised strategy should be highly selective,building on the Bank’s areas of comparativeadvantage and linking activities in ARD moreclosely with the areas of operational focusset out in the Medium Term Strategy, includingsupport for private-sector operations.The medium-term strategic priorities set outin the Bank’s paper responding to the foodcrisis are therefore appropriate and should berefined as the basis for a selective, medium-term sector strategy.

(ii) Following approval of a revised strategy,AfDB should mount a major communicationcampaign to inform African leaders andother sector donors of the Bank’s strategicobjectives in the sector. Changes in the Bank’sstance on agriculture have sent mixed signalsto decision makers within the region and inother development institutions. A majorcorporate effort will be required to publicisethe Bank’s renewed commitment and thechange of focus. Preparation of a revisedstrategy for the Bank, and its eventualimplementation, should include thosedepartments within the Bank that are directlyor indirectly supporting agriculture and ruraldevelopment, beyond OSAN;

(iii) Expand support to regional and sub-regional development. Regional andsub-regional infrastructure, markets andinstitutions are crucial for agriculturedevelopment. The Bank should pay particularattention towards assisting countries inexpanding regional investments andcoordination through better utilization ofexisting bank lending instruments anddeveloping regional allocation mechanisms.

(iv) Ensure that sufficient human and financialresources are allocated for effectiveimplementation of the revised strategy whileseeking to leverage further funding from theprivate sector, private donors, Arab States andemerging donors including Brazil, China,Korea and India. Steps should also be taken toensure provision of adequate resources toregional member countries and operationaldepartments to take forward importantanalytical work and sector studies.


48/ Which has traditionally been one of the largest donors in ARD in Africa.49/ Bank Group Agriculture Sector Strategy 2010-2014, AfDB, February 2010.

84


It is recommended that IFAD should:(i) Engage more strategically in analytic

work. This is critical for the formulation ofcountry strategies and project design. Inaddition to developing in-house capacities forthis purpose, strategic partnerships with otherinstitutions that have existing capabilities needto be explored. This calls for allocation ofadditional resources, both in financial terms aswell as in building staff capabilities;

(ii) Differentiate allocation levels ofadministrative resources. Given theprevailing weak policy and institutionalenvironments in fragile states and countrieswith low CPIA scores, they should receivegreater administrative resources for theanalytical work required for country strategyformulation and project design, as well assupervision and implementation support. Thiswould enable close involvement and supportby IFAD in programme activities in countriesthat have weaker overall capacities and morechallenging contexts; and

(iii) Plan selected joint activities between thedivisions covering Africa (Western andCentral Africa, Eastern and SouthernAfrica, and Near East and North Africa).One option is the development of a knowledgeprogramme to share lessons learned, goodpractices and experiences across the threeregional divisions. A proactive policy forexchanging staff and consultants across thethree divisions should be developed. Jointactivities could also entail the development ofregional grants programmes, for example inagricultural research addressing cross-regionalchallenges.

85

Joint evaluation of agriculture and ruraldevelopment policies and operationsin Africa of AfDB and IFAD

Senior independent advisersʼ comments55

Introduction

I n fulfillment of our terms of reference, we summarizebelow our joint assessment of the processes, methodsand overall contents of the joint evaluation (JE) of

Agriculture and Rural Development Policies andOperations in Africa carried out by IFAD’s Office ofEvaluation (OE) and AfDB’ Operations EvaluationDepartment (OPEV).

In addition to attesting to the independence andquality of the JE, we were tasked to provide strategicguidance and advice to the Joint Oversight Committee.Throughout the process, our work was facilitated bythe Joint Evaluation Secretariat. All the relevantdocumentation was shared with us and we wereallowed unimpeded access to the staff and consultantsthat carried out the work.

Upon request, we commented on all majordeliverables. Either as a group or individually, weparticipated in key JE meetings and workshops. Inparticular, events held in Tunis and Rome allowedinteraction with staff in both partner institutions and aconference held in Bamako provided us with insightsregarding African stakeholders’ views.

A unique evaluation challenge

The idea of a joint evaluation of agriculture and ruraldevelopment (ARD) policies and operations in Africaoriginated with the Presidents of IFAD and AfDB.Its basic rationale was grounded in the realization thata new operational approach to ARD was needed toachieve better results and that, for both institutions,useful lessons could be drawn from a joint review. In2006, the OE and OPEV Directors decided toundertake a truly joint evaluation.

This was a bold choice. While, until then,all collaborative evaluations among multilateralorganizations had taken the form of parallelevaluations, OE and OPEV figured that the benefitsof pooling their resources and undertaking joint fieldwork would enhance the coverage, credibility andquality of the evaluation evidence. A truly jointexercise would also reduce the administrative burdenon member countries and help to generate usefulconclusions about the IFAD-AfDB partnership.

While acknowledging the benefits of a genuinelyjoint approach, OE and OPEV recognized the risksinvolved. Accordingly, they adopted sensiblemeasures to mitigate them. In particular, theydelineated distinctive accountabilities; explicitcommunications protocols and jointly agreed workprograms. They also jointly decided about the scopeof the JE: it would be designed to enhance therelevance of AfDB and IFAD policies and operationsin the agriculture and rural development (ARD)sector of Africa; to examine their relevance; theirperformance and their impact; to evaluate theirpartnership dimensions and to makerecommendations for the enhancement of theirdevelopment effectiveness.

Throughout all major evaluation phases, weoffered strategic guidance and professional advicewithout “crossing the line” and undercutting theintegrity of the process. Based on a joint approachpaper dated October 2006, the Boards of AfDB andIFAD endorsed the JE in November and December2006. The evaluation started in earnest in July 2007after a memorandum of understanding was signed byOE and OPEV. In January 2008 a joint inceptionreport was issued. It was agreed that four workingpapers would provide the main building blocksof the JE: (i) a contextual overview of agricultureand rural development in Africa; (ii) a meta-analysisof independent evaluations; (iii) a special study ofpartnerships; and (iv) an assessment of businessreform processes.

55/ Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Seydou Traoré and Robert Picciotto.

Report of seniorindependent advisers

86

In addition, a comprehensive desk review ofdocuments and systematic interviews with staff werecarried out in both institutions. Subsequently, basedon an interim report, consultations were held withthe management, staff and governing bodies ofboth organizations. These interactions led to thecommissioning of a quality-at-entry assessment,eight country studies and a perception survey in sixcountries. These findings were fed into the final report.Comments on a draft were then sought from AfDB andIFAD Managements and from African governments’representatives, civil society representatives and donorsat a meeting held in Bamako (Mali) in May 2009. Thefinal version took account of stakeholders’ comments.

Evaluation performance

The agreed scope of the JE was broad. Beyond a meta-evaluation of existing project and country evaluationreports, OE and OPEV decided that the JE wouldconsider the overall ARD challenge faced by Africa andto draw its policy implications in order to assess therelevance of IFAD and AfDB operations. The report alsoexamined on-going corporate change initiatives andpartnership practices. Each of these tasks would havebeen demanding on its own right. In combinationthey added up to a uniquely complex challenge.

The methods selected were shaped by the lack ofclear ARD goals, transparent metrics and reliableperformance measurements in both organizations.Reliance on professional judgment was inevitable andtriangulation of evaluation methods was imperative.All in all, we are satisfied that the final report iscomprehensive; its analyses are sound; its conclusionsare strategic; finally, its recommendations arethoughtful and valuable. If endorsed and used by theManagements and the Boards of AfDB and IFAD, theevaluation should generate considerable value to bothinstitutions and their member countries. Such anoutcome would not have been feasible without resort toan elaborate and participatory evaluation process thattook full account of African governments’ views.

Proactive consultative processes helped to minimizethe constraints imposed by the scarcity of rigorous,reliable and comparable performance data about ARDin the two agencies. Faced with a pervasive absence ofbase line data and a paucity of verifiable performanceindicators at all levels (project, country and corporate)the evaluators had to “make do” by resorting to deskreviews, syntheses of reports, special studies, countryvisits, extensive face-to-face interviews andconsultations with a broad range of stakeholders.

Communication problems, skills gaps anddeficiencies in relevant information made it necessary torecast and beef up the consultancy teams at mid-course.

Furthermore, in order to ensure compliance with theterms of reference, OE/OPEV staff had to play a moreactive role at the final report writing stage thanoriginally envisaged. The evaluation was also delayedby the decision to add a perception survey and aquality-at-entry review and by the detailed internalreviews and inter-agency consultations involved atvarious stages of the process.

A one-year delay and a cost increment resulted.Such slippages and cost increases are not unusual inlarge scale and complex evaluations and it is a tribute tothe OE/OPEV Managers concerned that they stepped inand acted decisively to ensure a high quality outcome.All things considered, we are satisfied that goodjudgment was rendered in managing the evaluationprocess and that the analytical methods selected were inline with good development evaluation practice.

The ARD challenge

The JE highlights the improved, private sector led,economic and agricultural growth trends in parts ofAfrica in the wake of the macroeconomic andgovernance reforms of the nineties. This assessment isa healthy rebuttal to the unwarranted Afro-pessimismthat has for too long prevailed in the developmentliterature. Equally, it was appropriate for the jointevaluation to list the critical obstacles that need to beovercome to get African agriculture moving.

The ARD challenge faced by Africa is daunting.Cereal yields are only 1.1 ton per ha – a third of theworld’s average. The value added per agriculture workerin Africa is 38 per cent of the world’s average. WhileAfrica’s agricultural growth was about 4-5 per cent fromthe late 1990’s until the middle of this decade, this isabout the same as the average growth achieved in otherdeveloping countries. It is well below the rate achievedin India during the green revolution (6 per cent).Furthermore the high rates of population growth inmany African countries translate into modest per capitaagricultural growth rates.

These performance gaps are partly explained by theuneven playing field of the global market in food andagricultural products. Agricultural trade ischaracterized by heavy agricultural subsidies and theunfair trade barriers imposed by OECD countries. Thischronic asymmetry in trade relations has beensustained by the superior influence of OECD countrieswithin WTO; the lack of a coherent countervailingresponse by African policy makers and the resultingfeeling of helplessness among them.

These unfavorable circumstances have beenaggravated by the triple crisis of food, fuel and financethat recently swept the world. Even before the globaldownturn, Africa was lagging behind all other regions

87

Appendix 1 Report of senior independent advisers

in its progress towards the first MillenniumDevelopment Goal of halving the share of poor andhungry people by 2015. Thus, from 1990 to 2008,IFPRI’s hunger index fell by 11 percent in Africa whichis well below the progress achieved outside of Africa(a drop of 25-40 per cent). The number ofmalnourished African has increased significantly sincethe 1980s so that sub-Saharan Africa now accounts fortwo-thirds of undernourished people in the world.

The number of food emergencies has risen fromabout 15 a year in the 1980s to more than 30 a yearsince the turn of the millennium. Most of the increasehas been in Africa, where the share of food emergenciesattributable to human causes (e.g. violent conflict)doubled over the past two decades. At the countrylevel, the highest hunger scores are in DRC, Eritrea,Burundi, Niger and Sierra Leone.

In this context, we welcome the focus of the reporton the need to (i) commercialize Africa’s agriculture;(ii) address upfront the challenges posed by theemergence of bio-fuels; and (iii) encourage research anddevelopment in new biotechnologies adapted to Africa’scircumstances. Both organizations, especially AfDB,should emphasize these new policy directions.

Political will and ARD investment

The JE report is correct to stress that the challenge ofpoverty reduction in Africa will not be met unless a seachange in policies takes place. Both donor and recipientcountries need to face up to the deleterious consequencesof their past policies and recognize that ARD in Africa ischaracterized by utterly inadequate levels of ruralinvestments; continued large-scale food imports andchronic prevalence of hunger and malnutrition. Thelooming threats posed by climate change only add to theurgency of policy reform.

The JE is therefore on the mark when it drawsattention to the impact of OECD agriculturalprotectionism on rural poverty in Africa. Equally,governments and donors alike should recognize thebenefits of investments in ARD given their high multipliereffects. The most serious obstacles facing ARD in Africaare poor infrastructure, high transport costs, primitivefinancial markets, lack of access to appropriateproduction technology and generally adverse enablingenvironments for private business. In other words, thereis a major gap in the provision of public goods supportiveof private-sector enterprise and investment in ARD.

The JE may not have been explicit enough about thispriority or the underlying constraints that have hinderedincreased investments in African agriculture, e.g. the fiscalrestrictions mandated by the international financialinstitutions or the limited private financial flows devotedto ARD. Such considerations only strengthen the need for

both organizations to increase the priority of ARD withintheir own operations programs.

The simple reality is that current public expenditureslevels in support of ARD do not match the incrementalinvestment requirements of food security (estimated at$18 billion annually by NEPAD). Of course, increasedpublic spending for agriculture needs to be qualityspending directed towards the right operational prioritiesand in the context of improved ARD policies. Accelerated,well targeted, high quality lending and policy advice byIFAD and AfDB has become an urgent necessity. Suchmeasures would help accelerate Africa’s recovery from theeffects of the financial crisis.

To be sure, African governments have endorsed aComprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgram under NEPAD that calls for scaled upinvestments and improved sector governance. But therhetoric has not been matched by action and it wouldbehoove AfDB and IFAD to provide stronger and morecoherent leadership in support of NEPAD’sundertakings. Thus, African ownership of the policyagenda articulated by the JE would be enhanced ifAfDB and IFAD would jointly approach the AfricanUnion and NEPAD with a view to assisting bothorganizations in the design and construction of a broadbased coalition in support of ARD in Africa.

Reassessing sector priorities

The final report highlights the potential of inducinghigher productivity in African agriculture throughcommercialization and improved connectivity ofsmallholders to modern food supply chains. But thisimplies reform in land rights as well as expandedfinancial, technical and research support to theexpansion of agricultural input/output markets and thepromotion of domestic processing of agriculturalproducts (e.g. cotton) and other agro-industries. Inaddition, new opportunities are offered by theinternational fair trade and organic food movements.

Equally, we fully support the JE’s focus onenhancing the gender orientation of ARD operationsand filling the knowledge and innovation gaps thatplague ARD in Africa. Specifically, AfDB and IFADshould play a more active role in support for improvedagricultural research management in the region and inthe promotion of actions needed to take full advantageof the biotechnology revolution. In this context, greaterpriority should be given to supporting the research andeducation capacity of African universities.

Finally, the JE’s recommended focus on fragile statesis fully warranted. These countries have been neglectedby donors. Community-based agricultural and ruraldevelopment programs in post-conflict setting haveconsiderable potential. A more explicit

88

acknowledgement of the “aid orphan” problem createdby the performance-based aid allocation formulasadopted by both institutions would have beenappropriate. Furthermore, the critical importance ofconflict sensitivity (through reduction of group andregional inequalities, priority to youth employment,effective natural resource management, economicdiversification, etc.) could have been made more explicit.

Addressing performance issues

Project quality matters. In this context, the JE’smeta-evaluation of performance yielded soberingresults. It described recent business reforms butconfirmed that further efforts are needed to enhance thedevelopment effectiveness of ARD operations in bothorganizations. In particular, the share of moderatelysatisfactory ratings embedded in the current 60-70satisfactory outcome ratings is too high for comfort.

We also wish to note that evaluation practices donot focus sufficiently on impact. In this context, thefinding that only 35-40 per cent of projects coveredby the meta-evaluation are likely to generatesustainable benefits should be a wake up call.To be sure ARD operational performance in otherdevelopment agencies is not dissimilar and both IFADand AfDB have initiated business process reformsfocused on operational quality. But these reformsshould be intensified through the introduction ofindependent quality assurance in real time.

The strengthening of monitoring and evaluationsystems and processes in borrowing countries isanother important priority given the critical lack ofbaseline information and field level evidence ofprogress identified by the evaluation. The current“disconnect” between project-level and country-levelperformance ratings (micro-macro paradox) alsoneeds serious management attention in terms ofenhancing the relevance of ARD operations andimproving the links between country strategyformulation and project designs.

We also note that overall operational performanceis somewhat better for IFAD than for AfDB. This maybe due to the tight resource envelope within whichAfDB operates but it also suggests that AfDB wouldgain a great deal from a sharper policy stance and atighter partnership with IFAD. For both institutionsurgent progress towards Paris Declaration objectives byconnecting AfDB and IFAD operations more closely tocountry led processes and revisiting the instrumentmix (e.g. more SWAps).

All of these quality improvement objectives willnot be met without improvements in countrydialogue and non-lending services quality as well asshifts in corporate management processes.

Fortunately, both IFAD and AfDB are committed tobecome knowledge organizations, to enhance theircountry presence, and to make their operatingprocesses more businesslike and efficient.

Finally, the JE is on firm evaluative grounds whenit highlights the need to focus more directly on theunderlying capacity constraints that hinder borrowerperformance. While governments need to be in thedriver seat, IFAD and AfDB should offer principledand meaningful support which may call for an honest,transparent and robust debate so that adequatepolicies and programs are encouraged.

Such a role is relevant and appropriate given thatboth agencies are trusted and respected partners in mostcountries of the region and very well placed to workwith regional organizations and other developmentpartners to help address policy and capacity gaps.

The partnership dimension

In addition to the enhanced country focus recommendedby the JE we endorse its call for improved outreach to thecivil society and the private sector. Promotion of goal-oriented alliances for ARD would improve overall policycoherence in the currently fragmented aid architecture.

Until recently clear parameters, objectives andindicators were not established despite a 30 year longrelationship. Neither IFAD nor AfDB have made aserious effort to engage with each other. The lacklusterresults of their partnership in terms of supervision andcofinancing are striking. Both institutions have failed to(i) establish appropriate staff incentives that would leadto a stronger partnership, (ii) translate the corporatelevel agreements with effective business practices atcountry and sector level; and (iii) set priorities in theplethora of partnerships that both institutions havepretended to forge without establishing effectivestructures or monitoring systems.

Hence, AfDB and IFAD should strengthen theiralliance. This is justified by strategic considerations:the recent shifts in the aid architecture; the all importantParis Declaration; the need for both institutions toimprove country dialogues and knowledge management;etc. The JE accurately identifies the complementaritiesbetween AfDB’s ‘hardware’ advantages and IFAD’s‘software’ assets. It confirms the substantial benefits thatwould flow from their effective partnering. We alsobelieve that the partnership would be greatlystrengthened by joint country strategies and systematicup-scaling of promising innovations.

Robert PicciottoPer Pinstrup-AndersenSeydou TraoréNovember 24, 2009

89

Background and introduction

The Managements of the African DevelopmentBank (AfDB) and the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD) (hereafter

referred to as Management) welcome this report on thejoint evaluation of agriculture and rural development(ARD) policies and operations implemented in Africa.The evaluation sets out to achieve four objectives:(i) determine the relevance of these policies andoperations in the light of current and emerging issues;(ii) assess their performance and impact; (iii) evaluatethe strategic partnership between IFAD and AfDB andpartnerships with other sector stakeholders; and(iv) develop recommendations to enhance thedevelopment effectiveness of the two institutions.

The evaluation was conducted at the request ofthe executive boards of AfDB and IFAD and wasundertaken jointly by the independent evaluationoffices of the two institutions. The final report buildson the main analysis and key points contained in theinterim report, the country synthesis report includingthe perception survey, and the quality-at-entry review.The interim report itself was informed by fourworking papers on: (i) the contextual issues foragriculture and rural development in Africa; (ii) ameta-evaluation of previous operations funded by thetwo institutions in Africa; (iii) a review of partnershipsbetween AfDB and IFAD, but also with other majorplayers; and (iv) an analysis of selected businessprocesses and their impact on results.

Management wishes to commend AfDB’s OperationsEvaluation Department and IFAD’s Office of Evaluationfor undertaking the evaluation jointly and in a collegialmanner, and for sharing with the Managements of thetwo institutions information about the progress madeand the findings emerging from the evaluation. Theevaluation is relevant in the context of a rapidly changingenvironment both on the African continent and globally.

Management takes note of the report’s highlights,which not only confirm that AfDB and IFAD areimportant actors in ARD, but also identify them astrusted and respected partners in most countries of theregion. It should be noted that until recently, the twoinstitutions contributed about 50 per cent of the totalmultilateral official development assistance to the sectorin Africa. Both are, therefore, well placed to work withregional development organizations and nationalgovernments to address the policy, investment andcapacity gaps that currently exist. This is a position thatshould be exploited in promoting the sector.

This Management response highlights the mainconclusions and recommendations of the jointevaluation, and presents Management’s comments onthese findings and an action plan for the way forward.In doing so, it calls attention both to ongoing effortsand to those planned for the future.

Overall, Management endorses, to a very large extent,the conclusions and recommendations contained inthe evaluation report, while realizing that therecommendations made are generic in nature and may notapply to specific countries or contexts. Where managementbelieves that not all relevant factors have been fullyanalyzed or statements lack appropriate nuancing,these have been identified. Management also states itscommitment to taking the necessary action to address theissues identified and the recommendations it has endorsed.To this end, the following annexes are included:

(a) The list of recommendations made and theproposed Management actions; and

(b) Key outputs, indicators and targets for 2010for assessing partnership performance.

In addition, in the partnership meeting held on20 November 2009 in Tunis, Tunisia, it was agreedthat progress made with respect to the proposedManagement actions and the outputs for 2010 and takefollow-up action accordingly.50 Furthermore, an actionplan for joint activities will be prepared for 2011 and

Joint AfDB andIFAD Management response

50/ The partnership meeting was attended by AfDB and IFAD Mangement and respective evaluation offices. The AfDB delegation washeaded by President Donald Kabureka and the IFAD delegation was headed by Mr Kevin Cleaver, Assistant President, ProgrammeManagement Department.

90

annually thereafter and will be regularly monitoredand followed up. It was also agreed at the partnershipmeeting that focal points would be appointed forvarious activities in both institutions to strengthencoordination at the operating level and facilitate allcollaborative efforts.

This response is divided into three main partsconsistent with the structure of the recommendations.The first part (following section) presents the jointresponse from the management of the two institutionsrelating to those areas that are common to both andcovers policies and institutions, lender performance,borrower performance and building partnerships. Theresponse provided in this part is jointly endorsed bythe Management of both institutions. The second part(Response of the Bank Management) presents theresponse made separately by the Bank and the finalthird part (Response of IFAD Management) theseparate response of the Fund.

Joint response of the Managements of the

Bank and the Fund

Context, policies and institutions

Management agrees with the conclusion of the jointevaluation that the pessimism that has characterizedprevious assessments of Africa’s ARD prospects is nolonger justified and Africa is now a continent on themove. Despite the adverse impact of the globaleconomic crisis and the burdensome agricultural tradepractices applied by member countries of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, the medium and long-term prospectsfor the sector look good.

The evaluation concludes that agriculture and ruraldevelopment will remain core elements in most Africaneconomies, and that both institutions should continueto engage in the sector but with a clear selective focusaligned with their comparative and strategic goals. Itnotes that the Bank has already identified priorities forits future focusing on irrigation and water management,rural infrastructure and the reduction of post-harvestlosses. Management endorses this conclusion.

Regarding fragile states, the Bank will continue toprovide increased support to ARD while paying specificattention to the choice and sequencing of aidmodalities, as outlined in its Strategy for EnhancedEngagement in Fragile States, which is built aroundthree main pillars: (i) supplementary financing to

support governance and capacity-building, and therehabilitation and construction of basic infrastructure;(ii) arrears clearance; and (iii) targeted support forcapacity-building and knowledge management.

IFAD’s operations in fragile states are guided by itsPolicy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery, under whichit is committed to taking a proactive approach aimed atremoving the deep-rooted causes of crisis. This policy iscomplemented by IFAD’s commitment during theEighth Replenishment period (2010-2012) to improvingits development effectiveness in fragile states by alsoadopting a flexible approach to its programme andproject design, with a strong focus on building thecapacity of community and government institutions.IFAD uses its projects also as platforms for testing andlearning about appropriate policies and sector strategies,and shares the relevant knowledge with membergovernments so that they can scale it up for use informulating national policies and sector strategies.

Management agrees with the evaluation finding thatimproving policies and strengthening local capacitiesfor planning and implementation requires strongcountry ownership and political will. Both institutionsare signatory to the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness that was reaffirmed and reinforced underthe Accra Agenda for Action. Accordingly, Managementupholds the principle that regional member countries(RMCs) should exercise leadership over theirdevelopment policies and plans and commit to makingavailable resources to support such efforts.

Management affirms its support for theComprehensive Africa Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme (CAADP), its four policy pillars and thepromotion of country-led CAADP processes; it willcontinue working in partnership with CAADP andaligning the policies of both institutions, whereverpossible, with national priorities and strategies.Management is of the view that CAADP, given itscurrent institutional structure, can certainly play aneffective role in the area of policy dialogue andadvocacy. It is important, however, to ensure that indoing so CAADP is not overstretched by fullyengaging in programme and project development atthe country level, beyond the preparation of thecompacts.51 Management is also of the opinion thatachieving the targets set under the MaputoDeclaration is critical to bringing about improvementsin the agricultural and rural sector.

The evaluation finds that in many countries morecan be achieved in terms of private-sector engagement.

51/ CAADP compacts are high-level agreements among governments, regional representatives and development partners intended tofocus the implementation of CAADP within a given country (or region if it is a regional compact). Compacts detail the programmes andprojects addressing national priorities to which the various partners can commit resources.

91

In particular, governments have a major role to play inestablishing an enabling environment. As encapsulatedin the Bank’s 2007 strategy update for its private-sectoroperations, the vision for private-sector development isfounded on a conceptual framework for developmentimpact that links entrepreneurship, investment andeconomic growth with the Bank’s ultimate goal ofpoverty alleviation. Embraced as a key driver of growth,private-sector development is, therefore, an institution-wide priority that is deeply embedded in the evolutionof the Bank’s core investment operations, with sharedresponsibility across all Bank complexes.

IFAD is required by its Private Sector Developmentand Partnership Strategy to engage in policy dialoguewith governments to promote an enabling policy andinstitutional environment for local private-sectordevelopment, support local private-sectordevelopment in rural areas through its investmentoperations, and establish partnerships with the privatesector to leverage additional investment andknowledge. These commitments have been reaffirmedfor the Eighth Replenishment period and IFAD haspledged to explore the need for an additional facilityto promote private-sector investment.

Both institutions have been called upon to engageactively in analytical work. Given its mandate,capability and resource availability, IFAD’s involvementin analytical work has been very limited; accordingly,IFAD will require additional resources to undertakesuch work. The Bank is strengthening its capacity inthe area of knowledge management spearheaded by theChief Economist Complex.

In line with the concept of the division of labour,Management believes that engaging institutions thatare better placed in the agriculture policy arena,particularly the International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI), would be more appropriate. In fact,IFAD has already embarked on such an approach byproviding a large grant to IFPRI. In the area of naturalresource management, the Bank will seek to deepenrelationships with leading agencies, such as theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature,the African Wildlife Foundation and the AfricanMinisterial Conference on the Environment, in orderto provide invaluable insights into the changingthreats faced by our RMCs.

The evaluation findings indicate that, whereappropriate, the Bank should make greater use ofpolicy-based lending to influence and support ARDpolicy priorities. The Bank Management will ensurethat in countries where the fiduciary environment isconducive, it will establish partnerships with others tosupport policy-based lending operations in the ARD

sector. The Bank is already working with RMCs to buildfiduciary capacity and improve country systems, forinstance through institutional support for goodgovernance projects. With regard to general budgetsupport operations, the Agriculture and Agro-IndustryDepartment (OSAN) will work closely with theGovernance, Economic and Financial ReformsDepartment (OSGE) to include agriculture-relateddimensions in project design, where and whennecessary. Similarly, using its policy framework forsector-wide lending for agriculture, IFAD is fullyengaged in sector-wide approaches, learning from theexperience gained, and aligning its own systems andprocedures, as appropriate.

The evaluation notes that the prevailinginternational trade regime undercuts agriculture inAfrica and recommends that both institutions should,at the level of global policy, develop knowledge andcapacity to engage in international advocacy on tradeissues affecting African producers and supportborrowing countries in strengthening their capacity tonegotiate trade issues in international forums.Management welcomes this recommendation. In thespirit of the division of labour, this is an area in whichboth institutions foresee benefits in working closelywith the African Union/CAADP and the regionaleconomic commissions (with the African Union takingthe lead role) to adopt common positions whennegotiating in international forums. The Bank’s NewPartnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) andRegional Integration and Trade Department and IFAD’sPolicy Division and Programme ManagementDepartment will endeavour to provide input in thisarea. Meanwhile, at the national level both institutionswill continue supporting local and regional markets inthe national context, and providing rural infrastructureand other support for market development.

The Bank Management assures all stakeholders thatthe Bank will continue to remain directly engaged inARD, but will develop a more selective strategy closelylinked to the Bank’s medium-term priorities andaligned with CAADP.

Similarly, IFAD remains committed to at leastmaintaining the share of the total resources devoted toAfrica, which, in the context of substantially increasedresources available to IFAD, will imply a larger absolutevolume of resources made available for Africa.

Performance of projects and programmes

Management acknowledges the report’s findings,which confirm that “change is underway in the twoinstitutions with several ongoing initiatives aimed atimproving performance and development effectiveness.

Appendix 2 Joint AfDB and IFAD Management response

92

Design processes are being adjusted in line with newpolicy directions and business process models. Countrystrategies are becoming better aligned with countrypolicy priorities and improvements are evident incontext analysis, lesson learning from previousexperiences, focus on poverty outcomes, emphasis onpolicy dialogue and management for results”. Inaddition, Management recognizes that “AfDB hasimproved its poverty focus and strategic selectivity ofinterventions”, while both institutions have introducednew quality assurance and enhancement systems.

Performance of AfDB-supported projects

The meta-evaluation was based on project andprogramme evaluations carried out by the Bank’sOperations Evaluation Department between 2003 and2007. The operations assessed were designed in the1990s. The evaluation found about 70 per cent of theBank-funded projects to be moderately satisfactory orbetter, in terms of relevance. Comparative figures forother evaluation criteria were as follows: effectiveness,60 per cent; efficiency, 50 per cent: poverty impact,55 per cent; and sustainability, 40 per cent. It furtherreports the Bank’s overall project performance at60 per cent, which is on a par with the World Bankproject performance score, also 60 per cent.

As stated above, there have been significantimprovements in recent years. An independent reviewof the quality-at-entry of African Development Fundoperations and strategies for the years 2005 and2008 revealed an increase in the percentage ofoperations rated moderately satisfactory and above,from 76 per cent in 2005 to 81 per cent in 2008.The percentage of operations rated fully satisfactoryand above also rose considerably over the sameperiod, from 38 per cent to 53 per cent. The creationof the Quality Assurance and Results Department, therole of the Operations Committee and the oversightprovided by the AfDB Board’s Committee onDevelopment Effectiveness have bolstered efforts toimprove quality-at-entry. However, performance interms of cross-cutting dimensions remains weak andtargeted measures are being put in place as part of thework to strengthen the Bank’s Gender, Climate andSustainable Development Unit (OSUS).

Performance of IFAD-supported projects

The evaluation assessed about 90 per cent of IFAD-funded projects as moderately satisfactory or better.Comparative figures for other evaluation criteria were asfollows: effectiveness, 61 per cent; efficiency, 66 per cent;poverty impact, 54 per cent; and sustainability,40 per cent. The evaluation also rates IFAD’s overall

project performance at 72 per cent, compared withthe World Bank’s 60 per cent. These results need to beinterpreted in the light of the following factors:

(a) The average approval date for 28 IFAD projectsincluded in the sample was mid-1994,meaning that they would be designed around1993. The average completion date of theseprojects was late 2004. The performancereported is therefore of projects that are of anearlier generation.

(b) IFAD’s performance in Africa is lower than thatof its overall portfolio of projects andprogrammes.

(c) IFAD has undertaken wide-ranging internalreforms since these performances wererecorded and future performance is likely to besignificantly different.

Some improvements in performance are alreadyvisible. The 2008 Annual Report on Results andImpact of IFAD Operations (ARRI) report states thatin spite of some fluctuations from year to year, “thereis a steady upwards trend in results across all but afew evaluation criteria since 2002”. Whiledisaggregated trends for Africa are difficult to mapout due to the smallness of the sample size of projectsevaluated, the evaluations undertaken in 2008 reporta 100 per cent moderately satisfactory or better resultfor relevance and innovations, 91 per cent for ruralpoverty impact and 73 per cent for sustainability,implying that the performance of IFAD-assistedprojects in Africa is also improving. Recent individualevaluations also confirm this trend.

Institutional performance

African Development Bank

Improvements in the Bank’s performance can be seenfrom a sample of the key performance indicators:(i) the project supervision ratio has improved from 1.1in 2006 to 1.4 in 2008; (ii) the number of problemprojects has reduced from 64 in 2006 to 41 in 2008;(iii) the proportion of projects directly managed by fieldoffices currently stands at 9.3 per cent, compared withthe 2009 target of 7 per cent; (iv) regarding operationsin fragile states, activities under pillar 2 of the Bank’sStrategy for Enhanced Engagement in Fragile States –arrears clearance – have already surpassed the target forthe year three times over, and activities in support ofpillars 1 and 3 – technical assistance and capacity–building – are on track.

Management supports the call to strengthen theinstitution’s country presence and equip its fieldoffices with the necessary resources and delegated

93

authorities. The Bank is working towards thisobjective. To date, 22 out of the proposed 25 fieldoffices (20 country offices and 5 regional offices) havebeen opened and are fully operational. The remainingthree field offices will be opened by end of the 2009.Seventeen out of the 22 operational field offices havelocally recruited agricultural experts. The Bank is inthe process of posting international staff to the field,initially to its regional offices.

IFAD

IFAD Management agrees with the evaluation findingthat design weaknesses such as inadequate risk analysesexist in past projects, particularly for Africa, where statefragility and weaker institutional capabilities were notsufficiently factored into country strategies and projectdesigns. Management is also in agreement with theevaluation finding that during the reference period ofperformance assessment, IFAD was at a disadvantagebecause of its lack of country presence and theoutsourcing of project supervision.

In recent years IFAD Management has taken thefollowing steps to improve its own performance andthat of the projects and programmes it has supported:

(i) In the last three years the quota of projectsunder IFAD’s direct supervision has increasedfrom less than 5 per cent to over 90 per centat present. Subsequent to a recent decision ofthe Executive Board, (ref) all IFAD-fundedprojects that are not supervised by thecofinanciers and are not at the final years ofimplementation have been brought underIFAD’s direct supervision.

(ii) The number of IFAD country offices hasincreased from 2 in 2003 to 17 in 2008 and isexpected to be about 27 by the end of 2009.

(iii) New project design guidelines were issued inearly 2008 that require projects to be more“implementation ready”, in other words,simpler and more clearly focused. In recentyears there has been a significant rise in theshare of value chain-type projects requiringin-depth sector and subsector analyses.

(iv) The quality enhancement system hassubstantially improved the risk assessment andsustainability of projects and programmes.

In sum, IFAD’s operating model has changedmarkedly in recent years and, to a large extent, thesechanges address the recommendations made by theevaluation, including those concerning enhancedknowledge management, an area that has benefitedsignificantly from IFAD’s direct supervision andcountry presence. Nonetheless, IFAD Management

will further extend the reform process, particularly interms of human resources management reform, by,inter alia, aligning people with corporate priorities,diversifying the workforce with different andenhanced skills and knowledge as part of its eighthreplenishment commitment, in response to thefindings of this evaluation.

The Managements of both institutions support thecall to strengthen the country presence of theinstitutions and equip their field offices with thenecessary resources and delegated authorities.However, the proposal that AfDB and IFAD shouldpilot the pooling of resources and sharing of officeaccommodation may be at variance with the OneUnited Nations agenda pursued by United Nationsagencies at the country levels.

The evaluation also identified gender equality as asignificant area of weakness in borrower performance.In this regard, it calls on the two institutions to initiateefforts in selected countries to work closely withgovernments and other stakeholders in undertakingjoint diagnostic analyses of the causes, characteristicsand consequences of gender inequalities in ARD, andto assist in developing practical policies and measuresto address the issues identified. Management is of theview that although the Bank and IFAD have workedextensively in this area over the years, there is stillroom for improvement.

Cognizant of the recommendations made by theAfDB Working Group on Gender in September 2008,calling for enhanced gender mainstreaming in Bankoperations and support for countries in strengtheningtheir institutional capacity, OSAN and OSUS will joinforces to ensure gender inequalities are addressed.In line with the Bank’s Updated Gender Plan of Action2009–2011, which takes into account the institution’sMedium-Term Strategy (MTS) 2008-2012, OSAN andOSUS will undertake analytical work in gender andARD in Africa and provide support in the followingthree intervention areas: (i) investment activities thatpromote women’s economic empowerment in the Bank’skey strategic priority areas; (ii) institutional capacity-building and knowledge building both at the Bank andfor RMCs; and (iii) RMC governance and policy reformto improve gender mainstreaming in the nationaldevelopment process. The Bank will also intensifyprogress monitoring through the development and useof gender statistics in ARD.

After the successful implementation of its GenderPlan of Action, IFAD has mainstreamed gender in itsprogrammes and issued administrative guidelines forthis purpose. Overall, IFAD’s self-assessment shows thatperformance in terms of gender had improved in


94

completed projects. Nevertheless, IFAD Management iscommitted to prioritizing gender mainstreaming in itsprojects and programmes and awaits the results of theassessment currently being undertaken by IFAD’s Officeof Evaluation. Once the evaluation findings are madeavailable, IFAD’s Executive Board will consider the needto develop a corporate policy on gender.


The evaluation identified shortfalls in the capacity ofgovernments to implement projects and programmeseffectively and to ensure that benefits are sustainablefollowing project completion. Such problems affect theimplementation of projects across all sectors. Managementagrees with the evaluation finding that the capacity ofborrowing member governments is a critical factor andhas the greatest impact on project performance.

Management will therefore increase its support togovernments to undertake capacity needs assessmentsand strengthen institutions in the ARD sector, while alsopromoting knowledge-sharing. In line with the Bank’sMTS, OSAN will work closely with the HumanDevelopment Department to develop the provision ofagricultural training in higher education and throughtechnical and vocational training establishments.

In this context, the Management of bothinstitutions underscores the call to mobilize readilyaccessible funding to finance substantial high-qualitysector studies to support policy and projectdevelopment at the RMC level and generally toenhance the available knowledge base. This kind offund would be relevant to the work of bothinstitutions, which currently lack such a facility.

The Bank’s African Development Institute will alsobe charged with providing targeted support to RMCs(such as fragile states) to bolster the capacity ofborrowers to implement investment operations in atimely manner.

Strategic partnership

The report describes the past partnership betweenAfDB and IFAD as opportunistic, rather than strategicand based on comparative advantages and provenspecializations. Comparative advantages have beenreflected in many country programmes. Managementacknowledges that past attempts at this partnershiphave not been as successful as originally envisaged, butdescribing it as opportunistic is inaccurate. However,efforts will be made to address the shortcomings asoutlined in the report by developing thematic areasof collaboration and regional collaboration pacts.

Management recognizes the need to continuedialogue with other partners at the country level

(working through the donor agriculture workinggroups in countries where they exist), to supportgovernments and other stakeholders in developingsound, national results-based ARD policies andprogrammes. Both institutions will continue tocollaborate in line with the memorandum ofunderstanding, and will work with other partnersin a more strategic manner, bearing in mind thedivision of labour and the comparative advantageof each institution.

The report recommends that the two institutionsshould issue a joint statement of support for CAADP,and ensure that their policies and operations are clearlyaligned with CAADP’s policy pillars. The commonposition of the two institutions has already been stated.

In the past, the two institutions have designedcomplex multicomponent projects incorporatingmultiple activities in an effort to combat poverty. Suchprojects become difficult to manage while resources arethinly distributed, which calls for strategic partnershipsallowing different agencies to tackle different aspects ofdevelopment programmes in a coordinated manner andwith a well-defined division of labour among partners.

The report rightly notes that the Bank and the Fundhave recently begun to address this issue through thedesign and preparation of simpler, more clearly focusedprojects. However, Management considers it crucial tothe success of such projects that governments buy intothe concept of the division of labour amongdevelopment partners. Therefore this matter will bebrought to the fore in future country dialogue missions.

Management accepts the recommendation regardingthe need for both institutions to maintain and extendtheir current bilateral partnership, based on thememorandum of understanding signed by the twoparties in 2008, setting a limited number of precise,strategic regional priorities, backed by a clear actionplan and adequate resources. The Bank and the Fundwill review the current memorandum of understandingand prepare the necessary addendum.

Conclusion and way forward

Management awaits the Executive Board’s discussion ofthe joint evaluation report and Management’s response,and subsequent guidance on the way forward.

Response of the Bank Management

In line with the Bank’s MTS, the Africa Food CrisisResponse approved in July 2008 identified the mainareas of intervention in the agricultural sector for AfDBboth in the short term and in the medium and longterm. The Bank will continue to focus on supportingagriculture-related rural infrastructure, agriculture

95

water development, reduction in post-harvest losses,capacity-building and climate change mitigation.

The report cites African economists52 who havelong emphasized the need to promote widely sharedagricultural growth based on the ‘Four Is’: improvingthe investment climate, closing the infrastructure gap,promoting innovation and building institutionalcapacity. African states have not devoted adequateattention to these principles in their ARD activities,nor have these principles been the main drivers ofcooperation in the sector. These are principles shared bythe Bank as they are in line with its MTS, but they alsoconstitute a realistic path towards invigorating AfricanARD. Accordingly, the Bank has begun tilting the designof its operations in this direction and will carry thisorientation further in its future lending activities.

Official development assistance has a major role toplay in nurturing ARD. To exploit the potential of thesector, the policy environment must be increasinglyfavourable. It is important to ensure that adequateincentives are provided and that sufficient public goodsare delivered by governments. This will also entailfilling the large policy, institutional and leadership gapsthat currently exist in most countries of the region,and calls for strong and effective partnerships amongthe public, private and voluntary sectors if suchshortcomings are to be addressed sustainably.

The Bank Management assures all stakeholders thatthe Bank will continue to remain directly engaged inARD, but will develop a more selective strategy that isclosely linked to the Bank’s medium-term priorities andaligned with CAADP. The Bank’s new generation ofprojects falls largely under pillars I and II of the CAADPinitiative, where pillar I consist of extending the landarea under sustainable management and reliable watercontrol systems and pillar II consists of Improving ruralinfrastructure and trade-related capacities to increasemarket access. These goals are in line with the Bank’sMTS. The Bank is currently preparing its agriculturalsector strategy, which is scheduled for presentation tothe Board’s Committee on Development Effectivenessby mid-December 2009. As recommended by thereport, a major communication campaign will bemounted to inform key stakeholders, particularlyAfrican leaders and donors who support the Bank’sstrategic objectives in the sector, of the strategy.Increased resources are being assigned to the Bank’sExternal Relations and Communication Unit so that itcan conduct an institutional communications campaignthat responds to the communication needs of therevised agriculture strategy.

The evaluation recommends that the Bank ensurethat sufficient human and financial resources areallocated for effective implementation of the revisedstrategy while seeking to leverage further fundingfrom the private sector, private donors, Arab Statesand emerging donors including Brazil, China, Indiaand the Republic of Korea. Steps should also be takento ensure provision of adequate resources to regionalmember countries and operational departments topursue analytical work and sector studies.Management will work with other partners and ensurethat financing needs expressed by RMCs consistentwith the Bank’s agriculture sector strategy andapproved work programme are satisfied. Furthermore,Management recognizes the importance of economicsector work for quality-at-entry of operations and theknowledge agenda of the Bank. As such, Managementwill consider available financing options, includingmobilization of substantial Trust Fund resources andother funding sources.

Response of IFAD Management

IFAD Management recognizes the need to undertakemore analytical work and policy dialogue in the contextof Africa. It also believes, however, that institutionssuch as the World Bank and IFPRI are better suited tothis kind of work. IFAD’s current priority is to improvethe development effectiveness of its projects andprogrammes in Africa, and the immediate impact ofthis type of work in this region may not be very high.Shifting resource allocations towards policy andanalytical work at the cost of project and programmeoperations could be detrimental to IFAD’s overallperformance. Where the policy and analytical work isclosely related to IFAD projects and programmestrategy, the Fund would engage itself either directly orin partnership with other institutions. In any event,IFAD would be very selective in choosing the natureand scope of policy and analytical work. Finally, IFADManagement agrees that such policy and analyticalwork will require the allocation of additional financialand human resources.

While IFAD’s overall Africa programme is assigned tothree administrative divisions, all three divisions are partof the same Programme Management Department and allthree directors report to the Assistant President of thisDepartment. In terms of programmatic coordinationamong these divisions, IFAD has not encountered anyserious problems. In sharing knowledge and informationand exchanging consultants, the context specificityand language differences sometimes create barriers.


52/ Ndulu, B. et al. (2007). Challenges of African Growth: Opportunities, Constraints and Strategic Directions. Washington D.C., World Bank.

96

The Western and Central Africa and Eastern andSouthern Africa Divisions are already working ona joint knowledge management activity linkingFIDAFRIQUE (West Africa) and IFADAFRICA (Easternand Southern Africa), to improve the management ofknowledge both within and among the regions. IFADManagement is aware of the need to rotate staff, notonly among divisions that implement its programmefor Africa but more generally; such needs are beingconsidered as part of IFAD’s human resource reformprogramme. IFAD Management considers anyopportunity to share knowledge or to cross-fertilizelessons learned an important means of enhancing itsdevelopment effectiveness and will continue to pursuethis approach in the context of Africa as well.

Under its performance-based allocation system,IFAD Management allocates programmatic resourcesdifferentially in post-conflict countries. Along with otherfactors, income plays a role in allocation and low-incomecountries receive a larger proportion of resources. Inallocating administrative resources, programme size is amajor consideration and thus indirectly differentiates infavour of low income countries. It is also worth noting,however, that differential allocation should not penalizeperformance. This may have the effect of lowering IFAD’soverall performance by reducing performance in placeswhere the development effectiveness of IFAD’s resourcesis higher. If such an approach is implemented usingadditional resources, then it can certainly improveoverall performance.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Improving performance

Filling the sector policy gap (AfDB/IFAD)

Annex I Action plan

97

Step up support to CAADP in implementing its mandate,and provide a joint statement of support for CAADP.

At the country level, support the development of soundnational ARD policies focused on results that are alignedwith the CAADP policy framework and the commitmentsof the Maputo Declaration. In line with a country-ledapproach, wherever possible the two institutions shouldalign their ARD strategies and business plans withnational sector policies and strategies.

At the level of global policy, develop knowledge andcapacity to engage in international advocacy on tradeissues affecting African producers.

(i) Lender performance (AfDB/IFAD)

Increase and strengthen country presence.

Finance simpler, more sharply focused projects andprogrammes, to be undertaken within the framework ofcoordinated sector plans.

Provide increased support to ARD in fragile states,with specific attention being devoted to the choiceand sequencing of aid modalities.

Build increased skills, knowledge and capacity in theareas of policy, analytical work, knowledge managementand managing partnerships.

AfDB and IFAD should, in collaboration with otherinstitutions, support governments in undertaking capacityneeds assessments in the ARD sector, and providesubstantial support for capacity-building and institutionaldevelopment, including gender mainstreaming. The twoinstitutions should also support similar work fordecentralized institutions.

The Bank and IFAD Managements affirm their supportfor CAADP’s policy pillars and promote country-ledCAADP processes.

AfDB and IFAD believe that RMCs should exerciseleadership over their development policies and plansand commit to making available resources to supportsuch efforts. They also believe that achieving the targetsset under the Maputo Declaration is critical for bringingabout improvements in the agricultural and rural sector.

AfDB and IFAD propose working closely with the AfricanUnion/CAADP and the regional economic commissions(with the African Union taking the lead role) to adoptcommon positions when negotiating on trade issues ininternational forums.

Both institutions support the call for strengtheningcountry presence and efforts are ongoing to this end.

The report acknowledges that AfDB and IFAD aremoving in this direction. Significant improvements havebeen made in AfDB and IFAD’s operating model haschanged markedly.

AfDB will continue to provide increased support to ARDin fragile states and IFAD is committed to improving itsdevelopment effectiveness in fragile states.

Engaging institutions that are better placed in theagriculture policy arena - IFPRI - would be moreappropriate. IFAD has already provided a large grant toIFPRI. In the area of natural resource management,the Bank will seek to deepen relationships with leadingagencies, such as the International Union forConservation of Nature.

AfDB and IFAD Managements will increase their supportto governments in undertaking capacity needsassessments and in building institutions. Both institutionssupport the call to re-establish/create technicalassistance funds. Realizing that despite progress there isa room for improvement in gender mainstreaming andwomen’s empowerment, both institutions committhemselves to accord priority to this area.


(ii) Borrower performance

Description of recommendation Proposed action

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Description of recommendation

Maintain and extend the current bilateral partnership,based on the memorandum of understanding of 2008,setting a limited number of precise, strategic regionalpriorities. It should focus on the respective comparativeadvantages and specializations, complementarity,and increasing the emphasis on results.

At the regional level, take forward their partnership withinthe wider partnership around CAADP, and in supportof CAADP.

Remain directly engaged in ARD, but develop a moreselective strategy, closely linked to the Bank’smedium-term priorities and aligned with CAADP.

Following approval of a revised strategy, AfDB shouldmount a major communication campaign to informAfrican leaders and other sector donors of the Bank’sstrategic objectives in the sector.

Ensure that sufficient human and financial resources areallocated for effective implementation of the revisedstrategy while seeking to leverage further funding fromthe private sector, private donors, Arab States andemerging donors including Brazil, China, India and theRepublic of Korea. Steps should also be taken to ensureprovision of adequate resources to regional memberscountries and operational departments to take forwardimportant analytical work and sector studies.

Engage more strategically in analytical work and allocateadditional resources both in financial terms and inbuilding staff capabilities. This calls for additionalfinancial and human resources.

Plan selected joint activities between the divisions suchas a knowledge programme to cross-fertilize lessonslearned, best practices and experiences, along aproactive policy for exchanging staff and consultants.

Differentiated allocation levels of administrative resourcesfor fragile states and low-income countries.

Proposed action

AfDB and IFAD Managements recognize theneed for both institutions to maintain and extend theircurrent bilateral partnership, based on the memorandumof understanding signed by both parties in 2008. TheBank and the Fund will review the current memorandumof understanding and prepare the necessary addendum.

Agreed. See point 1.

Agreed

The Bank’s strategy will be presented to the Board inDecember 2009. A campaign will be launched withthe support of the External Relations andCommunication Unit.

Management will work with other partners and ensurethat financing needs expressed by RMCs for investments,analytical work and sector studies are addressed.

In some countries where sector strategies are weak,IFAD, either directly or through partnerships, couldundertake policy and analytical work on a very selectivebasis. Additional financial and human resources need tobecome available for this.

IFAD Management will continue pursuing cross-fertilization.It is working on an approach to make the workforce moremobile including through internal rotation and secondmentsboth in and out of the organization, which will also benefitregional divisions serving Africa.

The current system allows some differentiation in theallocation of programme-related resources, andconsequently in the allocation of administrative resources.

Annex I (continued) Action plan

98

Building purposeful partnerships



Key outputsand indicator

1. Cofinancing

1.1. Joint project identification,design and approval(number of countries in total)

1.2. Amount cofinanced

2. Supervision

2.1. Number of joint supervisionmissions undertaken

3.1. Increase in relevantanalytical work, either directlyor through partnershiparrangements

3.2. Share analytical work in amutually beneficial manner

4.1. Partnership coordinator

4.2. Share information broadlyon a regular basis

4.3. Staff exchange programme

3. Enhanced and shared analytical work

4. Corporate knowledge sharing and innovation

2008-2009 actions(baseline)

• 4 countries - Benin, Liberia,The Gambia and Ghana

• AfDB- US$124.8 millions• IFAD- US$45.2 millions• Total US$170 millions

(UA 111 millions)

• 3 missions(Benin, Mozambique and Sierra Leone)

• Targets not set for 2008-2009

• Targets not set for2008-2009

• None

• Collaborate in the advocacyand financing of majorcontinental initiatives in favourof agriculture and foodsecurity: the AgricultureDevelopment Fund, theMigration and DevelopmentTrust Fund, the AfricaFertilizer FinancingMechanism, and others.

• None

2010 target

• 5 countries (to be identified in early 2010)

• Each institution to increase the amount cofinancedby a minimum of 15 per cent above baseline

• Jointly supervise all cofinanced operations startingin 2010 (there are six such operations currently)

• IFAD/AfDB to collaborate in carrying out threeeconomic sector work activities using IFAD grantresources

• IFAD and AfDB working group to jointly identifyissues for further analyses, when needed andshare outputs on regular basis

• A coordinator to be appointed in 2010 to managethe partnership

• Both institutions have appointed focal points toregularly exchange information on project andcountry strategy pipelines and share results forongoing and completed portfolios

• Undertake a staff exchange programme starting in2010 for 1-to-2-year deployment periods

Annex II Key output targets for 2010

99


100

AfDB. 2000. Agriculture and Rural Development Sector AfDB Group Policy. Tunis.

AfDB. 2004. Stepping up to the Future: An Independent Evaluation of ADF-VII, VIII and IX. Tunis: Operations Evaluation Department.

AfDB. 2007. Agriculture Sector Strategy Review (draft). Tunis: Agriculture and Agro-Industry Department.

AfDB. 2007. Investing in Africa’s Future: The ADB in the 21st Century. Report of the High Level Panel. Tunis.

AfDB. 2008a. The African Food Crisis Response. Paper submitted to the Board of Directors (3 July 2008). Tunis: Sector Operations II.

AfDB. 2008b. Gender Equality in Agriculture and Rural Development (draft). A desk review of performance in AfDB Operations. Tunis: Operations Evaluation Department.

AfDB. 2010. Bank Group Agriculture Sector Strategy 2010-2014. Tunis.

Binswanger-Mkhize, H. and A. McCalla. 2008. Context and Prospects for African Agricultural Development. Rome: IFAD; Tunis: AfDB.

Fan, S., and N. Rao. 2003. Public Spending in Developing Countries: Trends, Determination and Impact. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 99. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

FAO. 2007. Independent External Evaluation: the Challenge of Renewal. Rome.

FAO. 2008. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008. Rome.

Gelb, A., A.G. Ali, D. Tesfaye, I.A Elbadawi, C. Soludo and G. Tidrick. 2000. Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? Washington, DC: World Bank.

IFAD. 2002. Strategic Framework for IFAD 2002–2006: Enabling the Rural Poor to Overcome Poverty. Rome.

IFAD. 2004. Rural Finance Policy. Rome.

IFAD. 2005a. An Independent External Evaluation of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rome:Office of Evaluation.

IFAD. 2005b. Direct Supervision Pilot Programme: Corporate-level Evaluation. Rome: Office of Evaluation.

IFAD. 2006. IFAD Policy on Sector-Wide Approaches for Agriculture and Rural Development. Rome.

IFAD. 2007a. IFAD Strategic Framework 2007–2010. Rome.

IFAD. 2007b. IFAD’s Field Presence Pilot Programme: Corporate-level Evaluation. Rome: Office of Evaluation.

IFAD. 2007c. Supervision and Implementation Support Policy. Rome.

IFAD. 2007d. Knowledge Management Strategy. Rome.

IFAD. 2007e. Private-Sector Development and Partnership Strategy. Rome.

IFAD. 2008. Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations. Rome: Office of Evaluation.

International Monetary Fund. 2009. World Economic Outlook, Update (January). Washington, DC.

OECD. 2008. Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration – Effective Aid by 2010? What It Will Take. Accra: ThirdHigh Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness.

OECD/DAC. 2002. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-based Management. Paris: OECD/Development Assistance Committee.

Pardey, P.G., J.S. James and J.M. Alston. 2008. Agricultural R&D Policy: A Tragedy of the International Commons.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

McCullough E.B., P.L. Pingali and K.G. Stamoulis. 2007. The Transformation of Agri-Food Systems. Rome: FAO.

Ndulu, B., L.Chakraborti, V. Ramachandran and J. Wolgin. 2007. Challenges of African Growth: Opportunities, Constraints and Strategic Directions. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 2007. World Bank Assistance to Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An IEG Review. Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2008. World Development Report: Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC.

Bibliography

Official development assistanceto Africa

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1974-1981 1982-1989 1990-1997 1998-2005

Appendix 4 - Figure 1 Official development assistance to agriculture, 1974-2005

Million US$ in 2005 constant prices

ADB/ADF IFADEC IDA/IBRDUSA ADB/ADF & IFAD

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

1974-1981 1982-1989 1990-1997 1998-2005

Appendix 4 - Figure 2 Official development assistance to agriculture and rural development, 1974-2005

Million US$ in 2005 constant prices

ADB/ADF IFADEC IDA/IBRDUSA ADB/ADF & IFAD

101

Source: OECD-DAC Creditor Reporting System. See http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW

Source: OECD-DAC Creditor Reporting System. See http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW

Appendix 5 Definition of the evaluation criteria used in the joint evaluation

Criterion

Project performanceRelevance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Poverty impact

Household income and assets

Human and social capitaland empowerment

Food security andagricultural productivity

Natural resources andthe environment

Institutions and policies

Other performance criteriaSustainability

Promotion of pro-poor innovation,replication and scaling up

Overall project achievement

Definition53

The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent withbeneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, institutional priorities and partner and donorpolicies. It also entails an assessment of project coherence in achieving its objectives.

The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or areexpected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.

A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.)are converted into results.

Impact is defined as the changes that have occurred or are expected to occur in the livesof the rural poor (whether positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended)as a result of development interventions.

Household income provides a means of assessing the flow of economic benefits accruingto an individual or group, whereas assets relate to a stock of accumulated items ofeconomic value.

Human and social capital and empowerment include an assessment of the changes thathave occurred in the empowerment of individuals, the quality of grass-roots organizationsand institutions, and the poor’s individual and collective capacity.

Changes in food security relate to availability, access to food and stability of access,whereas changes in agricultural productivity are measured in terms of yields.

The focus on natural resources and the environment involves assessing the extent towhich a project contributes to changes in the protection, rehabilitation or depletion ofnatural resources and the environment.

The criterion relating to institutions and policies is designed to assess changes in thequality and performance of institutions, policies and the regulatory framework thatinfluence the lives of the poor.

The likely continuation of net benefits from a development intervention beyond the phaseof external funding support. It also includes an assessment of the likelihood that actualand anticipated results will be resilient to risks beyond the project’s life.

The extent to which IFAD development interventions have: (i) introduced innovativeapproaches to rural poverty reduction; and (ii) the extent to which these interventions havebeen (or are likely to be) replicated and scaled up by government authorities, donororganizations, the private sector and others agencies.

This provides an overarching assessment of the project, drawing on the analysis madeunder the various evaluation criteria cited above.

102

Definition of the evaluation criteriaused in the joint evaluation

103

Appendix 5 (continued) Definition of the evaluation criteria used in the joint evaluation

Criterion

Performance of partners IFADGovernmentCooperating institutionNGO/community-basedorganization

Definition53

This criterion assesses the contribution of partners to project design, execution, monitoringand reporting, supervision and implementation support, and evaluation. The performance ofeach partner will be assessed on an individual basis with a view to the partner’s expectedrole and responsibility in the project life cycle.

53/ OECD/DAC. 2002. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management. Available at:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf. Also OE’s A Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation, agreed with the EvaluationCommittee of the Executive Board in September 2003.

Appendix 5 Definition of the evaluation criteria used in the joint evaluation

104

Goal

Objective

Modalities

Themes

Sectors

Implementation

Reporting

Costs

Cooperation agreement 1978

Promote the common goal of IFAD andAfDB in countries of commonmembership

IFAD is desirous of using the services ofAfDB for carrying out part of itsidentification, preparation and appraisalwork and for the purposes of loanadministration

Identification and preparation ofprojectsBank services for projects to befinanced by IFAD (appraisal, loannegotiations, loan administration,cofinancing, review and monitoringby IFAD, post-evaluation)

Assistance through field work oroffice work

From time to time

IFAD shall reimburse AfDBfor the additional costs of the servicesperformed by AfDB on behalfof the Fund

Memorandum of understanding 2008

Promote the common goal to reduce rural poverty andhunger, enhance capacities of the rural poor people,promote rural business linkages, and support goodgovernance

To join efforts and resources of both institutions towardsenhancing aid effectiveness as highlighted in the Parisdeclaration: twin aims of enhancing effectiveness andefficiency of their combined development assistance tofoster greater ownership by client countries

a) Exclusive financing by IFAD with AfDB providingservices as project administratorb) Joint financingc) Arrangements for joint projects appraisal,loan negotiations, approval and administration

Cofinancing of development activitiesPrivate-sector promotion and microfinanceCapacity-buildingPoverty reduction strategiesGood governanceJoint intervention in post-conflict and fragile statesStaff exchange programmesJoint project cycle activitiesCross-cutting issues such as HIV/AIDS, energy andenvironment, and genderInformation exchangeOther sectors of partnership as may be agreed

Agriculture and rural developmentPrivate-sector development and microfinanceRural infrastructure Small-scale community energy facilities

Conduct joint missionsEngage in dialogueOrganize knowledge eventsCollaborate in trainingProvide biannual reportsCreate technical networks

Meet at least twice a year

Shall be borne by one or both parties in accordance withagreements to be reached by the parties in advance ofthe implementation of the activities concerned

Appendix 6 Comparison between the 1978 IFAD/AfDB cooperation agreement and 2008 memorandum of understanding

Comparison between the 1978IFAD/AfDB cooperation agreementand 2008 memorandum of understanding

105

Performance of the AfDB–IFADpartnership

Appendix 7 Performance of the AfDB–IFAD partnership

Overall account of experienceof AfDB–IFAD collaborativeworking (1978-2008)

Weak (now being activelyexamined)

Weak (current dialogue has astronger orientation on results)

Weak (yet to mature to thisextent)

Fair (earlier efforts nowsurpassed by recent MoUinitiative)

Weak (earlier weaknesses anddistance arising now beingaddressed)

Weak (but improving)

Weak (but investing insharpening this)

Fair (cofinancing levels),Weak (supervision role)

Weak (rationale and relatedmodalities for partnering beingre-examined)

Parameters for assessment: core dimension of collaborative arrangements andprinciples of good partnership management

Organizational setup: Evidence of complementarity of partners, clear division of roles andfunctions, administrative structure for coordination, harmonised procedures?

Partnership strategy: Evidence of a focus on concrete results and alignment of activitiesto outcomes, regular performance reviews, alignment with recipient governments’priorities, partners perceive benefits arising outweighing costs?

Partnership governance: Evidence of clarity of responsibilities and rules of engagementwithin the partnerships including dispute settlement, accountability mechanismsestablished?

Formal interaction: Evidence of the availability of the two partners to interactpost-signature on the agreement, partnership activities forming an integral partof the member organization’s own agenda, a structure regular policy dialogue betweenthe two partners, use of communication tools enabling continuous information flow amongpartners and between the partnership and its designated area of activity?

Partnership culture: Evidence of a sharing and understanding of each other’s incentives,constraints and assets and ac channelling of the learning on diversity into thepartnership process, specific measures taken to promote ownership and commitmentamong the partners, recognition of the assets and competencies their counterparts bringinto the partnership?

Learning and innovation: Evidence of feedback mechanism on the results of partnershipactivities established by the partnership, the partnership providing space for the sharingand development of innovative approaches, organizational learning across thepartnership as a defined goal and with specific activities?

Relevance of objectives and of the partnership: Evidence of partners and stakeholdersclearly articulating what the exact partnership objectives are, extent to which these areexplicitly aligned with the overall purpose of the partnership, the necessity for and valuefor money arising from tackling a particular development problem through acollaborative endeavour?

Effectiveness and efficiency: Evidence of the degree to which the partnership achievedits stated objectives (outputs and intermediate outcomes), monitoring of operational costsand the transaction costs of the partnership activities, transaction costs are considered inadequate relation to the benefits arising from the partnership?

Impact and sustainability: Evidence of positive changes in the designated area of actionthe partnership was/is contributing to, partners achieving their own individual goals andobjectives through the partnership, the rationale for the partners remaining committed tostaying engaged with the partnership?

The partnership process: How have the different actors interacted and learnt in the partnership?

The partnership performance: What are the results achieved in terms of outcome and sustainability?

Appendix 8 Projects cofinanced by IFAD and AfDB, 1978-2009 (sorted by approval date, latest first)

Country

Ghana

UnitedRepublicof Tanzania

Madagascar

Djibouti

Ghana

Uganda

Gambia(The)

Mozambique

Burkina Faso

Ghana

Swaziland

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Project

Rural and Agricultural FinanceProgramme

Agricultural Sector DevelopmentProgramme

Support to Farmers’ ProfessionalOrganizations and AgriculturalServices Project

Programme for the Mobilization ofSurface Water and SustainableLand Management

Northern Rural Growth Programme

Community AgriculturalInfrastructure ImprovementProgramme

Participatory Integrated WatershedManagement Project

Rural Finance Support Programme

Community InvestmentProgramme for Agricultural Fertility

Rural Enterprises Project – Phase II

Lower Usuthu SmallholderIrrigation Project – Phase I

Approval

17/12/08

17/12/08

11/09/08

13/12/07

13/12/07

12/09/07

21/04/04

17/12/03

11/09/03

05/09/02

06/12/01

Completion

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Status

not yetsigned

ongoing

signed(IFAD only)

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

AfDB

4.94

59.87

8.20

0.28

61.22

43.83

7.08

5.45

7.48

10.01

12.68

Dates as reported byIFAD, may differ for AfDB

Projects approved since 1990

106

Projects cofinanced by IFADand AfDB, 1978-2009

IFAD

5.99

36.00

19.19

3.00

22.73

15.01

7.09

9.46

12.07

11.25

14.96

Others

17.661

167.79

19.689

2.172

0

0

0

16.35

1.006

0

51.499

Gov./Benef.

13.28

51.90

9.32

6.18

19.61

6.12

3.37

3.05

6.32

8.02

31.45

TOTAL

41.87

315.56

56.39

11.64

103.55

64.97

17.53

34.31

26.87

29.27

110.59

Multi-donor

M

M

M

M

M

M

Othercofinanciers/IFADsupervision

IDAcofinanced/World Banksupervision

IDA andothers

IFAD directsupervision

UNOPS



AfDBsupervision




IDA, IFADdirectsupervision

Comments

IFAD-initiated and approved; IDAand AfDB mentioned as possiblecofinanciers; follows up oncofinanced RFSP of 2000

Agric. SWAp; parallel financingwith number of other donors

IFAD-initiated and approved; EU,AfDB and AFD mentioned aspossible cofinanciers; AfDBPROJER II

African Water Facility; scaling upof IFAD project

Initiated by IFAD after long-termengagement in northern Ghana;AfDB invited by Government asmajor cofinancier; separateappraisals

AfDB-originated; 2005 sectorstudy, followed up by appraisalmission; IFAD has indicatedsupport

Nigerian Trust Fund

AfDB SAR mentions parallelfinancing of IFAD in RUFIPproject; IFAD-initiated; AfDBprovided complementary funds

IFAD-initiated

Follow-up on earlier REP-I toreplicate in more areas; jointmission for REP-II with IFAD

Joint appraisal by all donors;originated from EU project

Millions of United States dollars

107

Appendix 8 Projects cofinanced by IFAD and AfDB, 1978-2009

Appendix 8 (continued) Projects cofinanced by IFAD and AfDB, 1978-2009 (sorted by approval date, latest first)

Country

UnitedRepublic ofTanzania

Benin

Ethiopia

Ghana

Uganda

Cameroon

Gambia

Malawi

Guinea

Morocco

Rwanda

Burundi

Cape Verde

No.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Project

Agricultural Marketing SystemsDevelopment Programme

Participatory Artisanal FisheriesDevelopment Support Programme

Rural Financial IntermediationProgramme

Rural Financial Services Project

Area-Based AgriculturalModernization Programme

National Agricultural Research andExtension Programmes SupportProject

Lowlands AgriculturalDevelopment Programme

Agricultural Services Project:Smallholder Food SecuritySub-Project

Second Siguiri Rural DevelopmentProject

Livestock and PastureDevelopment Project in theEastern Region

Byumba Agricultural DevelopmentProject – Phase II

Bututsi Agro-PastoralDevelopment Project

Artisanal Fisheries DevelopmentProject

Approval

06/12/01

06/12/01

06/12/01

03/05/00

08/12/99

10/09/98

12/04/95

15/09/93

04/09/91

19/04/90

01/10/90

29/11/88

02/12/87

Completion

n/a

n/a

n/a

30/06/00

n/a

31/12/02

31/12/04

31/03/00

31/03/97

31/12/01

30/06/01

31/12/04

30/06/95

Status

ongoing

ongoing

ongoing

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

AfDB

14.46

10.01

37.50

5.01

13.20

10.31

5.68

12.69

9.59

14.20

6.47

8.96

5.7



108

IFAD

16.35

10.01

25.69

11.00

13.20

10.52

5.06

13.00

12.48

14.00

8.73

8.96

5.7

Others

5.573

0

0

5.133

30.6

15.138

0

45.72

0

0.88

0

0

1.1

Gov./Benef.

5.92

5.98

25.54

1.82

4.20

10.12

0.92

7.72

4.89

17.90

4.30

1.85

1.9

TOTAL

42.30

25.99

88.73

22.96

61.2

46.08

11.66

79.14

26.97

45.22

19.50

19.77

14.4

Multi-donor

M

M

M

M




World Banksupervision(but not IDAcofinanced)




UNOPS

AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision

Comments

IFAD-initiated; FAO InvestmentCentre-designed; Joint appraisalmission (IFAD/AfDB)

IFAD/AfDB & commercial banks

Parallel financing; World Bank/IFAD-initiated (pre-appraisal);AfDB takes component(institutions)

IFAD-initiated as AAMP;appraised and approved byIFAD; Gov. invited AfDB toparticipate in feeder roadcomponent & IFAD agreed;AfDB appraised

World Bank/IFAD-initiated;AfDB covers agric. researchcomponent

Based on long-term IFAD/AfDBcofinancing of rice developmentin The Gambia

Irrigation project; second phase

Livestock project; jointlyappraised by IFAD and AfDB

Follow-up from an earlierIFAD/AfDB-cofinanced project


109


Appendix 8 (continued) Projects cofinanced by IFAD and AfDB, 1978-2009 (sorted by approval date, latest first)

Country

Guinea

Liberia

Guinea-Bissau

Botswana

Gambia(The)

Sierra Leone

Rwanda

Dem. Rep. ofthe Congo

Sudan

Guinea

Burundi

CentralAfricanRepublic

Somalia

Cape Verde

No.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Project

Gueckedou AgriculturalDevelopment Project

Bong County AgriculturalDevelopment Project II

Tombali Rice Development Project

Arable Lands DevelopmentProgramme – Phase I Project(ALDEP I)

Jahaly and Pacharr SmallholderProject

Northern Integrated AgriculturalDevelopment Project – Phase II(NIADP II)

Byumba Rural DevelopmentProject

Smallholder Maize Project

New Halfa Irrigation RehabilitationProject

Siguiri Rural Development Project

East Mpanda Rural DevelopmentProject

Livestock Development Project

Bay Region AgriculturalDevelopment Project

Assomada Integrated AgriculturalDevelopment Project

Approval

04/09/85

04/04/84

21/04/82

17/12/81

17/12/81

22/04/81

17/12/81

17/09/80

07/05/80

12/05/80

18/12/79

27/03/79

18/12/79

11/12/78

Completion

31/12/91

30/06/88

30/06/93

31/12/92

31/12/91

30/09/87

31/12/89

31/12/89

30/06/88

06/30/92

31/12/92

31/03/86

30/09/88

31/12/83

Status

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

closed

AfDB

6.3

2.672

6

7.56

5.1

8.5

11.3

6.4

10

9.1

9.5

3.3

8.9

2.084



110

IFAD

5

5.8

8

7.57

5.22

5.985

11.22

15

15.057

12.5

14.5

2.5

8

3.82

Others

6.6

4.55

1.1

8.84

5.65

10.5

0

11

40

0

8.75

3

22.5

0

Gov./Benef.

6.5

0.608

1.2

5.42

1

2.7

2

6.1

63.7

10

9.7

4.8

5.6

0.427

TOTAL

24.4

13.63

16.3

29.39

16.97

27.685

24.52

38.5

128.757

31.6

42.45

13.6

45

6.331

Multi-donor

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M




AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision


AfDBsupervision



AfDBsupervision

AfDBsupervision



AfDBsupervision

Comments


111


Appendix 9 Joint evaluation approach paper, inception report and evaluation framework

Impact

- Enhanced rural incomes - Reduced poverty and inequality - Food security- Higher agriculture productivity and market orientation- Sustainability- Gender orientation

Strategic questions

1. In what activities, sectors and subsectors should AfDB and IFADconcentrate future project and non-project operations to optimallysupport ARD in Africa?

2. How can the two institutions enhance their relevance, sector focus andoperational performance in ARD through strategic partnerships andadapted business processes?

Strategic questions

1. What are the ongoing and emerging challenges and opportunities forARD in Africa?

2. Are the current ARD policies of IFAD and the AfDB appropriate to meetongoing and emerging challenges? If not what changes are needed?How soon? And at what cost? Do such changes have organizationaland/or capacity implications?

3. What are the relevance and synergies of AfDB’s and IFAD’s current ARDpolicies and regional strategies?

4. How far are these policies and strategies based on relevant evidence?How far (and how frequently) is evidence of performance drawn frommonitoring, review and evaluation used to update policy and strategy?

5. Are IFAD and AfDB pursuing appropriate strategic choices in ARD withrespect to subsector, geographic and thematic focus, target groups,enabling private investments, selection of partner institutions, and theinstruments deployed? In view of their corporate goals, of internationalcommitments, and of overall development effectiveness?

6. What have been the factors driving the success or failure by IFAD and theAfDB at the country programme level and in country policy dialogue?

7. What are the policy directions being pursued in African ARD by otherkey players, such as African governments, regional and subregionalinstitutions (NEPAD, et al.), United Nations organizations and othermultilateral and bilateral donors (World Bank, EC, United States,France, et al.), civil society, international foundations, and non-regionalmember states (e.g. Brazil, China and India). And where do the AfDBand IFAD fit in?

Intended results

I. Overall goal

Overall ARD performance/MillenniumDevelopment Goals: Better agriculture andrural development performance in Africa toaccelerate the achievement of the MDGs andother relevant sector goals.

II. Strategic goal at IFAD and

AfDB level

More elevance and better performance inARD: The purpose of the joint evaluation isto contribute to enhancing the relevance ofAfDB and IFAD programmes in ARD inAfrica and to improve their operationalperformance.

III. Outcomes at IFAD and AfDB level

1. Enhanced sector policies, strategies andprogrammes. To develop and implementmore relevant, effective and sustainableagriculture and rural policies, strategies andprogrammes at IFAD and AfDB through aforward-looking evaluation.

Joint evaluation framework: key questions

A. Joint evaluation approach paper: http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/approach.pdf

B. Joint evaluation inception report: http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/inception.pdf

112

Joint evaluation approach paper,inception report andevaluation framework

Appendix 9 (continued) Joint evaluation approach paper, inception report and evaluation framework

Strategic questions

1. How can IFAD and the AfDB scope and define their future roles in ARD inthe new aid architecture in light of the Rome and Paris Harmonization andPartnership Agreements?

2. How should the two institutions position themselves in ARD, based ontheir absolute and relative comparative advantages?

3. How useful is the longstanding partnership agreement between AfDB andIFAD in furthering their common objectives? And what is the potential forfuture collaboration between the two organizations?

4. Who are preferred other partners for project work, sector-wideprogrammes and analyses (SWAps, non-project sector work), and policycoordination? What form could these partnerships take?

5. How can AfDB and IFAD contribute to the coordination and harmonizationof ARD policies in Africa and to the measurement of (joint) results?

1. What was the performance of AfDB and IFAD in projects, policy andsector work? To what extent have results been sustainable? What lastingcontributions have the two organizations made?

2. How did AfDB and IFAD perform in key (sub) sectors within ARD?Have actions and results been consistent with the relevant policiesand strategies? How could performance be improved?

3. How has performance been comparable to that of other donororganizations?

4. Why was performance as it was? What factors best explain thedevelopment effectiveness and impact of the two agencies’ policies andprojects in relation to their stated corporate goals in the sector?

5. What have been key constraints in achieving developmental results? Whatrisks materialized, and could they have been better mitigated in advance?

6. Have best practices been followed?7. Are there more effective and efficient ways of achieving sector results?8. What can IFAD and AfDB learn from others who are working in the sector?

How effectively have the institutions brought in best practices and know-how?

1. How have business and management processes at AfDB and IFADcontributed to their performance, impact and overall strategic objectivesin ARD? What are the conclusions for the future?

2. How effective have business processes been in cofinancing andoperating development partnerships?

3. To what extent are business processes sufficiently adapted for intrinsicsector requirements of ARD?

4. How could both institutions further improve their project and programmelife cycles, in particular, quality-at-entry, implementation support andsupervision, and results-oriented M&E?

5. What is the scope for improvement for IFAD and AfDB in their respectiveprocesses of strategy formulation and monitoring, country presence, andsector resource allocation?

6. How do human resources and their management in both organizationscorrespond to sector requirements?

7. Do IFAD and AfDB reserve and allocate adequate resources for businessprocesses that could effectively support ARD operations in Africa? How farare such decisions based on explicit criteria and backed up by evidence?

1. What are scope and quality of self-evaluation and independent evaluationat IFAD and the AfDB?

2. How have past lessons learned in the sector (ARD) been incorporated insubsequent operations?

3. What are the key instruments for knowledge management at the twoorganizations? Are adequate resources allocated? Adequate incentivesprovided?

4. How effective is knowledge management in promoting innovations andscaling up successful operations?

5. To what extent do IFAD and AfDB managers and staff link and networkwith other organizations on principle sector issues? Are they regularlyharvesting from others to bring in best practices and know-how?

6. How well are ARD sector results and achievements communicatedinternally and externally?

III. Outcomes at IFAD and AfDB level

(continued)

2. Stronger strategic partnerships. Tostrengthen strategic partnerships betweenAfDB, IFAD and others in ARD in Africathrough harmonizing policies, aligningoperations, and exploiting complementaritiesand comparative advantages.

3. Enhanced sector know-how. To generate abetter understanding of and know-how onwhat does and does not work in ARD inAfrica, as well as the reasons behind it,tailored to IFAD and AfDB corporateinterests, goals and sector priorities.

4. Improved business processes. To adaptAfDB and IFAD business processes, ifnecessary, to the new challenges andopportunities for ARD in Africa, in particular,to better operate as partners; in terms ofadapted programme and project cycles,M&E, appropriate human resourcemanagement, and other institutionalprocesses and structures.

5. A stronger learning and accountabilityculture. To generate an effective learningand accountability culture in both institutionsthrough results-oriented operations andevaluations, excellent knowledgemanagement, and effective internal andexternal communications.

113

Appendix 9 Joint evaluation approach paper, inception report and evaluation framework

Issues

Rural poverty focus

Adaptation to countrycontext and sectoralcharacteristics

Alignment with policyand governanceframeworks

AfDB

AfDB’s country strategy paper (CSP)in Mozambique has compared AfDB’sportfolio distribution per region with thepoverty headcount per province and hasrecommended a greater focus on thenorthern provinces.

In Burkina Faso, PADAP* will conduct asocio-economic survey, on the basis ofwhich it will specify gender-specificperformance indicators.

In Kenya, AfDB’s results-based frameworkshave poverty specific indicators.

In Kenya, AfDB has reviewed specificaspects of the sectoral context, such asland use and tenure policies, and hasdesigned project interventions accordingly.

In Nigeria, AfDB’s interventions arebased on a review of previousexperience, carried out through atechnical review of the NationalProgramme for Food Security.

AfDB has also used thematic resultsmatrices and tables to depict therationale for portfolio interventions in thecontext of country and sector needs.In Nigeria, the CSP uses a thematicresults matrix to illustrate how strategicinterventions have been linked to relevantNational Empowerment and EconomicDevelopment Strategy (NEEDS) pillars,thus highlighting their link to the broadercontextual challenges identified.

AfDB has aligned with nationalinstitutions in Burkina Faso, Kenyaand Mozambique.

In Burkina Faso, the Decentralized RuralDevelopment Support Project (DRDSP)will be run by a “coordination team”within the Ministry of Agriculture.However, it is not clear how this differsfrom a project management unit.

IFAD

IFAD has carried out a detailed poverty analysis inmany countries to improve its targeting strategies.For example, In Nigeria, IFAD’s interventions arelinked to a priority needs assessment and aim toaddress the causes of poverty.

In Kenya, IFAD has reviewed the livelihoodstrategies of poor rural people, and selection ofactivities under projects specifically includes thosethat will be adopted by poor rural people.

In Mozambique, the newer projects in IFAD’sportfolio have improved their use of povertyoutcome indicators.

In Rwanda, IFAD has carried out a SWOT analysis(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats)of key stakeholders to identify capacities and gaps.

In Kenya, IFAD has reviewed previous experienceand has introduced changes to enhance theoperating environment (rolling audits, decentralizedproject management units, etc.).

IFAD has aligned with national institutions in theUnited Republic of Tanzania, where IFAD loan andgrant funds are distributed through the nationaltreasury. Project coordination units (PCUs) are fullymainstreamed within the lead implementinggovernment agency. M&E will also be carried outby private implementation partnerships and willconform to the poverty monitoring system of theNational Strategy for Growth and Reduction ofPoverty (MKUKUTA).

Alignment is strong in Mozambique, where IFAD issupporting a component of the agricultural SWAp(PROAGRI).

Appendix 10 Good practice examples from recent AfDB/IFAD country strategies and project design54

114

Good practice examples from recentAfDB/IFAD country strategies andproject design

* Lake Tanganyika Integrated Regional DevelopmentProgramme (LTIRDP) Support Project.

Issues

Alignment withcountry publicfinancialmanagement (PFM)systems

Harmonization

AfDB

In Kenya, projects will be implementedby government institutions. For instance,the staff of the PCU of the SmallscaleHorticulture Development Project(SHDP) will be deployed by theGovernment. The results-basedframework is linked to the InvestmentProgram for the Economic RecoveryStrategy for Wealth and EmploymentCreation (IP-ERS).

In Mozambique, CSP M&E mechanismsare based on the Absolute PovertyReduction Support Program’s PerformanceAssessment Framework matrix.

Also in Burkina Faso, the Directorate ofCooperation within the Ministry of Financecoordinates international assistance.AfDB is working with the Government todevelop a coordination strategy and toestablish an operational M&E system.

In Morocco, AfDB has aligned itsoperations to the national procurementlaws and regulations.

In Mozambique, AfDB is committed toproviding direct budget support. AfDB’sstrategy is to increase the percentage ofsupport relying on government PFM andprocurement systems from 9 per cent in2005 to 40 per cent by 2009. However,the links to PFM are not clear in projectdocuments.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, AfDBprovides budget support for the povertyreduction strategy paper (PRSP).Based on a review of its experience inproviding budget support, AfDB is nowcontributing to the Agriculture SectorDevelopment Programme – Phase I(ASDP-I) basket fund. It will also use themedium-term expenditure framework(MTEF), district agricultural developmentplans, and grant transfers to strengthenexisting government systems.

AfDB is committed to joint reviews inMozambique.

In the United Republic of Tanzania,it conforms to the Joint AssistanceStrategy. AfDB’s selection of regionalinterventions also conforms to theGovernment of the United Republic ofTanzania’s strategy to allocate specificregions and districts to specific donors,as a means of streamlining donorintervention and avoiding overlap.

IFAD

IFAD projects in the Sudan aim at strengthening thecapacity of the Government to facilitate equitableeconomic planning (Western Sudan ResourcesManagement Programme – WSRMP). The mostrecent project, the Southern Sudan LivelihoodsDevelopment Project (SSLDP), seeks to establishplanning and budgeting capacity where noneexists. It supports the local development fund grantmechanism and provides a rationale for theproposed grant-making/ disbursement mechanismand its relevance in the post-conflict context.

IFAD has aligned with PFM systems in Kenya,Mozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania.

In Kenya, under the Smallholder Horticulture andMarketing Programme (SHoMaP), the annualbudget will be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture forentry into the Ministry’s MTEF and then into theGovernment’s printed estimates.

In Mozambique, the Agricultural SupportProgramme (ASP) harmonizes financialmanagement procedures (procurement,disbursement, accounts and audit) under theNational Programme for Agricultural Development(PROAGRI).

In the United Republic of Tanzania, IFAD loan andgrant funds are distributed through the nationaltreasury and are aligned to the PFM cycle andMTEF. Under the projects, the flow of funds ischannelled through the implementing ministry andaligned with the ministry’s annual workplan andbudget.

In Kenya, IFAD participates in donor coordinationand sector working groups and it also aims tobalance an increased field presence with itscommitment to harmonization and alignment.

In Mali, IFAD participates in coordinationframeworks for the rural sector through the IFADgrant-funded Policy Dialogue Unit.

Appendix 10 (continued) Good practice examples from recent AfDB/IFAD country strategies and project design54

115

Appendix 10 Good practice examples from recent AfDB/IFAD country strategies and project design

Issues

Targeting ofbeneficiaries

AfDB

In Burkina Faso, the establishment of aregional coordination committee isplanned in order to create synergies.

In Mozambique and Burkina Faso, theIFAD COSOP lists other ARD-sectordonor activities and potential for synergywith IFAD.

In Mozambique, AfDB has an explicitfocus on gender, and project documentshave a gender profile.

In Nigeria, the profile of ultimatebeneficiaries has been disaggregatedby poverty, gender and HIV/AIDS, andspecific measures to overcome genderinequality have been implementedunder Support to the NationalProgramme for Food Security (SNPFS).AfDB’s projects will also be carried out inthe southern states, where no otherdonor is implementing agriculturalactivities.

IFAD

IFAD is committed to the harmonization agenda inRwanda. It has reinforced its field presence and willplay a more active role in the DevelopmentPartners Coordination Group.

In Ghana, targeting takes into accountgeographical, sectoral and social dimensions. Ananalysis of the feasibility of targeting has also beencarried out, focusing on aspects of access toresources and social protection.

In Kenya, IFAD aims to enhance targeting byestablishing a focal development area approach toimprove geographical targeting. Target groups aredisaggregated and activity selection is pro-poor.

In Mali, the Northern Regions Investment (NRI) andRural Development Programme distinguishessocial groups and identifies aspects of vulnerabilityspecific to each group.

In Rwanda, the COSOP includes a matrixdescribing the poverty level and causes and thepriority needs of each target group, and indicatesIFAD programme responses. Target groups havebeen selected on the basis of the 2006 householdsurvey. The Kirehe Community-based WatershedManagement Project (KWAMP) discussesconstraints on targeting women and proposes agender mainstreaming approach.

In the Sudan, SSLDP has clear targeting criteriabased on an assessment of livelihoods and gender,and includes some safeguards to ensure moreeffective targeting.

Also in the Sudan, WSRMP has effectivelymainstreamed the participation of women in stateand local extension offices and communitydevelopment councils. Mainstreaming has beenenabled through a strategy developed andelaborated at the PCU by the Women’sDevelopment Officer.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, IFAD hasdisaggregated data on poor people and hasidentified causes of poverty. It has analysed therole of identified projects in contributing to povertyalleviation in rural areas in order to ensure thattargeting is effective.


116

Issues

Stakeholderparticipation

Policy dialogue

AfDB

In Burkina Faso, both projects in theportfolio aim to ensure stakeholderparticipation in all stages of the projectcycle through a demand-led approachto project implementation by villagedevelopment committees (VDCs).The Community Investment Project forAgricultural Fertility (PICOFA) has alsoensured the active participation of localpopulations in diagnosis of the baselinesituation.

In Kenya, under SHDP, AfDB will focuson organizational aspects and thetraining of communities in participatoryapproaches and technical designpreparation.

In Nigeria, promoting and participatingin dialogue is a key objective of thecountry office. AfDB will initiate dialoguewith the Government through the NEEDSprocess and the Agriculture PolicySupport Facility.

IFAD

In Kenya, the demand-driven nature of the IFAD-funded SHoMaP ensures stakeholder participation.For instance, stakeholders in each district willdetermine the three horticultural crops that theyconsider most important in terms of their potentialfor poverty alleviation. The requirement that groupsbecome legal entities in order to obtain projectsupport is an important means of ensuringsustainability and effectiveness. A grass-rootsapproach based on the market-oriented dairyenterprise (MODE) process (farmer participation andempowerment, demand-driven service delivery, andpartnerships), adopted under the Smallholder DairyCommercialization Programme (SDCP), will facilitatesustainable participation by enabling smallholders todemand access to services at competitive prices.

In Mali, IFAD’s NRI programme envisagesbeneficiary participation at all stages, includingM&E. Participation will build on local administrativecapacity for pro-poor planning and policymaking.

In Rwanda, the COSOP uses a community-basedparticipatory diagnosis approach to actively involvecommunities in decision-making and monitoring.

In Ghana, each project is supported by a ProgrammeDevelopment Implementation Partnership, whichincludes major stakeholders for the specific operation.Most projects have a policy dimension. For example,a component of the Rural Finance Programme aimsto support Ghana’s microfinance policy.

In Kenya, IFAD has pinpointed specific aspectsfor which it will engage in policy dialogue(mainstreaming, participatory targeting, etc.), and ithas identified the specific policies it will feed into/helpdevelop (it is not clear if there is budget for this).

In Mozambique, the COSOP focuses onempowering poor rural people to play an activerole in decision-making at local and national levelsby supporting small-scale producer organizationsand promoting local partnerships for development.

In Nigeria, the field presence office established in2006 will facilitate policy dialogue. The COSOP hasidentified issues for such dialogue and identifiedthe main policy interlocutors. At the project level,the Rural Microenterprise Development Programme(RUMEDP) annual implementation reviewworkshops will generate policy recommendationsfeeding directly into policymaking.

In Rwanda, IFAD has identified specific areas forpolicy dialogue across its three strategic objectives.The COSOP also aims to support the involvement offarmers’ organizations in country programmemanagement and in agri-trade negotiations andnational/regional development initiatives.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, the COSOP aimsto facilitate stakeholder dialogue in the SWAp process,which will constitute the medium for dialogue.



117

Issues

Accountability

Comparativeadvantage

Innovation

AfDB

In Burkina Faso, each project will form asteering committee chaired by therelevant ministry and composed of themain implementing partners (includingcivil society representatives).

In Rwanda, the Bugesera AgriculturalDevelopment Support Project’sinformation management system is usedto disseminate information about projectperformance. Quarterly reports aredistributed to stakeholders.

In Morocco, AfDB has identified itscomparative advantage as infrastructuredevelopment. It is leading in this area,while other donors are pulling out. It isnot clear, however, what donor/government input there has been indefining comparative advantage.

In the AfDB portfolio in Burkina Faso,both projects aim to scale up theirinitiatives. PICOFA will pilot-testactivities and then fine-tune thembefore scaling them up using thecommunity-driven development/localdevelopment fund (CDD/LDF) modelpiloted successfully by other agenciesand projects.

IFAD

In Mozambique, the ASP extension approach isbased on demand-driven service provision andaccountability to end users. Under the RuralMarkets Promotion Programme (PROMER),processes will be put in place to systematicallydocument, capture, analyse and disseminatelearning from national market linkage projects andprogrammes, including PROMER.

In Rwanda, two steering committees establishedunder the Support Project for the Strategic Plan forthe Transformation of Agriculture (PAPSTA) aim toensure accountability at national and district levels.The national-level steering committee will be led bythe Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Forests(MINAGRI), which will provide major policyguidance to the project and examine and approveannual workplans and budgets. At the district level,it will be led by local authorities.

In Ghana, IFAD identifies its comparativeadvantage as building partnerships between thelocal and macro levels of decision-making.

In Kenya, IFAD has carried out a SWOT analysis ofits operations and has had discussions with donorsand the Government to identify its comparativeadvantage.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, IFAD hascarried out a donor group mapping exercise toidentify its comparative advantage, fill existinggaps and build on interventions.

IFAD COSOPs discuss innovation in mostcountries. This primarily relates to changes inoperational style. For instance, in Kenya it refers tothe use of private service-sector providers toenhance capacity-building. SHoMaP will pilot theinnovative diagnostic use of market chains andrefine these during the course of the programme.

In Mozambique, ASP and PROMER have innovativefeatures, including the institutionalization ofknowledge management capacity within theGovernment and adoption of a country programmeapproach that will build partnerships and synergieswithin ongoing IFAD programmes.

In Rwanda, pilot activities under the COSOP atcommunity innovation centres will develop novelagricultural and environmental practices fornationwide dissemination. PAPSTA is expected tointroduce innovative institutional and technologicalapproaches, and grants will support thedevelopment of partnerships with NGOs and theprivate sector in developing innovativeapproaches.

In the Sudan, WSRMP supports the resolution ofconflicts over resources by establishing institutionsfor improved local government.


118

Issues

Field presence

Knowledgemanagement

AfDB

AfDB’s country office in Nigeria plays animportant role in coordinating activitieswith other donors and in providingtechnical advice and guidance toexecuting agencies and projectimplementation units. Project documentsspecify supervision arrangements.The staff is being increased to enhancethe capacity of the office.

IFAD

In Rwanda, IFAD is directly supervising the newoperation, KWAMP. Supervision will focus on theachievement of project objectives, innovation andmethodological developments.

IFAD has also established a country office in theUnited Republic of Tanzania and will do so inKenya.

In Ghana, knowledge-sharing and learningmechanisms include: FIDAFRIQUE (Internet-basedregional network of IFAD operations); the RuralDevelopment Hub, the Rural Poverty Portal and‘Learning Notes’ that feed into IFAD learning; theProgramme Development ImplementationPartnership also plays an advisory, planning andpartnership role.

In Mali, the Policy Dialogue Unit will supportknowledge management. The unit is responsible forinformation and knowledge development as well asfor the sharing and dissemination of informationand knowledge. The unit will draw on M&E data.

In Mozambique, PROMER aims to collectinformation and feed it into regional knowledgenetworks such as those promoted by IFAD throughits regional thematic programme on StrengtheningSupport Capacity for Enhanced Market Access andKnowledge Management and through FIDAFRIQUE.

In Rwanda, IFAD will promote knowledgemanagement through information systemsconnecting projects, local/national authorities andprofessional organizations, so that information onproject achievements and lessons learned isdisseminated and influences policy dialogue. Forthis purpose, community innovation centres havebeen established under PAPSTA to collect anddisseminate basic information on innovativeapproaches. Management information systemswithin MINAGRI have also been established.

In the United Republic of Tanzania, the Rural Micro,Small and Medium Enterprise Support Programme(MUVI) has developed a knowledge managementstrategy funded through grants. The strategy hastwo dimensions: “collecting” and “connecting”.It will achieve these through new evaluationapproaches such as: most significant change(MSC), outcome mapping (OM), and theknowledge harvesting approach. Knowledgemanagement is established on a solid base fromthe start. For instance, it includes an audienceresearch phase and knowledge audit and usesM&E tools (MSC, OM) that will provide informationon changes and gains. Links established betweenM&E and knowledge management will ensure thatM&E is “repackaged” and disseminated.


119


Issues

Results-basedmanagement

Sustainability

AfDB

In Mozambique, the thematic resultsframework shows how long-termstrategic goals link to outputs andoutcomes issues in priority sectors.

In Nigeria, the thematic results matrixlinks the pillars of the CSP with those ofthe NEEDS. The matrix establishes aresults chain between AfDB interventions,intermediate indicators, outputs andoutcomes to be achieved under the CSPin order to contribute to Nigeria’s long-term development objectives.

In Rwanda, AfDB has aligned itsresults-based framework to that of theGovernment. Thus AfDB assessment isbased on annual PRSP progress reportsproduced by the Government and isalso linked to the performanceassessment framework associatedwith budget support arrangements.The project site maintains informationon project performance.

In Kenya, stakeholder ownership, incomegeneration and demand-driven aspectsof projects will facilitate sustainability.

Similarly, in Mozambique, no new projectmanagement structure will be createdunder the Women EntrepreneurshipProject. It will be managed throughexisting structures of the NationalDirectorate for Women. Salaries ofproject staff are already included innational budgets.

In Nigeria, SNPFS builds on localparticipation and the capacity of localinstitutions to respond to beneficiaryneeds to ensure sustainability. Acomprehensive human resourcedevelopment strategy will be developed,together with a handbook of institutionalperformance indicators, which willstrengthen capacity for financialmanagement to promote rational andefficient use of ministerial resources.Attention is also given to exit strategies –projects will be administered bypermanent staff of the Federal Ministryof Agriculture and Rural Development,and recurrent costs will be met by thegovernment budget.

IFAD

In Nigeria, the Rural Microenterprise DevelopmentProgramme has a clear knowledge managementstrategy in place. Key features include: collectionand dissemination of information throughcommunity-based business information centres;annual implementation review workshops to assessprogress and share experiences; exchange visits;and policy review workshops.

In Mozambique, PROMER will set up a Planning,Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) Framework,which will track and verify achievements ofprogramme outputs and outcomes. PM&E will beguided by the logical framework.

In Rwanda, a country-programme-wide M&Esystem will be established and harmonized withinformation systems at the national level (includingthe Economic Development and Poverty ReductionStrategy’s monitoring system and MINAGRI’sinformation management system) and at the districtlevel. This system will coordinate M&E activitiesacross IFAD’s portfolio.

In the Sudan, the annual workplan and budgetoutlines links between outputs and project planningand budgeting. There is a dedicated budget forresults-based M&E of US$265,000.

In a number of IFAD portfolios, sustainability andexit strategies are based on stakeholderparticipation and ownership.

For instance, in Nigeria, RUMEDP aims to promotefull participation and commitment of stakeholdersfrom the start of the programme; build thecapacity of public and private sectors to continueproviding services; and encourage beneficiariesto share costs.

In Rwanda, sustainability and an exit strategy arebased on ensuring that, from the start, interventionswill be implemented by the appropriate localagencies, with support, training and capacity-building to ensure the continuation ofincome-generating and asset protection activities.

In the Sudan, community subprojects are selectedonly where the proposals are accompanied by aclear explanation of how they will be operated andmaintained by communal action and/or local taxrevenues.


120

121

Issues

Risk management

Partnerships

AfDB

In the United Republic of Tanzania,increased harmonization, use ofgovernment employees and ownershipand participation are expected to ensuresustainability.

In Kenya, AfDB has identified externaland project-related risks and hasdefined management strategies.For external risks related to politicaleconomy, AfDB will increase dialoguewith the Government and will overseerecruitment of project staff to avoidcorruption. For project risks related toadverse impacts on water resources,project design has incorporated the useof water extraction permits.

In Mozambique, the Massinger Damproject includes a comprehensive set ofenvironmental mitigation measures.

In the United Republic of Tanzania,M&E is expected to play a role inmanaging risks.

In Burkina Faso, PICOFA includesdetailed analysis of rural-sectorinstitutions and partnership potential.Partnership arrangements withcommunes and VDCs, includingmodalities for accessing LDF funds,are clearly set out in procedural manualsdeveloped in collaboration with otherprojects such as the National LandManagement Programme.

IFAD

In Rwanda, the COSOP includes a matrix thatidentifies complementary donor initiatives andpartnership/synergy potential. A technicalpartnership has been established in KWAMP inwhich AfDB, WFP and the German DevelopmentService are expected to lead on specific projectsubcomponents.



54/ This analysis was undertaken in the context of the quality-at-entry review (see appendix 4 in document: “Portfolio Analysis of AfDB andIFAD in Agriculture and Rural Development in Africa – Changes in Quality at Entry of Projects and Country Strategies in a selection often African countries”, www.ifad.org/evaluation/jointevaluation/docs/porfolio.pdf.

Agriculture

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1970-1980s 1990s 2000s

Appendix 11 - Figure 1 Evolution of sub-sector shares in AfDB’s agriculture and rural development portfolio in Africa

Source: AfDB

Irrigation and drainage

Livestock Fisheries

Forestry ARD - multisubsector

Finance Water and sanitation

Environment Agro-industry and manufacturing

Others

122

Evolution of sub-sector sharesin AfDB’s and IFAD’s agriculture andrural development portfolio in Africa

123

Agriculture development

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1970-1980s 1990s 2000s

Appendix 11 - Figure 2 Evolution of sub-sector shares in IFAD’s agriculture and rural development portfolio in Africa

Source: IFAD

Rural development

Credit and financial services Research, extension and training

Irrigation Storage, processing and marketing

Livestock Programme loan

Fisheries Settlement

Appendix 11 Evolution of sub-sector shares in AfDB’s and IFAD’s agriculture and rural development portfolio in Africa

Printed by Palombi & Lanci, S.R.L. Tipografia, Rome, ItalyApril 2010

Graphical realization byLorella Candido

Photos (all photos IFAD)

Page 12, Republic of Nigeria, by Piero Tartagni Page 16, Republic of Mali, by Horst WagnerPage 20, Kingdom of Morocco, by Alberto ContiPage 34, United Republic of Tanzania, by Christine NesbittPage 44, Republic of Rwanda, by Robert GrossmanPage 60, Kingdom of Morocco, by Joseph MarandoPage 74, Republic of Ghana, by Robert Grossman

International Fundfor Agricultural DevelopmentVia Paolo di Dono, 4400142 Rome, ItalyTelephone: +39 06 54591Facsimile: +39 06 5043463E-mail: [email protected]

African Development BankAngle de l’avenue du Ghana et desrues Pierre de Coubertin, Hédi NouiraBP 3231002 Tunis Belvédère, TunisiaTelephone: +216 71 333 511Facsimile: +216 71 351 933E-mail: [email protected]

AfD

B/I

FAD

jo

int

ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

ag

ricu

ltu

re a

nd

ru

ral

de

ve

lop

me

nt

po

lici

es

an

d o

pe

rati

on

s in

Afr

ica



April 2010

Towards purposeful partnerships in African agriculture · 2019-06-29 · KWAMP Kirehe...

Documents

Transcript of Towards purposeful partnerships in African agriculture · 2019-06-29 · KWAMP Kirehe...