Photo Credit: Julie Mandolini-Trummel, outside of Nairobi, Kenya (November, 2014) June 22, 2015 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. Social Impact, Inc prepared it independently. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) June 22, 2015 This report was contracted under USAID Contract Number: AID-OAA-TO-14-00021 Bureau for Food Security Performance Evaluations Task Order Team Leader: Dr. Sarah Tisch Team Members: Dennis Marotta (Deputy Team Leader and Evaluation Specialist); Julie Mandolini-Trummel (Evaluation Specialist); and Kelsey Jones-Casey (Evaluation Specialist). Activity Start Date: August 22, 2014 Completion Date: April 30, 2015 Acknowledgements The ReSAKSS evaluation team would like to express our appreciation to USAID and IFPRI for their incredible support throughout this evaluation, particularly Peter Hazel, Tsitsi Makeombe, Lauren Gillis, Yifei Liu, Ousmane Badiane, Jeff Hill, James Oehmke, Jessica Cagley, and Salik Farooqi. Additionally, a special thanks goes to the individuals who helped make the country visits for the evaluation possible including, Godfrey Bahiigwa, Greenwell Matchaya, Joseph Karugia, Claude Bizimana, Mbaye Yade, Manson Nwafor, Readwell Musopole, Sophia Manussa, and Alassane Seck. We are grateful for your contributions not only to this evaluation but also for your work with and commitment to improving the situation of evidence-based policy making across Africa. To all of the evaluation informants, participants, and respondents who took time away from their many important duties to speak with us or take the survey about their experience with ReSAKSS, your candor, time and trust in our team were invaluable and we hope this report accurately reflects your thoughts and experiences. The team would also like to appreciate the work of others who supported our country visits, including all of administrative staff, our drivers, and our interpreters in both Senegal (Cherif Diagne) and Mozambique (Ezeqiel Nhantumbo). Without your day to day support, we would not have been able to hear the very important voices we needed to during our visits. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) i CONTENTS Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... i Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions .........................................................................................7 Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 10 Evaluation Methods and Limitations .......................................................................................................16 Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................21 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................44 Annexes ..................................................................................................................................................47 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ..................................................................................................47 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations ........................................................................................50 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments ....................................................................................................79 Annex IV: Sources of Information .........................................................................................................108 Annex V: additional aggregate analysis for evaluation question 1 .......................................................148 Annex VI: Country Case Studies ..........................................................................................................157 Annex VII: CAADP Stages ....................................................................................................................199 Annex VIII: Internet Survey Results ......................................................................................................200 Annex IX: IFPRI Results Framework ....................................................................................................205 Annex X: Review of Phase 1 of the Evaluation.....................................................................................247 Annex XI: Approaches and Tools .........................................................................................................279 Annex XII: findings, conclusions and recommendations table..............................................................295 Annex XIII: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest................................................................................302 Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ii ACRONYMS AGRODEP African Growth and Development Policy Modeling Consortium ASWAp Agricultural Sector Wide Approach Plan ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency ATOR Annual Trends and Outlook Report AU African Union AUC African Union Commission BFS Bureau for Food Security CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Programme CAPI Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing CCSA Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council CGE Computable General Equilibrium CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CNA Country Needs Assessment COFOG Classification of the Function of Government COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CSOs Civil Society Organizations DAPSA Agricultural Directorate for Statistical Analysis and Predictions DoE Directorate of Economics DREA Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FASDP II Food and Agricultural Sector Development Plan FGDs Focus Group Discussions FISP Farmer Input Subsidy Program FTF Feed the Future GAGS The Gender and Agriculture Development Strategy GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GoG Government of Ghana GoN Government of Nigeria GoR Government of Rwanda IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA The International Institute for Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IWMI International Water Management Institute JDR Joint Donor Evaluation JSRs Joint Sector Reviews KIIs Key Informant Interviews M&E Monitoring and Evaluation Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) iii METASIP Medium Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan MINAGRI Rwanda’s Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MIS Management Information System MoA Ministry of Agriculture MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MSU Michigan State University NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NPCA NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency PEDSA Strategic Development Plan for the Agriculture Development PIF Public Investment Framework PIO Public Institution Organization PNISA National Investment Plan for the Agriculture Sector PPD Policy and Planning Department PPMED Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate RECs Regional Economic Communities REDF&S Ethiopia, Rural Economic Development and Food Security Sector ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SAKSS Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SI Social Impact SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) supports the implementation of the African Union (AU) Comprehensive African Agriculture Programme (CAADP) at the continental, regional, and country levels throughout Africa. ReSAKSS was created to provide technical policy and data analysis assistance and support to the AUC, regional economic communities (RECs), and country-level government entities responsible for the agricultural sector, notably ministries of agriculture. Thus far, ReSAKSS has been implemented in three phases: an inception phase (2006–2009); a transitional phase (2010); and a consolidation phase (2010–2015). This evaluation of ReSAKSS was commissioned by the USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) to examine ReSAKSS activities from October 2010 through 2014. The evaluation findings provide insights into assistance needed to support CAADP achievement of the goals AU June 2014 Malabo Declaration, which includes ending hunger and halving poverty by 2025. This report identifies how ReSAKSS facilitating research and analysis to support and encourage evidence- and outcome-based agricultural policy planning done at the country and regional levels, a key tenet of CAADP. This evaluation centers on how stakeholders experience ReSAKSS work at the country level. Much like looking at an open umbrella from the handle up, the perspective is of how stakeholders experience ReSAKSS work at the country, regional and continental levels from their own understanding and involvement. The evaluation questions each bring this experience into focus regarding the use of information that ReSAKSS produces, how this information and interaction with ReSAKSS contribute to policy planning, and how this information is shared. This country stakeholder perspective is important as CAADP is grounded in country-led and country￾owned processes and analysis. The evaluation addresses the evaluation’s purpose by answering three primary evaluation questions with five sub-questions. These questions are as follows: 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 2 to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, and thereby supporting actual policy change? 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? PROJECT BACKGROUND ReSAKSS was established in 2006 under the CAADP to support the need for evidence- and outcome-based policy planning and implementation as part of the CAADP agenda of reaching 6% annual GDP growth, enabled through a 10% national budget investment in the agricultural sector by individual countries The strategic challenge for ReSAKSS is how its activities could build sufficient capacities at the country, regional, and continental levels to meet the extensive analytical and knowledge needs of the CAADP agenda, in particular, and of development strategies, in general, among African countries. The ReSAKSS’s development hypothesis is that if analysts within African countries undertake necessary policy-relevant analysis, data, and tools needed to support the formulation and implementation of evidence-based agricultural-sector policies and strategies, then the CAADP policy dialogue, peer review, benchmarking, mutual learning processes, and systematic policy change would be implemented within the individual countries, resulting in effective agricultural and food security policies and agriculture growth. ReSAKSS has three activity components: 1. Strategic analysis to fill knowledge gaps and assess policy and investment options for accelerating agricultural policy growth and reducing poverty and hunger 2. Knowledge management and communications to develop and build upon existing data, analytical tools, and knowledge; and facilitating timely access of the knowledge by RECs and member countries to allow for more evidence-based decision making 3. Capacity strengthening to generate and disseminate knowledge products to support CAADP implementation, particularly shared standards and protocols for collecting data and conducting analysis in ways that effectively contribute to informing policy and decision-making processes in Africa EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS This performance evaluation was conducted using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques to address the evaluation questions and to test the project’s underlying logic model. Methods included a review of project reporting documents, published research, and summary reports and presentations; country visits to nine countries to collect primary information through key informant interviews (KIIs) with different types of stakeholders at the country, regional, and continental levels; in-country focus group discussions (FGDs); and a survey administered through the Internet platform SurveyMonkey. The team also incorporated bibliometric data describing citation frequencies, website hits, social media (Facebook, Twitter) followers, and SlideShare view data from IFPRI in December 2014. KIIs served as the primary information source for the ReSAKSS evaluation, as they provided informants the time and space to discuss their responses in detail. Themes from KII analysis Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 3 produced a detailed understanding of the activity effectiveness, which was completed by Internet-survey, based quantitative data. The evaluation team (the Team) used a combination of purposive and snowball sampling to recruit informants, and conducted KIIs with 163 knowledgeable individuals who were grouped into various ReSAKSS stakeholder groups. The KIIs were conducted during country visits to Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, and South Africa during November and December 2014. Certain limiations arose during this evaluation. For example, potential informants’ availability was limited given the commencement of the winter holiday season and the Team’s limited time for each visit. Another constraint is that country visits were made to 9 out of 54 African countries; and while the Internet survey provided greater coverage, it is important to read the findings as a reflection of a select experience rather than being fully representative. FINDINGS Question 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes?  Certain kinds of ReSAKSS information are out of date because there are inherent limitations of the data available at the country level that are used by ReSAKSS.  The level of ReSAKSS information was often cited as too academic (not as practical and action-driven as would be useful for policy makers), too lengthy, and not always in the host country’s primary language. Informants expressed desire for a certain amount of basic information regarding methods, major findings, and their implications in quick and easily digestible format.  There is limited awareness by informants of where they can find ReSAKSS information and country-specific documents, analysis, and data (e.g. ReSAKSS websites). Question 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation?  ReSAKSS is not consistent in its support of countries. It is seen as underfunded and overstretched and its intermittent involvement does not satisfy institutional policy strengthening needs in Ministries of Agriculture (MoA)s.  ReSAKSS has worked with host country governments in the development of country￾level SAKSS, which has required substantial short- and long-term investments.  ReSAKSS connects the country to the CAADP. It connects countries to each other at the regional level even though at the regional level CAADP plans may not be fully realized.  Even if host countries have evidence-based analysis, skills do not translate into increased utilization of the analysis by these countries. Hindrances include: political pressures, time horizons, funding sources, foreign pressures, and interest groups. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 4 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change?  ReSAKSS role is to support the strengthening of institutional capacity, not engagement in policy implementation. However, part of capacity building is to be able to move from analysis to practice, a missing link acknowledged by many informants, as it is difficult without an understanding of the political economy of decision-making.  Both ReSAKSS and SAKSS have been called to play supporting roles to country governments. At the same time, informants also expressed the ideas that ReSAKSS should be at the forefront leading the dialogue on advancing CAADP goals.  Informants found a lack of clarity between the overlapping roles of ReSAKSS and SAKSS at the country level, and desire more role clarification. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, and thereby supporting actual policy change?  ReSAKSS support of the JSR process is mixed. Informants appreciated the assessment results for standardization of the JSR report, the JSR review process, and suggestions to include stakeholders. A sense of intrusion was also expressed about how ReSAKSS interjected its views into what is considered a government-owned and driven processes. Question 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society?  Informants widely acknowledged that ReSAKSS has encouraged country governments to bring in more non-state actors into dialogue about national agricultural investment plans.  Information sharing through ReSAKSS and SAKSS is inconsistent across non-state actors in countries.  Informants believe that ReSAKSS and SAKSS have a key role to play with encouraging the engagement of non-state actors in CAADP processes. CONCLUSIONS Question 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes?  Much of ReSAKSS information is the right kind of information but there are limitations to its usefulness because the data available at the country level is at times out of date and inaccurate.  ReSAKSS does not have consistent quality assurance measures in place for its information and research products in order to maintain its stakeholder’s trust.  When ReSAKSS information is in formats that are too academic, too lengthy, and not translated into the country’s primary policy languages, ReSAKSS products are only used by a few number of people when they are intended to reach a broader audience and speak to policy makers. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 5  Policy makers need actionable information that can readily be integrated into policy (e.g. policy briefs). Without the correct packaging, the important messages contained within ReSAKSS information will not be delivered and heard by policy makers at the country level.  Because stakeholders are not aware of where to find ReSAKSS information, there is limited use of ReSAKSS products. Question 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation?  ReSAKSS support to strengthening agricultural institutions is not consistent and occurs primarily when there is a CAADP process stage to achieve, when ATOR research is being annually compiled, or when a JSR is being prepared. The day-to-day interaction needed to expand staff skills and institutional capacity is beyond the range of ReSAKSS resources.  In countries that have received long-term SAKSS funding (Rwanda), the development of a SAKSS is considered successful and provides long-term nexus for data and policy analysis, while also serving as a support for future ReSAKSS regional activities. In countries that receive short-term funding (Mozambique) for SAKSS, it is not possible to establish the same level of ownership, commitment, and technical capacity within the MoA.  The ReSAKSS analytic and knowledge system is essential to realizing CAADP country compacts.  The political economy of policy making is a factor that needs consideration when looking at how the evidence produced through ReSAKSS or a SAKSS is created to inform policy. 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change?  ReSAKSS information can only go so far to support implementation, as per its accepted role. Whether or not analysis produced by ReSAKSS is used to inform policy is subject to the policy decision making process at the country level.  There is another piece of the picture that is missing; which is the role that can be played by a long-term policy capacity building program in the MoA, which is different from a SAKSS. The former usually involves support for advanced degrees and paying for staff that might be not be budgeted and external advisors, and provision of much-needed research funds. The SAKSS support knowledge sharing and facilitate research and analysis on CAADP processes and agricultural sector policy, which includes but is not limited to the MoA. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, and thereby supporting actual policy change? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 6  The JSR is inherently a government-led process and dialogue. The consensus is that ReSAKSS role should not be a parallel process but rather a demand-driven process. ReSAKSS should focus on its advisory role, so it can respond to either a country request or to tackle a problem by the AUC and NEPAD. Question 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society?  The extent to which ReSAKSS can successfully encourage the engagement of non-state actors depends largely on the willingness of host country governments to invite them into CAADP processes.  The knowledge sharing system of ReSAKSS and SAKSS is not fully developed at the country level. Also, ReSAKSS cannot play the same role a SAKSS is able to at the country level in sharing this information with local non-state actors because they are several degrees of separation away from the on-the-ground realities. In turn, this may hinder the inclusion and participation by private sector and civil society in CAADP policy formulation and implementation.  The role ReSAKSS and SAKSS share in encouraging the engagement of non-state actors in CAADP has been affirmed and appreciated by informants, which implies the importance of this role and responsibility. However, the benefit of the inclusion of non￾state actors in CAADP or CAADP-type processes is not compelling enough for governments. RECOMMENDATIONS There are many ways in which ReSAKSS can improve upon its efforts to provide the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes. They include: (1) continuing to provide linkages between public and private institutions, people and knowledge; (2) standardizing the quality of research and information products; (3) providing research and analysis products in different formats for different stakeholders (including using more interactive tools); and (4) working closer with central Bureaus of Statistics for the type of data that is needed for ATORs and economic modeling. ReSAKSS can build on the usefulness of their approaches and tools by (1) continuing to facilitate CAADP processes at the country level and deliver training to Ministry staff on how to use ReSAKSS analytical tools; and (2) providing ongoing training to relevant people in government. ReSAKSS can improve their encouragement of gender-sensitive analysis by (1) sharing gender analytic models at the country level; (2) providing technical assistance to the country level on how to undertake gender-sensitive research; and (3) updating their gender analysis training and expand the number of offerings each year. To help countries, regions, and the African continent strengthen their institutions, ReSAKSS should: (1) support and equip country-level SAKSS for at least ten years to provide the day-to￾day support for policy analysis plus in-depth skills training needs; (2) include a political economy policy analysis model in its work on agricultural policy planning; (3) to improve the information, analysis and tools ReSAKSS provides to support evidence-based policy decision-making, we recommend ReSAKSS track the use of its support for analysis of policy formulation and how Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 7 this connects to the need for tweaking policy at the implementation stage; (4) to provide sufficient support for the development of a mutual accountability process, we recommend that the AUC and NEPAD communicate clearly with each country government specifically and get agreement on the role that ReSAKSS can play in supporting their JSR process before it commences to ensure that ReSAKSS is providing the country context specific information on a timely basis and;(5) to create more inclusive policy dialogues with non-state actors, ReSAKSS should (a) continue supporting governments to move toward a partnership and alliance relationship with the farmers, agribusiness and civil society, (b) emphasize to country governments and RECs the need to equally invite both private sector and civil society throughout CAADP processes for balanced representation, (c) share its knowledge management system to governments and non-state actors, and (d) demonstrate the tangible value proposition of private sector and civil society engagement toward meeting NAIP goals and CAADP M&E targets. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 7 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 7 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) supports implementation of the African Union (AU) Comprehensive African Agriculture Programme (CAADP) at the continental, regional, and country levels throughout Africa. The CAADP is a country-led initiative to help African countries reach and sustain economic growth through agricultural-sector investments that promote food security and export growth, which reduces hunger and poverty. The CAADP premise is that if African countries followed the CAADP agenda, including investing 10% of their budget in the agricultural sector, then 6% growth would be achieved on an annual basis. CAADP is coordinated by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) through its NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA). Seen as a continent-wide movement, CAADP is a voluntary process at the country level. It requires political will for evidence and data analysis to be used in projecting the impact of specific investments in the agricultural sector. ReSAKSS is a knowledge-sharing system designed to support the research and analysis needs of countries as they move through the process of finalizing a CAADP Compact and its implementation. ReSAKSS was created to provide technical policy and data analysis assistance to the AUC, regional economic communities (RECs), and country-level government entities responsible for the agricultural sector, notably ministries of agriculture. The guiding document for the CAADP framework1 support was the 2003 “Maputo Declaration,”2 which provided the political commitment for the CAADP by the AU member heads of state and government. ReSAKSS is implemented by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and receives funding from several different donors, the largest being USAID. ReSAKSS was charged to work in partnership with the African Union Commission (AUC), the NEPAD NPCA, and the regional economic communities (RECs). ReSAKSS regional coordinators work through three Africa-based CGIAR centers: the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). The ReSAKSS African-wide coordinator works from an IFPRI office housed on the ILRI campus in Ethiopia. The evaluation for USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) examined ReSAKSS activities from October 2010 through 2014 to inform what assistance was needed to support CAADP implementation to achieve the goals of the new AU June 2014 Malabo Declaration, including ending hunger and halving poverty by 2025. This evaluation identifies how ReSAKSS has 1 See the 2003 CAADP Framework at http://www.nepad.org/system/files/caadp.pdf 2 See the full text of the Maputo declaration at http://www.nepad.org/system/files/Maputo%20Declaration.pdf Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 8 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 8 supported agricultural transformation by conducting research and analysis to support and encourage evidence- and outcome-based policy planning done at the country and regional levels, a key tenet of CAADP. The evaluation does not examine the quality, rigor, or expertise involved with ReSAKSS￾supported analysis, research products, databases, presentations, training, or the quality of capacity strengthening and development of the African Growth and Development Policy (AGRODEP) consortium and the technical assistance provided to the AUC. Furthermore, the evaluation does not track specific outcomes and results that can be attributed to ReSAKSS; instead, the emphasis is on what ReSAKSS contributed, from the stakeholder point of view, at a limited aggregate and specific country level. The evaluation is centered primarily on how stakeholders experience ReSAKSS work at the country level. Much like looking at an open umbrella from the handle up, the perspective is of how stakeholders experience ReSAKSS work at the three levels from that standpoint. The evaluation questions each bring this experience into focus regarding the use of information that ReSAKSS produces, how this information and interaction with ReSAKSS contribute to policy planning, and how this information is shared. This country stakeholder perspective is important as CAADP is grounded in country-led and country-owned processes and analysis. The primary users of the evaluation will be the AUC, the NEPAD NPCA, USAID/BFS, and the Feed the Future (FTF) program, USAID Missions, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other donors, the RECs, ReSAKSS implementers, and country stakeholders. BFS and these stakeholders will examine the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations to help chart ReSAKSS work for the AU’s re-commitment to sustain CAADP through 2025. The evaluation was undertaken in a collaborative manner with USAID and on a consultative basis with IFPRI, the implementer of ReSAKSS. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation addresses the purpose by answering three primary evaluation questions with five sub-questions. These questions are as follows: 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence￾based policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, and thereby supporting actual policy change? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 9 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 9 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? The analysis in this report focuses 40% on Evaluation Question 1, 40% on Evaluation Question 2, and 20% on Evaluation Question 3. The rationale for this weighting is that Evaluation Questions 1 and 2 focus more on the primary ReSAKSS effort during 2010–2015 (Phase II). Evaluation Question 3 is to document how ReSAKSS has worked with non-state actors such as the private sector and civil society organizations, as inclusion is an important topic in the Malabo Declaration and featured prominently in the CAADP stocktaking exercise held in February 2014. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 10 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) PROJECT BACKGROUND THE CAADP PROCESS The CAADP Framework is operationalized at the regional and country levels. NEPAD has worked to refine a series of predictable steps that a country goes through to formulate a CAADP Compact. ReSAKSS has worked to create deliberate, standard processes that operationalize these steps, each based on the use of empirical evidence and analysis as well as consultative dialogue among stakeholders to move to the next stage. This systems approach to moving stage by stage has fostered confidence in the CAADP Framework from countries’ political leadership and ministries of finance as well as from external donors who want to monitor their investments through a reliable M&E process. ReSAKSS has supported these operational processes by defining where research and data analysis are needed and how to use the evidence at each juncture. The CAADP M&E Framework is a primary tool for monitoring progress made by countries and the RECs. The CAADP process at the country level is illustrated in Annex VII. The achievement of the CAADP Framework, agenda, and targets needs reliable evidence and outcome-based research at the country and regional levels to inform policy planning for individual African countries. At the country level, this analysis informs planning, and at the regional level, the analysis allows countries in the same region to compare progress on indicators in the CAADP M&E Framework and the yearly ATOR topic. A primary premise of the ReSAKSS was that achieving the CAADP framework, agenda, and targets required a new level of institutional capacity and individual skills to undertake empirical research to inform policy planning for individual African countries. PROJECT BACKGROUND ReSAKSS was first established in 2006 under the CAADP to support the need for evidence￾and outcome-based policy planning and implementation as part of the CAADP agenda of reaching 6% annual GDP growth, enabled through a 10% national budget investment by individual countries in the agricultural sector. Thus far, ReSAKSS has been implemented in several phases: an inception phase (Phase I, 2006–2009); a transitional phase (2010); and a consolidation phase (Phase II, 2010–2015). This evaluation covers only Phase II activities. Below is a very brief description of key Phase I achievements, which form the basis, for the most part, of Phase II activities and therefore is important to briefly recap. A joint donor evaluation (JDR) done in 2009 of Phase I found that ReSAKSS helped facilitate the transition from a strategy document to implementation by raising the credibility of CAADP as a collective framework for agricultural growth and poverty reduction. Further, ReSAKSS helped increase and strengthen engagement with African RECs, which the AUC had named to coordinate country-level initiation of the CAADP process. In Phase I, ReSAKSS defined a Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 11 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) standard methodology for implementing CAADP as a value‐addition agenda at the country level and mobilized expertise to inform the policy dialogue and program planning and implementation aspects of the agenda. ReSAKSS also created a kowledge-management system to enable peer review, dialogue, and mutual learning as part of the CAADP implementation process.3 Building from the JDR recommendations, IFPRI submitted a Phase II proposal to USAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In September 2010, USAID made a Public Institution Organization (PIO) grant to IFPRI for a total of $21,700,000, of which $18,160,000 has been obligated.4 ReSAKSS Phase II (2010–2015), entitled Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence- and Outcome-Based Policy Planning and Implementation Among African Countries is focused on helping countries develop strategies to achieve the CAADP agenda, based on the premise that increasing budgetary investments in agriculture is as important as improving the quality of sector policies and strategies to improve growth and poverty-reduction outcomes. To see how Phase II builds upon the achievements of Phase I to create the capacities and other technical prerequisites for CAADP, the Evaluation Team did an analysis of the recommendations made by the Phase I evaluation and how these were reflected in the new PIO grant. The ReSAKSS development hypothesis is that if analysts within African countries undertake necessary policy-relevant analysis, data, and tools needed to support the formulation and implementation of evidence-based agricultural-sector policies and strategies, then the CAADP policy dialogue, peer review, benchmarking, mutual learning processes, and systematic policy change would be implemented within the individual countries, resulting in effective agricultural and food security policies and agriculture growth. The development hypothesis of the CAADP is being adjusted by the AUC and NEPAD NPCA to align with the Malabo Declaration; consequently, the ReSAKSS development hypothesis may be adjusted. This work was in process by ReSAKSS during the evaluation, which is taking into account the elements related to improved livelihoods, inclusive growth and sustainable development, and halving the rates of hunger and poverty by 2025. The strategic challenge for ReSAKSS is how its activities could build sufficient capacities at the country, regional, and continental levels to meet the extensive analytical and knowledge needs of the CAADP agenda, in particular, and of development strategies, in general, among African countries. 3 See the “Joint Donor review of NEPAD IFPRI Collaborative Research and Capacity Building Program to inform and track the implementation of CAADP.” Draft Final Report dated November 19, 2009, by Stephen Tembo and Ramatu M. Al-Hassan. 4 As per Modification 5 made to the Public Institution Organization (PIO) grant (AFR-G-10-00001) to IFPRI signed September 24, 2010. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation subsequently made a grant to IFPRI for USD $5,006,540 in November 2010 to December 31, 2015. The activities described in the Gates Foundation 2010 grant are the same as or overlap with those described in the USAID 2010 PIO to IFPRI, thus the evaluation team has no clear means of separating out the specific attribution of the funds used for particular sub-activities. The activities funded through both the USAID PIO grant and Gates Foundation grant as reported by IFPRI therefore form the subject of this evaluation. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 12 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) MAIN SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS ReSAKSS activity components are self-described as5 :  Strategic analysis to fill knowledge gaps and assess policy and investment options for accelerating agricultural policy growth and reducing poverty and hunger  Knowledge management and communications to develop and build upon existing data, analytical tools, and knowledge; and facilitating timely access of the knowledge by RECs and member countries to allow for more evidence-based decision making  Capacity strengthening to generate and disseminate knowledge products to support CAADP implementation, particularly shared standards and protocols for collecting data and conducting analysis in ways that effectively contribute to informing policy and decision-making processes in Africa A description of the ReSAKSS activities listed in the PIO helps illustrate the multi-level complexity of the system. The activities are organized into components as summarized below: 1. Consolidation of ReSAKSS. Phase I initiated a deliberate effort to standardize the required processes for developing and finalizing a CAADP Compact. Phase II continues the refinement of ReSAKSS serving as a lead “one‐stop shop” for strategic and operational information for RECs and their member states through standardization of requirements and elements for moving from phase to phase of the CAADP Compact processes and implementation. ReSAKSS provides assistance needed to establish country‐owned Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (SAKSS) following the signing of a country CAADP Compact and as part of the implementation of its national agricultural investment plans. ReSAKSS provides technical and analytical support for the full operationalization at the country level of the CAADP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, including mutual accountability and joint sector reviews and works with the RECs to prepare for local takeover of the management of ReSAKSS at the end of the project. Activities include regional-level workshops; establishing country SAKSS; research focusing on CAADP M&E topics; support for agriculture joint sector reviews (JSRs); knowledge management and publication; and communication outreach and impact. 2. Establishing the AGRODEP Modeling Consortium. ReSAKSS supports locally based policy-relevant research through a group of local experts with strong economic modeling skills and who receive technical support from IFPRI. The AGRODEP Consortium is called upon by ReSAKSS and others to support the analytical needs of country agricultural development strategies and the CAADP agenda. These modelers share a modeling and database infrastructure through a ReSAKSS webpage. ReSAKSS supports AGRODEP memberships and coordinated consortium operation and governance. 5 See the ReSAKSS website: http://www.resakss.org/about Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 13 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 3.1 Advisory Services Support to USAID, Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative. Through ReSAKSS, USAID accesses technical and analytical support activities from IFPRI as well as support for meetings and policy communication activities. IFPRI has provided background research to support the FTF policy plan and presentations for regional workshops; it has drafted text and provided technical reviews; it has supported the FTF Annual Progress Report and developed the Food Security Learning Framework; it has provided support to Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) as part of the CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework and prepared background materials for the ministerial meetings and associated lead-up events. 3.2 Institutional Capacity Building for the AUC/Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture (DREA). During 2013–2014, a new PIO component was added to provide technical assistance and capacity strengthening to the AUC Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture (DREA). Activities include engagement of political leadership to advance the CAADP implementation process at the country level; assist the international development community on aligning and harmonizing technical and financing support with the CAADP agenda and framework; and provide reviews and policy decisions regarding agricultural development and CAADP implementation. In October 2014, two new sub-activities were added to support AUC/DREA with addressing nutrition goals and gender integration within countries’ individual CAADP policy activities.6 Regarding gender, ReSAKSS will provide technical assistance to the AU’s Plan for Women in Agriculture so that their work intensifies and gathers momentum, starting with the integration of gender concerns into countries’ CAADP policy and activities, and to mainstream gender across DREA programming.7 As component 3.2 sub-activities were added in October 2014, these are not a focus of the evaluation. However, the work that led to the addition of these two sub-activities is traced through Evaluation Question 1.2 by looking at the use of gender-sensitive analysis through the approaches and tools used by ReSAKSS to date. 6 Nutrition activities can include: a landscape analysis to understand the current evidence base or identify gaps in nutrition-policy space and best practices from documented successes; coordinating FTF priority actions and support with the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) and Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger (REACH) initiatives; engage in nutrition policy as it pertains to food safety through facilitation of the AU-led Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) in collaboration with CAADP; sup port advocacy for improved nutrition policy through improving women's and men's awareness and nutrition knowledge and practices and models for behavior change; work with AUC to support design of a nutrition support program; capacity development through AFRICA LEAD II to provide nutrition leadership training. 7 Activities include: a report on gender issues in each CAADP strategic area and a plan of action for AUC/DREA; creation of a vetted and approved Gender Program and Framework for AUC/DREA; a proposal and implementation plan for several gender activities for the period 2015/16; strengthening gender integration of countries' CAADP policy activities. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 14 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) LOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND LOGIC MODEL The logical framework used by IFPRI to monitor the outputs, outcomes, and milestones for implementation of ReSAKSS for Objectives 1 and 2 is in Annex IX. IFPRI confirmed to the Evaluation Team that ReSAKSS continues to use this framework; however, an updated Logical Framework that includes Activity 3.2 was not available to the evaluation team. On an annual basis, IFPRI reports on seven indicators for the USAID Feed the Future Monitoring System. Figure 1 is a simplified graphic version of the ReSAKSS Logic Model as per the PIO grant documentation. With Objective 1, for consolidating the work of ReSAKSS outputs, come predictable and structured joint sector review (JSR) processes and mutual accountability measures. These are effective communications that share research findings in formats useful to government policymakers and policy advocacy with a broad range of non-state actors. Mutual accountability and communication and advocacy do not directly lead to the specific development outcomes as specified in national agricultural investment plans. However, through ReSAKSS these do rely on evidence-based policy, which informed the specific agricultural development outcomes of African countries. Under Objective 2, with establishing the AGRODEP consortium and connecting it to ReSAKSS and the CAADP processes at the continental, regional, and country levels, comes reliable benchmarking and tracking of common targets and filling knowledge gaps. This builds the demand for and supply of evidence used to inform agricultural policy. For Objective 3.1, fulfilling the immediate needs for continental technical services for Feed the Future, the AUC and NEPAD roles are to advance the CAADP agenda, which leads to a more informed dialogue process and drives impetus to have improved policy effectiveness at all levels. Objective 3.2 further advances the depth of the AUC/DREA to support the CAADP. All objectives contribute to African countries having the necessary knowledge and capacity to successfully design and execute evidence-based policies and strategies that lead to a stronger position of the agricultural sector in country priorities and is evidenced by increased agricultural sector investments. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 15 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Figure 1 - Logic Model Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 16 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODS This performance evaluation of ReSAKSS was conducted using quantitative and qualitative techniques to address the evaluation questions and to test the project’s underlying logic model. Methods included a review of project reporting documents, published research, and summary reports and presentations; country visits to nine countries to collect primary information through key informant interviews (KIIs) with different types of stakeholders at the country, regional, and continental levels; in-country focus group discussions (FGDs); and a survey administered through the Internet platform SurveyMonkey. The team was provided bibliometric data describing citation frequencies, website hits, social media (Facebook, Twitter) followers, and SlideShare view data from IFPRI in December 2014. The methodology combines a systematic analysis of existing project reporting quantitative data with customized qualitative techniques that elicit in-depth responses from a wide range of groups engaged in the CAADP processes and with ReSAKSS at the country, regional, and continental levels. This non-experimental mixed-methods approach allows for triangulation of complementary data and information to identify linkages on how ReSAKSS activities, tools, and approaches are perceived. Each method used the same evaluation questions so that the findings from each method could be compared. The protocols, guides, instruments, and outlines used to gather information and data are in Annex III. Given the number of activities jointly undertaken with the AUC, NEPAD NPCA, RECs, IFPRI country program offices, and in conjunction and collaboration with other donors, specific attribution to ReSAKSS alone is very difficult to parse with any accuracy. The evaluation team applied aspects of contribution analysis at the aggregate level, where the data analysis assesses the contribution of ReSAKSS to the perceived changes resulting from CAADP activities where a number of different stakeholders played roles and contributed human and financial resources.8 Case studies of the eight countries visited in-depth are in Annex VI and provide a more detailed perspective of stakeholder responses to the evaluation questions.9 8 See Bamberger M., J. Rugh, and L. Mabry, Real World Evaluation, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, 2012, pp. 404– 405). 9 A ninth country, South Africa, was visited by the evaluation team leader; the visit was shorter than the other country visits because of the closeness of the December holiday season and the unavailability of potential key informants. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 17 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Box 1: Key Informant Interviews Total: 163 (Male: 122; Female: 44) Stakeholders Representation USG and other donors: 38 Country government: 47 Private sector and civil society: 22 University and think tank: 30 AUC NEPAD/ other donors: 5 CGIAR centers: 21 QUALITATIVE METHODS Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): KIIs are the primary information source for the ReSAKSS evaluation, as they provided informants the time and space to discuss their responses in detail. Trends and themes from the analysis of the KIIs provided information to gain detailed understanding of the activity effectiveness and to triangulate with quantitative data. The semi￾structured interview protocols were the same for each stakeholder group, given the wide variance of the number of stakeholders that were available to the team for interviews in each country. Included in the protocol, were research questions developed by the team after the document review to ensure that possible dimensions of the evaluation question were covered sufficiently. Almost every KII was done by two members of the evaluation team: one who facilitated the interview and one who took notes by summarizing and recording the key points. After cleaning and review by two team members, the informant was sent the transcript by email and asked to edit and revise if needed to insure an accurate reflection of their thoughts. See Box 1 for information on the KIIs. The Team conducted KIIs with 163 knowledgeable individuals who were categorized into various ReSAKSS stakeholder groups. Given the specialized nature of ReSAKSS work, the team used a snowball technique after receiving suggestions from USAID, IFPRI, and ReSAKSS staff, where the team would ask informants for suggestions for people to speak to and also follow leads themselves. For access and efficiency purposes it was important that ReSAKSS coordinators and their designees made appointments with informants. This ensured that the team was able to speak to people who had experience with ReSAKSS, IFPRI, or CAADP. In Mozambique, Rwanda, and Senegal, interpreters were hired to allow informants to be asked questions and answer in their first language. The list of persons interviewed is in Annex IV. At all times, the team strove to interview a balance of male and female informants; this was highly inconsistent by country because of the dominance of men in agricultural research, analysis, and policy positions in all the countries visited and across the African continent. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 18 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Box 2: Focus Group Discussion Participants Total: 11 FGDs; 46 participants (Male:30; Female:16) Stakeholders Representation USG and other donors: 10 Country government: 10 Private sector and civil society: 11 University and think tank: 7 AUC NEPAD/other donor: 5 CGIAR centers: 3 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): FGDs were held to complement the individual KIIs and enable expanded information collection from larger groups of participants and stakeholders. The team held a total of 11 FGDs with an appropriate group of stakeholders from various institutions or departments within an institution that are or were engaged in the CAADP process in their country.10 The three primary evaluation questions were tailored to the stakeholders in the FGD. The focus groups were arranged through the ReSAKSS coordinator or their designee contact (see Box 2; FGD participant lists are in Annex IV. For each country, the mix, number, and sex of individuals in each stakeholder group varied from the other countries in terms of the aggregate the representation of primary stakeholder informants and participants is balanced (see Boxes 1 and 2). The evaluation team had several discussions with USAID BFS and IFPRI, two of the intended users of the evaluation, to gain their understanding of the development hypothesis/theory of change for ReSAKSS, identify areas of consideration to be explored in the evaluation, and inform the evaluation tools. These consultations were distinct from KIIs with USAID officials as part of the sample frame for key informants and FG participants held in each country visited. QUANTITATIVE METHODS Desk Review: Prior to country visits, the team reviewed all ReSAKSS-related documents provided by IFPRI and USAID. This review included but was not limited to proposals, the PIO award documents, quarterly/annual reports, program and FTF indicator monitoring data, the Phase I evaluations, CAADP documents, and documents that ReSAKSS produced or contributed to for CAADP process stages, the ATORs, and specialized research done through ReSAKSS, and other information. The list of documents reviewed is in Annex IV. 10 Such groups could include NGOs focused on youth, women farmer associations or NGOs focused on women agriculturalists, farmer associations, and associations of large and small private-sector agribusinesses. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 19 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Box 3: Internet Survey Respondents Total: respondents: 150 (Male: 110; Female: 40) Stakeholders Representation USG and other donors: 29 Country Government: 27 Private sector and civil society: 19 University and think tank: 36 AUC NEPAD/other donor: 4 CGIAR centers: 16 Other: 19 Respondent Countries African: 38 Non-African: 8 Bibliometric Data: IFPRI supplied bibliometric information and statistics from IFPRI on use of ReSAKSS publications, websites, and social media on how often ReSAKSS and ReSAKSS-related information is downloaded and viewed. These data are used to compare the types of research products and information mentioned in the KIIs, in focus groups, and through the Internet-based survey to add more depth to descriptions of utilization. Internet Survey: A survey using an Internet-based platform (SurveyMonkey) was sent to stakeholders that were not interviewed by the team during the country visits and to stakeholders in countries engaged with ReSAKSS that the team did not visit. The survey was also forwarded to stakeholders by USAID BFS and by ReSAKSS coordinators. The survey provides data and information from otherwise unreachable respondents to expand the amount of information the team got from stakeholder groups that were already the focus of the evaluation (see Box 3). The survey included scaled questions and provided space for comments. COUNTRY VISITS Preparation: After meetings with USAID BFS and with IFPRI to review the evaluation process and finalize the countries to visit, the evaluation team leader attended the 2014 ReSAKSS Annual Meeting held in Addis Ababa and met the IFPRI ReSAKSS continental and regional coordinators. These meetings informed planning for the country visits. Prior to travel in the nine countries, the team created an evaluation evidence matrix, semi-structured KII protocols, focus group guide, a one-page evaluation summary and an evaluation purpose statement (explaining non-attribution, confidentiality, and voluntary participation), a calendar posted to Google Drive to coordinate interview scheduling and track the data collection progress, a draft Atlas.ti codebook and a toolkit for conducting KIIs and FGDs (see Annex II & III). An evaluation scope of work and plan were submitted to USAID BFS prior to departure. Country Visits (November 8–December 9): The four-person evaluation team split into two￾person teams and visited eight countries from November 8 through December 9, 2014, with the evaluation team leader also visiting South Africa. The eight countries visited were Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal for five working days of KIIs and FGDs. At the close of each week the team prepared an exit debrief for the resident USAID Mission, in-person or by email. (These debriefs were also sent to USAID BFS.) ANALYTICAL APPROACH The KIIs and FGDs were analyzed using the content analysis software program Atlas.ti. After the country visits, the Team finalized a codebook to tag the comments made by informants and participants and a team of coders were trained to code the data in each transcript and upload it into a database for analysis of trends and themes. These transcripts were analyzed by stakeholder group and other criteria such as depth of interaction with ReSAKSS and stakeholder’s sex for the aggregate analysis and the case studies. The resulting information provided the contribution analysis and the basis for the case studies. The Internet survey Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 20 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) provided both data (from scaled questions and information from comments) that was analyzed using frequencies and percentages. The survey data and information were used for parallel analysis of the evidence from KIIs, FGDs, the survey, bibliometric data, and document review. In this analytical approach, each type of data for the evaluation question is analyzed in parallel and then across information and data type. BIASES AND OTHER LIMITATIONS The essence of evaluation is comparison, typically across time or geography. The team members kept certain key biases in mind as they conducted interviews and identified the findings and conclusions of this report. Key biases are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Key Biases Bias Mitigation Strategy Recall bias: Stakeholders from different groups have very different experiences with ReSAKSS, some with a high level of interaction and some with less, with the ability to describe ReSAKSS also varying. For instance, informants with a high level of interaction did not necessarily know about ReSAKSS as a system but could describe some or more activities. Some individuals with low levels of interaction could describe more aspects of ReSAKSS because of involvement with the CAADP in different venues. Further ReSAKSS, IFPRI, CAADP and other policy analysis–focused partners (such as Michigan State University) were often confused with each other. The semi-structured KII protocol had embedded research questions that promoted the informant to provide detailed information, and in some cases, a research question was repeated using different wording and asking for specifics about activities, research and analytical tools, and facilitation and capacity strengthening approaches. In this way, the team was able to quickly identify if an informant was giving a rehearsed response and asked for specific examples. The use of contribution analysis focuses on how ReSAKSS as a system made a contribution without a specific sole attribution to a single activity. Response bias: KIs may have given the team positive remarks about the project because they would like to continue to receive training, consultancies, data, research, and analysis from ReSAKSS, as a negative evaluation could mean the end of project opportunities. Maintain confidentiality and communicate the evaluation teams’ independence from USAID, IFPRI, and SI. As with recall bias, questions designed to elicit specific examples help identify response bias. Selection bias in the form of contacts provided by IFPRI, ReSAKSS, and USAID can mean that the team only hears from people with positive experiences. This is often a problem for activities focused on research and policy analysis, where a number of institutions, organizations, and individuals contribute to a knowledge product that influences a particular outcome. The standard evaluation approach is to expand beyond the contacts provided by the implementer, usually through an informal snowballing process or by identifying non-treatment contacts through other lists or networks. For this evaluation, given the limited time in country and availability of informants and participants, the team used the Internet survey as one way to combat this bias. Also, the KII transcripts and FGDs were examined carefully for a particularly positive or negative slant. As with the other forms of bias, however, triangulation of data and questions eliciting specific examples help mitigate the risk of this bias. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 21 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The information and data presented in this section are the aggregate findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the three primary evaluation questions from the data collection efforts, which included a desk review, KIIs, focus groups, and an Internet-based survey questionnaire. This aggregate analysis reflects the general trends from all informants. For the aggregate analysis, the concentration of comments made by informants within different stakeholder groups are highlighted in the contribution tables, which are described using representative statements. In the contribution tables, stakeholder groups are used to show the distribution of comments. If the number of comments made in each stakeholder category was greater than 15%,11 this is indicated by an X. The conclusions are drawn from this analysis, and the recommendations logically extend from the conclusions. The individual country case studies explore in greater depth the comments made by informants. In each country, the team spoke to a heterogeneous group of stakeholders representing a wide variety of organizations and the case studies reflect this variation. The case studies in Annex VI should be read along with the aggregate analysis for a full picture of how ReSAKSS is perceived, and each case study has country-specific conclusions. FINDINGS Evaluation Question 1 addresses the overall usefulness of information produced through ReSAKSS toward advancing CAADP processes and the two sub-questions examine issues of effectiveness regarding approaches and tools used at the country level and gender sensitivity. Question 2 focuses on the utility of ReSAKSS support to agricultural policy analysis, planning, policymaking, and implementation. Question 3 looks at how, through its activities, ReSAKSS has encouraged inclusion of non-state actors in its activities that support CAADP processes at different levels. Question 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Overall, ReSAKSS is providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes. Informants across all six stakeholders indicated that ReSAKSS served as a bridge, linking country-level analysis to regional issues addressed through the RECs and continental initiatives such as CAADP. Regarding usefulness, stakeholders spoke of the data synthesis 11 15% was used as the lowest threshold. Use of 20% cuts off a larger number of comments, and 10% provides little distinction among the stakeholder groups. Statistical analysis would mask the reality that if one informant made a lot of relevant comments to the evaluation question and another did not, one informant might be overrepresented because of the number of comments. In other words, the number of comments does not mean that those comments are more relevant. The aggregate contribution analysis provides a picture of the distribution of comments regarding the evaluation question. If informants did not respond to a question, this was marked as “I cannot comment.” We discuss this option if this distribution is over 50% of all comments to the question. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 22 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) regularly undertaken by ReSAKSS to produce the ATOR is then used by countries to examine agricultural-sector investments. Policy analysts spoke of the conscious link that ReSAKSS makes between country institutions and the research conducted by ReSAKSS as providing information that is useful to understanding agricultural public investment (the subject of the 2013 ATOR). Informants referred to the practical and unique nature of ReSAKSS information, where they connect theory to the practice. A notable feature mentioned is the quality of ReSAKSS information. This view was reflected in many comments, and one informant stated, “The analysis of the performance of the agricultural sector is not well done in this country so I use the information produced by ReSAKSS.” Another stated that “IFPRI (ReSAKSS) publications are useful for developing agricultural development policies.” Another individual described how the “ReSAKSS database on trade is the best database I’ve ever seen. We could download the data and play around with it. ReSAKSS biggest impact and successful tactic is providing information to analysts and stakeholders that did not have this information.” In part, this quality was attributed to the connection between ReSAKSS and IFPRI as well as the CGIAR centers that house the regional nodes, since these organizations were also, in a way, vetting the quality of the research and information outputs. Another view is that “A lot of times governments use the ReSAKSS information but do not cite it in documents that can be picked online... So in some cases, you may find that some people might say they don’t know what ReSAKSS is but they will have used ReSAKSS work without realizing it.” However, country informants also stated that at times partnering with local organizations can drive the quality of ReSAKSS products down. Table 2a. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 1) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 1, Research Questions A and F Info useful to CAADP processes X X X X X X X Info somewhat useful to CAADP process – – – – X X – Info not useful to CAADP processes X – – X – X X RQ1a I cannot comment – – – – – – – RQ1f I cannot comment X X X X – X X Evaluation Question 1, Research Question D Kind of info that supports CAADP processes X X X X X X X Kind of info that somewhat supports CAADP processes – – – – – X – Kind of info that does not support CAADP processes – X – – – X – RQ1d I cannot comment – X X X X X X Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 23 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Evaluation Question 1, Research Question E Level of info that supports CAADP processes X X X – X – X Level of info that somewhat supports CAADP processes – – – – – – – Level of info that does not support CAADP processes – – X – – X X RQ1e I cannot comment – X X X X X X The Internet survey data supports this high level of contribution, where the majority of all types of stakeholders cited ReSAKSS information as very useful and somewhat useful. Table 2b. Internet Survey Data (Question 7; answered question 137, skipped question 14) Question 7: To what extent has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful in furthering CAADP processes, strategies, or policies at the country, regional, and continental levels? Very Useful Somewhat Useful Little Use Not Useful No Opinion/Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 46.8% 36.7% 15.6% 0.9% 51 40 17 1 26 135 Regional Level 35.6% 27.3% 13.6% 0.8% 47 36 18 1 30 132 Continental Level 33.6% 28.9% 10.9% 0.0% 43 37 14 0 34 128 So how is the “right kind” of information described? The KII informants refer to the fact that ReSAKSS produced key studies and documents for country needs assessments, stock-taking, developing national strategies, the national agricultural investment plan, the JSRs, and other specialized studies. ReSAKSS provides information to support the country stakeholders in moving forward at every stage of the CAADP process. Many informants cite the focus on an evidence-based data system as important, through the CAADP M&E framework, which ReSAKSS maintains and reports on the core and supplementary indicators annually through the Africa-wide ATOR. ReSAKSS provides information that shows how the performance of the agricultural sector in the country is doing. As one informant stated, “We have targets under CAADP, and ReSAKSS gives information about where your country stands against those.” The recognition of the M&E framework and its usefulness at the country level is important to highlight. The framework provides a benchmark (to ensure that country-level data are of sufficient quality to be reported in the annual report) and is also aspirational. Informants appreciate the rigor and standards set by ReSAKSS for the data that they use to produce information. Many informants reflected on the level of work and engagement needed for the ATOR as intensive and extensive, involving many levels of engagement with different stakeholders. A very diverse set of information goes into each report, with very different levels of stakeholders. At the end of the day, the purpose of the reports is to influence policy at the country level. Informants also said they have little time and patience for details in ReSAKSS products and expressed a desire for a more digestable format. Other informants appreciated the way ReSAKSS selects topics to research, using regional meetings to see where the evidence gaps are to inform policy decisions. They frequently mentioned that the secondary data collated at the country level from different sources for the ATOR would be difficult for researchers to obtain on their own. However, because ReSAKSS is supporting CAADP, and CAADP is connected to NEPAD and the AUC, government offices are Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 24 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) more inclined to share/provide data that will be used in the ATOR. These data then become available for use in country for policy research by government, university, and other institutions interested in using evidence in their analysis of an issue. Regarding level of information, informants were clear that the standardization of data and indicator definitions promoted by ReSAKSS are useful for enabling comparisons. An informant commented, “If we want regional information about agricultural performance, there is no other source other than ReSAKSS. For the CAADP process we relied on the kind of information that they were able to generate in order to develop country strategies.” Another reflected on the learning generated by comparing CAADP performance among and between countries: “It’s really interesting how regional information can influence country decisions. For example, the M&E and performance tracking that ReSAKSS did was very useful because it showed us what our partner countries are doing and helped us find out where they were.” Some informants said that information ReSAKSS produced could have been more useful. Informants described the synthetic nature of ReSAKSS research, where the kind of information means using data already collected in a country is not coming up with anything new. Others focused on the academic tone and length of ReSAKSS research products and reports, saying that these need to be written in a style and at a level more accessible to policymakers and distributed in the primary language of the country. Informants reflected a lack of transparency as to how research topics are decided upon, whether at the country level for stock-taking or specialized research or for the annual contribution to the ATOR. Also, informants claimed that the IFPRI and ReSAKSS research agendas are one and the same and thus not connected to CAADP or the analytic needs expressed by countries trying to target agricultural investments. Informants said that for all the association with IFPRI and CGIAR, they were not always confident of the quality of ReSAKSS reports, including those done in collaboration with local researchers and institutions. Finally, informants questioned why ReSAKSS worked at the macro and production levels of the agricultural sector and thought that more useful evidence to inform country policies and plans is found at the family-farm level. Another limitation described is the form of ReSAKSS information products, which tend to be traditional research papers and reports. These informants were looking for more dynamic data and evidence presentation at meetings and also through social media. The bibliometric data provided by IFPRI indicates that most of the effort is still focused on research reports and studies, with a low level of social media activity. Also, there is limited awareness among informants of where they can find ReSAKSS information and country-specific documents or of ReSAKSS websites. However, the number of views on the Internet-based SlideShare site indicates that the use of ReSAKSS presentations on CAADP at the continental, regional, and country levels is growing. This indicates that this form of information sharing is being tapped into and then perhaps the research is visited on the ReSAKSS website (see Annex IV). Deeper Aggregate Stakeholder Analysis Findings Of the three primary evaluation questions, Question 1 lends itself to a more in-depth look at the underlying causes concerning issues with quality of analysis, accessibility of ReSAKSS information products and type of communications produced by ReSAKSS. Additional analysis at the aggregate level and at level of the six stakeholder groups was conducted only of the following themes: Information useful, Not useful; Kind of information that does or does not support CAADP processes; Level of information that supports or does not support CAADP processes; Gaps that should be or should not be filled by ReSAKSS to support CAADP processes, ReSAKSS should fill this gap, or should not fill this gap; Sensitive or insensitive to partner needs, Insensitive to partner needs; Supports or does not support partner participation. Quality and underlying issues: None of the six stakeholder groups stand out as having Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 25 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) uniquely more concerns about the quality of analysis or of the information products produced by or through ReSAKSS. The issues of length, complex analysis, language, and relevance of topic are mentioned by all stakeholders, while, as borne out in the aggregate analysis presented in the main report, recognizing the unique and important analysis and research ReSAKSS does (preparatory studies for different phases of the CAADP compact and NAIP), the ATORs, CAADP M&E tracking and special studies). Informants did not expand on underlying causes as to why they felt quality was an issue, except that ReSAKSS resources are spread too thin, that the agenda, being focused on CAADP may be too narrow to be in full congruence with national government agenda all the time. The quotes in Annex V were drawn from stakeholders from 10 countries (the 8 visited for a week each, plus South Africa and the U.S.). There are critiques of ReSAKSS that are reflected in the informant quotes selected as representative, and these speak for themselves. Management of quality: There were no notable patterns about the management of quality or quality control mechanisms discerned in stakeholder group quotes. These were similar to comments about quality coming from East Africa versus West or Southern Africa. The thin human resource base of ReSAKSS was mentioned and the difficulty of addressing regional work for the RECs along with analytical work and capacity building for country governments with a small resource base was recognized. During the country visits, the evaluation team noted many comments made outside of the formal key informant interview concerning the fact that ReSAKSS relies heavily on partnerships with other institutions, and while much can be done electronically, there is no substitute for the face-to-face contact on a regular basis. This includes the “home” base for the ReSAKSS coordinators in CG Centers, which would like to work closer with them and have more of their time contributing to programs of mutual interest, as well as the many universities, NGOs, government institutions, and private sector entities that ReSAKSS, remarkably keeps contact with. Relevant observations during the country visit by the evaluation team: During the evaluation planning stage, the evaluation team realized that ReSAKSS does not have the resources to manage the deep and wide network it maintains through various direct activities and activities that they are associated with. Key informants and others that the evaluation team spoke with, who had contact with ReSAKSS, invariably stated that they would like increased and more regular contact from ReSAKSS. To the extent that a thinly staffed team with regional responsibilities (that daunt even the RECs) can have the recognition that ReSAKSS has achieved, is a major accomplishment. The confusion with IFPRI programs also helps people recognize the ReSAKSS brand. Another point noted by the evaluation team was the very high expectations for IFPRI, which were observed as being much higher than would be the case for other donor-funded regional programs concerned with agricultural growth. ReSAKSS, with its current funding base and human capital, cannot meet these expectations. The link between quality research and local capacity and skills is real, which reflects the recommendation concerning a deeper commitment to capacity development at the country level beyond the SAKSS model. This may have been done before, in the past when national governments had limited interest in data analysis and using evidence to inform policy formulation, planning and implementation processes. The evaluation team noted the high interest in ReSAKSS work and performance in the key informant interviews, the focus groups, and the relatively high rate of respondents who participated in the Internet survey. With the re-commitment to CAADP, continuing to utilize the IFPRI brand through the ReSAKSS program and the strong research-focus of the host CGIAR centers and communicating what stakeholders can specifically expect from ReSAKSS may help clear up issues concerning management of quality outputs and quality control. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 26 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? The team derived what could be considered as an approach and a tool from the ReSAKSS PIO grant and made a list (see Annex XI). The name and description of tools and approaches was not defined by the team during the KIIs, and informants were encouraged to share what they thought as a tool and approach. This meant the informants were working from memory and may not have recalled the title of an approach or tool, and some specific things may have been missed in a general statement. For the Internet survey, the team provided a defined list of tools and approaches and respondents were asked to mark the ones they thought were useful to the development of NAIPS and priorities. In this case, respondents may have marked too many items, because they thought ReSAKSS used the approach or tool or should have done so. The Internet survey Tables 10 and 11 are in Annex VIII. Regardless of this situation, there are some clear trends in what informants and respondents felt were contributions made by ReSAKSS in formulating the NAIPs and priorities. Informants spoke to the importance of the regional perspective ReSAKSS brought into dialogue when the NAIP process began as providing a wider view. One summed up this perspective: “ReSAKSS helped with the stock-taking analysis in Kenya, which had to be uniform. That alone made countries realize what’s really happening. So the stock-taking and comparison was very important. The country that did the first CAADP Compact was Rwanda. And even now, Rwanda’s attitude about it is: ‘You can shine a light through us, it’s okay.’” Informants mentioned the importance of the standardized process that ReSAKSS supported, which made the elements needed to go through each stage as essential. ReSAKSS approach is to focus on creating a standard approach to all CAADP processes. The facilitated approach toward the NAIP development process is also important, as reflected in statements from three countries. One informant said, “So many people were involved in the ReSAKSS-facilitated country needs assessment (CNA) studies for Ethiopia. For the study, we had to identify the major stakeholders and interact with a number of government and non-state actors. A number of them turned out to attend the validation workshop, too. That was a platform that ReSAKSS helped set up and government really had a chance to hear about the CNA sub￾study findings and where the gaps are with agricultural data, analysis of evidence, and planning processes. The level of data presented to the government was done in a way that could be used by government. Another informant reflected this position with, “After this CAADP compact, we start the process of doing the investment plan with ReSAKSS. When we finish that there was a review before the business meeting and that review left a number of comments and those comments were tackled and incorporated and now there is a final version of the [NAIP].” In sum, the third respondent said, “ReSAKSS gave us a database template with all the necessary variables, and we were responsible for filling it out… So what is the relevance of this database? If we want to know the real impact of [NAIP], we needed to have a database for all these sectors! For this year, we’re going to complete both the database and a report.” This facilitated approach brought in key stakeholders who previously had not been engaged in agricultural planning, such as national statistical offices, ministries of finance and other public￾and private-sector stakeholders. This facilitated dialogue followed a set sequence and used evidence to move from one stage to the next (see Annex VII). It was important as quantifying the investment plan is a key analytical step. One informant summarized this, saying, “The approach that ReSAKSS used of a facilitated dialogue with the Ministry of Finance, which generally had not had quality empirical analysis presented as part of an investment plan. The approach of using evidence-based analysis to back up budget requests helped MoAs make the case to fund the national agricultural investment plans.” Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 27 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) The tools mentioned by informants as useful included economic modeling, standard indicators for an NAIP M&E system that links to the CAADP M&E framework, training in Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) modeling, use of data analysis software, and peer review of evidence bases and reports. As one informant commented, “Certainly the simulations and the models that show increasing productivity in this area will lead to economic growth, etc. and that has informed many countries who have used those to define their CAADP processes or national investment plans.” Another informant commented, “... what exactly is an investment versus an annual expenditure? I remember those tools and that exercise. That was definitely a value added.” Another informant reflects the view on the impact of ReSAKSS data standardization tools, “In most of our countries data is the problem. What I like about ReSAKSS is that they are working to harmonize data and ways of accessing data. ReSAKSS helped to harmonize the methodological means for collection data. That is what I like the most about ReSAKSS.” Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 28 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 3. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 1.1) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 1.1, Research Questions A and B Approaches useful X X X X X X X Approaches somewhat useful – X – – – X – Approaches not useful X – X X X X X RQ1.1a I cannot comment – – X X – X – RQ1.1b I cannot comment X X X X X X X Evaluation Question 1.1, Research Questions C and D Analytical tools useful X X X X X X X Analytical tools somewhat useful X – – – – X – Analytical tools not useful – X – X – X X RQ1.1c I cannot comment – – X X X X X RQ1.1d I cannot comment X X X X X X X Finally, informants had difficulty expressing which approaches and tools were not useful. Most informants who did provide comments reflect the following: “When they come in it is strategic because there is already a platform working. They impose their agenda on an already existing agenda. Balancing these two agendas a bit more would be good. There is some room for improvement there. But I do see it as a comparative advantage. They may need to think around that—and come up with ways to fit better into the existing processes.” 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? Informants were asked to reflect on the use of gender-sensitive approaches and sex￾disaggregated data analysis and how these have informed policy. It is important to note that most informants did not comment regarding the two latter topics (over the 50% threshold of all comments). Of those who commented, many informants detailed how the government is now asking for the collection of sex-disaggregated data and using a gender-sensitive approach to the agricultural sector. ReSAKSS was mentioned several times as having delivered useful training in gender-analysis techniques, which has yielded a positive response. One informant said, “This is being done on the national level. This is why ReSAKSS trained coordinators on mainstreaming gender in the agricultural sector. Strategic plan is very sensitive….up to agricultural sector. The role of gender is really captured. Training was by ReSAKSS. Supported by the strategic plan of agriculture considers gender as a development issue. Results framework, I got trained on gender data in agriculture.” Others spoke of the difference using sex-disaggregation makes with analytical outcomes, where one informant stated, “When we do analysis, we do gender-based analysis and if we want to look at the agricultural sector and do the JSR analysis and the CNA analysis, it was broken down to be sex-disaggregated too. To Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 29 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) me, it’s paramount that we do that. Statistics have shown that if you include women in agriculture, it expands by 20%. It’s profound and it echoes the sentiments of CAADP as well.” Table 4. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 1.2) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 1.2, Research Question A Approaches do encourage use of gender-sensitive analysis – X X X X X X Approaches somewhat encourage use of gender￾sensitive analysis – X X X X X X Approaches do not encourage use of gender-sensitive analysis X – X X X X X RQ1.2a I cannot comment X – – X – X X Evaluation Question 1.2, Research Question B Tools are gender-sensitive – X X X X X X Tools are somewhat gender-sensitive – X – – – X X Tools are not gender-sensitive X – X – X X X RQ1.2b I cannot comment – – – – – – X Evaluation Question 1.2, Research Question C Gender-sensitive approaches or tools inform policies, programs, or strategies – X X X X X X Gender-sensitive approaches or tools somewhat inform policies, programs, or strategies – X X X X X X Gender-sensitive approaches or tools have not informed policies, programs, or strategies X X X X X X X RQ1.2c I cannot comment X X X X X X X Informants pointed to the availability of sex-disaggregated data and models where sex disaggregation is useful as available through the AGRODEP website. Rwanda was mentioned by informants as an example of how sex disaggregation strengthens the analytical exercises to develop a NAIP, as reflected in this comment: “Rwanda really set the stage for modeling for the national agricultural investment plan, and the analysis was broken out by sex and was gender￾sensitive, taking into consideration different issues. This was really informative. For ECOWAS Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 30 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) modeling at the regional level, the analysis was supposed to do the same but the gender gaps did not come out as clearly.” A gap remains between the growing availability and use of sex-disaggregated data, analyses of these data for CAADP processes, the NAIP, and using a gender lens with JSRs. This is the gap between approach and use of evidence for policy planning and strategies. This is somewhat reflected in the Internet survey data; however, a combined 68% more respondents said that ReSAKSS encouraged or somewhat encouraged the use of gender-sensitive analysis in its research and data analysis of the 105 respondents who answered this question. Figure 2. Internet Survey, Question 13 (answered question 105; skipped question 46) In your experience, to what extent do ReSAKSS activities encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Strong encouragement 29.5% 31 Some encouragement 34.3% 36 Little encouragement 13.3% 14 No encouragement 4.8% 5 No Opinion/Not Applicable 18.1% 19 No Opinion 15.2% 16 Not Applicable 2.9% 3 No Opinion/Not Applicable 18.1% 19 Additional comments (optional) 6 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Question 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? This question has three related dimensions that are addressed primarily at the country level. Informants were asked about their perspectives on ReSAKSS efforts to help move policy systems forward at the country level in terms of the use of evidence and outcome-based analysis for agricultural-sector planning and development at the country, regional, and continental levels. While some informants were able to make remarks at the latter two levels, most comments focused on the country level. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? The team visited one country where a country SAKSS was an identifiable entity (Rwanda), two where SAKSS were close to being operational (Senegal and Ghana), four where SAKSS were in various stages of preparation or negotiation (Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, and Kenya), and two where SAKSS discussions are not active (Nigeria and South Africa). There was awareness that the country SAKSS would have a different role, expressed thus by an informant: “Country￾level SAKSS really understands the specific agencies and institutions, priorities, and so forth within a country, which makes country SAKSS more suitable for supporting policymakers.” In other words, the SAKSS would produce research and analysis but would not be replacing specific functions of ministerial policy and planning offices. Another informant stated, “We use the SAKSS to produce data management, storing, and analysis to feed evidence and data Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 31 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) analysis to the secretariat of the MoA.” It is not surprising that the team heard needs expressed for both a SAKSS and continued capacity strengthening from ReSAKSS, because as a system it has the ability to provide this expertise with a web of institutions beyond the MoA, unlike other policy-strengthening programs. At the country level, informants mentioned ReSAKSS as providing capacity strengthening through training and collaborative work on specific research needs. An informant reflected, “…ReSAKSS continues to provide support to strengthen the agricultural policymaking process because if you see their report assessing our NAIP they point out the strengths and the weaknesses and make suggestions for where we can improve. That’s the feedback you need if you want to improve. They showed us where we lacked evidence, what was too ambitious, etc. for the implementation of the NAIP… One of the things we were struggling with was the M&E plan and they came up with good suggestions for how to strengthen and improve that.” Specific training of MoA staff on certain kinds of data analysis, writing policy briefs mentoring on the CAADP process, and sharing experiences from other countries were mentioned as contributing to strengthening institutions. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly how this improvement was made, as informants ticked off various specific activities and engagement with ReSAKSS. Here the case studies in Annex VI provide the greatest insight into the fruits of this interaction. Two comments from different informants illustrate this point: “The kind of analysis and knowledge contained in ReSAKSS documents are the types needed to strengthen institutions for good policymaking and implementation,” and “This is a difficult area, because ReSAKSS cannot implement programs in countries. But they facilitate implementation through data they provide and meetings that they host to build capacity and bring people together. They are more about facilitation than implementation. Yes, it has supported implementation of countries’ activities.” ReSAKSS is seen as underfunded and overstretched and its intermittent involvement does not meet the institutional policy needs of MoA policy units. It is important to note that while the team probed about ReSAKSS activities as they support policy implementation, over half the informants could not comment. The creation of a SAKSS unit was discussed in every country visited by the team as an expressed need, and this is where informants said they felt ReSAKSS could and should do more to help while SAKSS units are negotiated and continue support afterwards. In this way, informants mixed references between the activities of ReSAKSS, country-based IFPRI programs and other donor-funded policy capacity-building programs in their descriptions of support needed. One informant described it this way: “Yes, regarding policy planning…The work they [ReSAKSS] and IFPRI did in terms of talking to the technicians there was good because they managed to influence the planning process. Particularly when the NAIP was being designed, the planning process was being refined through this process, with the studies going on and discussions about the findings. I think they helped to improve the planning capacities of the directorate. I don’t know if that capacity is still there because the MoA lost a lot of people but if those people are still there, the work done by ReSAKSS and IFPRI is probably helping, but whether their work is being used, I do not know.” While the need for programs to strengthen policy analysis and research services within the MoA was expressed, informants indicated that the role of a SAKSS would have a different role. Further there was broad acknowledgement by informants that even if MoA staff has analytical skills, this does not automatically translate into utilization of evidence into policy formation and that issues exist such as domestic political pressures, time horizons, funding sources, foreign pressure, and interest groups. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 32 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 5. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 2.1) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 2.1, Research Question A Country-level policymaking strengthened by ReSAKSS X X X X X X X Country-level policymaking somewhat strengthened by ReSAKSS – X X X X X X Country-level policymaking not strengthened by ReSAKSS X – X X X X X RQ2.1a I cannot comment – – – X – – X Evaluation Question 2.1, Research Question B Country level policy implementation strengthened by ReSAKSS – X X – X – X Country level policy implementation somewhat strengthened by ReSAKSS X X X X X X Country level policy implementation not strengthened by ReSAKSS – – X X X X X RQ2.1b I cannot comment X X X X X X X Reflecting from the country level on the contributions made by ReSAKSS to the regional policy coordination, those who could comment echo what this informant said, “The regional offices do a lot of mentoring of in-country institutions and individuals. They have a broad network; the regional people are very well respected. In terms of moving policymaking forward, they do provide access to the modeling work available through IFPRI’s modeling systems. At the country level, policymakers want numbers, and if it weren’t for IFPRI, the World Bank, and FAO, you wouldn’t get numbers. They are influential in moving towards more quantitative, analytical approaches toward policymaking.” Very few country informants could comment on ReSAKSS influence on continental policy initiatives, other than support of CAADP, as stated by an informant, “At the country level they are doing quite well. At the regional level we should be more coordinated. We can look at the policies, but given CAADP most of what is happening between countries has a lot of commonality. I know that they exchange information at the continental level, but I don’t know really what happens at that level.” The Internet survey reflects the aggregate KIIs with most respondents falling into the “greatly,” “somewhat,” and “little” categories in Table 6, acknowledging that ReSAKSS is making a contribution to strengthen country, regional, and continental agricultural policymaking and implementation. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 33 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 6. Internet Survey Data (Question 15; answered question 105, skipped question 46) Question 15: In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policymaking and policy implementation at the country, regional, and continental levels? Greatly Strengthened Somewhat Strengthened Little Strengthened Not Strengthened No Opinion/Not Applicable Response Count Country Level Policymaking 24.8% 35.2% 15.2% 5.7% 26 37 16 6 0 105 Policy Implementation 16.2% 33.3% 21.9% 5.7% 17 35 23 6 0 105 Regional Level Policymaking 28.6% 29.5% 13.3% 2.9% 30 31 14 3 0 105 Policy Implementation 21.0% 26.7% 20.0% 3.8% 22 28 21 4 0 105 Continental Level Policymaking 29.5% 21.9% 13.3% 3.8% 31 23 14 4 0 105 Policy Implementation 25.2% 18.9% 22.5% 4.16% 24 18 21 4 0 105 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision￾making and policy change? This question probes informants on how the analytical tools are used for policy decision making and when policy adjustments are needed. In terms of comments made, there were 363 instances of “I cannot comment” as compared to 94 comments. Of these, informants described specific ReSAKSS products they find useful:  “The AGRODEP models are very good and practical.”  “The policy analysis training gave me a critical framework for how to analyze the agricultural policies.”  “ReSAKSS gave a training on modeling last year even though we haven’t established the country SAKSS. However with the support…from ReSAKSS, we were able to provide training for our permanent staff without an external consultant to build their capacity.”  “ReSAKSS had the best information for what we needed through their sites. The GIS and the mapping provided the explanations we needed. It made sense in our reports to include them.”  “Agriculture expenditure analysis using the COFOG definition facilitated through SAKSS (with support from ReSAKSS and also ReSAKSS coordinates a peer review process) helps development partners know exactly where the money goes and its impact.” Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 34 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  “We wanted to develop our agribusiness strategy in 2012 and ReSAKSS offered to facilitate a study on commodity market trends, which they did.”  “One of the noted ReSAKSS products is that on growth and investment options. They use tools that are appreciated by us [the Computable General Equilibrium, or CGE model] and the accounting matrix model.” We note that ReSAKSS role is not to engage in policy implementation; however, part of strengthening institutional capacity is to be able to move from analysis to practice, which was acknowledged as difficult without understanding the political economy of the context of how decisions are made. Part of strengthening institutional capacity is to be able to move from analysis to practice which was acknowledged by infomants as difficult without understanding the political economy of the context of how decisions are made. One informant said, “I see these tools and the analysis being done. But the next thing is translating that [into action]. The Ministry is not incorporating the data and analysis into their daily work.” Finally, informants mentioned the blurred lines between the roles of ReSAKSS and SAKSS, where both play supporting roles to country governments. At the same time, informants expressed the sense that ReSAKSS should be at the forefront leading the charge to advance CAADP goals. Informants find there is a lack of clarity between the overlapping roles of ReSAKSS and SAKSS and desire clarity in some form as to who is supposed to be doing what. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 35 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 7. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 2.2) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 2.2, Research Questions A and B Info, analysis, or tools useful for policy X X X – X X X Info, analysis, or tools somewhat useful for policy – – – – – X – Info, analysis or tools not useful for policy – – X – X X X RQ2.2a I cannot comment – X X X X X X RQ2.2b I cannot comment X X X X X X X One informant stated, “ReSAKSS is a good tool. It helps us improve what we have at hand. But we need political will to apply what has been proposed. If we take a global view, it is not civil society who should be expected to do it all. We need government to make it a reality. Everyone is looking for statistics. Everyone has their own evaluation and monitoring team. There is a need to compile data and share methodologies.” The case studies in Annex VI describe how some of these tools were used to inform decision making within a country-specific context. The Internet survey elicited more responses than the KIIs, where respondents at the country level (68) and regional level (64) indicated that information and tools provided through ReSAKSS were useful. It should be kept in mind that the respondents had answered an earlier question listing ReSAKSS approaches and tools (Questions 10 and 11), which may have influenced these percentages. Table 8. Internet Survey Data (Question 16; answered question 106, skipped question 46) Question 16: In your opinion, to what extent have ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools been useful for policy decision making and policy change at the country, regional, and continental levels? Very Useful Somewhat Useful Little Use Not Useful No Opinion/Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 32.4% 32.4% 10.5% 5.7% 34 34 11 6 0 105 Regional Level 38.1% 22.9% 11.4% 1.0% 40 24 12 1 0 105 Continental Level 37.1% 18.1% 10.5% 1.9% 39 19 11 2 0 105 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 36 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, and thereby supporting actual policy change? The team found that there are two linked facets of mutual accountability to which ReSAKSS contributes. The first is the annual racking up and reporting of progress on the CAADP M&E Framework, country by country, for the ATOR report. The second is that for African countries with CAADP compacts, part of the commitment that governments make is to hold an annual review of the expenditures in the agricultural sector as per the NAIP. These are typically convened through the ministry of agriculture and involve a wide variety of stakeholders, including ministries of finance and other government agencies that are a vehicle for review, benchmarking, and learning. Any adjustments to policy or processes stem from the evidence reviewed and discussed in a JSR. Concerned that JSRs could not be compared from country to country, the AUC and NEPAD asked ReSAKSS to develop a template, guidelines, and a suggested standard process for convening and reporting on JSRs. For this activity, ReSAKSS conducted an assessment of JSRs for seven selected countries. In countries where ReSAKSS supported and facilitated the CAADP process, part of the work toward a compact also included discussions concerning mutual accountability, through the CAADP change process of moving from a perspective concentrated on agricultural production to one focused on the growth in the agricultural sector. We found that informants quickly and easily associated ReSAKSS with mutual accountability, whether discussing the work toward signing of a compact, helping define and establish an M&E framework for a country NAIP, or helping with the JSR process. Table 9 illustrates the distribution of comments. Table 9. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 2.3) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 2.3, Research Question A Support to the dev. and implem. of mutual acc. processes X X X X X X X Somewhat support to the dev. and imp. of mutual acc. processes X – X – X X X Lack of support to the dev. and implem. of mutual acc. processes – – X X X X X RQ2.3a I cannot comment – – X X X – X Evaluation Question 2.3, Research Question B Mutual acc. support inclusive of analysis toward country plans X X X X X – X Mutual acc. support is somewhat inclusive of analysis toward country plans – – – X – – X Mutual acc. support hasn't included analysis toward country plans – – – – X X X RQ2.3b I cannot comment X X X X X X X Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 37 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regarding the CAADP M&E Framework, while covered in the findings for Evaluation Question 1, it is worth noting that informants hold that the benchmarking process for the annual ATOR is anticipated and is a “key source of information for stimulating countries to move forward with CAADP processes, because there is a common basis for comparison.” Another informant echoed a common comment topic by saying, “I think [regarding the] M&E framework, if it weren’t for ReSAKSS you wouldn’t have a results framework for CAADP. I think the documents that specify the CAADP process itself are still the templates being used for processes.” Another informant summarized it this way: “ReSAKSS gives training for establishing M&E but it is a country’s responsibility to fulfill,” while another said, “I appreciate that ReSAKSS created a balanced score card to compare apples and oranges but I don’t think this influenced the level of mutual accountability.” The JSR assessments provided a picture of the comprehensiveness of a country’s JSR process. Given the inherent sensitivity of a JSR process, the ‘external” report done by ReSAKSS was met with mixed reactions. For instance, one group of informants stated that ReSAKSS was intruding on the “country-led ownership” of the CAADP process. A typical informant position is summed up as: “IFPRI and ReSAKSS cannot take a direct role in this JSR process at the country level. It’s a government process. We’re on the ground as IFPRI. ReSAKSS is not. ReSAKSS is implemented by IFPRI and we collaborate so when we need collaboration, we work together.” The more positive perspective held by informants described the ReSAKSS analysis and discussion as helpful. One informant said, “Following the JSR assessment which was conducted by ReSAKSS, we now follow the CAADP guidelines which also provides for assessment of other players in the sector like private sector, civil society organizations, donors on their commitments to the sector.” This was echoed by another informant who said, “ReSAKSS played an important role in one aspect. We were missing a dialogue system. They agreed to have a dialogue mechanism but needed some flesh on its bones.” The case studies in Annex VI provide the context specific nuances of each country regarding the JSR support provided through ReSAKSS, which is important for each specific case. Insofar as the JSRs have provided the evidence needed for policy adjustment, an informant stated, “The JSR has been a learning process for everyone. Over time we have seen that these reviews are useful in informing agricultural policy because they look at what is going on, what needs to change, and policy.” Informants cited the positive role played by other ministries and the private sector and civil society. Another informant described ReSAKSS support post-JSR meetings this way: “After the JSR there is a business meeting. Normally whatever comes out we use to develop an action plan—from the last year’s JSR. They hear what is going on. Civil society and business are all there. The outcome is the JSR results in the action plan. The business meeting is done by MOFA, though sometimes ReSAKSS is involved in the meetings to provide human resources.” Finally, in anticipation of the regional JSR to be held by RECs on regional agricultural investment plans, it is worth noting this statement from an informant: “The outcomes of the JSR are supposed to help us ascertain whether there are established structures and operational, which will determine whether progress can be made in agricultural development. This should be done for all member states and eventually, the region. ReSAKSS needs to help us make a regional joint sector review!” The Internet survey also reflects the key informant distribution for ReSAKSS support of the JSR process. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 38 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 10. Internet Survey Data (Question 17; answered question 105; skipped question 46) Question 17: In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (i.e., joint sector review or JSR) within your country? Very Supportive Somewhat Supportive Little Support No Support Very Supportive Response Count Development of a mutual accountability process 26.7% 33.3% 9.5% 3.8% 28 35 10 4 0 105 Implementation of a mutual accountability process 24.8% 31.4% 12.4% 3.8% 26 33 13 4 0 105 Question 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? This question attracted a number of comments from informants, who described several ways that ReSAKSS encourages dialogue with the private sector and civil society, such as meetings on research results, SAKSS steering committees, the JSR process, and as stakeholders in the various stages of the CAADP compact preparation process. An informant summarized this in the following way: “In terms of the non-state actors, I would say that ReSAKSS did really well actually. Most of the non-state actors see ReSAKSS as a government- or university-driven process. ReSAKSS has allowed some space for non-state actors using their convening power.” Table 11. Contribution of ReSAKSS According to Informant Stakeholders (Question 3) Applicable Codes Stakeholder Groups AUC, NEPAD, & Continental CG Centers Country Govt Private Sect & Civ Society University & Think Tanks USG & Other Donors ALL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS Evaluation Question 3, Research Question A Encouragement of PS & CSOs in CAADP; country level X X X X X X X Some encouragement of PS & CSOs in CAADP activities; country level X X – X X X X Lack of encouragement of PS & CSO in CAADP activities; country level – – – X X X X RQ3a I cannot comment – X X X X X X Evaluation Question 3, Research Question D Mechanism to encourage PS and CSO engagement X X X X X X X ReSAKSS – X X X X X X SAKSS – – – X – – – Country government – – X – – X – Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 39 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) I don't know X – – – – – – Other X X – X X X X RQ3d I cannot comment – – X X X X X Evaluation Question 3, Research Question E Needed actions for engagement of non-state actors X X X X X X X RQ3e I cannot comment – X X X X X X Regarding sharing information, informants said, “The best tactic is when ReSAKSS disseminates research findings and invites non-state actors to a meeting to discuss the findings and see how the research was done,” and “…Previously, one of the ways ReSAKSS tried to involve them has been by facilitating the participation of various stakeholders [private and civil society members] at national and international workshops relevant for the CAADP process.” Private-sector informants said that their time is valuable and they expect utility from meetings, and civil society informants spoke about needing to see actions taken as a result of their participation. One informant stated, “There is a need for ReSAKSS to be Africa-owned, not by just donors but also governments. I don’t know which audience ReSAKSS is supposed to serve. ReSAKSS is inclined to government instead of non-state actors and it’s been a while since our last steering committee so we don’t feel part of ReSAKSS.” At the national level, the JSR was often referenced as a venue for non-state actor engagement. One informant stated, “The JSR brings together everyone involved in the agricultural sector. We want to track the involvement of private sector and civil society. ReSAKSS is bringing them together through the JSR program. So in that way we are involving them that much more in the CAADP processes.” Informants were clear that ReSAKSS is not the entity to decide who should attend JSRs, with one informant stating, “ReSAKSS can just help [the] ministry understand [it] need[s] to bring these people on board. But policy dialogue is the Ministry doing it…or even SAKSS. If the country is not open to it, it is difficult to do things in parallel with the government. You need to do it with the government.” A country SAKSS is another method cited for encouraging contact with non-state actors, because “SAKSS is linked to NAIP. NAIP is an initiative of all agricultural sector stakeholders, including civil society, producer groups, the private sector, ministries, etc. They are all signatories. When we organize a validation workshop they are all convened.” More specifically: “The structure of the country SAKSS is to accommodate and include civil society. Country SAKSS are to make sure CAADP processes are inclusive, and there is inclusive governance of the SAKSS. The SAKSS need to be accountable to all key groups and non-state actors. The Internet survey echoes the trends of the KIIs, where respondents (over 60%) said they percieved some or high encouragement of non-state actors by ReSAKSS at the country, regional, and continental levels. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 40 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Table 12. Internet Survey Data (Question 18; answered question 105, skipped question 46) Question 18: In your opinion, to what extent have you seen ReSAKSS encourage private-sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country, regional, and continental levels? High Encourage￾ment Some Encourage￾ment Little Encourage￾ment No Encourage￾ment No Opinion/ Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 20.0% 25.7% 18.1% 8.6% 21 27 19 9 0 105 Regional Level 18.1% 27.6% 21.0% 3.8% 19 29 22 4 0 105 Continental Level 19.0% 25.7% 16.2% 3.8% 20 27 17 4 0 105 In every country the team sought out civil society and private-sector interviews or focus group discussions, which are reflected in the case studies. Furthermore, the KII discussions allowed informants to reflect on whether ReSAKSS is a proper mechanism for encouragement of non￾state sector engagement with CAADP processes, and considered what could be done to increase participation. One informant said, “It is not ReSAKSS job to bring us into the CAADP process and dialogue. That’s not their role in my view. It’s not a technical issue but a perception issue in terms of who isn’t doing what the right way. I think it’s beyond the mandate of ReSAKSS. It’s just government getting organized.” The team found this is an area for expansion, as some informants stated that ReSAKSS was not fully using its convening power to support dialogue between non-state actors and government through knowledge sharing, whereas others said this role was outside the central mission for ReSAKSS. Another informant said, “Researchers are not necessarily the best people for doing this. If ReSAKSS has an inclusive purpose, I wouldn’t hire a research organization [IFPRI] to do it and bring all of these stakeholders to the table.” Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 41 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) CONCLUSIONS12 Question 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes?  The bridging role of ReSAKSS is important because even though there are other CAADP support programs implemented at the regional and continental levels, ReSAKSS is the only policy support system informants referenced, rather than other programs that support NEPAD and CAADP. ReSAKSS is playing a very important and needed role.  ReSAKSS does not have consistent quality assurance measures in place for its information and research products in order to maintain its stakeholder’s trust.  *When ReSAKSS information is presented in formats that are too academic, too lengthy, and not translated into the country’s primary policy languages, ReSAKSS products are only used by a few number of people when they are intended to reach a broader audience and speak to policy makers.  Policy makers need actionable information that can readily be integrated into policy (e.g. policy briefs). *Without the correct packaging, the messages within ReSAKSS information will not be delivered and heard by policy makers at the country level.  *Much of ReSAKSS information is the right kind of information but there are limitations to its usefulness because the data available at the country level is at times out of date and inaccurate.  ReSAKSS may or may not use transparent and participatory methods in its decision making processes around its research agenda setting and determination of which types of analyses and studies to prioritize, which may not be meeting the needs of its stakeholders.  *Because stakeholders are not aware of where to find ReSAKSS information, there is limited use of ReSAKSS products. Question 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities?  Sound and consistent indicator tracking of CAADP goals and objectives provides evidence to support evidence-based decision making by governments and provides a common language for countries to learn from and communicate with each other about CAADP.  The facilitation of CAADP processes by ReSAKSS coupled with the building of capacity at the country level to do this type of analysis, has led to the successful development of 12 Conclusions and Recommendations that have an * beside them are echoed by a review of the conclusions made in each case study for an evaluation question or sub question. These * conclusions and recommendations provide another perspective and a link between the case studies and the broader aggregate analysis, which pooled all comments made by stakeholders in all countries visited (as expressed in the contribution tables and internet survey). This is akin to a still life painting where the case studies are individual objects in the composition and the aggregate analysis is the picture as a whole. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 42 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) NAIPs. In order to ensure that analytical tools are continuously used to support prioritization of agricultural investments, additional training is required for Ministry staff.  ReSAKSS analytical tools are useful and helpful for building an evidence base for developing the NAIPs and setting priorities. Question 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs?  ReSAKSS efforts are contributing to an increased focus on gender and an overall awareness of the importance of gender issues. Often, this is through the incorporation of sex-disaggregated data. *However, the extent to which deeper considerations of gender dynamics are impacting CAADP programming, investments, and policy formation and implementation is limited within ReSAKSS work because there isn’t expertise or investment in skills capacity to undertake gender sensitive policy-focused research.  ReSAKSS training on gender analysis was useful to participants. Question 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Question 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation?  *ReSAKSS support to strengthen agricultural institutions is not consistent and occurs primarily when there is a CAADP process stage to achieve or annually when the ATOR research is being compiled or when a JSR is being prepared. It is more that ReSAKSS provides good policy analysis that agricultural institutions can use as a model. The day￾to-day interaction needed to expand staff skills and institutional capacity is beyond the range of ReSAKSS resources.  In countries that have received long-term SAKSS funding (Rwanda), the development of a country-level SAKSS has been successful and provides long-term nexus for data and policy analysis, while also serving as a basis for future ReSAKSS regional networks. In countries that receive short-term funding (Mozambique) for SAKSS, it is not possible to establish the same level of ownership, commitment, and technical capacity in the MoA that is needed to drive CAADP at the country level.  The ReSAKSS system is essential to realizing CAADP.  The political economy of policy making is a factor in the use of evidence and outcome￾based analysis to inform policy. Question 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change?  ReSAKSS information can only go so far to support implementation, as per the definition of its role. Whether or not ReSAKSS analysis is used to inform policy is subject to the policy decision-making at the country level.  *There is another piece of the picture that is missing, which is the role played by a long￾term policy capacity building program in the MoA, which is different from a SAKSS. The former can usually involve support for advanced degrees and paying for staff that might not be budgeted in addition to increasing external advisors and research funds. The SAKSS support knowledge sharing and facilitate research and analysis on CAADP processes and agricultural sector policy, which includes but is not limited to the MoA. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 43 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Question 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change?  The JSR is inherently a government-led process and dialogue. The consensus is that ReSAKSS role should not be a parallel process but rather a demand-driven process. ReSAKSS should not be in the compliance role but rather an advisory role, in response to either a country request or when directed the AUC and NEPAD. Question 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society?  The degree to which ReSAKSS can successfully encourage the engagement of non￾state actors depends largely on the willingness of host country governments to invite them into CAADP processes.  The knowledge sharing system of ReSAKSS and SAKSS is not fully developed at the country level. Also, ReSAKSS cannot play the same role a SAKSS can at the country level in sharing this information with local non-state actors because they are one degree of separation away from the on-the-ground realities. In turn, this may hinder the inclusion and participation by private sector and civil society in CAADP policy formulation and implementation.  The role ReSAKSS and SAKSS both have in encouraging the engagement of non-state actors in CAADP processes has been both affirmed and appreciated by informants, which implies that importance of this role and responsibility. *The benefit of the inclusion of non-state actors in CAADP or CAADP-type processes is not compelling enough for governments. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 44 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) RECOMMENDATIONS Question 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes?  ReSAKSS needs to enhance the bridging aspect of its activities because stakeholders value the linkage between public and private institutions, people and knowledge.  As ReSAKSS has created standard processes and expectations for CAADP stages, it should do the same for its research and information products in order to ensure a consistent level of high quality product and ongoing trust in their analysis.  To expand use of ReSAKSS research and analysis products, ReSAKSS should release them in several different formats so they can be used by different stakeholders at different levels within each country. ReSAKSS cannot depend on country partners and stakeholders to re-package their materials in a way that allows for quality assurance in a timely manner.  ReSAKSS should work closer with central Bureaus of Statistics for the type of data that is needed for ATORs and economic modeling so that the data used in their analysis are reliable and trustworthy so that they may ensure the accuracy and quality of their information products. ReSAKSS should also continue providing training on data quality assurance at the country level.  ReSAKSS should consider using more interactive web-based tools.  *ReSAKSS should create and implement an aggressive communications campaign about their knowledge management platforms that is maintained over time with proper staffing, as per the conditions of their funding (PIO grant). Question 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities?  ReSAKSS should continue to facilitate CAADP processes at the country level and deliver training to Ministry staff on how to use ReSAKSS analytical tools. ReSAKSS should also record and post its analytical tool trainings and training offerings to ReSAKSS website in order to affordably expand the utility of these courses to a broader range of stakeholders.  For these tools to be used widely and regularly, ReSAKSS needs to provide ongoing training to relevant people in government and make a conscious effort to link AGRODEP members to government. Question 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs?  ReSAKSS in its activities with the AUC/DREA, is building gender analytic models and frameworks. ReSAKSS needs to make sure these are shared at the country level immediately after development to meet the demand for gender-sensitive agricultural policy.  *More technical assistance should be provided at the country level to undertake gender￾sensitive research, especially given the CAADP focus on inclusion of women. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 45 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  ReSAKSS should update their gender analysis training and expand the number of offerings each year. ReSAKSS should also record and post the gender analysis training course and its materials to their website.  ReSAKSS should expand the gender resources on its website to include links to the many excellent gender analysis toolkits, indicators, and other trainings that exist. Question 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Question 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation?  *The comparative advantage of ReSAKSS-being able to understand, articulate and share trends and lessons from other countries in a useful way, at the country level, should be coupled with a MoA country-based, long-term institutional policy strengthening program. The benefits of the ReSAKSS produced analysis and information can be used effectively and consistently by policy analysts and policy makers. The SAKSS implemented to date have not been equipped with the resources needed to provide the day-to-day support for policy analysis plus the in-depth skills training needs.  In order to enable SAKSS to sustainably build policy capacity of host-country governments and provide corresponding analysis, SAKSS must receive on-going financial support for at least ten years in order to sustain these objectives. If SAKSS are funded for less time, the investments made in developing the personnel and technical support at the national level will be lost and will have to be re-built, which is an inefficient use of funds and resources, as seen in the case of Mozambique.  ReSAKSS should work to constantly improve and refine the work that it does in an effort to realize CAADP.  ReSAKSS needs to include a political economy policy analysis model in its work on agricultural policy planning. Question 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change?  ReSAKSS should consider figuring out how to track the use of its support for analysis of policy formulation and how this connects to the need for tweaking policy at the implementation stage so that it can speak to where the needs are greatest.  These two competing visions should be reconciled to the political realities of agricultural policy implementation making at the country and regional level. The AUC, NEPAD, ReSAKSS donors, and IFPRI need to come up with a way of reconciling these two competing visions and then share that guidance and direction with its stakeholders. Question 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change?  AUC and NEPAD need to clearly communicate with each country government specifically and get agreement on the role that ReSAKSS can and will play in supporting their JSR process before it commences in order to ensure that ReSAKSS is providing the information that’s needed in a way that is country context specific. Question 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 46 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  ReSAKSS should continue playing this role because it will help governments move toward a partnership and alliance relationship with the farmers, agribusiness and civil society, as per the Malabo declaration. ReSAKSS should also emphasize to country governments and RECs the need to equally invite both private sector and civil society throughout CAADP processes for balanced representation.  ReSAKSS should more effectively share its knowledge management system that is trusted and accessible to governments and non-state actors in order to allow non-state actors to tap into what is going on with the policy dialogues at the country level and understand how they can contributed.  *ReSAKSS should demonstrate the tangible value proposition of private sector and civil society engagement toward meeting NAIP goals and CAADP M&E targets. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 47 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEXES ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK C.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1) Objectives The TAP BFS-PE TO will support four PEs of BFS centrally-funded/centrally-managed projects or activities. 2) Proposed Activities To fulfill Evaluation Policy and ADS 203 requirements, the TAP BFS-PE TO Contractor shall, in coordination with BFS, manage, design, and implement four PEs of BFS Feed the Future centrally funded and centrally-managed activities. The TAP BFS-PE TO Contractor shall utilize BFS guidance and templates for the management, design, and implementation of PEs. Given the range and diverse nature of the activities implemented by the targeted BFS mechanisms, expertise across a range of research, M&E and capacity-strengthening food security-related areas will be required, including organizational and staff/consultant expertise in the use of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in conducting PEs. The BFS centrally-managed mechanisms to be evaluated are listed below. The parameters of each PE are contained in Attachment J.2. Activity Final Performance Evaluation African Cocoa Initiative: The project develops the cocoa sector by fostering public-private cooperative investments in cocoa, improving the genetic quality and productivity of the cocoa, expanding farmer education and training programs, and improving cocoa input supply chains. It works in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo. (http://worldcocoafoundation.org/wcf-african-cocoa-initiative/) RESAKSS Analysis and Capacity Building: This is a consortium of CGIAR and regional organizations being led by IFPRI to deepen and broaden available food policy information and analysis, as well as networks of food security and policy researchers and practitioners both in country and regionally. (http://www.resakss.org/) Solutions for African Food Enterprises (SAFE): SAFE provides customized technical assistance to select food processors with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of the African food processing sector and to expand availability of affordable and nutritious foods. SAFE is carriedout through an alliance between Partners in Food Solutions (PFS) and TechnoServe. PFS is a non-profit organization formed by General Mills and includes technical expertise from General Mills, Cargill, Royal DMS, and most recently Buhler. PFS provides Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 48 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) remote-based, demand driven customized technical assistance to selected food processors which is carried out by TechnoServe, as well as broader trainings on key industry knowledge gaps delivered to larger sector wide groups through seminars. TechnoServe provides the on￾the-ground food technology specialists and business advisors to facilitate the on-site customized technical assistance recommended by PFS. SAFE builds on the structures put in place by a two-year predecessor program, the African Alliance for Improved Food Processing (AAIFP) which ended November 30, 2012. SAFE operates in Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia (http://www.partnersinfoodsolutions.com/) Activity Midterm Performance Evaluation FTF Partnering for Innovation: This cooperative agreement is focused on finding and commercializing agricultural technologies that have the potential to impact smallholders and supporting private sector engagement within Feed the Future. The program works to engage the private sector to commercialize technologies to the smallholder farmer market and builds and procures public-private partnerships that support Feed the Future efforts. (www.partneringforinnovation.org) C.3 TASKS For each Performance Evaluation, the Contractor shall: Design, plan, and implement independent rigorous PEs of BFS centrally managed activities todetermine project or activity performance and/or impacts, focusing on progress, successes, obstacles, constraints, and areas of need and for improvement. Conduct data collection and analysis, and produce reports and briefings on PE findings that follow USAID guidance and format. Contribute to building the capacities of host country institutions (government, NGO, and private sector) to conduct PEs by including local institutions and individuals in all phases of evaluation design and implementation, to the maximum extent feasible. In addition to the requirements listed above, the Contractor shall: 1. Confer with USAID and with the Implementing Partner to create the statement of work for the PE, including identifying the PE questions and evaluation methods to be used (within two weeks of PE start date) 2. Identify the evaluation team members and obtain BFS approval (within three weeks of PE start date) 3. Develop the PE Plan and obtain BFS approval (within three weeks of PE team’s start date) 4. Conduct desk review of required documents (timing of remaining steps determined in PE Plan) 5. Compile performance reporting data 6. Conduct stakeholder, key informant and/or focus group interviews in person or via phone or email 7. Conduct country visits to identified country(ies), as applicable 8. Conduct field visits while in country, as applicable 9. Provide exit briefing(s) to USAID mission(s) 10. Produce up to two versions of draft PE report, incorporating USAID feedback Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 49 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 11. Provide in-person or telephone briefing on the draft report to BFS and to the implementing partner 12. Produce the final PE report 13. Present the final PE report to USAID and partners in Washington DC 14. Provide data required for Open Data posting. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 50 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EVALUATION METHODS This performance evaluation of the ReSAKSS was conducted using quantitative and qualitative techniques to address the evaluation questions and to test the project’s underlying logic model. Methods included a review of project reporting documents, published research and summary reports and presentations; country visits to nine countries to collect primary information through key informant interviews (KIIs) with different types of stakeholders at the country, regional, and continental levels; in-country focus groups discussions (FGDs), and an survey administered through the internet platform, SurveyMonkey. The team was provided bibliometric data describing citation frequencies, website hits, social media (Facebook, Twitter) followers and slideshare view data from IFPRI in December, 2014. The methodology combines a systematic analysis of existing project reporting quantitative data with customized qualitative techniques that elicit in-depth responses from a wide range of groups engaged in the CAADP processes and with ReSAKSS at the country, regional, and continental levels. This non-experimental mixed methods approach allows for triangulation of complementary data and information to identify linkages on how ReSAKSS activities, tools, and approaches are perceived. Each method used the same evaluation questions so that the findings from each method could compared. Given the number of activities jointly undertaken with the AUC, NEPAD NPCA, RECs, IFPRI country program offices, and in conjunction and collaboration with other donors, specific attribution to ReSAKSS alone is very difficult to parse with any accuracy. The evaluation team applied aspects of contribution analysis at the aggregate level, where the data analysis assesses the contribution of ReSAKSS to the perceived changes resulting from CAADP activities where a number of different stakeholders played roles and contributed human and financial resources.13 Selection of Countries and Country Visits The RFP Section J.2 called for visits to eight countries, including: Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Africa, and Mozambique. After discussions with USAID and with IFPRI it was agreed that Malawi should be added as well given the active engagement in CAADP processes and ReSAKSS. Preparation. After meetings with USAID BFS, and with IFPRI to review the evaluation process and finalize the countries to visit. The evaluation team leader attended the 2014 ReSAKSS Annual Meeting held in Addis Ababa, and met the IFPRI ReSAKSS continental and regional coordinators. These meetings informed planning for the country visits. Prior to travel in the nine 13 See Bamberger M., J. Rugh, and L. Mabry, Real World Evaluation, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, 2012, pp. 404- 405). Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 51 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) countries, the team created an evaluation evidence matrix, semi-structured KII protocols, focus group guide, a one page evaluation summary and an evaluation purpose statement (explaining non-attribution, confidentiality and the voluntary participation), a calendar posted to google documents to coordinate interview scheduling and track the data collection progress, a draft Atlas.ti codebook and a toolkit for conducting KIIs and FGDs. An evaluation scope of work and plan were submitted to USAID BFS prior to departure for the country visits. Selection of Key Informants and Focus Group Participants The ReSAKSS activities are implemented at the continental, regional, and country levels. At each level there are different and overlapping stakeholders, who engage at different levels of intensity and with varied time commitments. At the continental level are the AUC CAADP, AUC/DREA, and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) National Planning Coordinating Agency (NPCA) structures. At the regional level are the East and Central, West, and Southern Africa ReSAKSS nodes housed in CGIAR institutions, which operate in close coordination with RECs, other regional organizations, and ReSAKSS steering committees. At the country level are the state and non-state actors involved in various stages of the CAADP processes, and where existent, the country SAKSS coordinators. In querying IFPRI, the ReSAKSS staff and regional coordinators, reviewed annual reports, publications such as Capacity Needs Assessments, National Agricultural Investment Plans, Joint Sector Reviews, and the various workshop reports over the past four years uploaded to the ReSAKSS website, the evaluation team realized the population of the stakeholders is a large, diverse, and somewhat fluid group. Additionally, IFPRI has not kept a consistent record of stakeholders that identifies the different levels of causal distance from core ReSAKSS facilitated activities. This is because policymakers, social and biological scientists, experts, businesspeople, farmers, and non–state stakeholders have inconsistent participation as their positions, job responsibilities, and interests change. More specifically, after a review of two IFPRI annual reports on ReSAKSS (2014 and 2013) the following categories of potential stakeholder groups by the PIO grant component and component sub-activity were mapped as below, recognizing that at the regional and country level there is great variation, depending on context. This mapping helped the team comprehend the wide network of stakeholders touched through the various ReSAKSS activities. Component 1 target groups Establishment of country SAKSS  Ministries, departments, and agencies related to agriculture and food security or finance planning, private sector development, and universities, as they relate to agriculture and food security  CAADP country teams and CAADP stakeholders Training activities  Trainees: specialized departments of national ministries of agriculture, trade, planning, food, private sector, nutrition, and resource management  Staff members of the SADC, ECOWAS, and COMESA RECs, universities; national statistics offices; civil society organizations, the private sector (individual company representatives and agribusiness associations) Annual Trends and Outlook Report (ATOR)  Those involved in the CAADP Partnership Platform  Ministry staff in planning departments  AGRODEP members who serve as consultants  Steering Committee members ReSAKSS Conference Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 52 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  ReSAKSS staff, regional nodes, country SAKSS committee heads  Ministries associated with the agricultural sector  Civil society representatives  Private sector representatives  University partners  African Union Commission and NEPAD NPCA  Country stakeholders-national team members  Leadership of national ministries concerned with agriculture, finance planning, food security, private sector  Africa Lead II teams14 Component 2 target groups The AGRODEP Modelling Consortium members (143 total as of October 2014, from 27 countries (41 females, and 102 males).15 A shared modelling infrastructure  AGRODEP Modelling Consortium members Establishment of a database infrastructure  Select AGRODEP Modelling Consortium members Membership, research networking and capacity building  AGRODEP members  Affiliate Members (partial membership to those who have relocated out of Africa; qualified African researchers living outside Africa; qualified African and non-African researchers who work in international and CG centers within Africa  Friends of AGRODEP-those who have provided support and contributions to AGRODEP’s network activities  AGRODEP “Gaps in Research” grantees  AGRODEP Innovative research grants- AGRODEP members who have received grants  AGRODEP Research Valorization - members who have received grants to present at international conferences  AGRODEP training courses: participants from government, universities and think tanks Component 3.1 target groups  AUC staff  Overall technical and advisory support 14 From their website, AfricaLead “…is USAID’s primary capacity building program in sub Saharan Africa. The program works to help realize Feed the Future (FTF) and the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) goals of reduced hunger and poverty by building the capacity of champions, institutions and stakeholders to develop, lead and manage the structures needed for African-led agriculture transformation.” See: http://africaleadftf.org.s79942.gridserver.com/about-us/ 15 AGRODEP is comprised of independent consultant researchers and university faculty who have advanced modelling skills meeting certain criteria established by IFPRI. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 53 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  AUC staff experts involved with IFPRI staff/consultants in organization for AUC Year of Agriculture  Authors of short papers of key themes of trade, nutrition, gender, resilience, climate smart agriculture, and land and resource management Special studies—such as –those from the 2014 IFPRI Annual Report (listed below), which is provided as an example of the range of activities with stakeholders  Ministry of Agriculture, Rwanda, World Bank Rwanda office; USAID Mission: Rwanda’s Plan for the Strategic Transformation of Agriculture (PSTA3)  International Growth Center, (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania), Governor of the Central Bank of Tanzania, Director of S&MEs at the Ministry of Industry and Trade  Ministry of Agriculture (MINIAGRI) and National Statistics Institute, DRC, and staff running the Food Production, Processing and Marketing project Component 3.2 target groups AUC-DREA staff in specific committees:  Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development (SAFGRAD)  The Inter-African Phyto-Sanitary Council (IAPSC)  The Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (IBAR)  Pan African Veterinary Vaccine Centre of African Union (PANVAC)  Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC),  Regional Programme for the Integrated Development of the Fouta Djallon Highlands (RPID-FDH) Purposive Sampling The evaluation team was provided the 2014 and 2013 ReSAKSS Annual Meeting invitee and attendee lists and cross referenced these lists with the individuals suggested for interviews, focus group participation, or the internet survey participation by ReSAKSS Regional Coordinators and USAID to ensure broad representation. A purposive sample was the most feasible and time efficient way of identifying the appropriate individuals for the team to speak with for the KIIs and FGDs. To develop the sample, given the specialized nature of ReSAKSS work and the short period for each country visit, a snowball technique after receiving suggestions from USAID, IFPRI and ReSAKSS staff was used. This consisted of asking informants for suggestions for people to speak to, and following up these leads with the ReSAKSS coordinator or point of contact in the country. For access and efficiency purposes, it was important that ReSAKSS coordinators and their designees made appointments with informants in each country. This ensured the team was able to speak to people at the proper levels who had experience with ReSAKSS, IFPRI, or CAADP. For each country there was a target of 20 KIIs and two focus groups, with the understanding that organizing a focus group would depend on the in-country activity level of ReSAKSS with enough stakeholders to make a group feasible, and the availability of individuals. For instance, in some countries it was possible to organize focus groups ahead of time (Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique), whereas in others they occurred more spontaneously, when 3 or more individuals came to a KII (Ghana, Senegal). For Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Nigeria it was not feasible to organize a focus group, and in South Africa a discussion group was held with NEPAD NPCA (this discussion group was then treated as a focus group when analyzed). In all the team held: • 163 KIIs, with 44 women and 122 men interviewed • 11 FGDs, with 16 women and 30 men participating Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 54 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Visits (November 8-December 9): The four person evaluation team split into two person teams and visited eight countries from November 8 – December 9, 2014, with the evaluation team leader also visiting South Africa. The eight countries visited were Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal for five working days of KIIs and FGDs. At the close of each week the team would prepare an exit debrief for the resident USAID Mission, in-person or by email (these debriefs were also sent to USAID BFS). The team leader visited South Africa for two days of interviews after the visit to Mozambique was completed. To manage scheduling, a calendar was posted on Google documents, which open access to USAID BFS, the ReSAKSS coordinators and their staff, the points of contact in each country. This made scheduling very efficient because time slots were not double-booked and changes could be made quickly and could be viewed by all individuals who had access to the calendar. During the four weeks of travel, the team held at least one discussion over skype to discuss the KIS, quality control, scheduling, and any other issues that arose. Draft KII transcripts were cleaned by the individual who took notes and then reviewed and edited by the individual who held the interview. The cleaned transcript was then sent to the key informant for review, to be sure that no errors or omissions were made. Informants were asked to add information if they had thought of an important point after the interview. Once the transcripts were received back or the individual indicated they did not want to make a review, then transcripts were finalized. The same process was followed with focus group participants. QUALITATIVE METHODS Key Informant Interviews: (KIIs) are the primary information source for the ReSAKSS evaluation as they provided the informant the time and space to discuss their responses in detail. Trends and themes from the analysis of the KIIs provided information to gain detailed understanding of the activity effectiveness and to triangulate with quantitative data. The semi￾structured interview protocols were the same for each stakeholder group, given the wide variance of the number of stakeholders that were available to the team for interviews in each country. Included in the protocol were research questions developed by the team after the document review to ensure that possible dimensions of the evaluation question were covered sufficiently. Almost every KII was done by two members of the evaluation team, one who facilitated the interview, and one who took notes by summarizing and recording the key points. Each interview started with a description of the evaluation, and a discussion of non-attribution and the voluntary nature of interview. The informant was given a summary of the evaluation, a graphic picture of the CAADP process at the country level, and a one-page statement about the evaluation which included clauses on non-attribution, anonymity, and confidentiality. After cleaning and reviewing the transcript by two team members, the informant was sent the transcript by email and asked to edit and revise if needed to insure an accurate reflection of their thoughts. In Mozambique, Rwanda, and Senegal interpreters were hired to allow the informant to be asked questions and answer in their first language. At all times, the team strove to interview a balance of male and female informants; this was highly variable by country because of the dominance of men in agricultural research and analysis and policy positions in all the countries visited and across the African continent. Focus Group Discussions: FGDs were held to complement the individual KIIs and enable expanded information collection from larger groups of participants and stakeholders. The Team held FGDs with an appropriate group of stakeholders from various institutions or departments Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 55 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) within an institution that are or were engaged in the CAADP process in their country.16 The three primary evaluation questions were tailored to the specific types of stakeholders in the FGD. While for each country the mix, number, and sex of individuals in each stakeholder group varied was different from the other countries, in the aggregate the representation of primary stakeholder informants and participants is balanced. The evaluation team had several discussions with USAID BFS and IFPRI, two of the intended users of the evaluation, to gain their understanding of the development hypothesis/theory of change for ReSAKSS, identify areas of consideration to be explored in the evaluation, and inform the evaluation tools. These consultations were distinct from KIIs with USAID officials as part of the sample frame for key informants and FG participants held in each country visited. QUANTITATIVE METHODS Bibliometric data: IFPRI supplied bibliometric information and statistics from IFPRI on use of ReSAKSS publications, websites and social media on how often ReSAKSS and RESAKSS￾related information is downloaded and viewed. These data are used to compare the types of research products and information mentioned in the KIIs, in focus groups, and through the internet-based survey to add more depth to descriptions of utilization. Internet Survey: A survey using an internet-based platform (SurveyMonkey) was sent to stakeholders that were not interviewed by the team during the country visits and to stakeholders in countries engaged with ReSAKSS that the team did not visit. The survey was also forwarded to stakeholders by USAID BFS and by ReSAKSS coordinators. The survey provides data and information from otherwise unreachable respondents to expand the amount of information we get from stakeholder groups already the focus of the evaluation. The survey included scaled questions and provided space for comments. Of 150 respondents to the survey, 110 were male and 40 were female. ANALYTICAL APPROACH The KIIs and FGS were analyzed using a content analysis software program, Atlas.ti. After the country visits, the team finalized a codebook to tag the comments made by informant and participants and a team of coders trained to code the data in each transcript and upload it into a database for analysis of trends and themes. These transcripts were analyzed by stakeholder group and other criteria such as depth of interaction with ReSAKSS and stakeholder’s sex, for the aggregate analysis and the case studies. The resulting information provided the contribution analysis and the basis for the case studies. The Internet survey provided both data (from scaled questions and information (from comments) that was analyzed using frequencies and percentages. The survey data and information were used for a parallel analysis of the evidence 16 Such groups could include such as NGOs focused on youth, women farmer associations or NGOs focused on women agriculturalists, farmer associations, and associations of large and small private sector agribusinesses. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 56 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) from KIIs, FGDs, the survey, bibliometric data and document review. In this analytical approach, each type of data for the evaluation question is analyzed in parallel and then across information and data type. The specific analysis process approaches used for each method are described below. QUALITATIVE INFORMATION The team ensured anonymity of responses throughout data collection and analysis by not including respondent’s names on the transcripts but rather their stakeholder group, organization, country, and sex. Data gathered as a part of the KIIs and FGDs was written in English into Microsoft Word documents by the assisting facilitator and corroborated between team members at the end of each day and emailed to participants for verification. Upon receiving any feedback from informants on their transcripts, the team reviewed and accepted changes before uploading the transcript as the final version for coding within the Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), Atlas.ti. In total, 163 KII transcripts and 11 FGD transcripts were uploaded into Atlas for qualitative analysis. In order to code the transcripts within Atlas.ti, the evaluation team developed a codebook.17 Code development was driven by the evaluation objectives, the primary and secondary evaluation questions, the qualitative instrument, as well as observations from the country visits and preliminary readings of transcripts. The first draft of the codebook was developed prior to the team’s departure to the field for country visits and was updated upon the team’s return from fieldwork in order to ensure the accuracy and utility of the codebook. That same week, a three￾part training was held with SI’s internal coding team of ten coders. The first part introduced coders to how they would be using Atlas.ti and explained the context of ReSAKSS and the codebook; the second part entailed the coding team coding two sample transcripts using the codebook; and the third part entailed a norming session to assess inter-rater reliability. Minor edits were then made to the codebook for finalization and a guiding document was created for coders to use to further ensure inter-rater reliability across the 163 transcripts. Each of the ten coding team members was then assigned a sub-set of the transcripts to code within Atlas.ti using the codebook and the guidance document. Following the finalization of the codebook, the codebook was entered into Atlas.ti and the team began coding their respective transcript assignments within the team’s first Hermeneutic Unit (HU), which was distributed via a copy bundle and each coder worked within their own version of the copy bundle using a unique account name so that each coder’s work could be identified once merged together. Each week, the qualitative evaluation specialist team member, who served as the “super user” in Atlas.ti, would receive an updated copy bundle from each team member containing the coded transcripts completed during the previous week, and would merge them together to create the latest copy bundle to be used the following week. This practice ensured that issues noticed within the HU while coding could be resolved prior to the distribution of the next HU, while also supplying the team with a back-up of the coding team’s work on a weekly basis. 17 Kathleen M. MacQueen, Eleanor McLellan, Kelly Kay and Bobby Milstein. “Codebook Development for Team￾Based Qualitative Analysis,” Cultural Anthropology Methods, vol. 10, no. 2: pp.31-36. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 57 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Once coding was completed within Atlas.ti and the final copy bundles were merged, a series of quality assurance checks were conducted by the team to ensure the accuracy of the codes applied to the transcripts by the coding team. These included ensuring all free codes were reconciled with the codebook codes, parent codes and sub-codes were applied correctly, any un-coded content actually did not apply to a code in the codebook, and coding or re-coding any quotations across the data set when overlooked or incorrect. Aggregate analysis and Case Study analysis Using the Atlas.ti software the team generated "contribution tables" that summarize the number of comments given by informants in a particular family (country, stakeholder type, etc.) to a particular research question. (These comments had been earlier coded as responses to those questions, and were therefore easy to query and report on.) These contribution tables helped the team begin to understand the weight of particular issues and themes as they emerged in the data and the distribution patterns. The analysts then looked to the contribution tables for each evaluation question (and some sub￾questions) for concentrations of responses to particular comments. If the number of informants' responses was greater than 15% of the total responses, findings were drawn from that group of responses. For example, if more than 15% of respondents said that the information ReSAKSS generates is "helpful" or "somewhat helpful," analysts looked to comments in those categories to develop the findings discussion. If there was a large number of “I cannot comment” comments, such as 50% and above of the total comments for a research question, then this was considered. For each of the evaluation questions (and sub-questions) these comments were then examined for themes. The analysts looked for repetition of key words and phrases, as well as repetition of comments. For example, if many informants repeatedly said ReSAKSS faced challenges related to government buy-in that would likely rise to the top as one of the case study findings. Once findings were established, salient quotations were selected to represent those findings. Some care was also taken to qualify trends. If most informants responded in one way to a question, but there were some informants that had a different opinion, analysts attempted to capture these nuances in the case study discussion. Conclusions were developed for the case studies. The case studies were triangulated with the FGD transcripts, which were organized into a separate family in the software. The aggregate analysis was triangulated with the internet survey descriptive statistics for the scaled questions, and with the comments made by those respondents that had provided these. For the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations, a separate review was undertaken of the case study conclusions and a group conclusion and recommendation was created for the main evaluations questions 1, 2 and 3 (but not the sub-questions). These were then compared with the conclusions and recommendations for the aggregate analysis. Where there is congruence between the aggregate analysis of all KIIs and the group analysis of the case studies, the conclusion and recommendation is marked with an asterisk. This analysis provides congruence between the full pool of KIIs and the specific context of each country. Internet Survey analysis A survey questionnaire was designed and delivered through the internet-based platform SurveyMonkey to augment data collected through a Washington-based desk review and KIIs and FGDs in eight country visits. The intention was to expand feedback from stakeholder groups, as well as broaden geographic coverage across SSA. The design intentionally limited survey completion time to 10-15 minutes to encourage maximum participation. Given the Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 58 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) challenge of collecting responses on a range of topics within a limited timeframe, SI opted for a combination of numerous close-ended questions with optional open-ended comment fields, which allowed respondents with additional time and comments to expand their responses with more in-depth narrative responses. BFS reviewed and provided feedback on the draft survey instrument, which was integrated into the final instrument. The survey was sent to approximately 650 participants, whom were suggested by USAID, IFPRI, other key informants, and from the invitation lists for the past two ReSAKSS annual conferences. Of the approximately 650 survey invitations, 81 were additional USAID referrals, which contained some duplicates from the 596 invitations on the master list. Therefore, the survey was initially sent to a maximum of 677 individuals, however SI approximates closer to 650 unique invitations based on duplicates. In addition to this initial list of people invited to take the survey, USAID/BFS and SSA Missions forwarded the survey link to additional appropriate individuals in order to expand the reach of the survey. The survey was opened on January 15th and participants were given one week to complete it. During this time period, two reminder email messages were sent to encourage individuals to complete the survey. The closing date was then extended by two additional days and was, ultimately, closed on January 23rd. Based on Social Impact’s experience, the questionnaire was designed to maximize response rate by limiting time period for completion of the survey of one week. The final response rate was 151 individuals with 110 males, 40 females, and 1 non-response (where the survey was somehow taken but not completed. For the purposes of this report we provide the number of completed surveys as 150). Respondents included individuals from 30 African countries (including Tunisia in North Africa) and 8 non-African countries. Highest response rates, in order, were from universities and think tanks, host country governments, and multilateral/bilateral donors. BIASES AND OTHER LIMITATIONS Bias The essence of evaluation is comparison—typically across time or geography. The team members kept certain key biases in mind as they conducted interviews and identified the findings and conclusions of this report. Key biases included: Bias Mitigation Strategy Recall bias: Stakeholders from different groups have very different experiences with ReSAKSS, some with a high level of interaction and some with less, with the ability to describe ReSAKSS also varying. For instance, informants with a high level of interaction did not necessarily know about ReSAKSS as a system, but could describe some The semi-structured KII protocol had embedded research questions that promoted the informant to provide detailed information, and in some cases, a research question was repeated using different wording and asking for specifics about activities, research and analytical tools, facilitation and capacity strengthening approaches. In this way, Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 59 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) or more activities. Some individuals with low levels of interaction could describe more aspects of ReSAKSS because of involvement with the CAADP in different venues. Further ReSAKSS, IFPRI, CAADP and other policy analysis focused partners (such as Michigan State University) were often confused with each other. the team was able to quickly identify if an informant was giving a pre-rehearsed response and asked for specific examples. The use of contribution analysis focuses on how ReSAKSS as a system made a contribution without a specific sole attribution to a single activity. Response bias: KIs may have given the team positive remarks about the project because they would like continue to receive training, consultancies, data, research and analysis from ReSAKSS, as a negative evaluation could mean the end of project opportunities. Maintain confidentiality and communicate SI’s independence from USAID, IFPRI, and SI. As with recall bias, questions designed to elicit specific examples help identify response bias. Selection bias in the form of contacts provided by the IFPRI, ReSAKSS and USAID can mean that the team only hears from people with positive experiences. This is often a problem for activities focused on research, and policy analysis, where a number of institutions, organizations, and individuals contribute to a knowledge product that influences a particular outcome. The standard evaluation approach is to expand beyond the contacts provided by the implementer, usually through an informal snowballing process or by identifying non-treatment contacts through other lists or networks. For this evaluation, given the limited time in-country and availability of informants and participants, the team used the internet survey as one way to combat this bias. As well, the KII transcripts and FGDs were examined carefully for a particularly positive or negative slant. As with the other forms of bias, however, triangulation of data and questions eliciting specific examples help mitigate the risk of this bias. Limitations A large limitation that impacted the KIIs and FGDs was the availability of relevant persons in each country given the commencement of the winter holiday season and the limited time for each visit. Another limitation is the country visits were made to 8 out of 54 African countries; while the Internet survey provided greater coverage, it is important to read the findings as a reflection of select experience rather than fully representative. Limitations with Evaluation Questions After considering the initial findings of the evaluation, USAID requested an additional aggregate analysis of informant comments regarding the underlying causes concerning issues with quality of analysis, accessibility of ReSAKSS information products and type of communications produced by ReSAKSS. We note that the evaluation questions were directed towards specific objectives concerning the utility of the work products (how they were used and what they covered), the extent of use (whether they were used for country, regional and/or national processes), and the relative inclusiveness of the analysis and consultative processes. After reviewing the primary analysis, USAID wonders whether this evaluation has collected and analyzed the appropriate kind and level of information in order to answer these questions. The evaluation team maintains that the transcripts were complete and coded properly, and the data provide a wide scope of experience within each country and across countries. The evaluation team used an analytical approach that focused on specific responses to each evaluation question. If issues came up during an interview that were outside the scope of the evaluation questions, these may have been noted but were not included in the cleaning and Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 60 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) coding phase in preparation for analysis by theme. Contribution analysis of qualitative data is an appropriate approach for evaluating complex programs with many different types of stakeholders, a wide range of activities, and large scale and scope for implementation. The evaluation team had several methods for checking the validity of the analysis, ranging from using case studies, country case studies, and conducting a document review. The evaluation team holds that given the scope and specificity of the evaluation questions, and the goal of analyzing the responses given by a large number of individuals across at least eight countries, there is no data or analysis problem with this scope. However, this approach warrants discussion, starting with the evaluation questions (as reviewed below), and more details concerning these specific objectives. The sub-questions included a yes or no response as to whether ReSAKSS’ produced information was useful and then to explain which ones, provide examples and how these contributed to CAADP processes. Evaluation Question 1: To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? This question probed how key informants understood ReSAKSS’ work as advancing CAADP processes and examined issues of effectiveness of approaches and tools used. The evaluation team created seven research sub￾questions to deconstruct this question so that key informants would have opportunities, if they had information to share, to provide more nuanced and specific responses. The sub-questions requested a “yes” or “no” response to understand whether ReSAKSS’ produced information that was useful, and then asked informants to elaborate how information was useful, providing examples if possible of how these contributed to CAADP processes. Evaluation Question 2: To what degree is ReSAKSS helping move agricultural policy systems forward? This question had three parts, asking informants to explain how ReSAKSS was strengthening institutions capacity to undertake policy planning, making and implementation, policy decision making, policy adjustments, and mutual accountability systems at the country, regional and continental level. The evaluation team added 13 research sub￾questions to elicit additional detail and examples from informants. Only four of these research sub-questions asked informants to explain “why” ReSAKSS was able to strengthen policy making and policy implementation of Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and AUC institutions. Evaluation Question 3: To what degree is ReSAKSS helping create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? The evaluation team added five research sub-questions to probe the scope and depth of ReSAKSS outreach to non-state actors in the CAADP processes it helped inform or facilitate with the key informants. The five research sub-questions did not probe further for “how” and “why.” The primary evaluation questions were not written in way to reveal any management issues RESAKSS may have, nor the quality control of their research and information products, and thus responses to these questions were generally not aimed at these issues, and the analysts did not code for this type of information. The purpose of the research sub-questions was to ensure that the informants were asked about the same dimensions, making it possible to use qualitative analysis software to organize a large number of transcripts from key informants. Codes were created and assigned to one or more strings of consecutive sentences (“quotes”) on a particular theme made by key informants, and the key informants were then organized into six stakeholder groups. Relationships Between ReSAKSS and Stakeholders Additionally, the kind, duration and depth of relationships key informants had with ReSAKSS Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 61 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) varied significantly from individual to individual, and from country to country. As well, each key informant had an individual experience with ReSAKSS that had little similarity among stakeholders in the same group, in the same country, and between countries. Even in countries where SAKSS nodes were fully operational, or where ReSAKSS nodes were located, key informants had limited congruent experience. This is also reflected in the aggregate analysis, within and among stakeholder groups when the countries are pooled together. The evaluation team was satisfied that it interviewed as representative a group as feasible given the time in country. The number of stakeholders were arrayed in six different groups, however, it was not possible to arrange to interview the exact same number of stakeholder group members in each country, given the varying extent and intensity of ReSAKSS activities over time in country, and the immediate availability of informants for interview. The latter issue was addressed somewhat through the internet-based survey, which was sent to additional individuals in each of the nine countries visited, to gain a more robust respondent base that had been asked the evaluation questions. The internet-based survey did not probe for the research sub-questions, but in some cases respondents were given lists of options to select from and were given a comment option in all but one question. Further, it was clear in each country that very few people could answer all of the evaluation questions, and research questions, or describe ReSAKSS in the same way. Therefore there is no consistency in the number of quotes coded for each research question. One informant may have been able to answer all seven research sub questions for Question 1, while another only three. This is why the evaluation team felt the aggregate analysis has more explanatory power than the individual stakeholder groups. Very few informants could describe how ReSAKSS supported CAADP processes, particularly about the continental level. The detail provided by informants appeared to depend upon the informant’s level and frequency of contact with ReSAKSS, but even those with high levels of contact confused government efforts, the CAADP program, activities of other donor-funded projects, and IFPRI with ReSAKSS. This confounding effect was consistently noted by the evaluation team during the interviews and focus groups, where the functions of ReSAKSS were not well known, and the charge by NEPAD as to how ReSAKSS should work, the role it plays with the CG Centers in which it is housed, and its responsibilities to serve specific national government institutions were not well understood. Data Management, Security and Storage Data Management Data gathering Social Impact gathered all data collected through desk review research, the internet-based survey, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs). Bibliometric research routinely collected by IFPRI ReSAKSS staff was generated and provided to the team in December, 2014. All secondary data sources that make up the desk review materials and the bibliometric files were saved on a “Dropbox” folder. This was the easiest way to manage the documents given different file naming conventions between IFPRI and Social Impact; this also made it easy to load documents when needed. The internet-based survey data were collected through the web-based survey platform, SurveyMonkey that electronically captured all data entered by respondents. Following entry of the internet-based survey responses, the evaluation team exported these data into an Excel file for analysis. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 62 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Data Entry All original data collected through KIIs and FGDs was captured through a note-taking process led by the assisting facilitator at each interview or discussion. To the extent possible, notes were taken directly within Word documents to encourage an efficient use of team member’s time. However, in instances when notes should not be taken electronically, they were written up manually during the meeting and typed up afterward into a Word document to ensure consistency across the transcripts for coding and uploading into Atlas.ti. Data Management and Storage SI uses a standard protocol for organization of data and analysis files to ensure consistency, efficiency, and transparency. This standardized approach – which includes a template and detailed guidelines for file organization of all quantitative and qualitative data collection materials and datasets – allows the SI evaluation team to keep a dated record of all modifications made regarding instruments, data management, and analysis files. As such, the team’s data management began at the start of the evaluation when the data file organization system was created. The team members developed a common understanding of where all project-related data files are housed, along with conventions for file-naming and version control. Further, the most up to date versions of files were stored within this system rather than on individual hard￾drives (with exceptions made during travel without connectivity). The purpose of this arrangement encouraged efficient data storage and work-flows, and maintained a clear system of file organization throughout the project life cycle, given the large volume of interview transcripts and other data collected for the evaluation. This allowed the team to effectively support the evaluation without having to navigate different systems. Data Security All data collected by the evaluation team is housed on Social Impact’s secure, sharepoint site, which is managed by Corsica Technologies, a leading managed services provider in information technology. Only those team members with permission and an SI account may access the team’s project site in order to view or change any of the documents. With respect to the original data within the web-based survey platform (surveymonkey), this information secure was while being collected was removed from the online location at the end of the evaluation. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 63 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS QUALITATIVE CODEBOOK Best practice: First refer to the code that is explicitly linked to the question and then, if it is not clear, look for other coding options within the codebook to code. 1.0 Good Quote: Use this code to indicate a quote that may be useful for the report as it is well articulated and representative of themes you are noticing in the data. To the extent possible, please co-code this with any other code that applies. 2.0 *Level of Interaction with ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP/IFPRI (A, B, C, D): Use this parent code only when it is unclear what the general interaction as key stakeholder with ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP is. Otherwise, please use one of the codes below to characterize their involvement. 3.0 INSTRUCTION: Only use this code once within the top A, B, C, D sections where the respondent’s level of interaction is best described. 3.1 *High: Daily or every other day 3.2 *Medium: Weekly or bi-weekly 3.3 *Low: A few times a year 3.4 *None: Not at all 4.0 *Participation in ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP/IFPRI activities (C, D): Use this parent code only when it is unclear if someone has or hasn’t participated in ReSAKSS activities. Otherwise, please use one of the codes below to determine whether they have or have not been involved. INSTRUCTION: Only code once within the top A, B, C, D sections where the respondent’s participation or non￾participation is best described. 4.1 *Has participated in ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP/IFPRI activities: Mention of participation in a ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP training, workshop, meeting, research or analysis. 4.2 *Hasn’t participated in ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP/IFPRI activities: Mention of not participating in any ReSAKSS/SAKSS/CAADP trainings, workshops, meetings, research or analysis. 5.0 **Recommendations: Any recommendations provided by respondents to improve ReSAKSS, SAKSS, IFPRI or CAADP or their work. When in doubt, code it. To the extent possible, please use the sub-codes below as relevant. INSTRUCTION: When you finish each transcript, do a word search for the following words in order to catch any missed points of recommendation: “useful, should, shouldn’t, could, couldn’t, must, can, would, need, needs, does, doesn’t, can’t, won’t, recommend” and either code as 4.0 Recommendation or code with one of the sub-codes below. 5.1 **Gaps that should be filled to support CAADP processes (Q1g) Most of these examples will come up under Question 1.g but the word “gap” may come up elsewhere. It will be unclear who should fill this gap but it is mentioned. INSTRUCTION: Do a word search for “gap” at the end of the transcript. Be sure to capture whether or not ReSAKSS should fill that gap too. DO NOT co-code with 4.0 Recommendations. 5.1.1 *ReSAKSS should fill this gap: Be sure to co-code this code (4.1.1) with Gaps that should be filled (4.1) when ReSAKSS is seen as the best way to fill this gap 5.1.2 *ReSAKSS should not fill this gap: Be sure to co-code this code (4.1.2) with Gaps that should be filled (4.1) when ReSAKSS is not seen as the best way to fill this gap 5.2 *Mechanism through with to encourage private sector and civil society engagement (Q3d) DO NOT co-code this code or any of the sub-codes with the parent code 4.0 Recommendations. 5.2.1 *ReSAKSS: Co-code 4.2 (Mechanism) with 4.2.1 when ReSAKSS is seen as the best mechanism to encourage private sector and civil society engagement 5.2.2 *SAKSS: Co-code 4.2 (Mechanism) with 4.2.2 when SAKSS is seen as the best mechanism to encourage private sector and civil society engagement Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 64 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 5.2.3 *Country Government: Includes the Ministry of Agriculture, etc. Co-code 4.2 (Mechanism) with 4.2.3 when country govt is seen as the best mechanism to encourage private sector and civil society engagement 5.2.4 *I don’t know: Co-code 4.2 (Mechanism) with 4.2.4 when the participant doesn’t know the best mechanism to encourage private sector and civil society engagement. NOTE: If the person says, “I cannot comment” use that code instead for this specific question. 5.2.5 *Other: Use this option when none of the above options are listed or when they say “it is not ReSAKSS responsibility” or it “shouldn’t be ReSAKSS” and it is unclear from the respondent what is the best mechanism is. 5.3 *Needed actions for engagement of non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues (Q3e) Use this code for any suggestions for what is to be done to engage the private sector or civil society. DO NOT co-code with 4.0 Recommendations. 6.0 Useful (Q1, Q1.1, Q2.2): Apply when a ReSAKSS activity, approach, tool, information or analysis is identified as useful in any way. 6.1 Information useful (Q1a, Q1.1b): Mention of ReSAKSS country, regional or continental analysis; datasets, topical papers, ATORs, AGRODEP models, etc. being useful 6.1.1 *Information useful to CAADP processes (Q1.a): Always co-code with 5.1 6.1.2 *Information useful to define agricultural investment plans and priorities (Q1.1b): Always co-code with 5.1 6.2 Approaches useful (Q1.1a): Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, Country Needs Assessment (CAN), NAIP, Joint Sector Review (JSR), Training, other being useful to CAADP processes. (See more examples of approaches in the Glossary) 6.3 Analytical tools useful (Q1.1c, Q1.1d): Mention of ReSAKSS models, AGRODEP, reports, Ag-invest portal, etc. being somewhat useful. (See more examples of analytical in the Glossary) 6.4 Information, analysis and/or tools useful for policy decision making and policy change (Q2.2a) 7.0 Somewhat Useful (Q1, Q1.1, Q2.2): Apply when a ReSAKSS activity, approach, tool, information or analysis is identified as somewhat useful in any way (when the question/response doesn’t lend itself to something more specific below). 7.1 Information somewhat useful (Q1a, Q1.1b): Mention of ReSAKSS country, regional or continental analysis; datasets, topical papers, ATORs, AGRODEP models, etc. being somewhat useful 7.1.1 *Information somewhat useful to CAADP processes (Q1.a): Always co-code with 6.1 7.1.2 *Information somewhat useful to define agricultural investment plans and priorities (Q1.1b): Always co-code with 6.1 7.2 Approaches somewhat useful (Q1.1a): Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, Country Needs Assessment (CAN), NAIP, Joint Sector Review (JSR), training, other being somewhat useful to CAADP processes. (See more examples of approaches in the Glossary) 7.3 Analytical tools somewhat useful (Q1.1c, Q1.1d): Mention of ReSAKSS models, AGRODEP, reports, Ag-invest portal, etc. being somewhat useful. (See more examples of analytical in the Glossary) 7.4 Information, analysis and/or tools somewhat useful for policy decision making and policy change (Q2.2a) 8.0 Not useful (Q1, Q1.1, Q2.2): Apply when a ReSAKSS activity, approach, tool, information or analysis is identified as not useful in any way. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 65 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 8.1 Information not useful (Q1a, Q1f): Mention of ReSAKSS country, regional or continental analysis; datasets, topical papers, ATORs, AGRODEP models, etc. NOT being useful for defining country agricultural investment plans 8.1.1 *Information not useful to CAADP processes (Q1.a) Co-code with 6.1 whenever possible 8.1.2 *Information not useful to define agricultural investment plans and priorities (Q1.1b) Co-code with 6.1 whenever possible 8.2 Approaches not useful (Q1.1a, Q1.1b): Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, Country Needs Assessment (CAN), NAIP, Joint Sector Review (JSR), Trainings, other NOT being useful to CAADP processes. (See other examples of approaches in Glossary) 8.3 Analytical tools not useful (Q1.1c, Q1.1d): Mention of ReSAKSS models, AGRODEP, reports, Ag-invest portal, etc. (See other examples of analytical tools in Glossary) 8.4 Information, analysis and/or tools not useful for policy decision making and policy change (Q2.2a, Q2.2b) 9.0 Supportive (Q1, Q2.3): Use when a ReSAKSS/SAKSS/IFPRI activity, approach, tool, information or analysis is identified as supportive in any way. 9.1 Encourages CAADP partner participation (Q1b) 9.2 Sensitive to partner needs (Q1c) 9.3 Kind of information that supports CAADP processes (Q1d): Type of information that is provided: e.g. analysis, studies, briefs, datasets. This includes references to quality, trust, etc. 9.4 Level of information that supports CAADP processes (Q1a, Q1e): Level of complexity/simplicity/digestibility. 9.5 Support to the development and implementation of mutual accountability processes (Q2.3a): Mention of ReSAKSS providing support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (e.g. joint sector reviews) 9.6 Mutual accountability support inclusive of analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans (Q2.3b) 9.7 Country-level mutual accountability analysis supportive of policy change (Q2.3c) 9.8 Mutual accountability support inclusive of analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans (Q2.3d) 9.9 Regional-level mutual accountability analysis supportive of policy change (Q2.3e) 10.0 Somewhat supportive (Q1, Q2.3): Use when a ReSAKSS activity, approach, tool, information or analysis is identified as somewhat supportive in any way. 10.1 Somewhat encourages CAADP partner participation (Q1b) 10.2 Somewhat sensitive to partner needs (Q1c) 10.3 Kind of information that somewhat supports CAADP processes (Q1d): Type of information that is provided: e.g. analysis, studies, briefs, datasets. This includes references to quality, trust, etc. 10.4 Level of information that somewhat supports CAADP processes (Q1a, Q1e): Level of complexity/simplicity/digestibility. 10.5 Somewhat supportive to the development and implementation of mutual accountability processes (Q2.3a): Mention of ReSAKSS providing some support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (e.g. joint sector reviews) 10.6 Mutual accountability support is somewhat inclusive of analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans (Q2.3b) 10.7 Country-level mutual accountability analysis supportive of policy change (Q2.3c) Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 66 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 10.8 Mutual accountability support inclusive of analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans (Q2.3d) 10.9 Regional-level mutual accountability analysis supportive of policy change (Q2.3e) 11.0 Unsupportive (Q1, Q2.3): Use if a ReSAKSS activity, approach, tool, information or analysis was identified as being broadly unsupportive in any way. 11.1 Doesn’t encourage CAADP partner participation (Q1b): Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, CNA, NAIP, JSR, other not being useful to CAADP processes 11.2 Insensitive to partner needs (Q1c): Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, CNA, NAIP, JSR, other not being useful to CAADP processes 11.3 Kind of information that does not support CAADP processes (Q1d): Type of information that is provided: e.g. analysis, studies, briefs, datasets. This includes references to quality, trust, etc. 11.4 Level of information that does not support CAADP processes (Q1a, Q1e): Level of complexity/simplicity/digestibility. 11.5 Lack of support to the development and implementation of mutual accountability processes (Q2.3a): Mention of ReSAKSS not providing necessary support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (e.g. joint sector reviews) 11.6 Mutual accountability support hasn’t included analysis of commitments to and or progress toward country plans (Q2.3b) 11.7 Country-level analysis not supportive of policy change (Q2.3c) 11.8 Mutual accountability support hasn’t included analysis of commitments to and nor progress toward regional plans (Q2.3d) 11.9 Regional-level analysis unsupportive of policy change (Q2.3e) 12.0 Gender-sensitive Analysis (Q1.2): 12.1 Approaches do encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis (Q1.2a): Use this code when approaches encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.2 Approaches somewhat encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis (Q1.2a): Use this code when approaches somewhat encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.3 Approaches do not encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis (Q1.2a): Use this code when approaches do not encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.4 Tools are gender sensitive (Q1.2b): Use this code when ReSAKSS tools encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.5 Tools are somewhat gender sensitive (Q1.2b): Use this code when tools somewhat encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.6 Tools are not gender sensitive (Q1.2b): Use this code when ReSAKSS tools do not encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs 12.7 Gender-sensitive approaches and/or tools inform policy, programs, or strategies (Q1.2c): Use this code when someone discusses how approaches and/or tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies 12.8 Gender-sensitive approaches and/or tools somewhat inform policy, programs, or strategies (Q1.2c): Use this code when someone discusses how approaches and/or tools somewhat informed policy, programs and/or strategies Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 67 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 12.9 Gender-sensitive approaches and/or tools have not informed policy, programs, or strategies (Q1.2c): Use this code when someone discusses how ReSAKSS approaches and/or tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies 13.0 Institutions Strengthened for Agricultural Policy Making and Policy Implementation by ReSAKSS (Q2.1): 13.1 Country-level Policy Making Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1a) 13.2 Country-level Policy Implementation Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1b) 13.3 RECS Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Making (Q2.1c) 13.4 RECS Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Implementation (Q2.1d) 13.5 AUC institutions Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Making (Q2.1e) 13.6 AUC institutions Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Implementation (Q2.1f) 14.0 Institutions Somewhat Strengthened for Agricultural Policy Making and Policy Implementation by ReSAKSS (Q2.1): 14.1 Country-level Policy Making Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1a) 14.2 Country-level Policy Implementation Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1b) 14.3 RECS Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Making (Q2.1c) 14.4 RECS Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Implementation (Q2.1d) 14.5 AUC Institutions Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Making (Q2.1e) 14.6 AUC Institutions Somewhat Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy 14.7 Implementation (Q2.1f) 15.0 Institutions Not Strengthened for Agricultural Policy Making and Policy Implementation by ReSAKSS (Q2.1) 15.1 Country-level Policy Making Not Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1a) 15.2 Country-level Policy Implementation Not Strengthened by ReSAKSS (Q2.1b) 15.3 RECS Not Strengthened to Enable Policy Making by ReSAKSS (Q2.1c) 15.4 RECS Not Strengthened to Enable Policy Implementation by ReSAKSS (Q2.1d) 15.5 AUC institutions Not Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Making (Q2.1e) 15.6 AUC institutions Not Strengthened by ReSAKSS to Enable Policy Implementation (Q2.1f) 16.0 More inclusive policy dialogue with the private sector and civil society by ReSAKSS (Q3) 16.1 Encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level (Q3a) 16.2 Encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level (Q3b) 16.3 Encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level (Q3c) 17.0 Somewhat more inclusive policy dialogue with the private sector and civil society by ReSAKSS (Q3) 17.1 Some encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level (Q3a) 17.2 Some encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level (Q3b) 17.3 Some encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level (Q3c) 18.0 Lack of inclusive policy dialogue with the private sector and civil society by ReSAKSS (Q3) Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 68 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 18.1 Lack of encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level (Q3a) 18.2 Lack of encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level (Q3b) 18.3 Lack of encouragement of private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level (Q3c) 19.0 *ReSAKSS: INSTRUCTION: Use this code (and sub-codes) ONLY when something does not apply to one of the above codes. The parent code “ReSAKSS” can be used for anything about ReSAKSS as a process or an organization. To the extent possible, co-code the parent code 14.0 ReSAKSS with any of the relevant sub-codes below. The codes below do not need to be co-coded with 14.0 ReSAKSS. It is fine to use them alone and/or co-code them with other relevant codes within the codebook. 19.1 ReSAKSS Activity 19.2 ReSAKSS Approach 19.3 ReSAKSS Tool 19.4 ReSAKSS Information 19.5 ReSAKSS Analysis 19.6 ReSASS Staff 20.0 Other: INSTRUCTION: Use this code (and sub-codes) ONLY when something does not apply to one of the above codes. The parent code “Other” should be used for anything about other processes or organizations (beyond ReSAKSS, SAKSS, CAADP, and IFPRI) that would be good for the team to know about. To the extent possible, co-code the parent code 15.0 Other with the relevant sub-code below to clarify what “other” is referring to exactly. You may also use any of the above codes to co￾code as needed (e.g. Other Tool - Useful). Note, any of the below sub-codes do not need to be co￾coded with the parent code 15.0 Other. 20.1 Other Activity 20.2 Other Approach 20.3 Other Tool 20.4 Other Information 20.5 Other Analysis 20.6 Other Staff 21.0 I cannot comment (or blank space): Please void using the parent code (unless it is used within a comment somewhere) and use the relevant sub code whenever someone cannot comment in response to a specific question. 21.1 Q1a I cannot comment: Note: W there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.2 Q1b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.3 Q1c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.4 Q1d I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.5 Q1e I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.6 Q1f I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.7 Q1g I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.8 Q1.1a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.9 Q1.1b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.10 Q1.1c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.11 Q1.1d I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.12 Q1.2a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.13 Q1.2b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.14 Q1.2c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.15 Q2.1a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 69 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 21.16 Q2.1b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.17 Q2.1c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.18 Q2.1d I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.19 Q2.1e I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.20 Q2.1f I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.21 Q2.2a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.22 Q2.2b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.23 Q2.3a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.24 Q2.3b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.25 Q2.3c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.26 Q2.3d I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.27 Q2.3e I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.28 Q3a I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.29 Q3b I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.30 Q3c I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.31 Q3d I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 21.32 Q3e I cannot comment: Note: When there is no text to code, code the question itself. 22.0 Not applicable: Avoid using the parent code (unless it is used within a comment somewhere) and use the relevant sub code only when someone says that a specific question does not apply to their work. 22.1 Q1a Not applicable 22.2 Q1b Not applicable 22.3 Q1c Not applicable 22.4 Q1d Not applicable 22.5 Q1e Not applicable 22.6 Q1f Not applicable 22.7 Q1g Not applicable 22.8 Q1.1a Not applicable 22.9 Q1.1b Not applicable 22.10 Q1.1c Not applicable 22.11 Q1.1d Not applicable 22.12 Q1.2a Not applicable 22.13 Q1.2b Not applicable 22.14 Q1.2c Not applicable 22.15 Q2.1a Not applicable 22.16 Q2.1b Not applicable 22.17 Q2.1c Not applicable 22.18 Q2.1d Not applicable 22.19 Q2.1e Not applicable 22.20 Q2.1f Not applicable 22.21 Q2.2a Not applicable 22.22 Q2.2b Not applicable 22.23 Q2.3a Not applicable 22.24 Q2.3b Not applicable 22.25 Q2.3c Not applicable 22.26 Q2.3d Not applicable 22.27 Q2.3e Not applicable 22.28 Q3a Not applicable 22.29 Q3b Not applicable Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 70 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 22.30 Q3c Not applicable 22.31 Q3d Not applicable 22.32 Q3e Not applicable 23.0 Snowball: Use this code when someone gives an example of someone our team should speak to for our interviews. Example: “You should really make sure you speak with John Munda before you leave Mozambique.” *One asterisk has been added to codes where there is a specific instruction that the coder should note. **Two asterisks have been added to indicate places where the coder should go back through the transcript at the end to search for key words and code them accordingly. (See codes 4.0 and 4.1) How to do a word search and apply a code (auto coding) in Atlas.ti - In Atlas.ti go to Codes/Coding/Auto Coding o Select the code you want to use o “Confirm always” should be selected o Select PD (primary document) o Select “sentence” option o You can choose to code, skip, or stop (if you want to change the settings) GLOSSARY AGRA Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa AGRODEP African Growth and Development Policy Modeling Consortium (IFPRI-funded modelers) APN Agricultural Policy Note ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa ATA Agriculture Transformation Agency (technical arm of MoA Ethiopia) ATOR Annual Trends and Outlook Report AUC African Union Commission CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CEM Computable General Equilibrium Model CILSS Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (Technical arm of ECOWAS) COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (REC – East and Southern Africa) CPs Cooperative Partners CSOs Civil Society Organizations DfID Department for International Development DPs Development Partners DPAF Donor Performance Assessments (Rwanda) EABC East Africa Business Council ECA East and Central African node of the ReSAKSS Africa-wide initiative ECOWAS Economic Community for West African States (REC – West Africa) EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (Rwanda) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FARA Forum for Agriculture Research in Africa GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Program GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Aid Agency) GTP Growth and Transformation Plan IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IP Implementing Partner JBR Joint Budget Review JSR Joint Sector Review M&E Monitoring and Evaluation METASIP (Ghana’s main agricultural policy; equivalent of CAADP) Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 71 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) MoA Ministry of Agriculture MDG Millennium Development Goals MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan NARS National Agricultural Research Systems NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development PIF Policy and Investment Framework PNIA (Senegal’s main agricultural policy; equivalent of CAADP) PPD Policy and Planning Department PRACAS Accelerated Programme for Agriculture in Senegal PSTA Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation (Rwanda) REC Regional Economic Community RED&FS Rural Economic Development and Food Security ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SADC Southern African Development Community (REC – Southern Africa) SAKSS Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SIDA Swedish International Development Agency USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank APPROACHES  Use of IT platforms to facilitate peer review, learning, dialogue and reporting benchmarks  Use of comprehensive M&E methodology and frameworks with standardized protocol for data collection, measurement, reporting, and monitoring all for country comparisons  Support policy dialogue on trans-border agricultural sector issues and strategic analysis on emerging issues through Regional Annual Trends and Outlook Reports (ATORs)  Contracting local universities, policy institutes and other knowledge centers to provide reviewed secondary data for ATORs and analysis of indicators  A knowledge base for analysis to strengthens agricultural policy making  SAKSS nodes provide learning through experience and capacity building  CAADP implementation should be guided through linked in-country existing knowledge producing centers  Regional economic communities are best platforms to coordinate activities of in-country SAKSS or linked knowledge centers  CGIAR centers are the best hosts for the ReSAKSS regional nodes to encourage a dialogue and review platform  IFPRI and CG Centers ensure ReSAKSS activities are relevant to CAADP  High quality modeling tools can be adapted to country needs  A shared modeling infrastructure allows for comparability  Facilitate African-led analysis through stocktaking exercises of data sources, available data in country, and lists of experts  Technical-criteria based membership consortiums build knowledge among a cadre of experts within and across countries  Capacity building focused on developing highly  Collaboration among existing networks, sub-regional organizations  Standardized and facilitated CAADP processes, such as stocktaking, round table discussions, and joint sector reviews allow for firmer commitment to CAADP agenda by country government leadership and among and between regional economic communities  Steering Committees provide sufficient governance of ReSAKSS TOOLS  ReSAKSS websites (including AGRODEP and AgInvest)  M&E methodology and framework with standardized core indicators Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 72 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  ATORs at the continental, regional and country levels  Quantitative, qualitative and spatial data analysis  GIS methods and software  Technical assistance to establish country knowledge systems (SAKSS)  Technical reports with specific findings  Policy briefs  Regional nodes  IFPRI experts  Country based data inventories  Country based data expert groups  AGRODEP data portal  Training on programming languages  Training on data analysis software  Specialized research and analysis at the continental level, regional, or country level MODELS (from AGRODEP website)  Single-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE model)  Multi-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model  Single-Market Partial Equilibrium Model  Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model  Spatial Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model  Simulation Model  Epidemiological Model  Climate Change/Energy Model DATA SETS (from AGRODEP website)  Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators  Bilateral Trade Statistics  Firms  Household Survey  Model Output  National Agricultural Statistics  Social Accounting Matrix  Socio-Economic Development Indicators  Tariffs FAMILIES: Families include ways we want to be able to sort or disaggregate our codes by respondents.  Sex: Male  Sex: Female  Country: Rwanda  Country: Ghana  Country: Nigeria  Country: Senegal  Country: Ethiopia  Country: Kenya  Country: Malawi  Country: Mozambique  Country: South Africa  Country: United States of America Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 73 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  Level of interaction with ReSAKSS: High  Level of interaction with ReSAKSS: Medium  Level of interaction with ReSAKSS: Low  Level of interaction with ReSAKSS: None  Participation in ReSAKSS Activities: Yes  Participation in ReSAKSS Activities: No  Stakeholder Type: USG and Other Donors  Stakeholder Type: USAID Regional Office  Stakeholder Type: USAID Country Office  Stakeholder Type: USAID Implementing Partners  Stakeholder Type: Private Sector and Civil Society  Stakeholder Type: Private Sector  Stakeholder Type: Civil Society  Stakeholder Type: Host Country Government  Stakeholder Type: Ministry of Agriculture  Stakeholder Type: University and Think Tank  Stakeholder Type: CG Centers  Stakeholder Type: IFPRI  Stakeholder Type: AUC, NEPAD, and Continental Level  Stakeholder Type: Other Donors  Stakeholder Type: ReSAKSS – SAKSS  Meeting Type: KII  Meeting Type: FGD Coding Guidance Document Remember – the below codes will probably fit each of the sections. However, you will need to review each response carefully to ensure that you apply the most accurate code possible since other code options may apply. Country Government Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4 B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process? 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4 C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4 3.1 or 3.2 D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 74 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 3.1 or 3.2 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? a. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? Parent code 5.1 with co-code 5.1.1 Parent code 6.1 with co-code 6.1.1 Parent code 7.1 with co-code 7.1.1 b. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? 8.1, 9.1 OR 10.1 c. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? 8.2, 9.2 OR 10.2 d. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? 8.3, 9.3 OR 10.3 e. What level of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? 8.4, 9.4 OR 10.4 f. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? 7.1 with 7.1.1 co-code 6.1 with 6.1.1 co-code 5.1 with 5.1.1 co-code g. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 4.1 with 4.1.1 or 4.1.2 co-codes as applicable 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? a. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? 5.2, 6.2 OR 7.2 b. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? 7.2, 6.2 OR 5.2 c. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? 5.3, 6.3 OR 7.3 Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 75 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) d. Which specific tools have not been useful? 7.3, 6.3 OR 5.3 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? a. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? 11.1, 11.2 OR 11.3 b. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? 11.4, 11.5 OR 11.6 c. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 11.7, 11.8 OR 11.9 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? Country Government Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? a. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? 12.1, 13.1 OR 14.1 b. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? 12.2, 13.2 OR 14.2 c. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 12.3, 13.3 OR 14.3 d. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 12.4, 13.4 OR 14.4 e. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 12.5, 13.5 OR 14.5 Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 76 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) f. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 12.6, 13.6 OR 14.6 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? a. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 5.4, 6.4 OR 7.4 b. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision￾making and policy change? 7.4, 6.4 OR 5.4 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? a. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? 8.5, 9.5 OR 10.5 b. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? 8.6, 9.6 OR 10.6 c. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? 8.7, 9.7 OR 10.7 d. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? 8.8, 9.8 OR 10.8 e. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 8.9, 9.9 OR 10.9 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? Country Government Stakeholders a. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? 15.1, 16.1 OR 17.1 b. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 77 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? 15.2, 16.2 OR 17.2 c. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? 15.3, 16.3 OR 17.3 d. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? Parent code 4.2 with possible co-code of 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.2.5 e. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? 4.3 Internet Survey Overview A survey questionnaire was designed and delivered through the internet-based platform SurveyMonkey to augment data collected through a Washington-based desk review and KIIs and FGDs in eight country visits. The intention was to expand feedback from stakeholder groups, as well as broaden geographic coverage across SSA. The design intentionally limited survey completion time to 10-15 minutes to encourage maximum participation. Given the challenge of collecting responses on a range of topics within a limited timeframe, SI opted for a combination of numerous close-ended questions with optional open-ended comment fields, which allowed respondents with additional time and comments to expand their responses with more in-depth narrative responses. BFS reviewed and provided feedback on the draft survey instrument, which was integrated into the final instrument. The survey was sent to approximately 650 participants, whom were suggested by USAID, IFPRI, other key informants, and from the invitation lists for the past two ReSAKSS annual conferences. Of the approximately 650 survey invitations, 81 were additional USAID referrals, which contained some duplicates from the 596 invitations on the master list. Therefore, the survey was initially sent to a maximum of 677 individuals, however SI approximates closer to 650 unique invitations based on duplicates. In addition to this initial list of people invited to take the survey, USAID/BFS and SSA Missions forwarded the survey link to additional appropriate individuals in order to expand the reach of the survey. The survey was opened on January 15th and participants were given one week to complete it. During this time period, two reminder email messages were sent to encourage individuals to complete the survey. The closing date was then extended by two additional days and was, ultimately, closed on January 23rd. Based on Social Impact’s experience, the questionnaire was designed to maximize response rate by limiting time period for completion of the survey of one week. The final response rate was 151 individuals with 110 males, 40 females, and 1 non-response. Respondents included individuals from 30 African countries (including Tunisia in North Africa) Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 78 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and 8 non-African countries. Highest response rates, in order, were from universities and think tanks, host country governments, and multilateral/bilateral donors. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 79 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ReSAKSS Evaluation KII Stakeholder Protocols Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No AUC, NEPAD and Other Continental Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? (training, workshop, meeting, research or analysis) D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? h. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? i. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? j. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? k. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? l. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? m. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? n. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? e. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 80 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) f. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? g. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? h. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? d. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? e. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? f. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? AUC, NEPAD and Other Continental Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? g. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? h. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? i. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? j. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? k. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? l. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? c. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? d. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 81 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) f. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? g. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? h. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? i. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? j. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? AUC, NEPAD and Other Continental Stakeholders f. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? g. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? h. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? i. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? j. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 82 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) CG Center Stakeholders Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No CG Center Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? o. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? p. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? q. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? r. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? s. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? t. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? u. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? i. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? j. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? k. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? l. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 83 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) entrepreneurs? g. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? h. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? i. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? CG Center Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? m. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? n. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? o. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? p. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? q. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? r. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? e. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? f. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? k. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? l. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? m. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? n. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 84 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) o. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? CG Center Stakeholders k. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? l. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? m. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? n. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? o. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 85 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Country Government Stakeholders Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No Country Government Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? v. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? w. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? x. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? y. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? z. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? aa. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? bb. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? m. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? n. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? o. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? p. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 86 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? j. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? k. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? l. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? Country Government Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? s. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? t. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? u. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? v. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? w. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? x. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? g. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? h. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? p. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? q. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? r. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? s. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 87 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) regional plans? How? t. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? Country Government Stakeholders p. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? q. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? r. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? s. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? t. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 88 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? cc. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? dd. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? ee. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? ff. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? gg. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? hh. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? ii. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? q. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? r. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? s. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 89 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) t. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? m. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? n. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? o. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? y. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? z. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? aa. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? bb. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? cc. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? dd. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? i. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? j. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? u. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? v. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? w. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 90 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) x. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? y. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders u. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? v. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? w. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? x. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? y. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? jj. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? kk. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? ll. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? mm. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? nn. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? oo. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 91 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) pp. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? u. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? v. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? w. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? x. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? p. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? q. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? r. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? ee. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? ff. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? gg. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? hh. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? ii. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? jj. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? k. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? l. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 92 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? z. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? aa. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? bb. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? cc. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? dd. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? Private Sector and Civil Society Stakeholders z. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? aa. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? bb. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? cc. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? dd. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? USG Personnel and Other Donor Staff Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No USG Personnel and Other Donor Staff A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 93 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? qq. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? rr. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? ss. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? tt. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? uu. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? vv. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? ww.Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? y. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining z. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? aa. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? bb. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? s. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? t. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? u. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? USG Personnel and Other Donor Staff 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? kk. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 94 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ll. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? mm. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? nn. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? oo. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? pp. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? m. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? n. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision-making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? ee. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability processes? ff. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? gg. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? hh. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? ii. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? USG Personnel and Other Donors ee. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? ff. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? gg. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? hh. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 95 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) engagement with CAADP? ii. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 96 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) University/Think Tank Stakeholders Position: Institution: Male or Female: Country: Date of interview: Name of Interviewer: Name of note taker: Interviewee reviewed notes: Yes or No University/Think Tank Stakeholders A.What level of interaction do you have with ReSAKSS? B. How long have you been part of activities associated with the CAADP process?? C. Can you please list the activities that you have participated in? D. During these CAADP-related activities, did you hear about ReSAKSS? Y/N 1. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND AND LEVEL OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT CAADP PROCESSES? xx. Has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful to CAADP processes? Y/N If so, which ones? yy. Has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation? Y/N, How? zz. Is ReSAKSS sensitive to partner needs? Y/N, How? aaa. What kind of information has been most supportive of CAADP processes? bbb. What level of information has been least supportive of CAADP processes? ccc. Is there information that ReSAKSS produces that is not useful in supporting CAADP processes? (Y/N) What are these? ddd. Are there information gaps that ReSAKSS should fill? (Y or N) What are these? 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? cc. In your experience, what types of ReSAKSS facilitated approaches have been useful for defining country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment plans? dd. Which types of ReSAKSS generated information, if any, have not been useful? ee. Which specific analytical tools supported through ReSAKSS are most useful in establish country strategies, round table processes and agricultural investment priorities? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 97 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ff. Which specific tools have not been useful? 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? v. Do the approaches you talked about earlier encourage the use of gender sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? How? Example? w. Are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Y/N? Example? x. How, if at all, have these gender-sensitive approaches and tools informed policy, programs and/or strategies? 2. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING TO MOVE AGRICULTURAL POLICY SYSTEMS FORWARD? University/Think Tank Stakeholders 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? qq. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making at the country level? If so, how? rr. Has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy implementation at the country level? If so, how? ss. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy making? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? tt. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of RECS to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? uu. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policymaking? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? vv. Has ReSAKSS helped with the strengthening of AUC institutions to enable policy implementation? (Y or N) If yes, how? If no, why? 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? o. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are useful for policy decision-making and policy change? p. Which ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools are not useful for policy decision￾making and policy change? 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supports policy change? jj. How has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 98 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) mutual accountability processes? kk. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward country plans? How? ll. Has this country level analysis supported policy change? How? mm. Has this mutual accountability support included analysis of commitments to and progress toward regional plans? How? nn. Has this regional level analysis supported policy change? How? 3. TO WHAT DEGREE IS RESAKSS HELPING CREATE MORE INCLUSIVE POLICY DIALOGUES WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY? University/Think Tank Stakeholders jj. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country level? kk. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the regional level? ll. What tactics have you seen ReSAKSS use to encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the continental level? mm. Is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? nn. What still needs to be done to engage non-state actors like the private sector and civil society for more inclusive policy dialogues? Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 99 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) EXAMPLE ReSAKSS Focus Group Discussion Guide I. INTRODUCTION (10 minutes) Evaluation team introduction  Who we are  Why we are here  What the evaluation is about  Why we want to speak with you  Why you were selected  Time frame: 90 minutes total, we will be respectful of your time. About 20 minutes introduction, 55 minutes for discussion, and 15 minutes close out. A. Expectations  Interested in your experience  Non-attribution/anonymity  Voluntary nature of interaction and consent  Note taking of session  Compensation and administration-for people who have travelled to attend this discussion B. Ground rules  Everyone is encouraged to share their ideas, and the interaction is strengthened if everyone participates.  There are no wrong answers, and everyone’s perspective is equally valued.  The ideas shared during the interaction should not be shared outside the focus group discussion with non-participants in order to respect participants’ privacy.  Disagreements about ideas can be valuable and productive, but personal attacks will not be tolerated.  Time keeping-we want to hear your ideas and need to keep to a schedule. C. How we will process and use the group’s comments  How we will review and analysis the FGD transcript  How the information will be used in the evaluation analysis. II. FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTIONS (10 minutes)  Please share your name, institution, and how did you hear about ReSAKSS. (Try for a minute each) III. DISCUSSION POINTS (55 minutes) 1. Have you seen any reports, tools and data that ReSAKSS produces? Are these useful to you? How? (20 minutes) 2. What is the best way to strengthen agricultural policy planning in your country? Should ReSAKSS be interfacing with universities and research institutions? How? (20 minutes) 3. What is the best way for researchers, the private sector and civil society to engage with government in agricultural policy planning and implementation? (15 minutes) IV. THANK YOU AND CLOSE OUT (15 minutes)  Sign out sheet  Transportation compensation Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 100 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) RESAKSS EVALAUTION ONE-PAGER REGIONAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS AND KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT SYSTEM (RESAKSS) EVALUATION NOVEMBER 2014 Background Established in 2006 under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) promotes the use of evidence and outcome-based policy planning and implementation as part of the CAADP agenda. As an important mechanism for CAADP support, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has commissioned an evaluation to help inform future ReSAKSS activities in support of key commitments made through the Malabo Declaration by Heads of State and Government of the African Union in June 2014, which include ending hunger and halving poverty by 2025. Primary Evaluation Questions The evaluation aims to answer three questions: 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? • To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? • To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? • To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for policy making and policy implementation? • To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change? • To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby supporting actual policy change? 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? Qualitative Information Gathering Methods The evaluation team will review ReSAKSS documentation and hold key informant interviews with ReSAKSS stakeholders. The team will visit eight countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa) to gather information through interviews. If possible, focus groups will be held during the country visits with key stakeholders. An internet-based survey will be sent to a larger group of ReSAKSS stakeholders. Finally, the team will gather information on use of ReSAKSS publications and social media on how often ReSAKSS information is downloaded and viewed. Timeline • Timeframe for evaluation: September 2014–April 2015 • Travel to countries for information gathering through interviews: November–December 2014 • Data analysis: December 2014–January 2015 • First draft report for review: February 2015 • Final draft: April 2015 Evaluation Team The U.S. Agency for International Development has contracted Social Impact Inc. (www.socialimpact.com) to undertake this evaluation. The team is comprised of: • Dr. Sarah Tisch, Ph.D. Team Leader and Senior Evaluation Specialist: stisch@socialimpact.com • Mr. Dennis Marotta, Deputy Team Leader and Evaluation Specialist: dmarotta@socialimpact.com Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 101 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) • Ms. Julie Mandolini-Trummel, Evaluation Specialist: JMandolini-Trummel@socialimpact.com • Ms. Kelsey Jones-Casey, Evaluation Specialist: Kelsey Jones-Casey: KJones￾casey@socialimpact.com EXAMPLE: ReSAKSS Focus Group Discussion Transcript DISCUSSION POINTS (55 minutes) 4. Have you seen any reports, tools and data that ReSAKSS produces? (20 minutes)  Are these useful to you?  How? 5. What is the best way to strengthen agricultural policy planning in your country? (20 minutes)  Should ReSAKSS be interfacing with universities and research institutions?  How-what should this look like? 6. What is the best way for researchers, the private sector and civil society to engage with government in agricultural policy planning and implementation? (15 minutes) KII Brief Non-Attribution Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Evaluation TITLE: Evaluation of the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System Program Evaluation. This evaluation is funded through USAID and is undertaken by Social Impact Inc. (www.socialimpact.com). PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Social Impact (SI) – Dr. Sarah Tisch, PhD, SI Evaluation Team Leader; Mr. Dennis Marotta, Deputy Team Leader and Evaluation Specialist; Ms. Julie Mandolini-Trummel, Evaluation Specialist; Ms. Kelsey Jones-Casey, Evaluation Specialist. I. EVALUATION PURPOSE As an important mechanism for CAADP support, the USAID has commissioned an independent evaluation to help inform future ReSAKSS activities in support of key commitments made by Heads of State and Government of the African Union in June 2014 through the Malabo Declaration, including ending hunger and halving poverty by 2025. The USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) has contracted Social Impact to undertake a performance evaluation of the RESAKSS activity. This evaluation will inform ReSAKSS’ ability to catalyze agricultural transformation through systemic policy change. BFS and other stakeholders will use evidence from this evaluation to help chart support to ReSAKSS for the re￾commitment by African Union Heads of State to sustain CAADP through 2025. The evaluation is to be undertaken in a collaborative manner with USAID and on a consultative basis with IFPRI, as the primary partner for implementing the ReSAKSS activity with USAID funding. II. EVALUATION PROCEDURES Participation in this evaluation will only involve answering questions about the ReSAKSS Program. The interview will take as long as is necessary for us to complete the questionnaire. We approximate an hour-long discussion. You do no need to answer any questions that you feel uncomfortable with or which you do not have any information on. Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 102 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) III. NON-ATTRIBUTION All data collected as part of this project will be reported in aggregate, not by name. Your name will not appear in any documentation associated with the evaluation report and your responses will remain anonymous. We will not be making any direct quotes attributed to you. We will, however, provide a list of the people we interviewed in an Annex in the final evaluation report. V. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Participation in this evaluation is completely voluntary. You are free to decline to participate at any time for any reason, or refuse to answer any individual question. VI. CONTACT INFORMATION/QUESTIONS If you have any questions about this evaluation, you may contact the SI Team Leader, Sarah Tisch, by phone at skype: sarah.tisch or via email at stisch@socialimpact.com. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 103 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Introduction Social Impact is pleased to invite you to participate in this brief survey – which is estimated to take approximately 10 to 15 minutes – given your involvement in advancing the development of African agricultural and rural development strategies and policies. Due to your efforts, you have been identified as an individual who has a perspective to provide on the work being done by the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and we look forward to receiving your valuable insights. Established in 2006 under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), ReSAKSS supports efforts to promote evidence- and outcome-based policy planning and implementation as part of the CAADP agenda. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has commissioned an evaluation of which this survey is one component to help inform future ReSAKSS activities in support of key commitments made through the Malabo Declaration by Heads of State and Government of the African Union in June 2014. Overall, the performance evaluation aims to better understand the extent to which ReSAKSS activities are helping support increased capacity to produce and manage evidence-based information to inform and shape agricultural policy systems, and helping contribute to ensure a more inclusive policy dialogue process that includes the private sector and civil society. This survey is intended to capture the impact that ReSAKSS is having at the country, regional, and continental levels. The survey is anonymous. Social Impact takes the protection of anonymity seriously. Please feel confident in sharing your honest and frank thoughts and insights through this survey as your confidentiality will be honored. Further, specific responses will not be matched to individual respondents. The survey will be open from Thursday, 15 January, through Wednesday, 21 January. Thank you for your time and for your feedback which will help ensure that future ReSAKSS priorities and activities are increasingly useful to African leaders and stakeholders working in the agriculture sector. Instructions and Guidance The survey has been designed to focus on the most pressing considerations while allowing respondents to complete the survey with a minimal time investment. The survey begins with an introduction (previous page), instructions (this page), background information, and then proceeds to 12 close-ended and 2 open-ended questions. With each close-ended question, there is an optional comment section that will allow respondents the ability to provide more detailed feedback should they choose to do so. This format is meant to maximize the number of areas that respondents are able to comment upon, do so quickly, and allow individuals the option of providing more extensive feedback. Please note that as stated in the introduction we are interested in understanding ReSAKSS performance at the country, regional, and continental levels. By regional, we mean East Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa. The survey will be open from Thursday, 15 January, through Wednesday, 21 January. If you have any questions, please direct them to Dennis Marotta at dmarotta@socialimpact.com. Background Information Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 104 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *1. Sex mlj Male mlj Female *2. Type of Position mlj Manager / Director mlj Technical Specialist mlj Researcher mlj Statistician mlj Professor / Administrative Staff mlj Academic Staff mlj Student mlj Other For those that select Other, please specify below. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 105 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *3. Type of Institution mlj Ministry of Agriculture mlj Other Ministry mlj University / Think Tank mlj Private Sector mlj Civil Society mlj Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) mlj International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) mlj ReSAKSS – SAKSS mlj AUC, NEPAD, and Other Continental-Level Stakeholders mlj Multilateral and Bilateral Donors mlj USAID Regional Office mlj USAID Country Office mlj USAID Implementing Partners mlj Other Implementers mlj Other For those that select Other, please specify below. *4. Country Country 6 For those that select Other, please specify below. 5. Have you participated in any ReSAKSS, SAKSS, CAADP, and/or IFPRI activities? mlj Yes mlj No Additional comments (optional) 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 106 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 6. On average, what has been your personal level of interaction with ReSAKSS, SAKSS, CAADP, and/or IFPRI over the past one year? mlj High: Daily or every other day mlj Medium: Weekly or bi-weekly mlj Low: A few times a year mlj None: Not at all Additional comments (optional) 5 6 ReSAKSS Survey - Main Questions I *7. To what extent has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful in furthering CAADP processes, strategies, or policies at the country, regional, and continental levels? Very useful Somewhat useful Little use Not useful No Opinion Not applicable Country Level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional Level mlj Mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental Level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 *8. Based on your experience, to what extent has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation at the country, regional, and continental levels? Strong participation Some participation Little participation No participation No Opinion Not Applicable Country Level nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional Level mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental Level nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 107 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *9. In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS addressed the needs expressed by CAADP partners at the country, regional, and continental levels? Very much Somewhat Little Not at all No Opinion Not Applicable Country Level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional Level mlj Mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental Level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 ReSAKSS Survey - Main Questions II Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 108 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *10. In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS APPROACHES been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note: 1. if you have additional items that you consider to be approaches that are not included you may insert them below with Selections R and S, and 2. the next two questions are similar in nature, but focus on ReSAKSS tools and models.) Somewhat Very supportive supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable a. Use of IT platforms (to facilitate peer review, learning, dialogue and reporting benchmarks) b. Use of standard M&E methodology and frameworks for country comparisons c. Policy dialogue on trans￾border agricultural sector issues and strategic analysis on emerging issues through Regional Annual Trends and Outlook Reports (ATORs) d. Contracting local universities, policy institutes and other knowledge centers to provide reviewed secondary data for ATORs or analysis of indicators e. Creating a knowledge base for analysis to strengthen agricultural policy making f. Capacity building and learning through research and analysis experience g. Linking to in-country existing knowledge producing centers to undertake analysis that guides CAADP implementation h. Regional economic communities are used to coordinate activities of in￾country SAKSS or linked nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 109 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) knowledge centers i. CGIAR centers serve as hosts for the ReSAKSS regional nodes to encourage a wide dialogue and review platform j. IFPRI and CGIAR centers ensure ReSAKSS activities are relevant to CAADP k. Ability to adapt high￾quality modeling tools for country needs l. Shared modeling infrastructure for comparability purposes m. Facilitation of African￾led analysis through stocktaking exercises of data sources, available data in￾country, and lists of experts n. Technical-criteria based membership consortia to build knowledge among a cadre of experts within and across countries o. Collaboration among existing networks, sub￾regional organizations p. Standardized and facilitated CAADP processes, such as stocktaking, round table discussions, and joint sector reviews to establish firmer commitments to CAADP agenda by country government leadership and among and between regional economic communities q. Use of Steering Committees to guide and govern ReSAKSS r. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) s. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 5 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 110 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 6 ReSAKSS Survey - Main Questions III *11. In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS TOOLS been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note if you have additional items that you consider to be tools that are not included you may insert them below with Selections P and Q.) Somewhat Very supportive supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable a. ReSAKSS websites (including AGRODEP and AgInvest) b. M&E methodology and framework with standardized core indicators c. ATORs at the continental, regional and country levels d. Quantitative, qualitative and spatial data analysis e. GIS methods and software f. Technical assistance to establish country knowledge systems (SAKSS) g. Technical reports with specific findings nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj h. Policy briefs mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj I. Regional nodes nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj j. IFPRI experts mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj k. Country-based data inventories l. Country-based data expert groups nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj m. AGRODEP data portal nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 111 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) n. Training on data analysis software o. Specialized research and analysis at the continental level, regional, or country level p. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) q. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 112 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *12. In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS MODELS been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note if you have additional items that you consider to be models that are not included you may insert them below with Selections I and J.) Somewhat Very supportive supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable a. Single-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE model) b. Multi-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE model) c. Single-Market Partial Equilibrium Model d. Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model e. Spatial Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj f. Simulation Model mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj g. Epidemiological Model nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj h. Climate Change/Energy Model i. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) j. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 5 6 ReSAKSS Survey - Main Questions IV Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 113 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *13. In your experience, to what extent do ReSAKSS activities encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? mlj Strong encouragement mlj Some encouragement mlj Little encouragement mlj No encouragement mlj No Opinion mlj Not Applicable Additional comments (optional) 5 6 *14. In your experience, to what extent are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? mlj Very sensitive mlj Somewhat sensitive mlj Little sensitivity mlj No sensitivity mlj No Opinion mlj Not Applicable Additional comments (optional) 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 114 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *15. In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making and policy implementation at the country, regional, and continental levels ? Greatly strengthened Somewhat strengthened Little strengthened No Strength No Opinion Not Applicable Country Level Policy￾Making Country Level Policy￾Implementation Regional Level Policy￾Making Regional Level Policy￾Implementation Continental Level Policy￾Making Continental Level Policy￾Implementation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 *16. In your opinion, to what extent have ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools been useful for policy decision-making and policy change at the country, regional, and continental levels? Very useful Somewhat useful Little use Not useful No Opinion Not Applicable Country Level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional level mlj Mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 115 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *17. In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (i.e., joint sector review or JSR) within your country? Very supportive Somewhat supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable Development of a mutual accountability process Implementation of a mutual accountability process nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 *18. In your opinion, to what extent have you seen ReSAKSS encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country, regional, and continental levels? High encourage￾ment Some encouragement Little encourage￾ment No encouragement No Opinion Not Applicable Country level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional level mlj Mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental level nmlkj Nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) 5 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 116 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) *19. In your opinion, to what extent is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? (Please note that both options below require responses given the goals of building strong private sector and civil society at the country level and aligning and harmonizing policies at the regional level.) appropriate Country level nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Regional level mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj mlj Continental level nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Additional comments (optional) ReSAKSS Survey – Main Questions V 20. Do you have any recommendations on how ReSAKSS should focus its future efforts so that it can be better equipped to support CAADP and agricultural policy development (at the country, regional and/or continental levels)? 21. Is there anything else the evaluation team should know about ReSAKSS for the purposes of this evaluation? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 117 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX IV: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ReSAKSS Interviewees Ethiopia Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Dr. Abede Haile Gabriel African Union Commission Director, Rural Economy and Agriculture Abebehg@africa-union.org Tel: +251-11 518 28 56 Fax: +251-11 518 28 72 Dr. Stephen N. Karingi UN Economic Commission for Africa Director, Regional Integration and Trade Division Skaringi@uneca.org Tel: +251-11 544 5443 Mobile: +251 911 523 266 Dr. Tadesse Kuma Worako Ethiopian Development Research Institute Development Policy Analyst, Agriculture and Rural Development kwtadesse@yahoo.com Tel: +251 115 543745 Mobile +251 911 402976 Mr. Yidnekachew G/Mariam Ministry of Agriculture Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist yidnegeb@yahoo.com Mr. Ginjo Giya Uma Consult PLC/LTD Social Development Consultant and CEO umaconsult@gmail.com; ginjo_giya2000@yahoo.com; tel: +251 115 176060 Mobile: +251 932 505914 Ms. Laketch Mikael Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency Senior Director Cross-Cutting Initiatives laketch.mikael@ata.gov.et Tel: +251 115 570 678 Mobile: +251 930 000 535 Mr. Feta Zeberga Ministry of Agriculture, Socioeconomic and Policy and Planning Directorate Case Team Leader fetzeb@yahoo.com Tel: +251 91 143 1979 Dr. Godfrey Bahiigwa IFPRI Head, IFPRI Eastern and Southern Office; ReSAKSS Africa – Wide Coordinator g.bahiigwa@cgiar.org Mr. Bedaso Wakeyo Sasakawa 2000, Ethiopia Monitoring, Evaluation, learning and Sharing Officer bedho250@gmail.com Tel: +251 91 194 1508 Mr. David Mogollon Delegation of the European Union to Ethiopia Head of Section, Rural Development and Food Security Section David.mogollon@eeas.europa.eu Tel: +251 11 661 25 11 Mobile: +251 911 502 214 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 118 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Mr. Zena Habtewold Directorate of Programming and Planning, Ministry of Agriculture Director; CAADP Focal Person Ethiopa zenabiru@yahoo.com Mr. Boaz Blackie Keizire Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture, African Union Head, Agriculture and Food Security KeizireB@african-union.org Tel: +251 11 518 2858 Fax: +251 11 552 5835 Mr. Mohamed Gelma Non-State Actors Coalition Executive Director mgelma@yahoo.com; ethnsac@gmail.com ensac@ethionet.et Tel: +251 11 663 11 30 Mobile: +251 91 1 20 28 85 Mr. Kaleb Kelemu Ayele Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research Socioeconomic and Extension Researcher Kaleb_kelemu@yahoo.com Mobile: +251 91 168 6756 Mr. Cullen Hughes Office of Economic Growth and Transformation, USAID/Ethiopia Deputy Office Chief chughes@usaid.gov Tel: +251-11 130- 6000 ext 6474 Mobile: +251 911-506-749 Ms. Lulit Mitik Beyene, PhD Institute for Economic and Social Development Research Founder and Managing Director Lulit.mitik@gmail.com Tel: +251 910 00864 Mr. Getachew Siferaw Degefu IT Management Authority, Ethiopian Revenue and Customs Authority Team Coordinator and Plan Monitoring and Service Report getshif@yahoo.com Mobile: +251 91 168 8746 Ms. Ethiopia Tadesse University of Addis Ababa, Department of Informatics Lecturer ethiopit@yahoo.com Mobile: +251 91 125 2011 Mr. Peter Ballantyne ILRI Ethiopia Head, Communications and Knowledge Management p.ballantyne@cgiar.com +251 11 617 2451 Mr. Andrew Goodland World Bank￾Ethiopia Program Leader, Ethiopia Country Office agoodland@worldbank.org Tel: +251 115 176060 Mobile: +251 932 505914 Kenya Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Ayuko, Kenneth, Mr. Ministry of Agriculture Deputy Director, Policy Development Coordination ayukokenneth@kilimo.go.ke Tel: +254 020 271 8870 Cell: +254 726 944 102 Wandaka, Margaret Ministry of Livestock Development Principle Livestock Officer wandakamn@yahoo.com Karugia, Joseph, Dr. International Livestock Research Institute Regional Coordinator, ReSAKSS ECA j.karugia@cgiar.org Tel: +254 20 422 3016 Mobile: +254 717 311 236 Mobile: +254 733 718 992 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 119 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Sundsmo, Kaarli, Ms. USAID/East Africa Regional Mission Regional feed the Future Coordinator and Grants Manager, regional office of Agriculture and Resilience ksundsmo@usaid.gov Tel: +254 20 862 2288 Mobile: +254 714 606 532 Muchiri, Stephen Eastern Africa Farmer’s Federation Chief Executive Officer smuchiri@eaffu.org Tel: +254-0722-809320 Mobile: +254 722 809 320 Chabari, Francis, Dr. Consultant Former Chief of Party, USAID/Kenya Drylands Livestock development Program francischabari@yahoo.co.uk Tel: +254-07222-06275 +254 733 767 700 Irungu, Patrick, Dr. University of Nairobi Lecturer, department of Agricultural Economics patrickirungu@yahoo.com Tel:+254 721 378 200 Kariuki, Patrick, Dr. South Eastern Kenya University Geosciences and GIS/Remote Sensing consultant kariuki@alumni.itc.nl Tel: +254-0723-438-645 Mobile: +254 723 438 645 Cherogony, Miriam, Ms. Rural Finance Knowledge Management Partnership KMP/IFAD Africa mcherogony@ifadafrica.org mcherogony@gmail.com Tel: +254-0722-111237 Mpyisi, Edson, Dr. African Development bank Group, East Africa Resource Center Principal Agricultural Economist e.mpyisi@afdb.org Tel: +254 20 299 8273 Mobile: +254-723-067136 Nyamu, Ann Marie, Ms. Consultant Editorial Publishing and Training Consultant amnyamu@yahoo.com Tel: +254-7338-22438 Lumumba, Tabby Karanja, Ms. Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute Research Scientist Tabbydk@yahoo.com Tel: +254-722490978 Asfaw, Tesfa, Dr. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Technical Coordinator Resilience Analysis Unit Tesfaye.Asfaw@fao.org Tel: +254-723-996921 Mobile: +254 733 120 932 Oggema, Sebastian Wanjala, Mr. ACDI/VOCA ASI Country Office Team Leader AgResults; Kenya on-Farm Storage Pilot sowanjala@acdivoca￾kenya.or.ke Tel: +254-733714468 Tarawali, Shirley International Livestock Research Institute Assistant Director General Nyikal, Rose, Dr. University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics Senior Lecturer, Agricultural Economist ranyikal@uonbi.ac.ke Tel: +254-722248405 Mobile; +254 722 248 405 Kimenju, Simon, Dr. Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development Research Fellow skimenju@teogemo.org Tel: +254 20 234 7297 Mobile: +254 722 425 807 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 120 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Wambugu, Stephen, Dr. University of Kenyattta, Senior Lecturer, Department of Agribusiness and Geography; consultant Kwambugu12@yahoo.com Tel: +254 2 810 901 12 Mobile: +254 722 809 246 Kinara, Tom, Dr. Ministry of Livestock Senior Livestock Production Officer tkinara@yahoo.com Mobile : +254-721-819583 Waithanji, Liz International Livestock Research Institute Consultant Ndhiwa, Nicholas, Dr. International Livestock Research Institute Training and Communications n.ndhiwa@cgiar.org Rao, James, Dr. International Livestock Research Institute Economist j.rao@cgiar.org Magamo, Rosemary Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Monitoring and Evaluation specialist at Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme Kabubu, Jane Mariara, Dr. University of Nairobi, School of Economics Director/Chair of School, Senior Lecturer jmariara@uonbi.ac.ke Jane.mariara@gmail.com Tel:+254 20 231 8840 Mobile: 254 721 574 101 Ong’eng’a, Walter USAID/East Africa Regional Mission Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Wong’eng’a@usaid.gov Tel: +25420 862 2725 Mobile: +254 728 029 405 Read, Andrew USAID/Kenya Mission Agriculture Team Leader of Feed the Future Coordinator aread@usaid.gov Tel: +254 20 862 2268 Mobile: +254 724 255 815 Okumu, Bridget, Ms. International Fertilizer Development Center, east and Southern Africa Division Regional Market Information Specialist bokumu@ifdc.org Tel: +254 20 863 2720 Mobile: +254 728 561 710 Nyachae, Charles African Seed Trade Association ICT and Logistics Officer Charles@afsta.org cknyachae@gmail.com Tel: +254 20 27 27 853 Mobile: +254 722 50 11 04 Runyora, Njambi, Tabitha Fintrac Kenya Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Kioko, Anthony Cereal Growers Association Chief Executive Officer akioko@cga.co.ke Apina, Tom Sustainet East Africa CEO Tom.apina@sustainetea.org Katjiuongua, Hikuepi, Dr. International Livestock Research Institute Agricultural Economist; Changing Demand and Institutions Team,; Markets, Gender and Livelihoods Theme h.katjiuongua@cgiar.org Tel: +254 20 422 3435 Mobile: +254 72 917 6241 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 121 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Wright, Iain, Dr. International Livestock Research Institute Deputy Director General, Integrated Services i.wright@cgiar.org Tel: +254 20 422 3400 Mobile: +254 708 222 605 Mbithi, Lucia Mary, Dr Pohl Consulting &Associates Trade Facilitation Specialist; Northern Corridor Trade Facilitation Study luciambithi@yahoo.com Mobile: +254 722 716 957 Kivuva, Annastacia Ministry of Agriculture Trade Promotion Officer, Market Development Division, Agribusiness Department annastaciakiio@yahoo.com Tel: +254 20 22 221 8870 Mobile: +254 722 366 927 Kibira, Michael Kanyi Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, State Department of Livestock njambaneneh@yahoo.com Mobile: + 254 721827210 Malawi Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Kapondamgaga, Prince Famer’s Union of Malawi Chief Executive Officer pkapondamgaga@farmersunion.mw Tel: +265 1 750 229 Mobile: +265 999 716 347 Kadzamira, Mariam International Food Policy Research Institute Associate Research Fellow m.kadzamira@cgiar.org Mobile: +265 882 950 361 Shawa, Mary Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Welfare Principal Secretary mnyajere@gmail.com Tel: 265 1 770 411 Mobile: 265 999 957 992 Musopole, Readwell , Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Chief Economist, Director Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, Department of Planning Services muspoler@gmail.com Mobile: 265 888 307 736 Sentala, Thokozani Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Budget Specialist, Department of Planning Services Tsentala87@yahoo.co.uk Maganga, Erica Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Principal Secretary ericamaganga@yahoo.com Tel: +265 1 788 817 Mobile: +265 999 213 950 Pauw, Karl International Food Policy Research Institute Research Fellow and Country Program Leader k.pauw@cgiar.org Tel: +265 1 771 780 Mobile: +265 882 218 635 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 122 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Matchaya, Greenwell International Water Management Institute Researcher, Economist, ReSAKSS Southern-Africa Coordinator g.matchaya@cgiar.org Mobile: 998 517 110 .Malumelo, Roman Donor Committee for Agriculture and Food Security Coordinator malumeloroman@yahoo.co.uk Mobile: +265 999 873 578 Durand, Olivier The World Bank Senior Agricultural Specialist, Agriculture and Rural Development, Malawi Country Office odurand@worldbank.org Tel: +265 1 770 611 .Phiri, M. Alexander R. Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bunda College Campus Head of Department, Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Development Studies￾Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics Maphiri1996@yahoo.com Tel: +265 1 277 260 Mobile: +265 888 832 Nkono-Mvula, Tamani CISANET (Civil Society Agriculture Network National Director tamani@cisanet.org Mobile: +265 995 204 35 Makota, Donald Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bunda College Campus Research Fellow dmakota@bunda.luanar.mw Mobile: +265 888 930 083 Edgar, John USAID/Malawi Office Chief, Sustainable Economic Growth jedgar@usaid.gov Tel: +265-1-772 455 Mobile: +265 999 960 036 Lipta, W.G. Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Controller of Agricultural Extension and Technical Services wglipita@hotmail.com Tel; +265 789 033 Mobile: +265 888 859 328 Madola, Mathews Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Economist Madola71@yahoo.com Mobile: +265 992 182 256 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 123 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Chipeta, John National Association of Small Farmers Policy Coordinator John.chipeta@gmail.com Mobile: +265 888 542 187 Kantchewa, Emmanuel Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development Economist ejkten@hotmail.com Mobile: +265 999 171 173 Mwabutwa, Chance International Food Policy Research Institute Economist, Malawi Strategy Support Program Cmwabutwa1967@gmail.com Mobile: +265 998 387 786 Mazunda, John International Food Policy Research Institute Policy Analyst, Malawi Strategy Support Program j.mazunda@cgiar.org Tel: +265 991 457 034 Mobile: +265 1 771 780 Kaunda, E., Professor Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bunda College Campus Professor and Vice Chancellor E,Kaunda@yahoo.com Bosscher, Nikolas Embassy of Belgium, General Representation of the Government of Flanders Deputy General Representative, Attache Development Cooperation Nikolas.bosscher@flandersmw.com Tel: +265 1 774 188 Mobile: +265 888 207 910 Yabuta, Jinichiro Japan International Cooperation Agency Team Leader, Monitoring and Evaluation, department of Agriculture Planning Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Yabuta.j@idcj.or.jp Mobile: +265 888 580 443 Busogoro, Jean￾Pierre Delegation of the European Union Programme Manager, Rural Development and Food Security Section Jean￾pierre.busogoro@eeas.europa.eu Tel: +265 1 773 199 Mwawa, Maureen Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development maureenmwawa@yahoo.com Toda, Ariko Japan International Cooperation Agency, Malawi office Toda.ariko.2@jica.go.jp Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 124 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Mapemba, Lawrence Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bunda College Campus L_mapemba@yahoo.com lmepemba@gmail.com Kimbobwe, Cindy CISANET cindy@cisanetmw.org Zimba, Gladys World food Programme gladyszimba@gmail.com Mwanaleza, Emmanuel Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development jofilisimwanaleza@yahoo.com Kachingwe, Daisi Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development kachingwedk@yahoo.co.uk Mozambique Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Mutondo, Joao University of Eduardo Mondlane CEPPAG Director Joao.mutondos@gmail.com Brooke, Matthew Delegation of the European Union Counsellor matthewbrooke@eeas.europe.eu Matsinhe e Margarida, Jose Food and Agriculture Organization Program Officer Jose.matsinhe@fao.com Zavale, Helder University of Eduardo Mondlane Lecturer Uaiene, Rafael Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique Assistant Professor in International Development Agriculture, Food and resources Economics uaienera@msu.edu Mabota, Anabela Polaris group, subcontractor to Abt o the USAID Agrifutoro Project Director of Monitoring and Evaluation amabota@polarisgroup.co.mz Machungo, Paula United Nations Inter￾agency Initiative on Child Hunger and Undernutirition National Facilitator Paula.machungo@wfp.org Tel: +258 21 462 403 Mobile: +258 82 298 4790 Mucavele, Saquina Women, Gender and Development Coordinator mugedez@gmail.com Cosa, Marcia ActionAid Marcia.cosa@actionaid.org Saraiva, Erasmo Austrian Embassy Development Cooperation Programme Officer Erasmo.saraiva@ada.gv.at Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 125 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Nhlengethwa, Sibusiso International Water Management Institute Research Officer￾Statistics S.Nhlengethwa@cgiar.org Bhatta, Surendra USAID/Mozambique Feed the Future Coordinator, Agriculture, Trade and Business Office sbhatta@usaid.gov Tel: +258 21 35 21 05 Mobile: +258 82 317 4800 Manhica, Anabela Scaling Seeds and Technologies in Africa (AGRA) Country Coordinator AManhica@agra.org Tel: +258 21 361 260 Mobile: +258 82 881 1940 Songane, Fernando Developing Markets Association (CTA) Retired, former Ministry of Agriculture ffpsongane@yahoo.com.ba Mobile: +258 823 05 3880 Munguambe, Paiva National Irrigation Institute, Ministry of Agriculture General Director kensydoge@yahoo.com Xavier, Victorino Private Sector Development Programme Executive Secretary Victorino.xavier@gapi.co.mz Mobile: +258 84 217 5381 Fong, Amanda USAID/Mozambique Policy and Partnerships Team Leader, Agriculture, Trade and Business Office afong@usaid.gov Office: +(258) 21 35 2054; Mobile: +(258) 82 307 3325 Jeque, Joao Association of Sugar Producers of Mozambique Executive Director jjeque@gmail.com Tel: +258 21 322 883 Filipe, Vitor Comercio Internacional e Servicos, LDA Secretary General alsoca@tdm.co.ma Tel: +258 21426718 Vala, Mahomed Rafik Ministry of Agriculture National Director of the national Directorate of Agrarian Services valamomed@gmail.com Tel: +258 21 415 103 Mobile: +258 82 856 4190 Ferraro, Mauro Developing Markets Association (CTA) Consultative Mechanism Advisor mferrao@cta.org.mz Tel: +258 21 491914 Mobile: +258 82 9325740 Moamba, Carlos Financial Sector Deepening Mozambique Project (DFiD), implemented by DAI Technical Director Carlos.moamba@intra.co.mz Bias, Calisto Prosavanna, LtD Executive Director Calisto.bias@gmail.com Sitoe, Luis Eduardo Ministry of Agriculture Economic Advisor, Office of the Minister Lsitoe@gmail.com Tel:+258 21 415 246 Mobile: +258 82 150 7876 Gemo, Helder International Food Policy Research Institute Former Mozambique￾SAKSS Coordinator H.Gemo@cgiar.com Castigo, Fumo Farmer Asscampregblovo1@gmail.com Bibi, Fatima Ministry of Agriculture Tecmica DAP fatimabibi@yahoo.com Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 126 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Osualdo, Luis Ministry of Agriculture Tecmica INCAJU Luis.osualdo@incaju.co.mz Manussa, Sofia Ministry of Agriculture Tecmica DAP smanussa@hotmail.com Cands, Guilhermins Ministry of Agriculture Tecmica DAP gcanda@live.com Luciano, Lucia da Luz Ministry of Agriculture National Deputy Director, Directorate of Economics, lluciano@minog.gov.mz Mobile: +258 82 326 0770 South Africa Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Machethe, Charles University of Pretoria Professor of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension, and Rural Development Charles.machethe@up.ac.za Tel: +27 12 420 3280 Moyo, Thinah University of Pretoria Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension, and Rural Development Thinah.moyo@up.ac.za Dlamini, Thokozani International Water Management Institute Communications Officer t.dlamini@cgiar.org Tel: +27 12 845 9100 Mobile: +27 82 990 4308 Rwasoka￾Masanganise, Patricia USAID/Southern Africa Senior Agricultural development Specialist, Regional Economic Growth Office prmasanganise@usaid.gov Tel: +27 12 452 2310 Mobile: +27 83 842 2564 Ng’anjo, Mwanja NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Programme Officer Information and Advocacy CAADP MwanjaN@nepad.org Tel: +27 11 256 3582 Moalosi, Kefilwe Rhoba NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Nutrition Programme and Research Officer CAADP KefilweM@nepad.org Tel: +27 11 256 3609 Mobile: +27 72 225 6598 Faivre-Dupaigre, Benoit NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Agricultural Advisor BenoitfaivreD@nepad.org Tel: +27 11 256 3655 Mobile: +27 76 468 3066 Kisira, Simon NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Monitoring and Evaluation Officer￾CAADP SimonK2@nepad.org Tel: 27 73 682 4987 Mobile: +27 11 256 3617 Yamdjeu, Augustin Wambo NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Principal Programme Officer-Agribusiness Promotion AugustinW@nepad.org Tel: +27 11 075 5014 Mobile: +27 73 865 7227 Chaura, Bentry Southern African Development Community Senior Programme Officer, Food Security, SADC Secretariat bchaura@sadc.int Tel: +267 3951863 Mobile: +267 71523754 Ghana Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Notes (e.g., contact info) Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 127 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Organization Queronica Quarley Quartey ActionAid Ghana Policy and Campaigns Manager queronica.quartey@actionaid.org; Accra, Ghana Nana Osei-Bonsu Private Enterprise Foundation CEO nanakoseibonsu69@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Paulina Addy Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Deputy Director, Women in Agricultural Development Directorate addypolly@yahoo.com; Accra, Ghana Walter Nunez￾Rodriguez Chemonics - Agriculture Policy Support Program Chief of Party wnunezr@agripolicyghana.org; Accra, Ghana Sidney Nii Oko Bampoe Addo Statistics, Research and Information Directorate (SRID), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Assistant Director okogeneygh@yahoo.com; Accra, Ghana Jorge Oliveira USAID/West Africa Senior Agriculture Policy Advisor; Regional Agriculture Office joliveira@usaid.gov; Accra, Ghana Fenton Sands USAID/Ghana Food Security Advisor fsands@usaid.gov; Accra, Ghana Lambert Abusah Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Ghana SAKSS Coordinator; Deputy Director, PPMED lambert.abusah@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Saa Dittoh University for Development Studies Lecturer saaditt@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Margorie Abdiu Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters (FAGE) First Vice President marjorieabdiu@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Frederick Ayeh Federation of Associations of Ghanaian Exporters (FAGE) Second Vice President frederick.ayeh@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Assuming Brempong University of Ghana Full Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness asumbre20@hotmail.com; Accra, Ghana Stephen Frimpong University of Ghana Research Assistant skafrimpong@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Dorothy Anima Effa Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Assistant Director, PPMED daeffa@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Zalia Zemeare Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Director, Budget Division, PPMED; (Former SAKSS Coordinator) hagazal@yahoo.com; Accra, Ghana Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 128 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Felix Danso Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) SAKSS Research Assistant felixdanso7@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Kwaku Owusu￾Baah Chemonics - Agriculture Policy Support Program Senior Policy Analyst kowusubaah@agripolicyghana.org; Accra, Ghana Kinsley Ofei￾Nkansah General Agricultural Workers' Union General Secretary kingsley_on@yahoo.com; Accra, Ghana Daniel Oberko FoodSpan Coordinator danieloberko@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Karim Saagbul General Agricultural Workers' Union Senior Programme Officer saagbuk@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Ebenezer J.O. Odotei National Development Planning Commission Director jodotei@ndpc.gov.gh; Accra, Ghana Charles Adams Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Director cbaajadams@gmail.com; Accra, Ghana Nigeria Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Lapodini Marc Atouga ECOWAS Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development lapo_atouga@yahoo.fr; Abuja, Nigeria Alain Traore ECOWAS Director for Agriculture and Rural Development satraore@ecowas.int; Abuja, Nigeria Manson Nwafor ReSAKSS / International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Policy Analyst M.Nwafor@cgiar.org; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Mbaye Yade ReSAKSS / International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) ReSAKSS Coordinator, West Africa m.yade@cgiar.org; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Abdoulaye Tahirou International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Outcome and Impact Economist T.Abdoulaye@cgiar.org; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Olawale Emmanuel Olayide Center for Sustainable Development, University of Ibadan Research Fellow; Coordinator of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Program waleolayide@yahoo.com; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Elijah Obayelu Federal University of Agriculture (FUNAABE) Lecturer, Agriculture obayelu@yahoo.com; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 129 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Adebayo Shittu Federal University of Agriculture and Rural Development shittuam@funaab.edu.ng; Phone call from Abuja, Nigeria Sylvester Baye Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Alternate CAADP Focal Point bayeb@live.com; Abuja, Nigeria Wouro Aurélien Tchemi Tchambi ECOWAS ECOWAP/CAADP Advisor wtchemi@yahoo.com; Abuja, Nigiera Alefia Merchant Agricultural Development Officer/Feed the Future Lead USAID/Nigeria amerchant@usaid.gov; Abuja, Nigeria Atsuko Toda International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Country Programme Manager - West and Central Africa Division at.toda@ifad.org; Abuja, Nigeria Rabe Mani Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Assistant Representative, Nigeria Rabe.Mani@fao.org; Abuja, Nigeria Rwanda Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) David Gisselquist International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) Policy Advisor and Chief of Party dgisselquist@ifdc.org; Kigali, Rwanda Gilbert Kayitare Ministry of Agriculture SAKSS M&E Specialist kayitare.intare@gmail.com; Kigali, Rwanda Alexandre Lyambabaje University of Rwanda Senior Researcher alalyamba@gmail.com; Kigali, Rwanda Valens Mwumvaneza The World Bank Rural Development Specialist Vmwumvaneza@worldbank.org; Kigali, Rwanda Claude Bizimana Ministry of Agriculture SAKSS Coordinator claude.bizimana@gmail.com; Kigali, Rwanda Bora Wlhelmine Rwanda Horticulture Interprofessional Organization CEO Rhio2010@yahoo.com; Kigali, Rwanda Jonathan Nzayikorera Director of Fiscal Decentralization Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Jonathan.nzayikorera@minecofin.gov; Kigali, Rwanda Deigo Zurdo The European Union 2 nd Secretary – Head of Section, Rural Development Diego.zurdo@eeas.europa.edu; Kigali, Rwanda Tarik Marc Kubach The European Union Programme Officer, Rural Development Tarik.kubach@eeas.europa.eu; Kigali, Rwanda Rafael Rurangwa Ministry of Agriculture DG of Planning and Policy rrurangwa@minagri.gov.rw; Kigali, Rwanda Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 130 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Angelique Uwimana Ministry of Agriculture SAKSS Communications Specialist auwimana@minagri.gov.rw; Kigali, Rwanda Francine Uwayo Ministry of Agriculture Statistician francynella2002@gmail.com; Kigali, Rwanda Howard Baston USAID Senior Agriculture Advisor hbatson@usaid.gov; Kigali, Rwanda Malick Haidara USAID Deputy Director bajdara@usaid.gov; Kigali, Rwanda Fina Kayisanabo USAID Private Sector and Agribusiness Team Leader fkayisanabo@usaid.gov; Kigali, Rwanda Patrice Hakizimana USAID Agriculture Specialist phakizimana@usaid.gov; Kigali, Rwanda John Rwirahira Institute for Policy Analysis and Research Research Fellow j.rwirahira@ipar-rwanda.org; Kigali, Rwanda Josephine Uwamariya ActionAid Country Director Josephine.uwamariya@actionaid.org; Kigali, Rwanda Edward Karangwa ActionAid PFA Project Manager Edward.karanga@actionaid.org; Kigali, Rwanda Narcisse Ndagijimana Private Sector Federation Capacity Building Specialist narciseen@psf.org; Kigali, Rwanda Alice Uwimana National Institute of Statistics Statistician in Charge of Publications alice.uwimana@statistics.gov.rw; Kigali, Rwanda Senegal Name (Last, First) Organization Title in Organization Notes (e.g., contact info) Dr. Mouhamadou Moustapha Diaw Pasa LOUMAKAF National Coordinator moustaphadiaw@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Seybatou Sene Pasa LOUMAKAF Chargee des Acquisitions seybasene7@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Alhassane Kane Pasa LOUMAKAF Economiste Agricole Responsible Suivi Evaluation et Communication alhanane.kane@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Cheikh Ndiaye University of Dakar Consultant tmba.ndiaye@mcad.edu.sn; Dakar, Senegal Alassane Seck Direction de l‘Analyse de la Prévision et des Statistiques Agricoles (DAPSA), Minstère de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipement Rural SAKSS Coordinator; Statistician alassaneseck2000@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 131 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Sylvie Da Direction de l‘Analyse de la Prévision et des Statistiques Agricoles (DAPSA), Minstère de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipement Rural Statistician sylvie_da_sylva@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Baba Diou Noto General Coordinator bdioum@orange.sn; Dakar, Senegal Sokhna Mbaye Diop Direction de l‘Analyse de la Prévision et des Statistiques Agricoles (DAPSA), Minstère de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipement Rural Chef de la Division en Charge des Politiques Agricoles/Point Focal PNIA/PDDAA soxna19@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Magutte Ndiaye Ministry of Finance/Direction de la Cooperation Economique et Financiere "Ingenieur en Planificiation" maguetten@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Oumar Moussa Silèye Diallo USAID/Senegal Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Economic Growth Team (USAID￾funded embedded advisor, GoS) omdiallo@usaid.gov; Dakar, Senegal Dogo Seck Ministry of Agriculture Secretary General dogoseck@orange.sn; Dakar, Senegal Dr. Aminata Niang Initiative Prospective Agricole et Rurale (IPAR) Researcher aminiang@ipar.sn; Dakar, Senegal Dr. Adama Faye Initiative Prospective Agricole et Rurale (IPAR) Prospector latsouckadam@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Abdoulaye Seye Le Hub Rural Rural Development and Finance Expert abdoulayes@hubrural.org; Dakar, Senegal Dr. Yamar Mbodj Le Hub Rural Directeur Executif yamarm@hubrural.org; Dakar, Senegal Dr. Fallou Dièye Cabinet du Premier Ministre (Republique du Sénegal) Conseiller Spécial en Agriculture du Premier Ministre (CSAGRI) dieye.fallou@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Boubacar Kanouté Union Européene, Section Développement Rural, Société Civile et Environnement Chargé de Programmes boubacar.kanoute@eeas.europa.eu; Dakar, Senegal Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 132 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Dr. Vincent Mama Conseil Ouest et Centre Africaine pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles (CORAF) Maitre de Recherches et Charge de la Valorisation mamvincent@coraf.org; Dakar, Senegal Babacar Diop La Coopération Candadinne (Embassy of Canada) Conseiller Principal Developpement Rural babacar_diop@bacdi-senegal.org; Dakar, Senegal Julie Desloges La Coopération Candadinne (Embassy of Canada) First Secretary for Development julie.desloges@international.gc.ca; Dakar, Senegal Cheik Thione Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) Expert, Charge du Suivi & Evaluation cheikh@thioune@fao.org; Dakar, Senegal Cheik Gueye Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) Assistant FAO Representative, Programme cheikh.gueye@fao.org; Dakar, Senegal Dr. Makhfousse Sarr Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) National Coordinator makhfousse.sarr@fao.org; Dakar, Senegal Insa Sadio Bureau of Statistics Chef du Bureau des Statistiques d'Enterprises insa.sadio@ansd.sn; Dakar, Senegal Oumar Fadiaba Institut Senegalais de Recherche Agricoles (ISRA) Ingenieur des Eaux and Forets fadiabaoumar11@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Yacine Ngom Institut Senegalais de Recherche Agricoles (ISRA) Chargée de recherches yacinengom@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Delphin Leon Diata Institut Senegalais de Recherche Agricoles (ISRA) Chef du bureau statistique de la Cellule d'Etudes et de Planifation: Socioloque delphint1diatte@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal Pierre Ndiaye Mamelles Jaboot CEO and Founder mamellesjaboot@orange.sn; Dakar, Senegal Dr Ibrahima Mendy Direction de l‘Analyse de la Prévision et des Statistiques Agricoles (DAPSA), Minstère de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipement Rural Directeur dapsmendy@gmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Marius Dia Conseil National de Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux (CNCR) marius.dia@cncr.org; Dakar, Senegal Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 133 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Saliou Ndiaye Association Senegalaise Pour le Promotion du Dévéloppement a la Base (ASPRODEB) Charge de Programmes asliou@hotmail.com; Dakar, Senegal Gorgui Diallo Direction de l‘Analyse de la Prévision et des Statistiques Agricoles (DAPSA), Minstère de l’Agriculture et de l’Equipement Rural / [currently at] Agence Nationale d'Insertion et de Développement Agricole (ANIDA) l'Ancien Directeur DAPSA gorgui_diallo@yahoo.fr; Dakar, Senegal BFS ReSAKSS Desk review docs: African Union Commission. “CAADP 10 Years On: Dialogue to Improve Implementation, Coordination, and Alignment with national Agricultural Investment Plans (NAIPS).” Synthesis Report. 2014. African Union, IFPRI, NEPAD. “Implementing the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme and Restoring Food Security in Africa “The Roadmap”.” (n.d.) Assembly-AU. “Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods.” (n.d.) Bahigiwa. “2013 ReSAKSS Annual Conference.” Establishment of Country SAKSS. 2013. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “Support for Next Steps in the CAADP Process: Country Investment and Monitoring of Investments.” Global Development Grant number OPP1011043. 2010. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “Support for Next Steps in the CAADP Process: Country Investment and Monitoring of Investments.” Amendment No. 1 for Grant No. OPP1011043. 2012. CAADP. “Stocktaking report CAADP.” 10 Years On. 2014. CAADP. “Communique of the Fifth CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting.” 2009. CAADP. “Implementing the CAADP Joint Sector Review guidelines: What Should be Reviewed?” Concept Note. 2013. CAADP Compacts, Briefs, Brochures. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 134 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) “Draft Detailed Design for 2-Day JSR Consultation Workshops.” Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi, and Mozambique. (n.d.) IFPRI. “Mutual Accountability and Joint Sector Reviews in the Implementation of CAADP.” 2013 IFPRI. “Findings of Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA) Studies (Rwanda, Tanzania, Mozambique and Ghana).” 2013. IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” 2013 Annual Progress Report. 2013. IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” 2014 Annual Progress Report. 2014. IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” 2014 Semi-Annual Progress Report. 2014. IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” 2011 Annual Progress Report. 2011. IFPRI, Badiane. “The Need for Evidence Based policy Planning and Implementation.” Data, Tools, Technologies, Platforms. (n.d.) IFPRI, Badiane. “ CAADP RT Documents and Meeting Preparation Logistics.” (n.d.) IFPRI. “Ghana SAKSS Research Agreement.” 2013. IFPRI. “Rwanda SAKSS Research Agreement.” 2013. IFPRI. “Ethiopia SAKSS Research Agreement.” 2014. IFPRI. “DRC SAKSS Research Agreement.” 2014. IFPRI. “Togo SAKSS Research Agreement.” 2014. IFPRI. “Impact Simulation of ECOWAS Rice Self-Sufficiency Policy.” IFPRI Discussion Paper. 2014. IFPRI. “Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems for Agriculture and Rural Development in Africa.” Translating Evidence into Action. 2011. IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” A Proposal. 2009. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 135 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) IFPRI. “Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome-based Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries.” Results Framework and Key Milestones. 2010. IFPRI. “CAADP 10 Years Out: How Have Countries Fared in Agricultural Development?” Press Release. (n.d.) IFPRI, NEPAD, New Alliance, ReSAKSS. “2013 Annual Conference.” Achieving the Maputo Declaration Target and Prioritizing Public Agricultural Expenditures. 2013. IWMI. “The Agriculture Joint Sector Reviews in Malawi- An Outcome Story.” Presentation at ARM. 2014. NEPAD. “CAADP Country Level Implementation Process Process Note.” 2005. NEPAD. “Implementing the CAADP Agenda “Future Challenges and Responses”.” 2005. NEPAD. “Meeting between NEPAD and USAID.” 2004. NEPAD. “Retreat on post Accra Action plan to Advance the Implementation of the CAADP Agenda at Regional and Country Levels.” 2005. NEPAD. “Recommendations from the first Meeting of the CAADP Partnership Platform.” 2006. New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. “Progress Report 2013-2014.” 2014. ReSAKSS-ECA. “Trends in Key Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in the COMESA Region.” Annual Trends and Outlook Report. 2011. ReSAKSS-ECA. “Trends in Key Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in the COMESA Region.” Annual Trends and Outlook Report. 2010. ReSAKSS-ECA. “Trends in Key Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in Kenya.” 2011. ReSAKSS. “Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural Performance and Shared Goals in Southern Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 24. 2008. ReSAKSS-NEPAD. “Facilitating Improved Agricultural Joint Sector Review Process and Reports.” (n.d.) ReSAKSS. “Status and Trends of Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in the COMESA Region.” 2009. ReSAKSS-SA. “Recent Trends and Future Prospects for Agricultural Growth, Poverty Reduction, and Investment in Southern Africa.”. Annual Trends Report. 2009. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 136 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS-SA. “Agricultural Growth and Trends Outlook for Southern Africa.” Annual Trends Report. 2010. ReSAKSS-SA. “Agricultural Growth and Trends Outlook for Southern Africa.” Annual Trends Report-Enhancing Regional Food Security through Increased Agricultural Productivity. 2011. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 5-Ghana. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 8-Kenya. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 1-Malawi. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 4-Mozambique. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 2-Rwanda. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 7-Tanzania. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 9-Uganda. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS CNA Report 6-Zambia. 2014. ReSAKSS, AGRODEP. “Strengthening Capacities for Evidence-based Policy Planning and Implementation in Africa: IFPRI’s Support to CAADP in 2013.” 2014. ReSAKSS. “ReSAKSS Phase II (2011-2015).” January-December 2012 Work Plan. 2012. ReSAKSS. “ReSAKSS Phase II (2011-2015).” January-December 2013 Work Plan. 2013. ReSAKSS. “ReSAKSS Phase II (2011-2015).” January-December 2014 Work Plan. 2014. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 137 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS, NEPAD. “A Comparative Assessment of Agriculture Joint Sector Reviews: Annotated Report Outline.” 2014. ReSAKSS, IWMI. “Success story JSR –Malawi & Mozambique.” Joint Sector Reviews for Malawi and Mozambique. 2014. ReSAKSS. “Collaborative Support to Country Joint Sector Reviews: Guiding Principles.” 2013. ReSAKSS. “Trends in Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in Zambia.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 2. 2007. ReSAKSS. “Accelerating Africa’s Food Production in Response to Rising Food Prices – Impacts and Requisite Actions.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.3. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (SAKSS) A Guidebook for Practitioners.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 4. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Methodological Guidelines for Tracking Public Spending on Agriculture with Illustrations from Zambia.” ReSAKSS-SA Working Paper No.5. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 6. 2010. ReSAKSS. “Growth and Poverty Reduction Impacts of Public Investments in Agriculture and Rural Areas Assessment Techniques, Tools, and Guide for Practitioners.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 7. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Malawi: Past Performance and Recent Trends.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.8. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Monitoring Trends in Public Spending on Agriculture: The Case of Malawi.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 9. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Economic Transformation in Theory and Practice: What are the Messages for Africa?” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.10. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Investment Opportunities for Livestock in the North Eastern Province of Kenya: A Synthesis of Existing Knowledge.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 12. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Promoting Fertilizer Use in Africa: Current Issues and Empirical Evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 13. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Potential for Intra-Regional Maize Trade in Southern Africa: An Analysis for Zambia at the Sub-National Level.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 14. 2008. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 138 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS. “Assessing Potential Welfare Impacts on Agriculture of a Regional Free Trade Agreement in Southern Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 15. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agriculture for Development in Ghana New Opportunities and Challenges.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 16. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth and Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Uganda.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 17. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth and Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Malawi.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 18. 2008. ReSAKSS. Agricultural Growth and Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Zambia.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 19. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth Options for Poverty Reduction in Mozambique: Preliminary Report Prepared for Mozambique’s Ministry of the Agriculture and Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS).” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.20. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth and Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Rwanda.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 21. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Regional Strategic Alternatives for Agriculture-led Growth and Poverty Reduction in West Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 22. 2008. ReSAKSS. “A Spatial Analysis of Child Nutrition in West Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 23. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural Performance and Shared Goals in Southern Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 24. 2008. ReSAKSS. “Investing in African Agriculture to Halve Poverty by 2015.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.25. 2009. ReSAKSS. “Trends and Spatial Distribution of Public Agricultural Spending in Zambia: Implications for Agricultural Productivity Growth.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.26. 2009. ReSAKSS. “Responding to Food Price Crisis in Eastern and Southern Africa: Policy Options for National and Regional Action.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.27. 2009. ReSAKSS. “Public Spending for Agriculture in Africa: Trends and Composition.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.28. 2009. ReSAKSS. “The Impact of Non-tariff Barriers on Maize and Beef Trade in East Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.29. 2009. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 139 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS. “A Quantitative Assessment of the COMESA Customs Union.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.30. 2009. ReSAKSS. “Monitoring and Assessing Targets of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the First Millennium Development Goal (MDG) in Africa.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.31. 2010. ReSAKSS. “Mapping risk and vulnerability hotspots in the COMESA region: Technical Report.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.32. 2010. ReSAKSS. “Status, Distribution, and Determinants of Poverty in the COMESA Region: A Review of Existing Knowledge.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.33. 2011. ReSAKSS. “The Structure and Trends of Public Expenditure on Agriculture in Mozambique.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.34. 2011. ReSAKSS. “Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Kenya: Technical Analysis for the Agricultural Sectoral Development Strategy (ASDS)—Medium Term Investment Plan (MTIP).” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.35. 2012. ReSAKSS. “Integrating livestock in CAADP framework: Policy analysis using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model for Ethiopia.” ReSAKSS Working Paper No.36. 2012. “Terms of Reference for Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) in Mozambique.” 2013. USAID. “IFPRI Grant.” 2010. USAID. “IFPRI Grant.” Amendment 3. 2014. USAID. “IFPRI Grant.” Amendment 1. 2012. USAID. “IFPRI Grant.” Amendment 2. 2012. ReSAKSS Publications: 2010-2014 Annual Trends and Outlook Reports (ATORs) Badiane, O., Makombe, T., and Bahiigwa, G. (Eds) 2014. Promoting Agricultural Trade to Enhance Resilience in Africa. ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2013. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.ifpri.org/publication/promoting-agricultural-trade-enhance-resilience-africa Chilonda, P., Matchaya, G., Chiwaula, I., Kambewa, P., Musaba, E., Manyamba, C. 2013. "Agricultural Growth Trends and Outlook for Southern Africa: Enhancing Regional Food Security through Increased Agricultural Productivity". ReSAKSS-SA Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2011. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 140 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSS_SA_ATOR_2011.pdf Karugia, J., Massawe, S., Guthiga, P., Ogada, M., and Wambua, J. 2013. "Agricultural Productivity in the COMESA, EAC and IGAD: Status, Trends And Drivers". ReSAKSS￾ECA Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2011. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSSECA_ATOR2011.pdf Benin, S., Yu, B. 2013. "Complying with the Maputo Declaration Target: Trends in Public Agricultural Expenditures and Implications for Pursuit of Optimal Allocation of Public Agricultural Spending". ReSAKSS-Africa Wide Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2012. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSS_AW_ATOR_2012_FINAL.pdf Chilonda, P., Xavier, V., Luciano, L., Gemo, H., Chamusso, A., Zikhali, P., Faria, A., Govereh, J., Manussa, S., Acubar, B., Musaba, E., Osvaldo, L., Alage, N., Macome, E., and Manganhela, A. 2011. “Monitoring Agriculture Sector Performance, Growth and Poverty Trends in Mozambique”. MozSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2010. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and Ministry of Agriculture, Mozambique. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/MozSAKSS_ATOR_2010.pdf Taondyandé, M., Yade, M. and Nwafor, M. 2012. "Suivi Des Processes De Développement de L’agriculture Ouest Africaine et de ses Performances: Une Analyse Comparative". ReSAKSS-West Africa Bizimana, C., Usengumukiza, F., Kalisa, J. and Rwirahira, J. 2012. "Trends in Key Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in Rwanda". Rwanda-SAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2012. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, Rwanda. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//trends-in-key-agricultural-and-rural￾development-i-53112.pdf Benin, S., Nin Pratt, A., Wood, S. and Guo, Z. 2011. "Trends and Spatial Patterns in Agricultural Productivity in Africa, 1961–2010". ReSAKSS-Africa Wide Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2011. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//trends-and-spatial-patterns-in-agricultural￾produc-53115.pdf Ogada MJ., Guthiga PM., Massawe S. 2011. “Trends And Outlook Report On Key Agriculture And Rural Development Indicators In Kenya.” ReSAKSS-Eastern and Central Africa Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2011. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//trends-and-outlook-report-on-key￾indicators-in-ken-50981.pdf Chilonda, P., Zikhali, P., and Musaba, E. 2010. "Agricultural Growth Trends and Outlook for Southern Africa". ReSAKSS-Southern Africa Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2010. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 141 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//agricultural-growth-trends-and-outlook-for￾souther-53181.pdf Benin, S., Kennedy, A., Lambert, M., and L. McBride. 2011. "Monitoring African agricultural development processes and performance: A comparative analysis". ReSAKSS-Africa Wide Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2010. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//monitoring-african-agricultural￾development-proces-50920.pdf Working Papers Gelan, A., Engida, E., Caria, A. S., and Karugia, J. 2013. "Integrating livestock in CAADP framework: Policy analysis using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model for Ethiopia". ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 36. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/WP%2036_Livestock_CGE.pdf Mabiso, A., Pauw, K. and Benin, S. 2012. "Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Kenya: Technical Analysis for the Agricultural Sectoral Development Strategy (ASDS)— Medium Term Investment Plan (MTIP)". ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 35. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//agricultural-growth-and-poverty-reduction￾in-kenya-50989.pdf Boughton, D., Chamusso, A. Chilonda, P., Gilead, M. and Zavale, H. 2011. "The Structure and Trends of Public Expenditure on Agriculture in Mozambique." ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 34. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//the-structure-and-trends-of-public￾expenditure-on-50968.pdf Kabubo-Mariara, J., Karugia, J., Massawe, S., Kirui, O., and Wanjiku, J. 2011. "Status and Determinants of Poverty in the Comesa Region: A Review of Existing Knowledge". ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 33. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//status-and-determinants-of-poverty-in-the￾comesa-r-50958.pdf Notenbaert, A., S. Massawe, and M. Herrero. 2010. "Mapping Risk and Vulnerability Hotspots in the COMESA Region." ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 32. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//mapping-risk-and-vulnerability-hotspots-in￾the-com-45171.pdf Omilola, B., M. Yade, J. Karugia, and P. Chilonda. 2010. "Monitoring and Assessing Targets of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the First Millennium Development Goal (MDG) in Africa." ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 31. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//monitoring-and-assessing-targets-of-the￾comprehens-45168.pdf Benin, S., M. Johnson, B. Omilola, et al. Revised March, 2010. "Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)." ReSAKSS Working Paper No.6. International Food Policy Research Institute Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 142 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//monitoring-and-evaluation-me￾system-for-the-compre-39399.pdf Tropics (ICRISAT), International Food policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and International Water Management Institute (IWMI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs//poverty-food-security-and-agricultural￾trends-in-s-39404.pdf Issue Notes Nhlengethwa Sibusiso B.; Matchaya, Greenwell C.; Musaba, Emmanuel and Pius Chilonda. 2014. "Trends in Public Agricultural Spending in Swaziland". ReSAKSS Issue Note No. 23. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System-Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA). International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/RESAKSS-SA-Issue%20Note_No23.pdf Benin, S.; and Yu, B. 2013. "Trends in Public Agricultural Expenditures in Africa." ReSAKSS Issue Note No. 22. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/IB22%20-%20ATOR%202012.pdf Chamusso, A.; Zikhali, P; Musaba, E.; Gêmo, H. and Osvaldo L. 2013. "Trends in Public Agricultural Spending in Mozambique." ReSAKSS Issue Note No. 21. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System- Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA). International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSS_IN21.pdf Liu, Y. and Benin, S. 2013. "Options and Priorities for Raising and Maintaining High Agricultural Productivity in Africa." ReSAKSS Issue Note No. 20. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSS_IN20.pdf Bizimana, C. 2013. "Strategies for Improving Adoption of Soil-Fertility Technologies in Rwanda." ReSAKSS Issue Note No. 19. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System. International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReSAKSS_IN19.pdf Other ReSAKSS Publications ReSAKSS. 2014. “ReSAKSS Brochure.” Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/BRO_2014_ReSAKSS-Africa_web.pdf ReSAKSS and AGRODEP. 2014. “Strengthening Capacities for Evidence-based Policy Planning and Implementation in Africa: IFPRI's Support to CAADP in 2013.” Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and the African Growth and Development Policy (AGRODEP) Modeling Consortium. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/IFPRI_CAADP_2013_Report.pdf Capacity Needs Assessment Reports Phiri, M. Alexander. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Malawi.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 1. Regional Strategic Analysis and Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 143 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Malawi_Final_Report.pdf Bizoza, Alfred R., Rwirahira, John., and Bizimana, Claude. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Rwanda.” ReSAKSS CNA Report #2. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Rwanda_Final_Report.pdf Ethiopia, Tadesse and Wondwossen, Tsegaye.2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Ethiopia.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 3. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Ethiopia_Final_R Zandamela, Carlos. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Mozambique.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 4. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Mozambique_Final_Report.pdf Dittoh, Saa. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Ghana” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 5. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Ghana_Final_Report.pdf Musonda, Doris., Mavroeidi, Vasiliki., Tembo, Stephen., Matchaya, Greenwell., Nhlengethwa, Sibusiso., Chikwenya, Nicholas., and Sikombe, Derrick., and Chilonda, Pius. Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Zambia.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 6. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Zambia_Final_Report.pdf Mwinuka, Lutengano. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Tanzania.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 7. ReSAKSS CNA Report # 5. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Tanzania_Final_Report.pdf Nyikal, Rose. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Kenya.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 8. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 144 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Kenya_Final_Report.pdf Bashaasha, Bernard. 2014. “Capacity Strengthening Strategy through Capacity Needs Assessment for Country Level Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS): Uganda.” ReSAKSS CNA Report # 9. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/CNA_Uganda_Final_Report.pdf Agriculture Joint Sector Review Assessment Reports Government of Burkina Faso, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MASA). 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: MASA. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Burkina_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: MoA. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Ethiopia_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Ghana, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). Forthcoming, 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Accra, Ghana: MoFA. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Ghana_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Malawi, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS). Forthcoming, 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Lilongwe, Malawi: MoAFS. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Malawi_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Mozambique, Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG). Forthcoming, 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Maputo, Mozambique: MINAG. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Mozambique_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Senegal, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Equipment (MoARE). Forthcoming, 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Dakar, Senegal: MoARE. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 145 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Senegal_JSR_Assessment.pdf Government of Tanzania, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives (MAFC). Forthcoming, 2014. Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: MAFC. Report was produced with technical support from the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System and International Food Policy Research Institute under the leadership of the African Union Commission and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. http://www.resakss.org/2014conference/docs/Tanzania_JSR_Assessment.pdf ReSAKSS SlideShare Stats # of views # of downloads # of uploaded presentations 2014 31,887 634 29 2013 34,013 440 18 2012* 32,492 189 101 Note: * the ReSAKSS SlideShare account was launched in March 26, 2012. The 2012 data covers from March 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012. ReSAKSS Website Traffics over Three Years 1. Trends of Website Users and PageViews Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 146 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Source: Google Analytics accessed on November 25, 3014 Note: * as of November 24, 2014. ReSAKSS started tracking web traffics in August 23, 2011. 2. Trends of New Visitors Source: Google Analytics accessed on November 25, 3014 Note: * as of November 24, 2014. ReSAKSS started tracking web traffics in August 23, 2011. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 147 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS Social Media Engagement 1. Twitter Followers 2. Facebook Likes Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 148 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX V: ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE ANALYSIS FOR EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To explore the data further to see if the contribution analysis and divergence of aggregate stakeholder groups could speak to the underlying causes concerning:  Quality of analysis--is there an issue with quality control within a particular ReSAKSS node, across nodes, across different types of analysis?  Is the issue with stakeholders, e.g. academic stakeholders expect a different type of analysis from political stakeholders?  Is it that the analysis is OK but off target for that stakeholder group's use? The following themes were re-reviewed to see if additional analysis by stakeholder group would be warranted. Note the numbers are references to the codes listed in the ReSAKSS Qualitative Code Book, included as part of Annex I1of the Evaluation Report, and the letter Q and number in parentheses refers to the research sub question number. The stakeholder groups that were originally examined because of number of quotes (see contribution analysis in the evaluation report) are also listed. A. Evaluation Question 1 Reanalysis of Codes used in Contribution Analysis Code 5.1 Information is useful (Q1a): Informants mention ReSAKSS country, regional or continental analysis; datasets; topical papers; Annual Trends and Outlook Reports (ATORs); AGRODEP Models, etc. being useful. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All stakeholders aggregated together; CG Centers; Country Governments Code 7.1 Information not useful (Q1a, Q1f): Informants mention ReSAKSS country, regional, or continental analysis, datasets, topical papers, ATORs, AGRODEP models, etc. not being useful for defining country agricultural investment plans. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All stakeholders aggregated together; USAID and Other Donors Code 8.3 Kind of information that supports CAADP processes (Q1d): Types of information that is provided: e.g. studies, briefs, datasets. This includes references to quality, trust, etc. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All stakeholders aggregated together; AUC/NEPAD and Other Donors; Country Governments; University and Think Tanks Code 8.4 Level of information that supports CAADP processes (Q1a, Q1e): Level of complexity/simplicity/digestibility. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All stakeholders aggregated together; Country Governments; University and Think Tanks Of these, below are a few of the very few salient quotes that allude to underlying causes regarding quality and trust. Code 8.3 regarding quality and trust are:  ReSAKSS has been very useful – the way they started in terms of the proposals that were made for how Malawi could achieve those growth rates and what investments should be put in place.  ReSAKSS regional and document examples were useful, yes but local situations make a difference. In terms of designing and compiling the CAADP documents, Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 149 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS was there, but we still need the commitment from technical to political in the local context to implement. In terms of content, ReSAKSS work was good.  The way ReSAKSS treated the trade database for neighboring countries is huge. So, how to minimize that discrepancy help us to integrate with them. Why are the data discrepancies there? We need to come to the real figures so in that case, it’s great what they did in the last 3 annual workshops. From the true data policy makers what we will get is good information based on that. Based on that they arrange the future development activities. Especially since people rely on agriculture in Africa. Upon these activities. There are three donor agencies: USAID, ILRI there, and ReSAKSS is the one that implemented that workshop and it was a good step forward. Code 8.4 regarding complexity, simplicity, and digestibility are:  Whatever they produce they don’t make it too academic. They try to simplify it so that it doesn’t discourage people from reading it. The brief is simple and straightforward, which is what the decision makers are looking for. It is appropriate and relevant, yes.  IFPRI is too analytical or academic sometimes. For one assignment, we are looking for areas where we can propose to stimulate discussion. The idea was to identify the areas and say 1-2 things about it. We propose it to technicians or the management to see what they say. What they have done so far is too complex. E.g. if you are proposing that agriculture should be diversified say that agricultural production has gone into maize and tobacco, other products have been looked at. And IFPRI went beyond in their analytical tool use it was too sophisticated for our policy people than what we need. That level of analysis is excessive.  Another thing ReSAKSS does, is given the high turn-over in government, they make sure they always invite 3-5 people to meetings and trainings. This means that there is a kind of shared memory about what has been discussed with ReSAKSS. For instance, the person who was the Director of PPD at the beginning of the capacity needs assessment is no longer there. So that as turnover occurs, there are at least some people in that 3-5 person cohort who have an understanding of what has been done, what the dialogue is about, and what the next steps are. The other comments—whether in the aggregate analysis or by stakeholder—did not reference or address the questions queried by USAID, but do respond to the research questions (Q1d; Q1a and Q1e). To glean data further, the “Recommendations” codes were also examined for the aggregate analysis. These addressed any information or research gaps experienced by the informants they thought ReSAKSS should address to improve evidence-based agricultural growth through CAADP processes. The codes include: Code 4.1 Gaps that should be filled to support CAADP processes (Q1g). Stakeholder groups reviewed: All (aggregate of all stakeholder groups) Code 4.1.1 ReSAKSS should fill this gap. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All (aggregate of all stakeholder groups) Code 4.1.2 ReSAKSS should not fill this gap. Stakeholder groups reviewed: All Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 150 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) (aggregate of all stakeholder groups) The quotes from the aggregate analysis (all comments for these codes) focused on research gaps and issues, not on quality control issues or ReSAKSS management. As such, further analysis on these subject areas was not explored after the quotes were reviewed for each of these codes in order to ensure that the team’s response remained focused on USAID’s request for specific information. The evaluation team then looked at codes that were not included in the initial aggregate analysis in the evaluation report to see if there were quotes that spoke to the issues. These include the codes for the following themes. One theme is “supportive” (8.2 for Question 1), and we looked for the four most relevant, “Unsupportive” codes out of the 10 available relating to Question 1 to explore whether or not a quote categorized in one of these codes might have specific reference to underlying issues concerning quality control, expectations of stakeholders, and ReSAKSS management by and among nodes. These five codes were reviewed for each of the six stakeholder groups with the most salient quotes selected to show whether these are strong enough to support findings. These codes were looked at in the aggregate and for each of the six stakeholder groups and the most representative quotes that come closest to addressing USAID’s concerns are provided below. (Note that a paragraph break denotes a new quote). Code 8.2 Sensitive to partner needs (Q1c). All six stakeholder groups reviewed separately Code 10.1 Doesn’t support CAADP partner participation (Q1b) Mention of Round Tables, Compact preparation, Country Needs Assessments, National Agricultural Investment Plans; Joint Sector reviews; other not useful to CAADP processes. All six stakeholder groups reviewed separately Code 10.2 Insensitive to partner needs (Q1c): Mention of Round tables, Compact preparation, Country Needs Assessments, National Agricultural Investment Plans; Joint Sector Reviews; other not useful to CAADP processes. All six stakeholder groups reviewed separately Code 10.3 Kind of Information that does not support CAADP processes (Q1d): Type of information that is provided: e.g. analysis, studies, briefs, datasets. This includes references to quality, trust, etc. All six stakeholder groups reviewed separately Code 10.4 Level of information that does not support CAADP processes (Q1a, Q13): Level of complexity, simplicity, and digestibility. All six stakeholder groups reviewed separately B. Additional Analysis Evidence, Additional Codes, by Stakeholder Group Presented below are summary tables of the most salient quotes that come closest to addressing USAID’s concerns. These representative quotes have been carefully selected with the questions USAID requested the evaluation team to review: underlying causes that relate to quality and delivery of ReSAKSS services. Code 8.2 Sensitive to partner needs CG Centers: ReSAKSS has endeavored to highlight contextual issues/needs for each country that may be important in determining poverty, beyond agricultural investments. By contextualizing the analysis of trends, ReSAKSS shows sensitivity to different country needs. There is no one size fits all strategy, although the basic theoretical underpinnings Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 151 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) are similar. Yes, there is coordination. We have an annual meeting every year where we review progress. This is where the countries tell us if they need more help, and ECOWAS had a road map two or three years ago for establishing a country SAKSS. All countries attend the meetings and tell us if they want a SAKSS. Country Governments: We, the DoE, were involved with the research and ReSAKSS/IFPRI worked with us as partners. I was in the study of seeds and we were involved deeply in the studies of performance of agricultural sector and now we are developing another one but that one isn’t linked to ReSAKSS but that study will be used for the Joint Sector Review Yes. I think so ReSAKSS was sensitive to the Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA) timeframe but on some occasions the government thought things should go faster than they did. The MoA thought we were wasting time with studies and thought we should go ahead with the investments from donors. Private Sector and Civil Society: To build on the reports – I interact a lot with ReSAKSS but mainly in the area of data. When ReSAKSS would look at the trends and the food prices in the area. ReSAKSS helps the bureaucracy be more consistent with data,– helping them improve their data sets so that they can be used in agriculture by the private sector. Occasionally, ReSAKSS would meet with the Bureau of Statistics to discuss with them and look at their data quality. Also we work with them, the Bureau of statistics, to tell them our needs. The first way we knew about ReSAKSS was through USAID. After the first discussion, USAID never asked us to go back to them. We did that on our own. University and Think Tank: For me, I see that ReSAKSS added value to the Kenya literature that was only done at the international level before. Now I can find the research done locally by Kenyans. When I started working with ReSAKSS as a consultant, they had done some work on systematic reviews and they looked at the evidence. This helps governments and donors look at the impact of their programs. ReSAKSS uses economic modules. What interventions have worked is what their papers were on – ReSAKSS used systematic reviews and they did five papers in that, which I found useful. For the research on regional trade, COMESA recognized this is a gap but are they implementing, so how can we provide indicators to allow countries to use these to see how well they are implementing and see how well they are achieving their objectives. ReSAKSS picked up the research and they were able to do it. USAID and Other Donors: Yes, it is. I think one issue from their analysis is that their analysis has focused on trade and that is their focus on the country. Their recent analysis is limited on that. From our JSR review, we saw some of the indicators on that and they have incorporated the needs of partners. Yes, in terms of USAID, ReSAKSS has provided analyses that have helped USAID in its decisions on where to focus resources. AUC, Nepad and Other Donors: The fact that ReSAKSS has attempted to fill the gap of evidence based policy making is a case for this. Code 10.1 Doesn’t support CAADP partner participation Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 152 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) CG Centers: Who is ReSAKSS to go into a public place and to publish a document that says my member countries haven’t met their commitments? Who gives them that mandate? They would make a publication and publish it without [consulting us]. You can be independent and still work together. Country Governments: No one knows about ReSAKSS. People should know that ReSAKSS is supporting CAADP. Probably 10% of people involved in the CAADP process in Mozambique know about ReSAKSS. This is a little bit bad that the private sector doesn’t know about an institution of this nature. Because ReSAKSS is supporting the development of policies, and thus things need to be more transparent with more participation. ReSAKSS looks like a private thing. It shouldn’t be like that. It should be open because its work will benefit people and they have to know—we need the support from civil society. We cannot hide anything otherwise we will be putting a blanket over the development of the agricultural sector and not get the partnerships we need from the private sector. ReSAKSS’s role is not beyond providing information; additional partner participation should come from NEPAD and ECOWAS. “That is not the role of ReSAKSS, but the role of NEPAD or ECOWAS in my opinion.” Private Sector and Civil Society: The challenge is in sharing the information; this has not been adequate in my opinion. The research really needs to focus on helping the end users, the policy beneficiaries. To what extent are the end users engaged in the CAADP and Malawi Agriculture Sector Wide Plan processes? University and Think Tank: To pick up on what he is saying, I have experience here in Kenya and in Tanzania and there is conversation that ReSAKSS is bias toward crop agriculture and they are bias toward government instead of private sector and civil society. Also they do not have a relationship with NGOs and the ordinary farmer. Must balance ReSAKSS to do these things. So, ReSAKSS is being mandated to support realization of the goals of CAADP, there is a lot of ambiguity and I don’t know if anything can be done to explain some of the thinking behind the recommendations. I sympathize with ReSAKSS because it is managing systems for this abstract CAADP. I think they’ve done a commendable job. ReSAKSS-SA is supposed to be building capacity of partners at the national level. The tangible evidence of this is not yet clear. USAID and Other Donors: ReSAKSS has their own agenda and they’re going to bring it in regardless. I don’t blame ReSAKSS – I blame the donors who give them all the money to do this. The starting assumption from your evaluation questions is that there is an ongoing assumption that there is a relationship between ReSAKSS and the specific country. I don’t know what ReSAKSS really offers beyond the JSRs. I have no idea what their procedures are for supporting countries. Is there not a better way to package analyses and reports to make them more attractive and perhaps interactive? ReSAKSS-SA is supposed to be building capacity of partners at the national level. The tangible evidence of this is not yet clear. AUC and Nepad: No quotes were recorded. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 153 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Code 10.2 Insensitive to partner needs CG Centers: ReSAKSS is a project, not a program or institution. They were supposed to be working with us. We wanted them to build capacity. To learn while doing. To learn while doing you need to have the person there with you. There is the agreement. One is an institution with capacity to help. The other is supposed to have a relationship to build capacity and work for us! Over the last two years the relationship with ReSAKSS could have been more demand driven than it is right now. We’ve tried to say, because you’re on this ILRI team dealing with trade and value chains that in terms of interest – there hasn’t been as much interaction as I think there should have been because we have a common interest in topics. Also from this team there is a lot of potential for input for what ReSAKSS has to contribute to contribute. So more sensitivity is needed. …but the language issues need to be resolved for sensitivity to really be felt. Unfortunately, the use of ReSAKSS documents to improve the planning and budgeting process wasn’t really achieved. Why? Probably because we failed in part because the communications strategy used for this report for the potential users was not in Portuguese. English docs are read by very few people and that’s a serious problem. Those at the decision making level prefer documents in Portuguese. That is one of the problems. Country Governments: Ministry is the driver of policy development; for example, academia is brought on quite frequently; and they thought academia would handle research but that has not been the case: “We are the drivers at the ministry.” It is more the feeling that we have this request for ananother piece, the ReSAKSS Joint Sector Review, on top of our own medium term review, our own joint sector review-type report, etc. So why then do we have to do the formal joint sector review, etc. for ReSAKSS? Our own review satisfies CAADP. Private Sector and Civil Society: When I talk to you, you will listen but it’s only afterward when you do follow up that I know something happened. If that doesn’t happen then I’m only a participant to increase the numbers. People talk and discussed things when we’re asked for ideas but then there is no follow up. People are not prepared to capture my views that people can use. In a lot of these meetings, there is no preparation to do that. You need to manage that and have a tool to manage that because then the follow up doesn’t take place. You have very good meetings and have the partners and discuss target groups, farmers and it fits like this and that they will get in touch about how you can fit into things but then, nothing happens. “I don’t see SAKSS reflecting stakeholder needs. Farmers need experts to support them. If they were to attend these meetings, they would be able to give recommendations and have ownership. They could transmit their needs to the government. The government doesn’t invite us as stakeholders to participate, but maybe they invite others. University and Think Tank: … I have experience here in Kenya and in Tanzania and there is conversation that ReSAKSS is biased toward crop agriculture and they are biased toward government instead of private sector and civil society. Also they do not have a relationship with NGOs and the ordinary farmer. Must balance ReSAKSS to do these things. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 154 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) USAID and Other Donors: When I see ReSAKSS I think it’s really nice for them to help us with the problems we have but they focus more on the problems that they want to focus on because it’s their mandate and their methodology. “In terms of SAKSS membership there have been problems with institutional coordination. My experience is that institutional coordination is difficult. Sometimes even at the top between the Ministers and top management. For example, the World Bank supported an interministerial committee, which only met once, even though they were supposed to meet quarterly.” I didn’t know if “IFPRI ReSAKSS” or “IFPRI research” were the ones I was talking to about the aborted JSR Assessment workshop. And they couldn’t explain that to us either because in their minds it doesn’t matter where the funding is coming from, they work for IFPRI. It took a week to sort out names and titles and job descriptions. And whether they work for research stuff or ReSAKSS, they couldn’t answer me. At the end of the week I had a matrix of 10 names of those on the email chain and they created an emergency out of the situation with the JSR meeting. Maybe part of it was we didn’t have enough people in our office. No. This is not yet evident; reports and analysis are lengthy documents that are academic and very hard to use. The reports—such as the regional ATOR for SA might have good information but it is very time consuming to consult and hard to extract information from it. AUC, Nepad and Other Donors: The policy makers themselves are not sensitized in their need for ReSAKSS itself so they can properly utilize ReSAKSS. We need to do things differently. Code10.3 Kind of Information that does not support CAADP processes CG Centers: For that work, ReSAKSS provides information but in my view sometimes the quality is a little questionable. Now our institutional relationship was not well integrated into what we are doing. I can be sure that they have done some studies in some countries. 2 countries of 15 member states! We can’t take responsible for those studies if there are only a few countries. ECOWAS is a community! We have done a lot of things. In doing something with one or two countries, it makes it difficult. …They say they have done some good studies, but they are not speaking to us! As a regional body I am looking at West Africa agriculture, not just at Cape Verde or Cote d’Ivoire. One area I would like to look at is the type of analysis being done. I think it might differ in the different things that ReSAKSS produces. And how what I’m informing or the messages I’m sending are based on good quality data. I want to be really comfortable and confide that the analytical data is there to inform the policy. Country Governments: Because these IFPRI researchers, you can chose to influence them if they are funded. This is why I mention the political implications. There needs to be a balance between economics and politics. It’s something we need to craft cleverly. There are something things that are being said but not being done. We see a lot of value in the research but things need to be done to improve relevance and transparency. The clarity of the work and roles between Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 155 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS and IFPRI is important. Private Sector and Civil Society: There is potential for ReSAKSS. But maybe they cannot do this because they are skeletal as a staff. The most important thing is how they get their research applied to the practitioners. Maybe the universities want to be involved. ReSAKSS does good work but it’s not meant for the farmer’s world. We want to see a lot of good work engage at the farmer’s level. University and Think Tank: But his perception is that when IFPRI and ReSAKSS are doing a study, he does not believe that various governments are well informed that these actors will be conducting these studies ◊ Therefore, it looks like an external donor initiative and not coming from the African continent; USAID may be aware but often times the country Ministers and ECOWAS are not informed. USAID and Other Donors: Yes. A good example is the tracking ReSAKSS-SA does on Feed the Future Indicators. For instance, Indicator 4.5.2 (35). This is a trade indicator and it is not clear where the data comes from. When asked to give an explanation, ReSAKSS-SA did not revise the figure and did not provide an adequate explanation of how they figure was calculated. ReSAKSS does not give concrete specificity. ReSAKSS just does not offer this. I don’t believe ReSAKSS are generating sufficiently detailed policy options. AUC, Nepad and Other Donors: No quotes recorded. Code 10.4 Level of information that does not support CAADP processes CG Centers: They should make their information more country specific. Find out what the country priorities and find out what the greatest issues are – like here, there are different numbers in one ministry (Ministry of Agriculture as opposed to the Ministry of Finance). With bad statistics, what needs to be done so that the statistical system can actually be used? We have already defined the topic for 2014. We sat in Dakar and discussed what the topic should be. What if we are wrong and chose a topic that doesn’t produce something that the stakeholders need? We really need an active steering committee for the Africa￾wide program like we have for the ReSAKSS regional nodes. We would then also be able to cultivate broader buy-in and support. Country Governments: I think the main question in would be asking is about their dissemination strategy since it has been very poor. It’s a useful process. Their dissemination has not been good, so the level of information may not be hitting the right targets. Whether or not policymakers would actually use analytic tools those depends on who is in there and how you are engaging these people. Private Sector and Civil Society: In terms of specific sub-national contexts, the issue at hand may not require complex information. The gap is in terms of communicating findings at a level the policy makers need without losing the quality of analysis and statistics. That is a gap that needs to be filled. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 156 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) But what I’m saying is that there is not enough analysis. Even at the level of IFPRI and CGIAR. Their analyses are limited. University and Think Tank: No relevant comments. USAID and Other Donors: My colleague went to the 2014 ReSAKSS Annual Meeting and the topic was about regional trade. One featured study got into such depth it discussed things like the amount of kilocalories traded and it was a lot to dive into. That is an example of the academic approach. An ATOR report over 70 pages is one good example. This report is too academic. It is not oriented to development. It is useful for IFPRI but not for policy makers, decision makers, donors and other stakeholders who are working on the agricultural, food security and nutrition development agenda. CAADP is supposed to be practical and focused on development outcomes, not academic outcomes. ReSAKSS-SA does not produce evidence that can be applied and used. ReSAKSS-SA/IFPRI produces supply-driven research and analysis. It is unclear who commissions the ATOR reports and who uses them. Additionally-the analysis is on data that is old. The data they use is not current and therefore it is not relevant for development agenda purposes for policymakers or donors. AUC, Nepad and Other Donors: The regional and sub-regional is very problematic, because the commitment by the regional economic communities’ commitment to and interest in the CAADP is not well defined. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 157 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX VI: COUNTRY CASE STUDIES As described in the main evaluation report, the case studies represent a portrait of each of the eight countries visited for five days. All stakeholder quotes were reviewed for each of the evaluation questions. The power of the case studies is they provide nuanced detail on the views held by stakeholders about ReSAKSS. The evaluation team notes that a cross-country analysis of differences and similarities in responses from informants would be quite difficult to achieve because 1) the number and type of stakeholders group representatives and the evaluation team spoke with within each country varies too widely in order to formulate meaningful, and congruent comparisons, and 2) each country’s political environment differs so much, particularly in terms of government leadership and support of the CAADP processes, that it would greatly reduce the comparability of responses regarding people’s experience with ReSAKSS. Along with the analysis strategy used for the aggregate analysis, to provide a deeper qualitative understanding of how ReSAKSS operated in each country along with what worked and what didn’t work, the evaluation team conducted the additional analysis for each country using the following, specific codes:  8.2 Sensitive to Partner Needs  9.2 Somewhat Sensitive to Partner Needs  10.2 Insensitive to Partner Needs  4.0 Recommendations  4.1 Gaps that should be filled to support CAADP processes  4.1.1 ReSAKSS should fill this gap  4.1.2 ReSAKSS should not fill this gap In reviewing the quotes for each of these codes, the evaluation team used frequencies to identify the key points informants shared about what worked or didn’t work in their country, based on the data available, and as evidenced in the informant’s explanations. This analysis (by country) is provided as “additional analysis” below, but are not incorporated into the conclusions. ETHIOPIA COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Ethiopia, despite hosting the African Union Commission (AUC) and its commitment to the CAADP, has been slow to engage in CAADP processes. As an interim solution to a country SAKSS, Ethiopia sourced the multi-donor fund to support the Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) and a Public Investment Framework (PIF) annual review process, which were established to provide the support and technical assistance the country needs at the national level in order to make evidence-based policy decisions and develop a mutual accountability process. While a CNA and a JSR have both taken place with ReSAKSS leadership, the Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA’s) Planning and Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 158 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Programming Directorate’s (PPD’s) commitment to the CAADP cycle and the CAADP principle of engaging both private and civil society remains unclear. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Ethiopian key informants noted that ReSAKSS provides relevant information that contributes to the broader continental initiative to support evidence-based policymaking and is helpful in guiding policy, planning, and practice. Informants underscored the importance of ReSAKSS information and referenced the helpfulness of their policy analysis, database, website, and gap data in Ethiopian agricultural production to their work at the country level. Moreover, the analytical information produced through ReSAKSS was praised for clearly illustrating Ethiopia’s progress on CAADP targets and M&E indicators. Specifically, the ATORs at the continental, regional, and country levels are useful because they provide vetted data each year on the CAADP M&E indicators and they allow for comparisons across countries and regions, which informants said encourages knowledge sharing and learning about policies and programming. However, it was noted that the data within the ATORs is, at times, years out of date, which doesn’t provide a good baseline for the current state of things. Country-specific information produced or facilitated by ReSAKSS is found to be especially helpful to the MoA since “information on Ethiopia’s agricultural sector is not well done in Ethiopia,” and, until the new MIS system is rolled out, the MoA does not have a computerized database that is easy to manipulate for policy analysis. However, information produced by the JSR was found to be “duplicative” of the pre-existing PIF review document produced by the donor group for Ethiopia, Rural Economic Development and Food Security Sector (REDF&S), and therefore, not useful. ReSAKSS was referred to as “a bridge” among informants in the way that it connects regional issues that affect countries with the RECs and provides information about what is happening at a higher level, such as with heads of state, to those at a middle or lower level. Regarding information gaps, “updated current data,” “up-to-date data analysis,” and communication of data and resources were all cited. AUC wants to be able to track and know how CAADP has helped change policies, which they think ReSAKSS should help them produce. 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? ReSAKSS trainings to build local capacity were cited as the most useful approach for Ethiopia. Informants reported that these trainings both help agricultural professionals expand data analysis skills and were useful with the PIF review and with the JSR. However, additional time to train on important modules and follow up from ReSAKSS to make sure tools like CGE are used regularly and correctly was expressed as a desire from informants who participated in these courses. Useful trainings mentioned were policy analysis, gender analysis, leadership, trade, data inconsistency, impact evaluation, data management, M&E frameworks, evaluating performance indicators for CAADP, and modeling. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 159 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) The CNA facilitated by ReSAKSS was also identified as a helpful approach in identifying the country’s strengths and areas for improvement to determine next steps. As one informant said, “The CNA validation workshop ReSAKSS helped organize served as a platform for government to hear about the sub-study findings and where the gaps are with agricultural data, analysis of evidence, and planning processes. The level of data presented to the government was done in a way that could be used by government.” While useful on a broader level, some criticized the ReSAKSS CNA approach as not being customized enough for the country-specific context (here, Ethiopia) where it is being applied. Analytical tools cited most by key informants as useful in helping Ethiopia define its agricultural investment plan and priorities, include policy analysis, STATA, SPSS, gender analysis, and CGE modeling. Of these, CGE modeling was highlighted as the most important analytical tool that ReSAKSS offers. According to one informant, “The modeling we cannot do without; it is critical. For planning for policy, that work is necessary for evidence-based analytical work. The capacity of [ReSAKSS] is huge in this way.” Another informant stated, “It helps you know how much you need to invest in order to reach target investments.” 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? On the whole, informants said ReSAKSS approaches are gender-neutral and expressed a desire for gender to be considered in future ReSAKSS work. However, those who attended the ReSAKSS training course on gender analysis countered this view and reflected that they learned how to use gender analysis in planning, analysis, reporting, policy, decision making, and prioritization. With respect to gender-sensitive tools, the ReSAKSS website was referenced as a good source for “interesting tools on gender and how to do gender-sensitive analysis, and how the government can craft their policies for women farmers.” Others also spoke to how they use ReSAKSS reports and information to compare gender mainstreaming approaches across countries. Conclusions  ReSAKSS provides reliable information and data analysis that helps fill capacity and data gaps within Ethiopia’s MoA.  ReSAKSS approaches to the CNA and the JSR generate helpful information but do not take into consideration the unique country context in their design.  Many ReSAKSS approaches and tools do encourage gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies and strategies to address the needs of women farmers. However, these are not well known or well understood by many ReSAKSS stakeholders. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 160 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) This question covers how country informants perceive ReSAKSS work at the national, regional, and continental levels. In Ethiopia, informants appreciate ReSAKSS for research and data analysis at the national level and hold that Ethiopia does not need ReSAKSS to organize how research and policy planning should be organized and how CAADP accountability should be charted. Ethiopia has its own vision for the model best suited for a SAKSS-type research unit (through the Ethiopia ATA) and for national policy planning (through the MoA PPD). 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? In Ethiopia, ReSAKSS interactions with the MoA’s PPD is new and developing. A number of key informants identified the relationship between ReSAKSS and the PPD as either unclear or very weak. Reasons offered for this weak linkage include the absence of a SAKSS, the MoA not being on board, a lack of interest or understanding by the MoA about CAADP, and poor communication between the MoA and its stakeholders about ReSAKSS support to the CAADP process in Ethiopia. Further, the multi-donor fund supports various “interim” solutions (RED&FS and ATA) for the support of agricultural policymaking in Ethiopia, until a more permanent CAADP compact is established. In the meantime, those who work directly with these systems feel ReSAKSS efforts are duplicative and unnecessary, unless they are responding to a specific, in-country demand. At the continental level, the AUC is believed to have been strengthened by ReSAKSS through its technical support, evidence-based analysis, advice, and assistance tracking CAADP. 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change? Ethiopian informants cited a number of examples of information, analysis and tools provided through ReSAKSS that supports policy decision-making and policy change. For tools, the AGRODEP models, CGE models, the accounting matrix model, and the ReSAKSS product on growth and investment options were all noted as supportive. In terms of information, the M&E framework and the country experience, CAADP program documents for Ethiopia, the policy analysis framework, and the capacity needs assessment document were all referenced as supportive. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? Prior to the ReSAKSS review of the JSR, the annual PIF review (facilitated by RED&FS) already existed and was being implemented in Ethiopia as the country’s CAADP mutual accountability framework. In this way, ReSAKSS did not develop this process but rather developed Ethiopia’s JSR alongside the PIF review. Some informants praise the ReSAKSS model for the JSR process as being a good way to scale up, institutionalize, and improve Ethiopia’s mutual accountability process, while also allowing for the monitoring of progress against more comprehensive indicators for CAADP. However, others see the JSR and the PIF as two competing processes, which makes it hard to tell which one is really helping focus policy adjustment or change by government. Conclusions  ReSAKSS is limited in how much it can contribute to the strengthening of Ethiopia’s institutions for agricultural policymaking and implementation because Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 161 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) PPD’s level of engagement is lower than what is needed to actively engage with ReSAKSS to move CAADP forward at the national level.  ReSAKSS has provided information, analysis, and tools that support evidence￾based policy decision making but the application of such resources by individuals in their work is unclear.  Lack of communication between PPD, RED&FS, and ReSAKSS prior to rolling out the last JSR process in Ethiopia led to confusion about the purpose of the JSR and how it would compliment, utilize, or replace the PIF review. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? The ReSAKSS model JSR process was identified by one informant as “a good practice” in seeking more inclusive engagement of non-state actors, while another informant shared that through ReSAKSS various services, such as the CNA study, these groups are included and various stakeholders are brought together to be part of the decision-making process. However, engagement with the private sector in Ethiopia is still limited within these processes, despite short-notice invitations to participate in meetings and RED&FS’s private-sector working group efforts. Across a number of different stakeholder groups, interaction with CSOs in policy dialogue was said to be virtually nonexistent. In terms of what platform could potentially encourage this in the future, ReSAKSS–SAKSS was identified by informants as a good supporter of policy dialogue with non-state actors, but informants clarified that the responsibility to do so belongs to the government. Conclusions  Involvement of CSOs needs a great deal of improvement with respect to policy dialogue with PPD since this stakeholder group is not actively engaged in Ethiopia’s country CAADP cycle.  The private sector is somewhat involved in Ethiopia’s policy dialogue through the PIF review and RED&FS’s private-sector working group, but there is room for improvement. Additional Analysis With respect to how ReSAKSS operated in Ethiopia and what has worked well, informants praised ReSAKSS for their responsiveness regarding the possibility of a SAKSS; providing the steps needed for the CAADP process; delivering requested information to the AUC/DREA and the MoA; and gauging demand from the MoA to see if ReSAKSS actions are in line with what the MoA wants done in Ethiopia. ReSAKSS was also commended for their level of communication with PPD and how their information helps to fill information gaps the government has. Further, ReSAKSS capacity needs assessment, also appreciated because it reflected a sensitivity to partner needs in anticipation of the development of a SAKSS. ReSAKSS capacity building efforts in Ethiopia were also well recognized because the trainings were deemed to be useful and ReSAKSS tools to be helpful. However, some Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 162 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) feel this is not enough since more needs to be done to bolster capacity at the national level in order to monitor Ethiopia’s progress with CAADP. Additionally, even if the courses and tools were helpful, concern was expressed that the government may not be using them because people have a tendency to forget what they learned, and should therefore be updated regularly on the content they learned, and also be checked in with after taking a course, to find out how what they learned is being applied on the job. Moreover, it was expressed that different actors who are engaged in moving the CAADP agenda forward in Ethiopia should work more closely with ReSAKSS so that the connections between them can be made more obvious. In terms of the JSR process, ReSAKSS assistance with scaling up and institutionalizing the JSR has been considered helpful and the indicators are now seen by some to be “more comprehensive” for the seven targets than before. However, now informants see two parallel processes at work – the PIF review and the JSR – which some informants feel should be merged into one because they are duplicative of one another. This was not the intention though. According to one informant, “When we did the last PIF review, we decided to bring ReSAKSS in – they seemed to bring a lot to the table and we’re trying to find a way to mesh ReSAKSS with RED&FS. ReSAKSS is better designed to build a house from scratch but here in Ethopia we already have a house so now we’re looking to ReSASKSS to bring the promise they seem to have to help finish the house.” As such, informants believed that ReSAKSS support would have been more flexible around the pre-existing systems based on conversations with ReSAKSS coordinators but now don’t see the flexibility within this “top-down product, driven by ReSAKSS and not the country”. In the words of another informant, “ReSAKSS needs to understand what is already there in each country instead of repeating processes that the government already has, like the PIF.” It is ReSAKSS lack of communication and dissemination of ReSAKSS information within Ethiopia that is not working for its stakeholders. As a result, many individuals who should be aware of ReSAKSS studies or understand how to access its information in order to use its relevant content, are not. For example, according to one informant, “Many MoA staff don’t know what resources ReSAKSS has or understand what ReSAKSS is trying to do with agriculture development.” There was also expressed interest in having a complete list of ReSAKSS resources, knowing how many reports have made reference to ReSAKSS materials, being able to source ReSAKSS data for relevant content, seeing ReSAKSS be more active in social media, and having ReSAKSS documents published and disseminated widely. Above all else, informants expressed concern that a SAKSS can’t function if it is not in place. While the delay behind institutionalizing a SAKSS was somewhat unclear, based on conversations with informants, it was reported that momentum and progress toward achieving CAADP objectives has slowed. Further, it is recognized amongst informants that it is not ReSAKSS responsibility to put the SAKSS architecture in place. However, in the meantime, the linkage between ReSAKSS and policy makers is viewed to be weak and most informants didn’t understand why there has been a delay. Some note that while there are ReSAKSS individuals supporting this process, they wonder if only offering support is enough and would like to see ReSAKSS do more to improve in the situation. Without a country SAKSS, informants report a gap with respect to collecting accurate data, appropriately analyzing Ethiopia’s projects, and sharing information about progress with officials and others countries. Some report that the central government is using information from the CSA, which is a partner of Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 163 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS, rather than information from the MoA, which is supported by the ATA, because they trust information generated by ReSAKSS. Overall, informants are looking forward to when the SAKSS is in place and Ethiopia can continue to move forward in its country CAADP cycle. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 164 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) GHANA COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Ghana was an early adopter of CAADP (signing the compact in 2009) and ambitiously adopted the ReSAKSS model to its own context. Ghana’s current overarching Food and Agricultural Sector Development Plan (FASDP II) was developed in alignment with CAADP pillars and expires in 2015. Informants state that the government’s commitment to the CAADP process seems to have waned, and despite the SAKSS robust “thematic node” structure and stakeholder interest in data-driven policymaking, there has been little movement forward. The country is seen as an example for its agricultural data and information and continues to hold JSRs, which were in place since before CAADP. However, much work needs to be done to fully engage non-state actors in policy processes and to truly move policy processes forward. Ghana has a steering committee to guide the implementation of the METASIP (the national agricultural investment plan), as well as six thematic nodes based on the four CAADP pillars and two additional Ghana￾specific pillars. Each node has a lead institution and members who can contribute their expertise to that subject area. The SAKSS secretariat is based within the Government of Ghana’s (GoG) MoA Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (PPMED). Neither the METASIP steering committee nor the SAKSS nodes are very active in Ghana, due, according to informants, to funding constraints. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Providing information has been ReSAKSS greatest contribution to the CAADP process in Ghana. While informants recognized that the responsibility for providing agricultural information did not lie solely with ReSAKSS, they did state that ReSAKSS could and should contribute. One informant went so far as to say, “[The] most important role for ReSAKSS is to help provide [or] generate knowledge and disseminate [it]: sharing experiences is of major importance. Providing resources to country SAKSS and experiences learned from other regions. That is an important role.” Informants most frequently mentioned the value in ReSAKSS reporting on countries’ progress towards CAADP goals. For example, one informant said, “ReSAKSS has been able to provide the basic information on how countries in West Africa are faring in terms of commitments and progress towards CAADP.” Informants also mentioned ReSAKSS positive contribution of information that helped to develop national agricultural investment plans, shape JSRs, and generally ensure activities are based on real data and analysis. The country CNA was one of the most important analyses ReSAKSS provided, given the attempts to reinvigorate the SAKSS node. Other information reported useful included other country-level reports (which give readers a view of “the facts on the ground”), and the ATOR for the sector. Informants found descriptive information particularly helpful—for example, reports that document how Ghana is performing on their CAADP commitments and how that compares to other countries’ performances. According to informants, ReSAKSS information like this can be used for developing priorities and planning and can then be used as a basis for Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 165 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) performance measurement. One informant, a member of the Ghana SAKSS node, said, “I personally refer to the Ghana report to see where the gaps are. We look at the recommendations and see what we’ve done about them.” Informants also frequently identified information as a gap in furthering CAADP and data￾driven agricultural policy development: lack of data, poor quality data (especially from the GoG), unavailable data, difficulty in accessing data, and poor data dissemination. They had many recommendations for ReSAKSS to improve data quality and availability, ranging from creating online platforms to house data to building linkages from urban to rural areas to distribute information. Some informants said that ReSAKSS information needed to be better disseminated and made more readily accessible. For example, one informant said, “Information dissemination has not been as widespread as it could be.” Ghana’s SAKSS thematic nodes are attempting to bridge some of these gaps by creating platforms for sharing information, both through the website and through annual public meetings (like the Agricultural Sector Working Group and the JSR). That said, many informants were critical of using meetings as the primary means to distribute information, saying that attendance at those meetings is typically low, and participants rarely share what they’ve learned with their colleagues and other interested parties (“That is a good platform, but what about everyone else who is unable to come to the meetings?”). It was also noted that ReSAKSS and SAKSS are not seen by stakeholders as “go-to” sources of information because of their relatively new presence in Ghana. Informants listed some of the most important information and data gaps as government expenditures, market information, and resources (funding, technical skills, and training opportunities). According to informants, ReSAKSS plays a role in encouraging CAADP partner participation, and are at least somewhat sensitive to partner needs. Most informants noted that this is true despite the SAKSS not being very active in the country. For example, one informant said, “At the SAKSS level, not much has been done. But they normally have meetings and when appropriate, invite us in. But now it’s been a long time because of lack of funding. They’ve not called for a meeting for a long time.” However, many informants also mentioned that it was difficult to engage non-state actors (in part because stakeholders don’t see the benefit of participating), and that ReSAKSS should not necessarily be blamed for the less-than-desired level participation. 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to definite agricultural investment plans and priorities? The most appreciated of ReSAKSS approaches was their “accompaniment model.” While ReSAKSS West Africa is based in Nigeria, many informants commented that the ReSAKSS Coordinator is frequently present in Accra, and almost always available to answer questions and to shepherd the CAADP process along. One informant said, “In terms of backstopping METASIP activities, [ReSAKSS] has done very well. ReSAKSS helped definite how it helps what is happening within the ministry.” While some thought ReSAKSS presence was helpful, others disagreed, arguing that ReSAKSS is overly involved in Ghana. According to informants, the ReSAKSS approach in Ghana was effective. It included a thorough analysis of the situation and capacities of stakeholders before designing activities, an expert review of the then current agricultural plan, and a rigorous monetization of their agricultural investment plans. Some of these initial analyses Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 166 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) were successfully carried out by local research institutions (such as the University of Ghana). And one of the results was the SAKSS node structure that Ghana has today. There were some critiques of the model. One was that ReSAKSS influence is still too strong, and that they were taking on roles that the MoA should be filling. Many informants thought that the concentration of SAKSS and supporting staff should not be based in the Ministry for many reasons (including the Ministry’s lack of capacity in research). Last, it is clear that commitment to both CAADP processes and involvement in the Ghana SAKSS is waning. Numerous analytic tools supported by ReSAKSS were listed as being useful, including for establishing country strategies, round table processes, and agricultural investment plans. Informants said most useful are tools that allow users to conduct comparative analyses. An example is standard economic analysis used to measure countries’ progress against CAADP. An informant elaborated, “We do standard econometric analysis to see where each [country] is in terms of process, what they are doing, and what is helping them to make progress.” These tools are useful for benchmarking and for “yield[ing] data, which is used to identify where countries are weak, and where SAKSS can work to address that.” Informants also mentioned computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to make data collection more efficient, GIS (and related equipment) for data collection and remote￾sensing, and tools for monetizing investment plans. The latter was mentioned several times, as an essential tool used for moving Ghana through that stage of the CAADP process. Informants suggested that “Nobody knew how to monetize an investment plan.” One technical specialist informant said, “I told them [MoA] these countries were expected to do this, and I’m a trained agricultural economist and I don’t even know how to do this. The US doesn’t even do anything like this! I mean, what exactly is an investment versus an annual expenditure. I remember those tools and that exercise. That was definitely a value added.” Several informants also mentioned that a ReSAKSS-supported, Ghana SAKSS-hosted, agriculture policy research methodology training course was particularly helpful because they learned about “policy research, policy analysis, knowledge management, and agricultural policy tools for analysis.” 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processers, and entrepreneurs? Informants agreed that the GoG is committed to mainstreaming gender in agriculture, but they doubted that ReSAKSS was the body responsible for promoting approaches that encourage gender-sensitive analysis. In the words of one informant, “The Gender and Agriculture Development Strategy (GAGS) was in existence long before ReSAKSS came about.” Clearly Ghana is also already implementing the first step of gender-sensitive analysis: producing sex-disaggregated data. Now informants are calling for deeper analysis, calling for a deeper understanding of the “real impact of agricultural policies on gender,” as well as “technologies that are friendly to women.” ReSAKSS itself includes gender-sensitive analysis in their reports (“they don’t isolate gender and focus on it, but embed it in the entire data program”), but are not wholly responsible for encouraging gender-sensitive analysis in the CAADP process. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 167 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) According to informants, ReSAKSS has certainly contributed in some ways to agricultural policymaking at the country level, though according to informants in Ghana, their contribution at the regional and continental levels is unclear. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? In general, informants were proud of the SAKSS model they had created and implemented in Ghana: a mixture of embedded leadership within the ministry and thematic nodes comprised of government, research institutions, civil society, and the private sector. That said, most informants also said that SAKSS severely lacks financial resources, the primary reason for which SAKSS activities have all but stopped in the country (in addition to lack of political prioritization). Similarly, while informants praised the JSR, METASIP steering committee, and the Agricultural Sector Working Group, they simultaneously noted that it was not performing in the ways they would hope and that they have not been effective structures to date. 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change? ReSAKSS contribution can be described as follows: “informing policymaking through provision of data and hosting meetings to encourage stakeholder involvement.” That said, it was repeated that SAKSS in Ghana has yet to reach a place where they are actually contributing to agricultural policymaking at all. “SAKSS has not contributed at all to policy. There have been very few attempts to use SAKSS to influence policy. SAKSS is not yet on its feet. Leadership doesn’t seem to know what it is even.” 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? Informants said one way ReSAKSS is helping to move agricultural policy systems forward is through supporting the development and implementation of the JSRs by providing background support and analysis, making presentations, inviting non-state actors, providing human resources for planning, and giving guidelines for conducting the JSR. It should be noted, however, that, “The JSR was in place before ReSAKSS. Then the process was fine-tuned with an emphasis on deliverables from previous plans.” 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? ReSAKSS is contributing somewhat to creating more inclusive policy dialogues at the country-level in Ghana, though its precise contribution is difficult to pinpoint. In any case, non-state actor involvement in policy processes is increasing, and is “much better than it was 20 years ago.” That said, informants questioned ReSAKSS role in encouraging participation, with many agreeing that “the government needs to lead these efforts, and ReSAKSS proper role is to make suggestions to them.” And while engagement with non￾state actors has improved, “engagement has not been inclusive enough.” Some informants articulated the difference between inclusion and engagement, saying that deep engagement and buy-in on the part of even key stakeholders is not occurring. For example, “The Ministry of Finance won’t even come to the JSR! They attend but they will send you a [junior staff person who is not well placed to engage and participate in the dialogue meaningfully]. There is no real engagement.” Informants said that this is Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 168 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) mitigated in part by bringing political leadership on board and educating them about ReSAKSS mission and role. Conclusions Despite the fact that the Ghana SAKSS is currently nascent, ReSAKSS has made significant contributions to the agricultural policy sector, particularly in supporting the development of a country-level SAKSS, providing important information and data, building capacity among stakeholders for data-driven decision making, and creating more inclusive policy dialogues. However, there is still a need for better and more accessible data for policymakers and a deepening of government leadership’s engagement in these processes. SAKSS biggest limitation in Ghana is a lack of financial resources. There is otherwise a strong will among non-state actors and other government stakeholders for the SAKSS model to succeed. Additional Analysis First and foremost in Ghana, informants’ recommendations focused on making the local SAKSS a viable, fully funded mechanism that can work to fill the many information and coordination gaps that exist in Ghana’s agricultural sector. One informant articulated that they wished, “ReSAKSS had funding for a SAKSS secretariat to oversee how nodes function and to ensure coordination.” Another agreed, saying, “Since ReSAKSS and SAKSS are fairly new, they don’t have deep systems and networks in place yet,” and that once they are more fully formed, they will be more useful. Secondly, informants focused on data and information gaps, ranging from data quality to data systems, data coordination, and data availability and accessibility. One informant said, “The gaps are there. Especially regarding data collection. There are data gaps where we don’t even have benchmarks/baselines. The ATOR is trying to give benchmarks along the way, but it’s not there yet and there are still gaps.” Related to data problems, is institutional coordination. On the matter an informant said, “Institutional coordination is another gap, and a lack of information from one institution to another. Information exists in one, but is needed by another, between government agencies, and on some occasion between the government and outside institutions.” ReSAKSS in Ghana could serve as a coordinator and convener that make data available to all involved stakeholders. Informants tended to attribute both the SAKSS node’s inactivity and the data gaps to a lack of funding and resources. Despite the fact that the Ghana SAKSS is currently nascent, ReSAKSS has made significant contributions to the agricultural policy sector, particularly in supporting the development of a country-level SAKSS, providing important information and data, building capacity among stakeholders for data-driven decision-making, and creating more inclusive policy dialogues. There is still however, a need for better and more accessible data for policy makers, and deepening of government leadership’s engagement in these processes. SAKSS’s biggest limitation in Ghana is a lack of financial resources. There is otherwise a strong will among non-state actors and other government stakeholders for the SAKSS model to succeed. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 169 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) KENYA COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context At the institutional level, Kenya does not yet have a SAKSS node within the Ministry of Agriculture. While substantial discussions have taken place, the country needs assessment has been conducted and the report has been reviewed, CAADP country progress in Kenya seems to be at a standstill. As home to the East Africa node at the ILRI, it is no surprise that many of the Kenyan informants see the value of ReSAKSS work at both the country and the regional levels. This may also explain the relatively high level of awareness by Kenyan informants of ReSAKSS work. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? In Kenya, ReSAKSS work is highly appreciated by informants because the kind of information it provides is seen as very supportive of CAADP processes. Informants spoke about the particular usefulness of ReSAKSS information that allows for country comparisons (e.g., country budget contributions to agriculture, country’s commitments to the compacts, any challenges or constraints toward decision making, and performance tracking), policy briefs, the website, database, prioritization of stock-taking data for Kenya, the CNA for Kenya, ReSAKSS general statistics on livestock, discussion of policy issues, and trade information. Of these topics, ReSAKSS information on trade was mentioned most frequently by informants as the kind of information that has been most supportive to CAADP processes. ReSAKSS work was praised for being “important,” “of high technical quality,” “relevant,” and “useful.” Areas for improvement mentioned by informants included the addition of recommendations in ReSAKSS policy briefs, increasing ReSAKSS staff availability to meet more immediate information needs, and ensuring a consistent level of quality across ReSAKSS products. Kenyan informants found ReSAKSS information at the regional level to be the most useful to informing CAADP processes in Kenya. Cited examples include analysis provided to COMESA on international-regional trade and effects on agriculture, information and indicators provided to ACTESA to use for tracking implementation of agreements related to food security in the COMESA region, information on how countries in the region can be affected by food prices, information on regional trade policies, and performance tracking at the regional level for country-level decision making because it shows what partner countries are doing and helps Kenya see where they are in relation to their counterparts. One informant articulated the importance of this level of information clearly: “ReSAKSS has positioned themselves as a regional body, which is an important aspect because we don’t have many think tanks at the regional level and they fill that gap already. It’s really good in terms of helping the regional bodies who want evidence based decision-making processes.” Overall, ReSAKSS work was applauded as being at the right level for various stakeholders, especially for policymakers, which informants say ReSAKSS makes straightforward and understandable. According to one informant, “Even if I know next to Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 170 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) nothing about policy analysis, I can pick up their documents and understand what they are saying.” In contrast, other informants felt ReSAKSS work is too academic or complex and should be more streamlined without going into unnecessary detail and depth. Two overarching concerns across ReSAKSS work mentioned was poor dissemination to its stakeholders and the lack of clarity around the utilization of ReSAKSS products, especially by policymakers. One informant captured it best with this comment: “I think they’ve been better at information generation than dissemination and getting use out of what they have produced. I think some things are very useful to generating knowledge that will inform the CAADP process. They did some research a long time ago about regional trade that we still cite. I have concerns about a lot of their products going on a shelf and not being used.” 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? ReSAKSS approach to strengthen local capacity through training and workshops were cited by informants as most useful for Kenya. For trainings, those on impact evaluation, modeling, data management and analysis were deemed most useful to informants, while workshops on dissemination of data and how to support CAADP were also helpful. However, informants who were participants wished there was follow-up from ReSAKSS to track the usefulness and the application of the course learnings. Informants also appreciated the following: ReSAKSS engagement of policymakers; their support in preparing Kenya’s NAIP; their role as a resource connecting stakeholders to both information and their network; equipping technical staff who engage with policymakers with the tools and advice; being solution-oriented while remaining open to suggestions from stakeholders; and sharing their findings and research methods— especially in-person, since this mode facilitates knowledge exchange. Analytical tools cited most by key informants as useful in helping Kenya define its agricultural investment plan and priorities include their M&E Framework, the AgInvest Africa web portal, AOTRs, simulations and models, quantitative analysis tools such as STATA, ReSAKSS website, GIS mapping and tracking systems, standard indicators, and the CAADP cycle map. Of these, the M&E Framework and the AgInvest website/database were considered to the most useful. However, concern was expressed about how often it is updated in order for it to retain its relevance. 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? Informants said ReSAKSS approaches do encourage the collection and provision of sex￾disaggregated data, especially across CAADP indicators and NAIPs. However, they do not encourage gender-sensitive analysis beyond the provision of some gender-analysis trainings and a handful of workshops on gender inclusiveness. A similar tendency was expressed about ReSAKSS tools, especially for reports, where gender issues are addressed at a surface level with descriptive statistics; gender-sensitive analysis is not part of many of these reports. Informants cited this limitation with the ATOR because it is reliant on country-level data, which may not have sex-disaggregated data to begin with, Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 171 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and also with modeling, which cannot produce gender-sensitive analysis without sex￾disaggregated data to input. Conclusions  ReSAKSS is producing the right kind and level of information for Kenyan informants. However, there is room for ReSAKSS to improve the dissemination of its work with more stakeholders.  There is a demand among Kenyan informants for a system that tracks which of ReSAKSS products have been used by which policymakers  The utilization of ReSAKSS approaches and tools could be improved if trainees’ application of course learnings is tracked, and databases, such as AgInvest, are kept current.  ReSAKSS has an opportunity to work with countries whose country-level data has not yet been disaggregated by sex and work with them to do so in order to improve the usefulness of their country-level data. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? This question covers how country informants perceive ReSAKSS work at the national, regional, and continental levels. In Kenya, because there is no SAKSS, the informants focused on regional work as it informs Kenya policy planning. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? Overall, informants feel that how ReSAKSS strengthens Kenya’s agricultural institutions is unclear, which some attribute to the Kenyan government’s lack of demand for ReSAKSS work and their resistance to COMESA and the CAADP process. However, informants did recognize ReSAKSS for somewhat strengthening institutions through the capacity building of staff through trainings and seminars, creating an entry point to work with government, conducting a stock-taking analysis, including evidence-based research in policy briefs, and supporting the preparation of the NAIP. 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change? Most Kenyan informants were not able to speak to the extent to which ReSAKSS information, analysis, and tools support evidence-based policymaking and policy change. However, those who commented said ReSAKSS information and analysis is supportive of evidence-based policy decision making and change but they haven’t seen any evidence of this. ReSAKSS modeling tools and ATOR were also said to be a useful ReSAKSS tool for evidence-based decision making. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 172 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? While the ReSAKSS JSR process has not yet occurred, informants have mixed views on the value of this forthcoming process to the Kenyan context since, according to some stakeholders, a government-designed mutual accountability process that satisfies CAADP requirements already exists. For these individuals, it is unclear why a standardized JSR process needs to be promulgated by ReSAKSS and what the use of it will be. For those who understand how the JSR fits into the greater CAADP country cycle, they believe a standardized JSR will be a more inclusive process and also allow for the “comparing of apples to apples” or benchmarking without being rushed, which will ensure its data will be useful while also feeding into a regional JSR. Conclusions  ReSAKSS is limited in how much it can contribute to the strengthening of Kenya’s institutions for agricultural policymaking and implementation because the MoA’s level of engagement with the CAADP process is low and is not using ReSAKSS as a resource.  ReSAKSS information, analysis, and tools are believed to be supportive of evidence-based policy decision making and policy change, but without evidence that this actually occurs in Kenya, it is difficult for informants to be certain about this.  ReSAKSS focus on standardizing the JSR process is perceived as disregarding the existing mutual accountability process in Kenya, and this has lowered the level of buy-in from the MoA. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? According to some informants, ReSAKSS has included non-state actors such as the private sector in various workshops and meetings. However, many other informants feel that ReSAKSS has not engaged non-state actors in these policy dialogues enough, if at all. In terms of what platform could potentially encourage this dialogue in the future, ReSAKSS had a role in two of the four options mentioned most frequently by informants. In one option, ReSAKSS was identified by informants as a good supporter of policy dialogue with non-state actors but informants clarified that responsibility to do so belongs to the government. In the second option, ReSAKSS was seen as the leader of such a dialogue. Conclusions  Non-state actors in Kenya have not been systematically included in policy dialogues related to CAADP processes. Additional Analysis According to informants, there is currently a lack of coordination between the Kenyan government and ReSAKSS around CAADP and an official partnership doesn’t currently Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 173 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) exist. While it was reported that at one time there was intention of having a Kenya SAKSS to be housed in the agriculture sector coordinating unit, once the idea was introduced, “a lot of politics followed” and things have not moved forward since. With respect to ReSAKSS other work in Kenya, informants reported three key areas of both contribution and improvement: 1) their function as a knowledge network, 2) their role with capacity building, and 3) their staff’s capacity. First, ReSAKSS has been recognized by Kenyan informants as a critical network of information and resources and as an integrated platform that brings together people from government, universities, research, donors, and non-state actors. For example, a country government representative shared that, in terms of obtaining information about CAADP, while it is not possible to access certain CAADP items from the Ministry’s website, these are accessible on ReSAKSS website. ReSAKSS has also been praised for adding value to Kenyan literature that was “only done at the international level before”, sharing research done by local Kenyans, and consolidating evidence that was once scattered, rather than simply generating data. That said, informants feel more can be done as ReSAKSS grow their knowledge network. Examples offered include an email newsletter that markets their work and increases awareness of their activities (e.g., sharing recent publications and studies, new regional information, and upcoming trainings), showing how their activities link up with the regional economic communities, and better integrating themselves within the CG community. Next, ReSAKSS was acknowledged by informants for its critical role building capacity of Kenyans to collect, use, and analyze data properly. In particular, their work with the Bureau of Statistics on data quality of trends and food prices in the area was highlighted. However, some expressed concern that trainings in impact evaluation or STATA may not be as effective as they are intended to be because staff functions and resource constraints do not necessarily support on-the-job application, especially within the MoA. As such, informants stress the importance of making sure the conditions first exist to ensure proper application of the training and then, following up with training participants so that ReSAKSS can check and see whether or not the skills taught are being used. Finally, while ReSAKSS work is considered valuable, it is recognized by informants that ReSAKSS staff availability to attend meetings with the MoA and donor coordinators, participate in the country process, assist with country-level needs, and perform quality assurance is quite limited because ReSAKSS staff are spread too thin. As a result, Kenyan stakeholders reported that they are not receiving the consistent level of quality support and products they expected to see from IFPRI or ReSAKSS. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 174 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) MALAWI COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context In Malawi, a formal country SAKSS unit does not yet exist. However, three full-time IFPRI staff members from the IFPRI country program work directly within the MoA to provide support as an interim solution to a country SAKSS. IFPRI’s country program office works closely with the MoA in support of its CAADP processes in a number of ways. ReSAKSS also supports the MoA in number of ways. However, a lack of coordination and communication between the IFPRI country office and ReSAKSS has resulted in both confusion and frustration across informants. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? In Malawi, informants deem ReSAKSS work to be very relevant and useful to CAADP processes. Informants cited a number of examples of the types of information ReSAKSS produces that are supportive of CAADP processes, including the ATOR, the CAADP M&E Framework, evidence-based analysis, studies, and papers, stock-taking analysis, and comparative data across countries. Of these, the ATOR was considered to be the most supportive of CAADP processes and also helpful to Malawi in better understanding its agricultural sector. According to one informant, “The ATOR helped us see [we still had more importing sectors than exporting sectors] because we gathered our data for the report and then saw the comparisons with other countries in the region. Not everyone loves this evidence. We want to think and see ourselves as more of a producing and exporting economy but the data shows otherwise—we are import-heavy.” With respect to the level of ReSAKSS information, informants broadly felt it is at the right level, being “very practical” and “not too academic” for both policymakers and stakeholders. However, a couple examples were offered about information that ReSAKSS produced, which was either “too complex” or not specific enough to the country context, taking into consideration priorities and key issues. Additionally, concern was expressed about the quality of ReSAKSS work when they partnered with local academic institutions to produce papers. The issue of dissemination also came up among informants. One person suggested that because ReSAKSS dissemination “has not been good,” the “level of information may not be hitting the right targets.” Another informant, despite being part of the in-country IPFRI set up, mentioned that ReSAKSS information doesn’t come across his/her desk so he/she has to go to the ReSAKSS website to look for it. Finally, one informant who spoke about the importance of the regional ATOR was completely unaware of the country-level ATOR for Malawi. 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? ReSAKSS approach to facilitating CAADP processes was cited by informants as most useful for Malawi. Their involvement in round table discussions, presentation of studies on Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 175 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) how to align the ASWAp process with CAADP, invitation of key stakeholders to their meetings, analysis of the agricultural sector for Malawi, the CNA, the JSR, and their engagement of a range of stakeholders, including non-state actors, have all been considered very useful in helping Malawi define its agricultural investment plans and priorities. According to one informant, “ReSAKSS indicated the strong points and weak points to be able to strengthen the Agricultural Sector Wide Approach Plan (ASWAp) process and how it can align with the CAADP process.” However, there is some concern that the ASWAp and CAADP processes are “not taking place adequately” nor involving everyone they should. ReSAKSS approach to strengthen local capacity was also mentioned by informants as a useful approach. In particular, their national workshops to build local capacity of Ministry staff and their trainings in which they “went a step further to help farmer organizations” by having them learn about topics such as agricultural investments. Informants used the IFPRI country office, the IFPRI unit at the MOA, and ReSAKSS interchangeably. For instance, IFPRI expanded the staff capacity of the MoA by adding three full-time staff members to their team who work directly with the MoA’s M&E, budget, and policy units. These individuals work with MoA staff to develop sector performance reports and transition the MoA from output-based budgeting to program-based budgeting. The only concern that arose from this approach was that of an actual “skills transfer” from IFPRI staff to MoA staff. According to one informant, “IFPRI does the work but how do the nitty gritties of the analysis get done? We don’t know. We just see the end product report, so there is no transfer of skills.” Analytical tools provided through ReSAKSS cited most by key informants as useful in helping Malawi define its agricultural investment plans and priorities include their models, tools that produce descriptive statistics in Excel or SPSS, tools that organize statistics, CAADP M&E Framework indicators, and their econometric data analysis methodologies. Of these, ReSAKSS models (e.g., CGE, economy-wide, and expenditures) were considered to be the most useful. However, informants fear that if these rigorous analytical tools are not translated into layman’s terms within policy briefs and are offered only to those that fall under the SAKSS network, rather than staff who will “directly use the tools for policymaking,” ReSAKSS analytical tools will not be maximized. 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? ReSAKSS has somewhat encouraged gender-sensitive analysis in Malawi. Informants offered three concrete examples of this. First, during the first meeting when Malawi was looking at the ATOR research and development, “a gender researcher came from the SADC Secretariat in Botswana and gave a talk about the importance of gender in the reports.” Second, “ReSAKSS brought in their gender economist who said she would be working with us” in Malawi but, unfortunately, “she never showed up after that.” Third, “There is a greater push for gender-sensitive analysis now, and this comes from Malawi and ReSAKSS… We [the IFPRI (ReSAKSS) and the MoA] have spoken with the Department for Agricultural Extension about being gender-sensitive in our analysis [for the ASWAp].” However, in contrast to these three examples, other informants reported that gender-sensitive analysis hasn’t been able to always take place because data are not always sex-disaggregated. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 176 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Conclusions  The country-level ATOR is the most helpful kind of information ReSAKSS produces with Malawi, especially because it provides an unbiased look at the country’s agricultural performance, which encourages evidence-based decision making for the country’s next steps.  ReSAKSS involvement in Malawi’s CAADP processes has proven useful.  The IFPRI staff members based in the MoA are contributing positively to the quality of the MoA’s work. However, without a transfer of skills, through these IFPRI staff or through ReSAKSS staff and consultants, MoA staff capacity to do this type of work themselves is not improving beyond their involvement in ReSAKSS workshops and is a missed opportunity.  ReSAKSS has encouraged gender-sensitive analysis but ReSAKSS and the MoA are limited in their ability to carry out such analysis given that national￾and sub-national–level data are not always gender disaggregated. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? This question covers how country informants perceive ReSAKSS work at the national, regional, and continental levels. In Malawi, as mentioned earlier, there is both a high level of interaction with ReSAKSS, an IFPRI country office, and an IFPRI policy unit in the MoA. Notably, MoA staff and others working in the agricultural sector do not distinguish between ReSAKSS and IFPRI. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? According to informants, ReSAKSS and the IFPRI country office have helped Malawi strengthen its institutions for agricultural policymaking by contributing to ASWAp, providing analysis and evidence needed for good policymaking, assisting with policy formulation, creating policy briefs, helping with the JSR, being involved with sector working groups, building country capacity, supporting the M&E pillar, giving presentations, collaborating, sharing information, and supporting overall CAADP implementation. As to whether ReSAKSS is helping Malawi to strengthen its institutions for policy implementation, informants articulated that IFPRI and ReSAKSS helped with providing evidence-based analysis to Malawi’s MoA. However, informants expressed concern that the government is resisting recommendations made from studies and are still making decisions based on political reasons. As one informant said, “Every year the budget focus in Malawi is on fertilizer and seed. How useful then is the analysis if there is no money to do anything other than distribute fertilizer? Then you are quite limited with the space you can provide useful research in.” Another informant expanded further with this comment: “IFPRI has been pushing to have a more balanced budget because there is too much of a focus on food security. Between 60% and 80% of the 10% of the budget went to the production of fertilizer and seeds. Once institutional operational costs are covered, then the budget is finished. That makes it difficult to have policy decisions.” 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 177 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Informants cited examples of information, analysis, and tools provided through ReSAKSS that supports policy decision-making and policy change. For information, studies on the FISP and policy recommendations are said to be supportive. However, “implementation of some of these proposals has not been done because they are politically sensitive.” In terms of analysis, ReSAKSS research on certain commodities was reported to be helpful in the formulation of country plans, especially with respect to what options the country had to get to a 6% growth rate the fastest. Supportive tools mentioned include policy briefs, STATA, Excel, the ATOR, and the ReSAKSS website. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? Prior to the ReSAKSS assessment of the Malawi JSR, informants shared that Malawi had a government-driven process that met twice a year and was “mainly focused on what the government was doing” and “it didn’t really give us a picture of the impact on small holder farmer incomes, or agricultural growth. It was just a report out of activities and we were just reporting on performance rather than what other partners were doing in agriculture.” Then, in 2014, “ReSAKSS contributed to the improvement of the conduct of the JSR meetings through the JSR assessment,” reported one informant. According to another informant, “ReSAKSS, in that process, really helped the country to drive the agenda correctly to ensure that there are accountability principles, involvement of stakeholders and helped the country set a good tone in terms of how we can do it better.” Now, following ReSAKSS JSR assessment, “we follow the CAADP guidelines, which also provides for assessment of other players in the sector like [the] private sector, civil society organizations, [and] donors on their commitments to the sector.” Conclusions  The IFPRI country office and ReSAKSS are both strengthening Malawi’s institutions. However, without better communication and coordination, the work they do with the MoA will not be as efficient or as useful as it could be.  Select ReSAKSS tools and analysis are supportive of evidence-based policy decision-making and change. However, internal political sensitivities limit the value of such analytical tools for policy decision-making and policy change.  The quality of the JSR process in Malawi has greatly improved as a result of ReSAKSS JSR assessment in how it assesses agricultural sector commitments and aligns with CAADP. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? Informants reported that ReSAKSS has directly helped to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society by inviting them to participate in ReSAKSS national and international workshops and ReSAKSS research dissemination meetings. Within Malawi’s JSR process, informants spoke to how ReSAKSS indirectly created more inclusive policy dialogues with non-state actors by first encouraging the creation of “more comprehensive JSR than before that takes into account the needs of private sector and CSOs;” second, by encouraging the MoA to include these non-state actors within the various steps of the JSR process (noting that the MoA made these Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 178 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) invitations themselves); and third, by “establishing a lot of different technical working groups which have representation of private sector, civil society, and government on each group who then can move the information upward” and “look at different policies that can enable the agricultural policy sector.” Conclusions  ReSAKSS involvement with Malawi’s JSR process and the MoA has contributed to an improved level of engagement of non-state actors in agricultural policy dialogues. Additional Analysis Within the Malawi country context, it is important to note that the IFPRI country office staff/IFPRI MoA unit and ReSAKSS are seen by stakeholders as running parallel support systems and therefore it was difficult for informants to discern the two. With respect to what has worked well in Malawi, informants appreciated how the IFPRI staff there are not only committed to the country’s CAADP process but are also well￾qualified and available to support these efforts. In particular, having IFPRI staff members based within the MoA was considered to be especially useful because it allows the MoA to receive direct assistance on policy formation, technical needs, and surge capacity. Beyond the day-to-day work within the MoA, IFPRI was commended for its close work with the MoA in co-developing the ASWap and afterwards, continuing its support of these efforts through its direct involvement with the technical working groups to ensure regular and productive meetings. Informants also shared that IFPRI’s work has been instrumental in helping partner organizations understand the CAADP process and has offered useful information, knowledge, evaluations, and research on agriculture-wide approaches in Malawi. The JSR process was also noted as a successful contribution by IFPRI and ReSAKSS because now the review has more comprehensive targets than before (e.g., financial commitments from non-state, government, donors, etc) and it goes beyond the MoA’s activities to involve the private sector and civil society, who help determine what sector performance should look like and have some accountability in the process. Key areas of improvement for IFPRI/ReSAKSS work that informants identified include: helping the government identify better ways of distributing the 10% of the country’s funds invested in the agriculture sectors, building capacity of MoA staff so that there isn’t as much of a dependence on the IFPRI staff at the MoA, stimulating more policy dialogue with the government, providing more specific recommendations that articulate how something can be done rather than simply “it should be done”, articulating the consequences of what things will look like if a policy or change is not adopted, making themselves [ReSAKSS] more known within the sector as a knowledge support system, and better disseminating/communicating the work of both the IFPRI country office and ReSAKSS. From an organizational and operational stand point, it is critically important that IFPRI￾country office staff and the ReSAKSS staff working with Malawi come together, take stock of their contributions to Malawi’s CAADP process, re-visit what the CAADP country-cycle should look like, discuss where Malawi is in the country’s cycle and Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 179 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) where should be headed, determine who is best placed to offer which services within each part of the process, discuss next steps together and determine how they will be formally operationalized. At the moment, IFPRI and ReSAKSS are both carrying out what they understand are their mandates, which happen to overlap and even conflict with one another at times. Unfortunately, neither party is entirely clear on what the other is doing within the same country context, which makes IFPRI appear to be disorganized at times. In the future, it is important that the roles and responsibilities of an IFPRI-country office and ReSAKSS are clearly articulated and communicated before either begins work on a country’s CAADP cycle activities. There should also be regular communication between the two parties so that they may support and assist each other as needed throughout the country’s CAADP country-cycle activities. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 180 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) MOZAMBIQUE COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Mozambique has made many strides in its CAADP country cycle progress with the development of its Strategic Development Plan for the Agriculture Development (PEDSA) and its National Investment Plan for the Agriculture Sector (PNISA). A couple of years ago, an IFPRI Mo-SAKSS office was in place within the Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA) Directorate of Economics (DoE) and functioned as a successful institutional capacity building country SAKSS. However, after the Mo-SAKSS funding ran out, the MoA could no longer afford the staff with these analytical capabilities and a large turnover occurred. The MoA is now operating without many of these skills and often references reports produced by the former Mo-SAKSS. The MoA is supported intermittently by ReSAKSS in an effort to move Mozambique forward in the CAADP country cycle, and, because this capacity no longer exists in the Ministry, the Ministry looks to a long-term research support program implemented through Michigan State University (MSU) for its policy analysis, which is not located in the MoA Directorate of Policy. Without a SAKSS in place to help lead next steps and engage in consistent dialogue with stakeholders, Mozambique’s CAADP implementation progress has slowed and was put on hold by the MoA during the 2014 national elections. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Informants considered many types of ReSAKSS information to be supportive of CAADP processes, especially because of their “usefulness” and “relevance.” Examples include ReSAKSS studies, reports, CAADP tracking documents, CAADP process documents, presentations on the CAADP process, documents about Mozambique’s agricultural sector performance, evidence-based analysis, information about other countries, ATORs, the JSR assessment, and the PNISA. Of these, ReSAKSS studies and reports were mentioned most frequently by informants as supportive to CAADP processes, as well as the many studies that were done by the IFPRI Mo-SAKSS office or in partnership with other organizations such as MSU and the World Bank. Informants consider country-level information about Mozambique’s agricultural sector performance to be the most supportive of CAADP processes. Additionally, it is the way ReSAKSS connects this country-level information to both the regional and continental levels that makes the country-level information especially valuable since everything “aligns with the overall CAADP” and uses the same “indicators and methodology.” Policy briefs were also conveyed by informants as another supportive level of information to the CAADP process, especially because they “translate studies” into a digestible format for systematic discussions between the directors of the MoA. Some fundamental concerns were expressed by informants about the kinds of information ReSAKSS produces that isn’t supportive of CAADP processes. These included “lengthy documents” upward of 100 pages “instead of something pithy like 10–20 pages;” ReSAKSS academic style, which isn’t “practically oriented enough for the MoA to use for Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 181 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) practical decisions,” and the absence of ReSAKSS documents in the Portuguese language. 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? ReSAKSS approach to facilitating CAADP processes was cited by informants as most useful for Mozambique. Their involvement in establishing the Mo-SAKSS office, conducting a CNA, co-developing the PEDSA and the PNISA, hosting meetings and workshops, and including a wide number of stakeholders in these processes have all been considered very useful approaches that helped Mozambique define its agricultural investment plans and priorities. In particular, the work done by Mo-SAKSS and ReSAKSS together to prepare and review documents; conduct studies; and facilitate discussions, meetings, and workshops at various levels was considered by informants to be especially helpful in moving CAADP forward and building the MoA DoE’s analytical capacity. The ReSAKSS approach that informants felt was not useful is roundtables because of the MoA staff’s low skill level (now that Mo-SAKSS no longer exists) and the difficulty of finding solutions in this type of setting. Informants considered ReSAKSS tools to be useful in helping Mozambique define its agricultural investment plans and priorities insofar as they have accurate data to input and the staff using them has the capacity to use them properly. Particularly when it came to looking at the modeling for the PNISA, “the parameters and assumptions used in that modeling were not necessarily the local ones because we didn’t have the right information for Mozambique so we had to use the ones from Malawi… Using the parameters from the other countries were very positive in achieving the 6% growth but then when you try to use local data on productivity, etc. you see that the results are different. So the tool is fine but it depends on what data you are using and the effort to produce accurate information. The donor community has to be aware of these efforts and help the system produce this data so that it can be useful.” Furthermore, informants also expressed concern about the capabilities of the current MoA staff to use ReSAKSS tools, especially modeling tools. As one informant said, “Maybe it is not useful to involve the MoA staff because these people didn’t have the basics of CGE modeling to understand the modeling process enough to discuss it.” 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? Informants cited a number of examples of ReSAKSS approaches that encourage gender sensitivity, including the way gender was addressed in ReSAKSS CAADP documentation presented to Mozambique, how ReSAKSS spoke to women-focused CSOs prior to the signing of the compact, how a gender unit in the MoA was considered during the CAADP compact, how some ReSAKSS reports have addressed gender, and how ReSAKSS JSR and CNA analyses are gender-sensitive. However, the link between these approaches and the goal of identifying appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs did not come through in informants’ comments. Informants were not able to cite any instances of ReSAKSS tools encouraging gender￾sensitive analysis. However, some acknowledged ReSAKSS for using sex-disaggregated Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 182 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) data in their reports and discussing gender at a surface level, while other informants reported only the use of aggregate data in their reports. Conclusions  Barriers to utilization of ReSAKSS documents in Mozambique include their long length, academic style, and how they are not translated into the local language (Portuguese) from English.  The role ReSAKSS and Mo-SAKSS played in the development of Mozambique’s agriculture investment plans and priorities was critical to the country’s CAADP progress.  ReSAKSS tools are helpful to Mozambique insofar as accurate data exists for input and the staff using them has the capacity to use them properly.  ReSAKSS approaches are sensitive to gender and might encourage gender￾sensitive analysis in their JSR and CNA analyses.  ReSAKSS tools do employ sex-disaggregated data at times but do not provide gender-sensitive analysis. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? This question covers how country informants perceive ReSAKSS work at the national, regional, and continental levels. In Mozambique, informants praised Mo-SAKSS for its work early on with the country’s CAADP process, but since the funding to Mo-SAKSS ended, the MoA has not championed the forward movement of agriculture policy systems the same way as a result of low personnel and technical capacity as well as competing priorities, such as elections. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? Informants were very mixed in their views about how well ReSAKSS has strengthened Mozambique’s institutions for agricultural policymaking. On the one hand, informants linked and commended ReSAKSS and IFPRI for establishing the Mo-SAKSS and getting an MOU for a new SAKSS signed, providing solid ongoing technical support, building capacity at the country level, slotting policy brief discussions into bi-monthly Permanent Secretary-level meetings at the Ministry, “changing policy planning for the better within the DoE” through the development of the PNISA and the PEDSA, and aligning the country’s indicators with SADC and CAADP. On the other hand, informants expressed how, since the closing of the Mo-SAKSS, the MoA no longer has the in-house capacity it requires for good agricultural policy analysis and planning, nor does the MoA maintain the same level of information dissemination or communication with its stakeholders it once did when the Mo-SAKSS was in place regarding the PEDSA, PNISA, and JSR processes. According to one informant, “The Mo-SAKSS person was a good focal point and they would always inform us with what is happening in the MoA, but now this person has left maybe [someone] else can take this role.” Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 183 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Very few informants were able to comment about the strengthening of Mozambique’s institutions for policy implementation. However, those who did suggested it was hard to tell if ReSAKSS had achieved this and suggested that ReSAKSS is in a good position to both help the MoA develop “plans for how the PEDSA and PNISA will be implemented” and ensure research results are being used. 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change? Only a small number of comments were made by informants about ReSAKSS information, analysis and tools’ supportiveness of evidence-based policy decision making and policy change. Stock-taking analysis, policy briefs, and JSR reports were all said to be supportive. However, it is unclear to informants if the government actually makes decisions or changes policy using these tools. Additionally, ReSAKSS models were considered to be “very useful” but according to one informant, “are not being used for decision making.” Further, informants expressed a keen interest in knowledge management from ReSAKSS to support evidence-based policymaking and policy change but explained that “it is not there.” 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? In Mozambique, informants believe ReSAKSS has provided support to the development of a mutual accountability process by co-developing the PNISA (which the JSR will help to ensure quality implementation thereof), establishing an “agreed TOR for sector dialogues,” creating a dialogue system and “a planned Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council (CCSA),” facilitating JSR discussions, and encouraging the government to take ownership and leadership of the process. However, when it came time to implement the JSR, informants across a range of stakeholder groups expressed considerable dissatisfaction about how ReSAKSS proceeded with the rollout of the JSR meeting and its report. From their perspective, ReSAKSS decided to host the JSR meeting in early 2014 on very short notice (one week) and reached out to attendees with a draft agenda and a presentation schedule that caught everyone off-guard since it didn’t allow enough time for any of the stakeholders to properly prepare. This in turn deterred stakeholder involvement and eventually led to the cancellation of the event. Informants also shared that the JSR report hadn’t yet been translated into Portuguese so many of the relevant stakeholders, even if they had had the time, would not have been able to properly prepare for their role in the JSR. Furthermore, in the background of this activity, informants shared that 2014 was an election year for Mozambique so the MoA put its plans to conduct a stakeholder consultation meeting on hold until January 2015 and focus instead on election activities in 2014. As one informant put it, “The fundamental issue [about the JSR] was a disconnect between people not sitting in Mozambique and those sitting in Mozambique. The political agenda and local situation in Mozambique wasn’t taken into consideration....” Conclusions  Mo-SAKSS, when in operation, offered the support that Mozambique needed to progress with its agricultural policy planning processes. However, after funding to Mo-SAKSS ended, a number of gaps have reappeared and progress toward improving agricultural policy planning has lapsed. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 184 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)  Informants consider ReSAKSS information, tools, and analysis to be supportive of evidence based policy decision making and change but the extent to which they are actually being applied for these purposes is unclear.  ReSAKSS had good intentions to move the JSR process along at the national level, but by not working closer with the MoA and relevant stakeholders to plan it properly, ReSAKSS approach came across as insensitive and unhelpful. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? Informants shared that ReSAKSS has created more inclusive policy dialogues with non￾state actors by directly and indirectly inviting (through the MoA) the private sector and civil society to meetings, workshops, research discussions, public events, and trainings pertaining to the ATOR, PEDSA, PNISA, and the JSR. However, other informants either hadn’t seen ReSAKSS use any tactics to involve the private sector and civil society in their work in Mozambique or, if they had, it wasn’t “a lot” or it “wasn’t of good quality.” Conclusions  The level of involvement of non-state actors by ReSAKSS has shifted greatly from when the Mo-SAKSS office was in operation and these staff ensured non￾state actors were being included in policy dialogues to now, when ReSAKSS staff visits for short-term assignments and tries to encourage this inclusion from afar but with little success. Additional Analysis ReSAKSS support during the development of the PEDSA and the PNISA was invaluable to Mozambique’s CAADP process in that ReSAKSS was able to help the country establish these guiding documents, based on evidence, which was critical given that the MoA’s DoE lacks the capacity to conduct research, produce documents, and provide information about the agriculture sector itself. However, since the design of these documents, informants report that ReSAKSS has not checked back in with Mozambique to learn about their progress against the PEDSA and PENISA nor ask how they can help adjust the program so that Mozambique can fulfil its CAADP targets. Some believe this to be the result of ReSAKSS staff being spread too thin in order to be able to circle back and assist further with the process. In turn, there is an ongoing need for improved sector dialogue, a forum for discussion with the government, and information dissemination around these documents in order to ensure productive outcomes. Some trust the DoE has plans to lead this process following the elections, while others are not as certain. A primary concern that informants expressed about ReSAKSS work is how their documents are published in English and not Portuguese. When this occurs, informants feel that ReSAKSS is not showing the appropriate sensitivity it should toward the local context and its documents cannot be fully utilized by Mozambique’s government to help ensure informed planning, budgeting, and evidence-based decision making. While some informants reported that ReSAKSS has intentions of translating the documents into Portuguese, none of the informants have seen them yet. In the meantime, it is believed by some that because the PEDSA and PENISA have not yet been translated into Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 185 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Portuguese, any discussions and progress against these documents has been delayed, in addition to 2014 being an election year. With respect to ReSAKSS approach to planning and facilitating events with government and local stakeholders, informants were very clear that prior to hosting an event such as the JSR, it is critical to keep in mind (1) the political context (as with Mozambique’s election year) and (2) consider the coordination on the country’s end that goes into planning an event as important and inclusive as a JSR, in order to allow stakeholders to factor the date into their schedules, review and discuss any relevant documents associated with the event, and also prepare what they would like to say. Moreover, those who were in communication with ReSAKSS about the JSR learned that the ReSAKSS coordinator for SADC was facilitating similar processes across 6-7 countries at the same time, which helped to explain why he was overextended and there were time constraints for setting meetings and coordinating the JSR. Looking back on this experience, some informants feel the JSR process should have been led by the host country institution and supported by ReSAKSS, instead of the other way around. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 186 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) NIGERIA COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Nigeria provides a contrast to other sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries that have more fully embraced CAADP and the ReSAKSS/national SAKSS model. Nigeria signed their CAADP compact in 2009, but since then the Government of Nigeria (GoN) has been less enthusiastic in moving the CAADP agenda forward. Instead, the government is charting its own direction with the 2011 Agricultural Transformation Agenda (the national agricultural policy), which, though aligned with CAADP, prioritizes Nigeria’s own particular goals centered on the notions of food sovereignty and self-sufficiency. Nigeria has opted neither to create a national-level SAKSS nor participate in national-level ReSAKSS activities. Instead, “Nigeria is pursuing CAADP in its own way.” The Ministry of Agriculture’s Planning Unit is responsible for managing data related to agricultural policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. There is not a national-level SAKSS in Nigeria, and even though the ReSAKSS West Africa node is based there, Nigeria’s engagement with and support of ECOWAS has been very limited. Because of this circumstance, few informants had exposure to ReSAKSS and could speak to its contributions to agricultural policymaking in Nigeria. Even Nigeria-based AGRODEP researchers conducting research on agricultural policy issues in West Africa were generally unfamiliar with ReSAKSS approach and activities. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Again, there was very limited familiarity with ReSAKSS among informants in Nigeria, especially ReSAKSS work in the country. That said, the informants who were able to comment believe that ReSAKSS has facilitated and generated information that has been useful (though not necessarily to CAADP processes, given that Nigeria is not participating in CAADP activities), and to a lesser extent at the country level. Regarding regional-level agricultural data, according to one informant, “There is no other source other than ReSAKSS. For the CAADP process, we relied on the kind of information that they were able to generate in order to develop country strategies.” Informants noted the following research and documents as particularly useful: country profiles (“useful for understanding the broad context”), technical analyses, budget expenditure analysis, regional studies (for example, a study on food consumption in West Africa), and the annual ATOR. While this information is useful to stakeholders in Nigeria, it has some limitations. These limitations include the use of outdated agricultural data, difficultly accessing data from the government, the lack of data dissemination, and absence of data at lower levels (for state and local governments, for example). More than one informant also commented that information is not always well packaged or user-friendly: “Is there not a better way to package analyses and reports to make them more attractive and perhaps interactive?” And, there was a much higher degree of familiarity with IFPRI’s research than with the ReSAKSS network. 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 187 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS contribution of information and analysis has influenced NAIPs, but informants found the information to be somewhat superficial. Some suggested that ReSAKSS needs to provide supplementary information in addition to indicators of whether a country has met its targets in order to provide context and technical depth. In terms of approaches and tools, informants expressed concern that ReSAKSS was an external initiative, especially given the GoN’s lack of engagement with CAADP and with ECOWAS. One informant said, “How do we get it to work so that it is GoN-owned? I wouldn’t encourage it unless it was GoN-owned.” At the regional level, stakeholders also acknowledged that ReSAKSS “should avoid doing work for [ministries] that they could do for themselves.” As a regional body, however, ReSAKSS was recognized by informants as playing a key role in preparing the background analyses and data necessary for developing national agriculture investment plans throughout West Africa. Informants also valued country-level SAKSSs training sessions on report writing and research methodologies. Some of the other most useful approaches and tools mentioned by informants included the capacity needs assessment (and capacity building exercises), computable general equilibrium models (used primarily for measuring the impacts of agricultural policies on different sectors at the country level), and other modeling tools. 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? Once again, it is important to note that Nigeria is not actively participating in CAADP activities. That said, informants suggested that ReSAKSS has not truly furthered gender analysis in Nigeria, in large part because sex-disaggregated data does not even exist. One researcher said, “We can’t come up with analysis and conclusions regarding gender impacts. We would like to, but we can’t without the data.” Without the data, it is difficult for researchers and policymakers to build knowledge that can inform gender-appropriate policies and programs. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Because Nigeria is not actively participating in CAADP activities, many informants struggled to respond to this question. Some thought that ReSAKSS has somewhat strengthened country-level policymaking, though more needs to be done to put their data and tools to use in developing policy. One informant specified, “I see these tools and the analysis being done. But the next thing is translating that [into action]. The Ministry is not incorporating the data and analysis into their daily work.” Many other informants questioned the true progress of ReSAKSS in moving agricultural policy systems forward. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? Though most agree that ReSAKSS greatest contribution in Nigeria and West Africa has been in ensuring use of quality, reliable data, ReSAKSS has also been involved in the “enforcement of capacity, and capacity building and trainings for the country level.” And, according to some respondents, the information ReSAKSS provides is part of that capacity building. For example, one informant said, “The kind of analysis and knowledge contained in ReSAKSS documents are the types needed to strengthen institutions for good policymaking and implementation.” Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 188 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change? As mentioned above, informants generally agreed that ReSAKSS most useful contribution (to them and their objectives) was information and data. They mentioned ReSAKSS contribution to NAIPs of other countries and to country-level roundtable processes that examined “where countries are and where they ought to be.” Informants also appreciated ReSAKSS ability to provide cross-sectorial analyses, for example on agriculture and poverty, or agriculture and climate change. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? In Nigeria, ReSAKSS has not been involved in mutual accountability processes for the country, though the West Africa ReSAKSS has provided financial and technical assistance to many country governments throughout the region. This technical assistance has included providing templates for the JSR process, communicating with stakeholders and ensuring participation, and helping prepare background documents and analyses. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? In general, non-state actors have already been active in policy processes. The private sector is particularly active, which informants speculate is due to the supportive business environment in Nigeria. ReSAKSS has encouraged CAADP partner participation regionally, but according to informants, more could be done to increase engagement in Nigeria. At the regional level, one informant mentioned that ReSAKSS worked with ECOWAS to review and refine the definitions of CAADP indicators (the 10% allocation to agriculture, for example). And the West Africa ReSAKSS in West Africa has assisted West African governments in designing their JSR processes, and ensuring that they are inclusive. ReSAKSS West Africa holds an annual meeting where country-level stakeholders are able to tell them if they need more help furthering CAADP processes or establishing a country SAKSS. The Nigeria situation is a different case, however. Informants emphasized the government’s lack of interest in and engagement with CAADP processes, even saying, “Nigeria almost never goes to [CAADP] continental meetings, and are often not even invited.” While ReSAKSS may be able to improve their engagement with the government through better information dissemination, informants suggested that GoN stakeholders did not see the benefit of such engagement. According to one informant, “ReSAKSS should be engaging with the GoN, but it has not been succeeding.” Informants noted that Nigeria needs a JSR process to measure its progress against its agricultural goals, but this is not currently happening. Conclusions The West Africa ReSAKSS based in Ibadan has provided useful information and tools to countries that helped them move their agricultural policy systems forward and also assisted countries in making their policy processes more inclusive. However, ReSAKSS has had less of an impact in Nigeria itself, where the Ministry of Agriculture is charting its own course and pursuing its own priorities. The case of Nigeria highlights the need for generating stronger connective tissue between policymakers and institutions and quality Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 189 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) data and information, as well as the need for building the capacity of non-state actors to participate fully in the policy process. Additional Analysis Informants offered several recommendations for ReSAKSS in Nigeria. Given the serious data limitations (see Section I above), informants focused on the ways in which ReSAKSS could support quality data – and monitoring and evaluation systems – and its application in policy formation and implementation. One respondent said, “We need M&E at the national level of implementation of agricultural investment sector.” Another said, “If we have to make agricultural policy, we need proper data. We need these kind of forward-looking analyses to help us make choices between our options.” The other most common gap cited by informants is the lack of coordination between institutions, particularly between the Government of Nigeria and ECOWAS. The West Africa ReSAKSS based in Ibadan has provided useful information and tools to countries that helped them move their agricultural policy systems forward, and also assisted countries in making their policy processes more inclusive. However, ReSAKSS has had less of an impact in Nigeria itself, where the Ministry of Agriculture is charting its own course and pursuing its own priorities. The case of Nigeria highlights the need for generative stronger connective tissue between policy makers and institutions and quality data and information, as well as the need for building the capacity of non-state actors to participate fully in the policy process. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 190 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) RWANDA COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Rwanda’s Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) has embraced the ReSAKSS model and their contributions in the areas of capacity building, monitoring and evaluation support, and the creation of an agricultural and rural development network between non-state actors, researchers, and policymakers. The country SAKSS is embedded within the Ministry’s unit for planning and monitoring, which has led to deep collaboration between the Government of Rwanda (GoR) and ReSAKSS. A combination of factors, from Rwanda’s good governance, an effective SAKSS coordinator, and engaged non-state actors, have made SAKSS Rwanda a success and an example among CAADP countries. It is important to note that informants in Rwanda had a difficult time differentiating between ReSAKSS, SAKSS, MINAGRI, and sometimes even IFPRI. Because of that, this case study refers to “ReSAKSS” primarily, unless specifically referencing the country-level SAKSS node. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Several documents and reports facilitated by ReSAKSS were widely recognized by key informants for supporting Rwanda’s CAADP processes. Primary among these analyses was the ATOR, which was described by one informant as “the richest document that we used [for purposes of developing our agricultural plan and priorities in accordance with CAADP].” ReSAKSS assisted MINAGRI in producing the agricultural trends and outputs included in this regional document. Other useful documents included the capacity needs assessment, the growth and investment analysis, and the results framework for the agricultural-sector investment plan. Some informants also noted that ReSAKSS had coproduced certain applicable background studies, such as a report on agricultural economic modeling and agricultural transformation. While most informants agreed that ReSAKSS provided useful information, informants did recommend that they package that information in a more digestible format for the private sector (and presumably for civil society). 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? The highest praise ReSAKSS received in Rwanda was related to their success in helping to create professional networks of researchers and policymakers that did not already exist, and, according to one informant, building “participatory and thorough discussions on the investment plan and other major initiatives.” Another informant added “often we talk about institutions and organizations and forget about people. ReSAKSS network links accomplished experts, which is generally beneficial.” Informants also appreciated the research-based strategy development process and the links that ReSAKSS helped to build between planning, implementation, and monitoring. The structure of the SAKSS was also recognized by informants as important. They saw value in the SAKSS embedded role within the Ministry. One informant said, “The fact that he [the SAKSS Coordinator] is under MINAGRI means that he is not borrowed” and indicated that otherwise the Ministry needs to go to an outside source to look for Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 191 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) information. The structure has also allowed SAKSS to build the skills of the Ministry, particularly in M&E and communications. 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? It is important to note that the GoR has emphasized gender mainstreaming in government since before the rise of CAADP and ReSAKSS. That said, informants agreed that approaches and tools promoted by ReSAKSS in Rwanda are gender-sensitive, though there was not consensus as to whether those approaches and tools actually inform policies, programs, and strategies in practice. MINAGRI has a Gender Coordinator, and SAKSS is helping to ensure that the M&E framework includes sex-disaggregated data. The Ministry also “received support from ReSAKSS in helping to incorporate well￾established performance indicators with gender sensitivity.” One informant said, “How do we take into account gender aspects when implementing these policies? It was useful to have ReSAKSS involved in implementation for data and planning.” 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? The SAKSS coordinator is particularly key to the success of the country-level SAKSS, and his performance and abilities were repeatedly mentioned by informants for his dedication, communication, and ability to make strides in promoting data-driven policymaking. According to one informant, “The role of [the SAKSS Coordinator] personally has been very important. Even MINAGRI looks to him for answers to guide the process. We’ve seen a shift [in thinking] of top management of MINAGRI.” Therefore, in this regard, the role of the SAKSS is seen as a complement to GoR efforts and a source of support for MINAGRI. While Rwanda’s JSR was already robust, ReSAKSS has also helped to institutionalize the process (and other forums for engagement) and ensure all voices were represented throughout the process. Many informants attributed the success of ReSAKSS in Rwanda to the good governance in the country and to the government’s buy-in to the CAADP process and data-driven decision making. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? ReSAKSS biggest contribution to institutional strengthening is its bolstering of the CAADP country team and Agricultural Sector Working Group (and other forums for non-state actor engagement) as well as its internal building of MINAGRI’s M&E and planning capacity. An informant from the private sector described this stage of ReSAKSS work as being “about policy, structure, and how we will be involved.” However, informants were careful to note that while ReSAKSS has made important contributions, ultimately, “policies are made through the Ministry of Agriculture.” While SAKSS is embedded within MINAGRI, ReSAKSS is meant to be supporting SAKSS with strengthening the capacity of the Ministry and not making policies themselves. ReSAKSS was described by informants as an indistinguishable part of the Ministry of Agriculture, increasing the government’s capacity through trainings, and providing a “systematic approach to framing M&E.” 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision making and policy change? Most informants agreed that ReSAKSS is contributing to evidence-based policy decision making and policy change. The NAIP was facilitated by ReSAKSS, as well as the M&E results frameworks. Information like the agricultural sector growth and investment Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 192 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) analysis, the agricultural expenditure analysis, the capacity needs assessment, and the agricultural trends and outlook report were all cited by respondents as particularly helpful in policy formulation and change. For example, an informant shared that “the agriculture expenditure analysis facilitated through SAKS helps development partners know exactly where the money goes and its impact,” and another said that “the growth and investment analysis helps explain where the country is and helps to plan ahead.” 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? ReSAKSS is providing support to what has been described as an already-robust JSR process in Rwanda. The agricultural sector JSR occurs twice a year, and as described by an informant, “It is a very serious meeting. It’s a big meeting: the government is there, plus non-state actors.” Since the Rwanda SAKSS is seamlessly embedded within MINAGRI as the unit responsible for planning and decision making, their role is to help to guide the JSR. One informant summarized it this way: “ReSAKSS provides feedback on these processes and products.” ReSAKSS also helps to connect Rwanda with other countries to both share their lauded model and to learn from others. 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? Informants were proud of their country’s openness and efforts to engage non-state actors in policy processes, though they struggled to differentiate between the government and ReSAKSS contributions. One informant said that they had seen the government’s encouragement of participation throughout the Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture (PSTA) I and II, but “perhaps SAKSS has helped to continue this focus on [the] private sector and civil society.” Most agreed that it was the government’s responsibility to create more inclusive policy dialogues, though ReSAKSS could support them in doing so. The Rwanda SAKSS coordinator was personally praised for his communications with stakeholders, for ensuring that all parties were informed and invited, for creating forums for involvement, and for strengthening structures for engagement like the CAADP country team and the Agricultural Sector Working Group. (Both groups are very active in policy formulation in Rwanda). Importantly, it was noted that the SAKSS Coordinator uses multiple mediums to keep stakeholders engaged and updated continually throughout the year. There are limitations to non-state actor engagement in Rwanda. Some informants thought that the private sector had more opportunities to engage and were therefore participating more in policy dialogues. Others suggested that non-state actors were not able to build their own capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue, saying that civil society is “weak, therefore capacity for civil society to participate and contribute is minor.” Another agreed, saying that SAKSS needed to “train them, engage them, and push the government to allow them to work.” It was also important to informants that all stakeholders have equal access to information. As one informant summarized, “For you and I to dialogue we need the same amount of information. You are more willing to reconcile or reconsider another opinion. We need to reconsider our tendency to believe we know it all.” Conclusion Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 193 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Rwanda is seen as a ReSAKSS success story, both within the country and by informants in other countries. This is attributable, at least in part, to good governance in Rwanda, to the dynamism and effectiveness of the SAKSS coordinator, to the buy-in and support from the MINAGRI, and to the eagerness of stakeholders to engage in policy dialogues. ReSAKSS contribution to policy processes is felt among informants in Rwanda: improved data and information, strengthened platforms for policy dialogue, more inclusive policymaking, and more informed stakeholders. While it may be too early to see the impact of ReSAKSS on actual policy formulation and implementation, the groundwork has been laid for policies that reflect the true needs and strengths of the country. Additional Analysis Generally informants praised SAKSS’s role in coordinating actors and agendas. However, they also raised a number of gaps they recommended be filled by ReSAKSS in Rwanda. One of the identified gaps was related to SAKSS’s level of engagement in the country. Some informants recommended that SAKSS do a better job disseminating information and involving stakeholders at lower levels (i.e. at the district and sector levels), instead of focusing their efforts solely on policy-makers and higher-level stakeholders in Kigali. Relatedly, informants repeatedly recommended adapting the presentation and communication of information to different audiences. For example, policy makers may be more inclined to use easy-to-digest policy briefs, while the private sector may need data that’s specifically tailored to their decision-making needs regarding investment in different sectors, as well as helping to simplify policy and data analyses by presenting briefs that are explanatory in nature and help, again, to provide linkages to how private sector and citizen would be affected. The issue of presentation and communication of findings also arose in reference to platforms. For example, one respondent said that having information on a website is indeed making it available, but it is not making it accessible. Information, according to several informants, should be made widely available in a variety of formats. And lastly, some informants thought that ReSAKSS should work to build the capacity of stakeholders outside of the Ministry of Agriculture, whether that is the private sector, civil society or other government ministries. Rwanda is seen as a ReSAKSS success story, both within the country and by informants in other countries. This is attributable, at least in part, to good governance in Rwanda, to the dynamism and effectiveness of the SAKSS coordinator, to the buy￾in and support from the MINAGRI, and to the eagerness of stakeholders to engage in policy dialogues. ReSAKSS’s contribution to policy processes is felt among informants in Rwanda: improved data and information, strengthened platforms for policy dialogue, more inclusive policymaking, and more informed stakeholders. While it may be too early to see the impact of ReSAKSS on actual policy formulation and implementation, the groundwork has been laid for policies that reflect the true needs and strengths of the country. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 194 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) SENEGAL COUNTRY CASE STUDY I. Country Context Senegal recently launched its country SAKSS in December 2014 after an extensive planning process. This body will be housed in the Ministry of Agriculture’s Agricultural Directorate for Statistical Analysis and Predictions (DAPSA), and will be tasked with coordinating with the four different ministries—the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Livestock, and Ministry of Fisheries—that oversee agricultural policy and programs within the Government of Senegal. Great care was taken with the design of the new country SAKSS in Senegal to ensure that it was able to meet the needs of all the agricultural ministries listed above. The newly formed SAKSS country team even traveled together to Rwanda to compare experiences and develop ideas for SAKSS Senegal’s structure. Because Senegal’s country-level SAKSS is so new (and one of ReSAKSS primary objectives has been to support the development of a SAKSS), many informants were not deeply familiar with ReSAKSS, and/or said that SAKSS was too new in the country for them to comment on its performance. II. Evaluation Question Findings 1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Informants were generally positive about ReSAKSS contribution of appropriate information in both Senegal and at the regional level. Informants largely lauded the quality of the indicators that ReSAKSS has developed for measuring progress towards CAAPD, the background analyses that ReSAKSS facilitated in support of articulating national investment plans, and the information systems that DAPSA developed (with ReSAKSS support) to manage agricultural data across institutions. Most informants who commented on the NAIP M&E framework reviewed by ReSAKSS said that it was well done and a support to Senegal in systematizing its efforts to reach CAADP goals. There was also a shared appreciation of ReSAKSS contribution to comparative analyses, in particular allowing comparisons between Senegal and other countries, as well as to learn (and share) lessons from the region. The ATOR is one of example of this. An important factor that many informants noted was ReSAKSS responsiveness to expressed needs. For example, one informant said, “Before, IFPRI offered tools without asking for [our] needs,” and another stated, “ReSAKSS never imposes things, they propose them, and we accept or don’t. ReSAKSS came to support us.” ReSAKSS West Africa’s coordinator has been very involved in Senegal, visiting often to provide technical assistance when asked by DAPSA or other stakeholders. Despite these positive remarks, it was also acknowledged by stakeholders that a country can have good data and still not make informed policy decisions. One informant summarized this, saying, “Use [of information provided by ReSAKSS] was not evident.” 1.1 To what degree are the approaches and tools being developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? ReSAKSS has contributed a number of useful tools and approaches to agricultural policymaking in Senegal. According to informants, these include the promotion of using rigorous data and data management, M&E tools and frameworks, and analyses comparing Senegal’s progress against other countries’. In sum, ReSAKSS “gives Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 195 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) institutions tools for planning, collecting data, and monitoring and evaluating.” Regarding data, an informant shared the following: “What I like about ReSAKSS is that they are working to harmonize data and ways of accessing data. ReSAKSS helped to harmonize the methodological means for data collection. That is what I like the most about ReSAKSS.” Informants also applauded the standard structure that ReSAKSS provides across the region and continent, saying that it helps to both identify best practices and avoid duplication of efforts. In Senegal, ReSAKSS West Africa recommended that the MoA create an Agricultural Trends and Outlook Report database, which includes information on macroeconomic indicators, crop production, and the performance of different agricultural industries. Several informants spoke highly of this database, because it helped to coordinate data sharing among the four ministries responsible for agriculture in Senegal. While many informants described the challenges of institutional coordination in Senegal, this database was one technical solution that seems promising for ameliorating the situation. 1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate policies, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors, and entrepreneurs? Based on interviews with informants, the extent to which ReSAKSS approaches and tools encourage gender-sensitive analysis is unclear. According to some informants, ReSAKSS analyses sometimes use sex-disaggregated data. One informant mentioned that SAKSS action plan “takes gender into account,” but beyond that ReSAKSS contribution is unclear. Given how new SAKSS is in Senegal, it is too early to say exactly how it has encouraged gender-sensitive analysis. 2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? It is clear that one of the biggest challenges SAKSS will face is “integrating itself and finding its place in the overarching national structures and institutions.” While the government invested in a lengthy and complex process to understand where best to locate the SAKSS and how best to structure it, surprisingly, there still seems to be a lack of investment and awareness in ReSAKSS on the part of the national government. This investment will be necessary for its ultimate success. Going forward ReSAKSS and SAKSS will also have to face the thorniness of Senegal’s politically and socially charged agricultural sector. However, despite these challenges, there is a demand for “compiling data and sharing methodologies” to further the country’s NAIP among both non-state actors and government stakeholders. 2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policymaking and policy implementation? There was no consensus among informants as to whether ReSAKSS has helped Senegal strengthen its institutions for agricultural policymaking and implementation. In general ReSAKSS was said to be “a good tool. It helps us improve what we have at hand. But we need political will to apply what has been proposed. If we take a global view, it is not civil society who should be expected to do it all. We need government to make it a reality.” This reflected a larger theme of informants questioning the government’s investment in ReSAKSS and data-driven decision making more broadly. Some informants said that ReSAKSS needed to do a better job of building the capacity of DAPSA and the MoA where it is currently housed. And generally, there was an acknowledgement of the Ministry’s lack of capacity, especially human resources and need Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 196 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) for ReSAKSS support. Non-state actors also stated that they require support to effectively engage in the policymaking process, for example, “farmer associations need support from experts [so] if they attend these meetings they will be able to have recommendations and get support to transmit [them] to the government.” 2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing information, analysis, and tools to support evidence-based policy decision-making and policy change? Few informants responded to the question, likely because it is too early in the establishment of the Senegal SAKSS. However, some informants mentioned ways that ReSAKSS has provided information, analysis, and support, including issuing reports related to the impacts of policies and investments, evaluating progress towards the 10% budget goal, and producing analyses to inform the establishment of investment priorities. 2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans, thereby supporting actual policy change? Senegal has not yet held an official JSR of the agricultural sector, but in 2014, prior to the establishment of a country-level SAKSS, ReSAKSS funded a “pre-JSR” workshop, which included an assessment of the sector. ReSAKSS in collaboration with DAPSA brought in experts to facilitate the workshop, provided a layout and template for the event, and were involved in encouraging participation from both non-state actors and government stakeholders in both the design of the event and at the actual event. ReSAKSS also supported a committee that wrote a post-workshop document that included recommendations for the agricultural sector. Unfortunately, according to some informants, “this is the first time that actors like this have been involved in the NAIP process.” Attendance was low at the “pre-JSR.” Informants speculated that this is because the government was not widely bought into the process. As another informant summarized, “the Minister was not there, the Secretary General was not there. The cabinet was not there. The DAPSA director gave a speech, and then left immediately. Only IFPRI and ReSAKSS were there. USAID had given funds to ECOWAS to do this, but the nation didn’t buy in. It was just a way to satisfy ECOWAS.” 3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? In general, ReSAKSS is helping somewhat to create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society. However, engagement of actors in the agricultural sector (both non-state actors and public servants) is proving to be a challenge. Informants attributed this low level of engagement to a number of factors, from lack of human resources and skills, to the politically and socially-charged nature of the sector. One informant went so far as to warn SAKSS that “agriculture here is very political. It is a mine field. It can make or break political careers. This is a major challenge in data-driven policymaking. SAKSS needs to take baby steps.” In December 2014, ReSAKSS supported the launch of a new “Policy Dialogue Group” that will bring together these stakeholders to discuss relevant agricultural policies in the country. According to informants, engagement “is useful, but until now it is not yet perfect. On paper it is compulsory. It is done. It is carried out. But in one word: it must be improved.” Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 197 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Conclusion ReSAKSS West Africa has been very engaged in Senegal, focusing primarily on supporting the establishment of a country-level SAKSS, promoting data management systems for the government’s agricultural ministries, preparing for the country’s first JSR, and facilitating background analyses to inform the national agricultural investment plan and other agricultural policies. While the SAKSS faces the challenge of a lack of political engagement and institutional coordination, informants agree that it has already provided value in responding to the country’s need for analytical tools and encouraging participatory dialogue. Additional Analysis Informants in Senegal cited a number of institutional and environmental challenges impeding true data-driven policy making in the agricultural sector, ranging from lack of government buy-in to extremely high rates of turnover within the Ministry of Agriculture. While some informants thought ReSAKSS or the local SAKSS might be well placed to address these, others said they didn’t expect ReSAKSS to be able to do it alone. Instead, they recommended that ReSAKSS focus on a few key areas: data improvement, raising ReSAKSS’s profile, and coordination. Firstly, as was elaborated above (see Section 1 above), agricultural data is generally problematic. According to many informants, data are not well organized across institutions and/or between “levels” (national, regional, district, etc.), there are quality issues, and there are discrepancies between government data and other data. Most importantly, said one informant, “information is not always available.” Secondly, ReSAKSS is not well known in Senegal, nor is what they have to offer stakeholders. Several informants recommended that ReSAKSS or the local SAKSS elevate their profile within the country, and communicate better about their role and possible contributions to data driven policy making. One informant said, “I think that ReSAKSS should try to be more visible.” With that said, the Senegal SAKSS was due to officially launch in December 2014 and it needs time to build its network across the GOS, Senegalese private sector and civil society, other stakeholders, and international donors. And lastly, informants also said that SAKSS, while still nascent, could fill an important coordination gap within the sector. For example, according to an informant, “policy makers are not properly utilizing the evidence.” SAKSS could focus its efforts on policy makers having access to and use of the evidence that is available. Given Senegal’s complex web of institutions administering agricultural issues in the country, informants also recommended ReSAKSS or the local SAKSS body could also coordinate between agencies on issues related to data, participatory policy processes, and planning. According to informants, this is sorely needed. One example of a lack of institutional coordination was articulated by one informant who said, “ReSAKSS is at DAPSA with the other agricultural M&E system, but they aren’t together. They are not talking!” Another informant said, “Inclusion is a big weakness for the government and the Ministry of Agriculture.” Several informants expressed sentiments similar to this: “We are very interested in ReSAKSS and appreciated what they have done. [But] what we really want is a global and integrated system.” In short, ReSAKSS and a local SAKSS node could provide an essential role in coordination in Senegal’s agricultural sector. ReSAKSS West Africa has been very engaged in Senegal, focusing primarily on supporting the establishment of a country-level SAKSS, promoting data management systems for the government’s agricultural ministries, preparing for the country’s first JSR, Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 198 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and facilitating background analyses to inform the national agricultural investment plan and other agricultural policies. While the SAKSS faces the challenges of a lack of political engagement, and institutional coordination, informants agree that it has already provided value in responding to the country’s need for analytical tools and encouraging participatory dialogue. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 199 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX VII: CAADP STAGES Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 200 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX VIII: INTERNET SURVEY RESULTS QUESTION 1 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Sex Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Male 73.3% 110 Female 26.7% 40 answered question 150 skipped question 1 QUESTION 2 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Type of Position Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Manager / Director 26.7% 40 Technical Specialist 29.3% 44 Researcher 20.7% 31 Statistician 2.7% 4 Professor / Administrative Staff 8.0% 12 Academic Staff 5.3% 8 Student 1.3% 2 Other 6.0% 9 For those that select Other, please specify below. 12 answered question 150 skipped question 1 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 201 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Number Response Date For those that select Other, please specify below. 1 Jan 25, 2015 12:41 AM lecturer - researcher 2 Jan 22, 2015 9:39 PM Analyst covering Food Security issues 3 Jan 22, 2015 10:14 AM Assistant Minister of Finance and Development Planning for Economic and Financial Sector Policy 4 Jan 21, 2015 10:14 PM M&E officer 5 Jan 20, 2015 6:06 PM Monitoring & Evaluation and Knowledge Management Coordinator 6 Jan 19, 2015 3:46 PM Assistant researcher and Administrative Staff 7 Jan 16, 2015 10:18 AM Program Assistant 8 Jan 16, 2015 8:47 AM Chief Economist 9 Jan 15, 2015 7:51 PM Program Officer 10 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 AM senior gender adviser 11 Jan 15, 2015 8:26 AM Trade economic consultant 12 Jan 15, 2015 6:35 AM Academic staff QUESTION 3 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Type of Institution Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Ministry of Agriculture 13.3% 20 Other Ministry 4.7% 7 University / Think Tank 24.0% 36 Private Sector 5.3% 8 Civil Society 4.0% 6 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 202 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 4.7% 7 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 5.3% 8 ReSAKSS – SAKSS 0.7% 1 AUC, NEPAD, and Other Continental-Level Stakeholders 2.7% 4 Multilateral and Bilateral Donors 16.7% 25 USAID Regional Office 1.3% 2 USAID Country Office 0.0% 0 USAID Implementing Partners 1.3% 2 Other Implementers 3.3% 5 Other 12.7% 19 For those that select Other, please specify below. 27 answered question 150 skipped question 1 Number Response Date For those that select Other, please specify below. 1 Jan 22, 2015 3:31 PM UNWFP 2 Jan 22, 2015 10:14 AM Ministry of Finance and Development Planning 3 Jan 21, 2015 10:14 PM Sub regional organazation 4 Jan 21, 2015 8:33 AM CILSS 5 Jan 21, 2015 5:35 AM International Organization 6 Jan 20, 2015 9:04 PM USAID Washington 7 Jan 20, 2015 6:25 PM Statistics office 8 Jan 19, 2015 3:46 PM Coffee Promotion 9 Jan 19, 2015 12:29 PM Public research institute 10 Jan 19, 2015 11:04 AM sub regional research organization 11 Jan 19, 2015 9:46 AM Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) 12 Jan 19, 2015 8:03 AM We Effect 13 Jan 19, 2015 7:02 AM icipe/Daad 14 Jan 19, 2015 5:55 AM IGAD 15 Jan 19, 2015 5:22 AM an organisation established to support the ministry of agruculture 16 Jan 18, 2015 8:00 PM Presidence de la Republique 17 Jan 18, 2015 7:17 PM UN agency 18 Jan 18, 2015 4:45 PM Haut Commissariat à l'Initiative 3N / les Nigériens Nourrissent les Nigériens 19 Jan 16, 2015 9:37 AM UN FAO Country Office 20 Jan 16, 2015 9:22 AM Union Economique et Monetaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA) 21 Jan 16, 2015 8:47 AM Department of Economic Planning and Development 22 Jan 15, 2015 7:23 PM USAID Washington 23 Jan 15, 2015 9:52 AM COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SECURITY Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 203 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 24 Jan 15, 2015 9:09 AM Independant Consultant (Agricultural Economics) 25 Jan 15, 2015 8:19 AM CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA 26 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM Private Sector but a Think Tank because we are a Research Institute 27 Jan 15, 2015 7:03 AM Association of Women in Export QUESTION 4 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Country Answer options Response Question Totals Number Response Date For those that select Other, please specify below. 0 1 Jan 23, 2015 9:16 AM Other bilateral development agency Angola 4 2 Jan 23, 2015 8:41 AM Japan Benin 1 3 Jan 23, 2015 6:39 AM Japan Botswana 7 4 Jan 22, 2015 9:39 PM Canada Burkina Faso 3 5 Jan 22, 2015 10:14 AM Liberia Burundi 1 6 Jan 21, 2015 10:14 PM west and central africa region Cameroon 0 7 Jan 21, 2015 9:47 AM Ireland Cape Verde 0 8 Jan 21, 2015 8:08 AM Netherlands Central African Republic 0 9 Jan 21, 2015 6:59 AM Tunisia Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 204 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Chad 0 10 Jan 20, 2015 6:06 PM Based in Nairobi, Kenya and working in 18 countries in Africa Comoros 0 11 Jan 20, 2015 9:12 AM Spain Congo (Brazzaville) 1 12 Jan 19, 2015 11:54 AM Italy Congo (Democratic Republic) 2 13 Jan 16, 2015 8:09 AM West Africa regional based in Ghana Côte d'Ivoire 1 14 Jan 15, 2015 9:36 PM Belgium Djibouti 0 15 Jan 15, 2015 9:22 PM Multilateral Institution Equatorial Guinea 0 16 Jan 15, 2015 9:46 AM Ireland Eritrea 0 17 Jan 15, 2015 9:27 AM Based in HQ in Italy Ethiopia 16 18 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 AM We work regional in Africa Gabon 1 19 Jan 15, 2015 7:54 AM regional project The Gambia 0 Ghana 3 Guinea 0 Guinea￾Bissau 0 Kenya 11 Lesotho 0 Liberia Madagascar 1 Malawi 7 Mali 4 Mauritania 0 Mauritius 0 Mozambique 3 Namibia 2 Niger 2 Nigeria 10 Reunion 0 Rwanda 7 Sao Tome and Principe 0 Senegal 7 Seychelles 0 Sierra Leone 0 Somalia 0 South Africa 11 Sudan 1 Swaziland 1 Tanzania 3 Togo 4 Uganda 5 Western 0 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 205 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Sahara Zambia 3 Zimbabwe 3 United States of America 10 Other 15 Response Count 150 19 Answered Questions 150 Skipped Questions 1 QUESTION 5 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Have you participated in any ReSAKSS, SAKSS, CAADP, and/or IFPRI activities? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 93.3% 140 No 6.7% 10 Additional comments (optional) 35 answered question 150 skipped question 1 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 11:03 AM Development of the report of the Capacity Building Strategy through the assessment of national needs SAKSS The conduct of the development of the Joint Sector Review process of Burkina The online writing training from 23 to 27 June 2014 in Cotonou (Republic of Benin) Participation in ReSAKSS the annual conference of 8 to 10 October 2014 in Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) The development of a concept paper and action plan for the implementation of SAKSS in Burkina 2 Jan 22, 2015 9:44 PM member of Caadp teams evaluating Agricultural Investment Plans of some African countries 3 Jan 22, 2015 1:11 PM I have worked as consultant but also participated in workshop/Conferences 4 Jan 22, 2015 10:14 AM Participated in IFPRI Activities through AGRODEP 5 Jan 22, 2015 8:39 AM As CAADP Pillar II Building capacity Experts, I participated in several support mission or Independent technical review across the Continent 6 Jan 21, 2015 9:47 AM Through collaborative work with donor 7 Jan 21, 2015 9:01 AM Drafting of CAADP documents, technical reviews Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 206 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 8 Jan 21, 2015 8:08 AM Netherlands donor for SAKSS nodes in 7 countries 9 Jan 21, 2015 5:32 AM on CAADP 10th year review 10 Jan 21, 2015 3:51 AM I'm member of AGRODEP 11 Jan 20, 2015 6:48 PM I have participated in IFPRI activities 12 Jan 20, 2015 3:53 PM This was my first time to participate in the conference and I have always helped IFPRI with data and information 13 Jan 20, 2015 9:16 AM 2014 African Year of Agriculture and Food Security events 14 Jan 19, 2015 3:46 PM Training with ReSAKSS, for Monitoring and Evakuation, that training was successful 15 Jan 19, 2015 1:33 PM M&E training 16 Jan 19, 2015 9:51 AM CEDEAO/MAEP: Modeling projet of PNIA 17 Jan 19, 2015 9:46 AM ReSAKSS meeting at ILRI in Kenya 18 Jan 19, 2015 8:51 AM when Director of ICRISAT 19 Jan 19, 2015 8:03 AM knowledge sharing seminar 20 Jan 19, 2015 7:30 AM I have participated in annual meeting recently in Addis 21 Jan 18, 2015 4:45 PM ReSAKSS CONFERENCE ANNUELLE D'ADDIS ABEBA, DU 8 AU 10 OCTOBRE 2014 "PROMOTING AGRICULTURAL TRADE TO ENHANCE RESILIENCE" 22 Jan 16, 2015 8:16 AM ReSAKSS mainly 23 Jan 15, 2015 8:42 PM In my previous position I was involved in ReSAKSS and I have been involved in numerous CAADP activities and work for IFPRI. 24 Jan 15, 2015 6:18 PM services on CAADP : technical review of DRCongo investment plan 25 Jan 15, 2015 5:49 PM I have participated in the following activities CAADP mainstreaming nutrition workshops as a resource person ReSAKSS conference as a resource person Current IFPRI research activities 26 Jan 15, 2015 2:47 PM work with several countries on developing agricultural policy and evaluation of agricultural programs and projects and development! 27 Jan 15, 2015 1:40 PM j'ai participé à des évaluations au compte du CAADP 28 Jan 15, 2015 1:05 PM Was a team member for validation of CAADP proposals for Djibouti: Nov 2012 29 Jan 15, 2015 9:52 AM ReSAKSS CONFERENCE 2014 A ADDIS ABEBA 30 Jan 15, 2015 9:42 AM Yes, back in 2006-2008 I worked at USAID's country office in Mozambique and I was involved in ReSakss establishment. 31 Jan 15, 2015 9:27 AM Annual ReSAKSS Conference 2014 32 Jan 15, 2015 9:12 AM I am an AGRODEP member, and I also participate in ReSAKSS activities, workshops and programmes. 33 Jan 15, 2015 9:09 AM Technical review of National Agricultural Investment Plan (Capo Verde, Gambia and Cameroon) + Gambia Business meeting 34 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 AM Supports the work on a support-program to CAADP on gender and climate change in Etiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, Niger and Cameroon 35 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM Monitoring and Evaluation for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) Surveys and Worshops Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 207 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) QUESTION 6 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey On average, what has been your personal level of interaction with ReSAKSS, SAKSS, CAADP, and/or IFPRI over the past one year? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count High: Daily or every other day 12.7% 19 Medium: Weekly or bi-weekly 18.7% 28 Low: A few times a year 63.3% 95 None: Not at all 5.3% 8 Additional comments (optional) 21 answered question 150 skipped question 1 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) Categories 1 Jan 23, 2015 11:03 AM Burkina Faso has a knowledge management strategy that has been developed through extensive consultation with stakeholders wholes. This consensus has led to the establishment of a national SAKSS node with the Management and an action plan is available. However, the implementation plan is to be limited because of the funding is not yet acquired. 2 Jan 22, 2015 9:44 PM Participated to July Libreville workshop, and led the Caadp team evaluating Sao Tome & Principe plan in August-Sept 2014 3 Jan 22, 2015 3:31 PM Interested to work and understand more 4 Jan 22, 2015 10:14 AM Attended training program 5 Jan 22, 2015 8:39 AM But now, I am in post at USAID/Senegal, Sahel Regional Office and have no longer interaction with the CAADP process 6 Jan 21, 2015 9:47 AM Involvement in the CAADP MDTF2 development and design process. 7 Jan 21, 2015 9:01 AM But been reading publications 8 Jan 21, 2015 7:41 AM Particpated in ReSAKSS annual conference 9 Jan 21, 2015 6:00 AM The work of my organizations involves agricultural policy advocacy and implementation of CAADP is the main Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 208 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) component of our work 10 Jan 19, 2015 9:51 AM But I am a member of AGRODEP 11 Jan 19, 2015 9:46 AM Modelisation and nœud SAKSS in the states members of ECCAS 12 Jan 19, 2015 5:22 AM IFPRI- they are supporting my team in doing gender related studies 13 Jan 18, 2015 1:38 PM I have worked as National Consultant for Swaziland since 2009 14 Jan 16, 2015 9:22 AM Contact avec le bureau régional IFPRI Dakar pour définir un accord de coopération 15 Jan 16, 2015 8:16 AM Been away over the last year so not much interaction 16 Jan 15, 2015 5:49 PM Only as a resource person for specific activities but also called upon occasionally to advise on specific activities 17 Jan 15, 2015 2:47 PM I had several mission CAADP. Last year I was in Togo for a long-term mission 10 months 18 Jan 15, 2015 9:42 AM As an implementation partner on a competitiveness project, ReSakss doesn't figure in any of our activities. 19 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 AM I read some of the stuff from ReSAKSS 20 Jan 15, 2015 7:54 AM (What is meant with "interaction with CAADP" - as it is a framework (or if you prefer, programme) and not an institution like the others named, this is difficult to respond to. Or do you mean the NPCA CAADP unit? ...unclear. For me - whether programme of NPCA CAADP unit, both would lead to the response daily. 21 Jan 15, 2015 7:03 AM I just took part at the past ReSAKSS meeting that was organized at the AU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia QUESTION 7 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey To what extent has ReSAKSS facilitated or generated information that has been useful in furthering CAADP processes, strategies, or policies at the country, regional, and Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 209 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) continental levels? Answer Options Very useful Somewhat useful Little use Not useful No Opinion Not applicable Response Count Country Level 51 40 17 1 18 8 135 Regional Level 47 36 18 1 22 8 132 Continental Level 43 37 14 0 25 9 128 Additional comments (optional) 28 answered question 137 skipped question 14 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 11:12 AM In the development process of PINA The operationalization and revision process CAADP The analysis of the adaptation of agricultural policies to climate change 2 Jan 23, 2015 9:17 AM I have not participated in ReSAKSS / CAADP activities. 3 Jan 22, 2015 10:16 AM Not aware of ReSAKSS's activities 4 Jan 22, 2015 8:43 AM Generally for technical review exercise, I used information coming from IFPRI and ReSAKSS for analyzing the consistency of the Investment Plan at country or Regional level 5 Jan 21, 2015 10:19 PM Useful especially for for evaluating the level of Investment of countries on Af$gric R&D 6 Jan 21, 2015 10:55 AM How is the generated information disseminated? to which targets? 7 Jan 21, 2015 6:01 AM very much involved in our JSR activities 8 Jan 21, 2015 5:30 AM Not sure 9 Jan 20, 2015 6:51 PM I have no experience of participating in ReSAKSS activities, and as such I am not aware of its impacts on Namibia. However, I have had discussions with colleagues from SA, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Malawi who specialise in agric economics and have a lot of praise of the activities (including research that some have done). 10 Jan 20, 2015 3:55 PM Need more support from governments through Ministries 11 Jan 19, 2015 9:56 AM I used expenditures data from RESAKSS to write a paper 12 Jan 19, 2015 9:48 AM Nothing to indicate 13 Jan 19, 2015 8:04 AM Not interacted with much of information generated- will skip question 14 Jan 19, 2015 6:38 AM The samples sometimes don't involve certain countries and at Country level generalisations don't hold. Countries have specific contexts and issues. 15 Jan 19, 2015 5:58 AM Not enough knowledge about CAADP to comment on 16 Jan 19, 2015 5:24 AM I do not have any knowledge Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 210 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 17 Jan 18, 2015 5:17 PM les populations du Niger et de la zone sahélienne vont à terme pratiquer l'agriculture non pas pour produire et satisfaire leurs besoins alimentaires; la RESILIENCE va permettre aux populations de partir des pratiques agricoles adaptées aux changements climatiques pour produire mieux et satisfaire leurs besoins au-delà de l'alimentation et de la nutrition. les productions agricoles seront développées en filières sur place pour garantir des emplois et créer de la valeur ajoutée. les marchés locaux et régionaux seront fournis en produits agricoles et dérivés de sorte à réduire les importations de produits identiques. 18 Jan 16, 2015 9:45 AM Information for monitoring progress ad impact of agricultural prgrams in Africa was very scarce, and ReSAKSS is helping to fill that gap. 19 Jan 16, 2015 8:11 AM More information needs to be generated at the REC level. 20 Jan 15, 2015 9:41 PM I would say it is more than somewhat useful but below very useful 21 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 PM For country level, not every country but for a subset of countries, very useful 22 Jan 15, 2015 6:00 PM Although the information generated is itself very useful the extent of uptake of the information to further CAADP processes, strategies or policies at country level has not been as good and more needs to be done on this front. 23 Jan 15, 2015 9:45 AM At the country level ReSakss was useful in generating the PNISA---the ag investment plan. The extent to which PNISA really impact investment choices and priorities is not clear however. 24 Jan 15, 2015 8:42 AM Did not participated in ReSAKSS activities. So I don't know. 25 Jan 15, 2015 8:28 AM Very weak link with political leaders and senior civil servants including private sector 26 Jan 15, 2015 8:01 AM We have not received any real information or facilitation of ReSAKSS other than the annual reports. Their practical role in day-to-day CAADP work is not too clear to us. Hardly any visibility in work on CAADP. 27 Jan 15, 2015 7:39 AM Data collected through ReSAKSS surveys if used properly can help policy makers in making informed decisions 28 Jan 15, 2015 6:42 AM The Agricultural Trends Reports produced by ReSAKSS are dense, heavy documents that are produced so late they have little relevance. The information is often based upon secondary information that is aggregated. While there is a need for this type of analysis and to build capacity in national planning departments based upon evidence, the primary data that ReSAKSS bases its analysis on is of very poor quality. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 211 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) QUESTION 8 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Based on your experience, to what extent has ReSAKSS encouraged CAADP partner participation at the country, regional, and continental levels? Answer Options Strong participation Some participation Little participation No participation No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 39 45 15 5 22 9 135 Regional Level 50 27 17 3 27 9 133 Continental Level 39 39 9 2 27 12 128 Additional comments (optional) 16 answered question 137 skipped question 14 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 22, 2015 8:43 AM ReSAKSS provided me during technical review exercise all section related to costing and alignment with the CAADP principles 2 Jan 22, 2015 6:27 AM I have no opinion because we do not have ReSAKKS in South Africa. 3 Jan 21, 2015 10:19 PM Participation limited to sharing results 4 Jan 19, 2015 9:48 AM Nothing to indicate 5 Jan 19, 2015 8:04 AM Not interacted with much of information generated- will skip question Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 212 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 6 Jan 19, 2015 6:38 AM There are very few partners often from ministries of Agriculture involved at Country level (yet CAADP & data is multisectoral) while Civil Society, farmers and citizens are left out (save for a select few, who don't represent the majority). 7 Jan 19, 2015 5:58 AM Not enough knowledge about CAADP to comment on 8 Jan 18, 2015 7:56 PM The national evaluation capacity have improved with integrated assessments of programs PNIASA with various supports of ReSAKSS 9 Jan 18, 2015 5:17 PM il est important que le partenariat soutienne fortement les Etats africains dans le passage des politiques agricoles d'exportation (cultures de rente) aux politiques agricoles de transformation, d'échanges régionaux et de consommation 'cultures vivrières et de rente). 10 Jan 16, 2015 8:11 AM More attention should be placed at the regional levels. 11 Jan 15, 2015 9:41 PM I would say it is more than some participation but below strong (because it could be sttronger) 12 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 PM At country level, depends on views of CAADP in the country. At regional and continental level ReSAKSS has been firmly integrated into CAADP partners actions (RECs and AU). 13 Jan 15, 2015 8:42 AM Did not participate in ReSAKSS activities. So I don't know. 14 Jan 15, 2015 8:01 AM See comment above. 15 Jan 15, 2015 7:39 AM Chose some participation because it's not all countries that have already signed the CAADP compact 16 Jan 15, 2015 6:42 AM While ReSAKSS has encouraged participation by public sector institutions, I do not see that it has been proactive or successful in attracting the private sector into its public dialogues. This may be due to lack of resources, but I think it also reflects the value of the analysis stakeholders place on ReSAKSS products. QUESTION 9 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 213 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS addressed the needs expressed by CAADP partners at the country, regional, and continental levels? Answer Options Very much Somewhat Little Not at all No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 35 55 12 2 22 9 135 Regional Level 41 38 13 0 30 9 131 Continental Level 36 42 8 3 28 13 130 Additional comments (optional) 14 answered question 137 skipped question 14 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 11:12 AM the management and sharing of knowledge, the establishment of a consultation platform and the conduct of participatory and inclusive assessments. Also experience the conduct of joint sector review was strongly welcomed 2 Jan 22, 2015 9:49 PM ReSAKSS is based on official data made available to international organisations. These data are not always reliable and sometimes, do not reflect the actual field realities. 3 Jan 20, 2015 9:25 AM More support in terms of capacity and system development at country level is essential in order to collect and avail reliable and up-to-dated country level relevant information that feed agriculture and food security related policy planning and implementation. 4 Jan 19, 2015 9:56 AM availability of data 5 Jan 19, 2015 9:48 AM Nothing to indicate 6 Jan 19, 2015 6:38 AM ReSAKSS often have their own predetermined needs and themes they work on every year (coupled with a restricted budget). I see little space for taking on issues raised by partners in the short term and yet when attended to in the medium term, the relevance and timeliness of data is questionable. 7 Jan 19, 2015 5:58 AM Not enough knowledge about CAADP to comment on 8 Jan 18, 2015 5:17 PM Au niveau national les actions de ReSAKSS ne sont pas encore bien visibles dans les Programmes et Projets. 9 Jan 16, 2015 8:11 AM Needs to be stronger, especially at regional level. 10 Jan 15, 2015 8:45 PM For country - variable across countries, very much in some and little in some. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 214 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 11 Jan 15, 2015 6:00 PM The information generated by ReSAKSS process is not very visible to stakeholders except those directly involved. This limits its usefulness to the wider stakeholder environments. Efforts should be made to rectify this because the information generated is very useful and should be leveraged by the wider stakeholder community for more positive Agriculture and Nutrition outcomes at the different levels. 12 Jan 15, 2015 8:42 AM Did not participated in ReSAKSS activities. So I don't know. 13 Jan 15, 2015 8:01 AM see comment above. 14 Jan 15, 2015 6:42 AM This is a difficult question. I think ReSAKSS is carrying out its M&E Functions pretty well - however data and analysis are usually stale by the time they are made public. Timeliness, quality and effectiveness of analytical communications for decision makers are all very weak. QUESTION 10 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS APPROACHES been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note: 1. if you have additional items that you consider to be approaches that are not included you may insert them below with Selections R and S, and 2. the next two questions are similar in nature, but focus on ReSAKSS tools and models.) Answer Options Very supportive Somewhat supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count a. Use of IT platforms (to 36 32 11 6 26 7 118 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 215 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) facilitate peer review, learning, dialogue and reporting benchmarks) b. Use of standard M&E methodology and frameworks for country comparisons 53 30 5 4 19 7 118 c. Policy dialogue on trans-border agricultural sector issues and strategic analysis on emerging issues through Regional Annual Trends and Outlook Reports (ATORs) 49 31 10 3 18 7 118 d. Contracting local universities, policy institutes and other knowledge centers to provide reviewed secondary data for ATORs or analysis of indicators 26 38 19 5 25 5 118 e. Creating a knowledge base for analysis to strengthen agricultural policy making 50 36 10 3 14 5 118 f. Capacity building and learning through research and analysis experience 43 32 16 2 19 6 118 g. Linking to in￾country existing knowledge 32 32 22 6 21 5 118 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 216 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) producing centers to undertake analysis that guides CAADP implementation h. Regional economic communities are used to coordinate activities of in￾country SAKSS or linked knowledge centers 28 36 15 4 26 9 118 i. CGIAR centers serve as hosts for the ReSAKSS regional nodes to encourage a wide dialogue and review platform 40 33 9 5 26 5 118 j. IFPRI and CGIAR centers ensure ReSAKSS activities are relevant to CAADP 48 26 10 4 24 6 118 k. Ability to adapt high￾quality modeling tools for country needs 37 31 17 6 21 6 118 l. Shared modeling infrastructure for comparability purposes 31 34 16 5 25 7 118 m. Facilitation of African-led analysis through stocktaking exercises of data sources, available data in-country, and lists of experts 33 46 12 4 19 4 118 n. Technical￾criteria based membership 27 36 18 6 24 7 118 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 217 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) consortia to build knowledge among a cadre of experts within and across countries o. Collaboration among existing networks, sub￾regional organizations 40 32 17 5 20 4 118 p. Standardized and facilitated CAADP processes, such as stocktaking, round table discussions, and joint sector reviews to establish firmer commitments to CAADP agenda by country government leadership and among and between regional economic communities 44 35 10 3 21 5 118 q. Use of Steering Committees to guide and govern ReSAKSS 30 33 11 3 33 8 118 r. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) 11 6 6 4 43 48 118 s. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) 8 7 5 3 44 51 118 For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 24 answered question 118 skipped question 33 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 218 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Number Response Date For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 1 Jan 22, 2015 3:38 PM Participating Young Africans in to the Programme and observing its impact 2 Jan 22, 2015 1:01 PM Must provide tools and technology transfer strategies for the integration between agricultural and livestock activities at national level (increased productivity, preservation of natural resources and biodiversity ...). Must offer tools and development strategies agribusiness and agri-food at national, regional and continatental level 3 Jan 22, 2015 8:51 AM AU/NEPAD independent technical review exercise with relevant participation of ReSAKSS, especially for West Africa Countries Investment Plans Review 4 Jan 22, 2015 6:43 AM Strengthening the regional approach will help us as member states to see the benefit of ReSAKKS because I once attended the SADC one in 2013 I found it to be a very good platform. Using the REC (SADC) to get member states will make things very easy for you to get the DATA that you need for Annual Trends and Outlook Report. Actually what I have observed you will need to invite two person per country; a CAADP Focal person and the person that deals with Economic Analysis / M & E because in other countries these are two or three different functions. 5 Jan 21, 2015 9:26 AM r. Support to country SAKKs nodes s. Support at country level 6 Jan 21, 2015 6:03 AM Other, Additional Item #1: both ReSAKSS and CAADP process need to involve grass root civil society in their approaches so that they can engage actively and contribute. 7 Jan 21, 2015 3:54 AM ReSAKSS is very successful in Africa. Thanks to the earlier leaders of ReSAKSS 8 Jan 20, 2015 4:26 PM Resakass should help for more intergration at regional level and support is given to all players. 9 Jan 20, 2015 9:19 AM Agricultural policies and investment plans Joint sector rewiews Capacity needs assessments Are very important 10 Jan 20, 2015 8:22 AM R. Good information dissemination tools S. Good feed back mechanism 11 Jan 19, 2015 4:18 PM I have undertaken research financed by ReSSAkss and it was well managed and addressed important regional issues. I have also participated in knowledge sharing workshops and training sessions at ILRI Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 219 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 12 Jan 19, 2015 4:13 PM There is a need to improve in agriculture policy and Investiment plan 13 Jan 19, 2015 10:32 AM Capacity bulding by sharing and plateform. 14 Jan 19, 2015 5:26 AM I have not been involved in the work of the ReSAKSS to give opinion 15 Jan 18, 2015 6:56 PM r. Élaborer Plan et Programme nationaux de travail pour chaque comité directeur s. Procéder au Suivi et à l'évaluation annuelle des comités directeurs 16 Jan 16, 2015 8:19 AM RESAKSS has not focused enough at the REC level. More emphasis should be placed there. For example RESAKSS is based in Ibaden for West Africa - far from Abuja where ECOWAS is located, and there is little technical support to the REC. ECOWAS really needs support to the up-coming Joint Sector review -- including analysis of how well they have done under the existing policy and implementation -- leading to an improved plan for the nest period. RESAKSS should assist the RECs to develop regional performance management plans that line up with the new CAADP. RESAKSS should help West Africa implement the Malabo declaration. 17 Jan 15, 2015 6:11 PM The items where I have answered with no opinion is because while these activities would be very supportive, I do not think they are necessarily happening well enough to have the desired effect. 18 Jan 15, 2015 2:35 PM Technical resources from private sector (usually, it is used only cadre from Gov.workers ) to be part of the technical team of review. 19 Jan 15, 2015 8:57 AM In the planning process of Gender Climate Change and Agriculture Support Program, which I have been working with since 2011, I have not come accross that ReSAKSS has been involved in the planning at country level. I have only read about them at the net. NEPAD has conducted many of the issues mentioned above, 20 Jan 15, 2015 8:43 AM Did not participated in ReSAKSS activities. So I don't know. 21 Jan 15, 2015 8:37 AM Additional #1.There is an urgent need to strengthen support with private sector, governments and NGOs. Additional #2. Periodically distribute evidence-based and focussed policy briefs to stakeholders. 22 Jan 15, 2015 8:02 AM see comment above. 23 Jan 15, 2015 7:51 AM It is good to highlight the capacity of women involved in the area Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 220 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 24 Jan 15, 2015 6:58 AM Additional Item #1 - I think this survey is focusing many relevant issues, however the real weaknesses are related to structural and conceptual underpinnings. ReSAKSS is an institution created by donors to carry out analysis and even data collection that cannot be done by national states and regional communities because they lack capacity or the will to invest in local systems that could accomplish these important tasks for effectively and with longer term sustainability. A more recently formed, local network such as ReNAPRI, would be much better suited to address these issues. The quality and investment in local data collection by national governments is also a significant problem and it is missed placed to ho ReSAKSS accountable for this capacity gap, unless it was given the funding and mandate to address these issues. Finally, the human resource capacity in Africa is very, very limited for this work. national governments have been unwilling to provide attractive employment in the field, which results in donors establishing organizations such as ReSAKSS to fill the gaps - but only partially. QUESTION 11 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS TOOLS been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note if you have additional items that you consider to be tools that are not included you may insert Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 221 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) them below with Selections P and Q.) Answer Options Very supportive Somewhat supportive Little support No support No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count a. ReSAKSS websites (including AGRODEP and AgInvest) 47 31 8 1 16 4 107 b. M&E methodology and framework with standardized core indicators 48 30 9 1 14 5 107 c. ATORs at the continental, regional and country levels 43 24 8 1 25 6 107 d. Quantitative, qualitative and spatial data analysis 46 28 12 3 14 4 107 e. GIS methods and software 27 30 16 4 25 5 107 f. Technical assistance to establish country knowledge systems (SAKSS) 44 33 8 4 14 4 107 g. Technical reports with specific findings 41 37 11 2 12 4 107 h. Policy briefs 43 35 8 2 15 4 107 I. Regional nodes 41 29 9 3 20 5 107 j. IFPRI experts 47 28 9 2 17 4 107 k. Country￾based data inventories 33 36 14 3 17 4 107 l. Country￾based data expert 32 30 16 4 20 5 107 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 222 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) groups m. AGRODEP data portal 31 30 13 2 26 5 107 n. Training on data analysis software 36 24 10 5 27 5 107 o. Specialized research and analysis at the continental level, regional, or country level 38 37 6 5 17 4 107 p. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) 6 7 4 2 37 51 107 q. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) 6 7 3 1 38 52 107 For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 10 answered question 107 skipped question 44 Number Response Date For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 1 Jan 22, 2015 7:04 AM We don't have SAKSS in South Africa so it is difficult to comment on it as we don't have too much experience as the department. 2 Jan 21, 2015 9:35 AM p. Capacity building on national institutions (universities) 3 Jan 21, 2015 6:22 AM Other, Additional Item #1: The method should also consider multi stakeholder workshop particular involving civil societies and consortium Other, Additional Item #2: Establishing National Nodes as a separately entity is mandatory 4 Jan 21, 2015 3:56 AM Useful tools and information 5 Jan 16, 2015 8:31 AM RESAKSS needs to provide more analysis, support, and technical expertise at the regional level. By focusing mainly on continental and country levels, RESAKSS is missing out on the exciting policy work that is happening at regional level and the potential to influence policy at the regional level. 6 Jan 15, 2015 8:51 PM Limitations often relate to constraints such as poor internet-connectivity. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 223 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 7 Jan 15, 2015 9:55 AM #1. By virtue of not being involved in a policy strengthening project, I am really not familiar with the ReSakss tools in country. They are irrelevant to our work in support of the private sector. It would be useful to have some outreach to the private sector on how ReSakss tools can be used for their own lobbying to improve the quantity and quality of public investment in the ag sector. 8 Jan 15, 2015 8:44 AM Did not participate in ReSAKSS activities. So I don't know. 9 Jan 15, 2015 8:03 AM See comment above. Despite being part of all major CAADP processes, partnerships etc., hardly any of the above are aspects/ tools we are aware of. 10 Jan 15, 2015 7:53 AM Need for focus in including women's concern in researches and also in trainings and other capacity building programs QUESTION 12 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent have the following types of ReSAKSS MODELS been supportive of CAADP processes (e.g., capacity needs assessments, country strategies, round table processes, agricultural policies and investment plans, and joint sector reviews)? (Please note if you have additional items that you consider to be models that are not included you may insert them below with Selections I and J.) Answer Options Very supporti ve Some what suppo rtive Little suppo rt No suppo rt No Opinio n Not Applica ble Respon se Count a. Single-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE 28 25 5 5 38 6 107 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 224 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) model) b. Multi-Country Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGE model) 21 25 9 5 41 6 107 c. Single-Market Partial Equilibrium Model 24 20 7 5 44 7 107 d. Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model 21 21 7 5 47 6 107 e. Spatial Multi-Market Partial Equilibrium Model 22 22 6 5 45 7 107 f. Simulation Model 32 19 6 6 39 5 107 g. Epidemiological Model 9 18 10 9 52 9 107 h. Climate Change/Energy Model 22 18 9 8 43 7 107 i. Other, Additional Item #1 (please specify) 4 5 3 4 49 42 107 j. Other, Additional Item #2 (please specify) 3 5 3 4 48 44 107 For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 5 answered question 107 skipped question 44 Number Response Date For those that select Additional Items, please specify the item(s) below. You may also use this space to provide additional comments. 1 Jan 21, 2015 3:56 AM More trainings on application of models at country level are needed 2 Jan 20, 2015 9:49 PM There are lots of questions throughout that refer to very technical research that ReSAKSS might do. But ReSAKSS is really designed to be a knowledge management system that does a bit of research but is not necessarily a research organization the way a university is. 3 Jan 19, 2015 12:43 PM #1 qualitative approach may be useful sometimes to account for 4 Jan 16, 2015 8:31 AM Not familiar with all these models, no comment. 5 Jan 15, 2015 8:03 AM See comment above. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 225 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) QUESTION 13 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your experience, to what extent do ReSAKSS activities encourage the use of gender-sensitive analysis to identify the needs of female farmers, processors or entrepreneurs? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Strong encouragement 29.5% 31 Some encouragement 34.3% 36 Little encouragement 13.3% 14 No encouragement 4.8% 5 No Opinion/Not Applicable 18.1% 19 No Opinion 15.2% 16 Not Applicable 2.9% 3 No Opinion/Not Applicable 18.1% 19 Additional comments (optional) 6 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 226 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 12:43 PM The inclusion of women in the planning, consultation and dialogue process contribute little to the consideration of gender 2 Jan 21, 2015 10:37 AM From work undertaken in the field there is little evidence that this is taking place. 3 Jan 19, 2015 7:36 AM There have been deliberate efforts to mention actions meant for women and other groups in policy documents. Investment plans and some reports. 4 Jan 19, 2015 5:36 AM In my opinion CAADP has not given gender issues (except sex disaggregation) enough attention for ReSAKSS to do more. 5 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM See comment above. 6 Jan 15, 2015 7:57 AM A lot needs to be done in this respect QUESTION 14 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your experience, to what extent are ReSAKSS tools gender-sensitive? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Very sensitive 20.0% 21 Somewhat sensitive 43.8% 46 Little sensitivity 14.3% 15 No sensitivity 1.9% 2 No Opinion 19.0% 20 Not Applicable 1.0% 1 Additional comments (optional) 2 answered question 105 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 227 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) skipped question 46 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 21, 2015 10:37 AM Sensitive in description maybe but not in implementation and action. 2 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM See comment above. QUESTION 15 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS helped strengthen agricultural policy making and policy implementation at the country, regional, and continental levels ? Answer Options Greatly strengthened Somewhat strengthened Little strengthened No Strength No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count Country Level Policy-Making 26 37 16 6 17 3 105 Country Level Policy￾Implementation 17 35 23 6 21 3 105 Regional Level Policy-Making 30 31 14 3 24 3 105 Regional Level Policy￾Implementation 22 28 21 4 26 4 105 Continental Level Policy￾Making 31 23 14 4 27 6 105 Continental Level Policy￾Implementation 24 18 21 4 32 6 105 Additional comments (optional) 5 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 228 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 18, 2015 1:52 PM We are at the stage of capacity assessments of the policy process institutions 2 Jan 16, 2015 8:34 AM Need more emphasis at regional level. 3 Jan 15, 2015 8:53 PM Great uptake and influence at regional and continental levels. Country processes and engagement are more diverse. 4 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM See comment above. (despite us being strongly and actively involved in these processes on all levels). 5 Jan 15, 2015 7:15 AM overlap with NPCA mandate QUESTION 16 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent have ReSAKSS information, analysis and/or tools been useful for policy decision-making and policy change at the country, regional, and continental levels? Answer Options Very useful Somewhat useful Little use Not useful No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count Country Level 34 34 11 6 18 2 105 Regional level 40 24 12 1 26 2 105 Continental level 39 19 11 2 30 4 105 Additional comments (optional) 4 answered question 105 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 229 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) skipped question 46 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 19, 2015 7:36 AM There are multiple tools at country level and countries easily manipulate sources to favor policies of the ruling governments. Objective analysis that ReSAKSS offers is more or less ignored at country level. 2 Jan 16, 2015 8:34 AM Need more decision-making tools at regional level. 3 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM see comment above. 4 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM I have asked for success stories in regards to affecting actual change in policy as a result of ReSAKSS information and ReSAKSS does not have anything to offer. This goes back to my early comments regarding ReSAKSS structure and external origins. I do not believe it was intended for ReSAKSS to be an advocacy organization as it has no real resources to do so and would probably be viewed as external pressure if it did try to lobby governments for change. At best, ReSAKSS design allows it to provide agricultural and food security analysis - that to effect change, would have to be taken up by organizations focused on that role. Local institutions would be much better suited to do that...of course USAID would have give up some control and embrace the principles of USAID FORWARD. QUESTION 17 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent has ReSAKSS provided support to the development and implementation of a mutual accountability process (i.e., joint sector review or JSR) within your country ? Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 230 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Answer Options Very supportiv e Somewhat supportive Little support No suppor t No Opinio n Not Applicabl e Respons e Count Development of a mutual accountability process 28 35 10 4 18 10 105 Implementatio n of a mutual accountability process 26 33 13 4 19 10 105 Additional comments (optional) 5 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 12:43 PM We have benefited from the support of ReSAKSS for the conduct of the process of joint sector review and a country report was produced. The consideration of this approach is also underway in the process of dialogue with all stakeholders 2 Jan 16, 2015 8:34 AM IFPRI support to regional JSR in West Africa is needed! 3 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM see comment above. 4 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM I think the JSR development illustrates IFPRI/ReSAKSS strong capacity to develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation system. 5 Jan 15, 2015 7:15 AM need to avoid duplication QUESTION 18 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 231 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) In your opinion, to what extent have you seen ReSAKSS encourage private sector and civil society engagement in CAADP process activities at the country, regional, and continental levels? Answer Options High encouragem ent Some encouragem ent Little encouragem ent No encouragem ent No Opini on Not Applica ble Respon se Count Country level 21 27 19 9 27 2 105 Regional level 19 29 22 4 29 2 105 Continen tal level 20 27 17 4 33 4 105 Additional comments (optional) 8 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 23, 2015 12:43 PM Secteur private and civil society actors of the keys are inclusive dialogue in the implementation of the National PINA and the National Steering Committee of SAKSS 2 Jan 21, 2015 10:37 AM Little evidence of this happening. 3 Jan 21, 2015 6:54 AM At national level ReSAKSS is weak in identifying and encouraging civil society engagement in CAADP process. Mostly civil societies have the opportunity to engage in the process through regional networks. 4 Jan 19, 2015 7:36 AM But this was before the Malabo declaration. The new direction after Malabo seems to be more inclusive than before taking from the SCM-RF and Malabo implementation Roadmap 5 Jan 19, 2015 6:06 AM Not enough knowledge about CAADP to comment on 6 Jan 15, 2015 9:57 PM It is more the level of representativity of the participating private sector or civil society entities that is weak than the degree to which ReSAKSS has encouraged their participation in CAADP processes. 7 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM See comment above. 8 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM I have seen no involvement of the private sector (for profit) entities in ReSAKSS regional activities. There is engagement by farmers’ organizations and civil society groups. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 232 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) QUESTION 19 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey In your opinion, to what extent is ReSAKSS the proper mechanism through which to encourage private sector and civil society engagement with CAADP? (Please note that both options below require responses given the goals of building strong private sector and civil society at the country level and aligning and harmonizing policies at the regional level.) Answer Options Very appropriate Somewhat appropriate Little appropriate Not appropriate No Opinion Not Applicable Response Count Country level 31 28 18 6 20 2 105 Regional level 36 25 11 6 25 2 105 Continental level 34 22 10 6 29 4 105 Additional comments (optional) 8 answered question 105 skipped question 46 Number Response Date Additional comments (optional) 1 Jan 21, 2015 6:54 AM As ReSAKKS is a network of international, REC and government union organization it totally overrides civil society and private sector engagement in CAADP particularly at national level. 2 Jan 20, 2015 9:52 PM proper wording is to what extent is ReSAKSS _a_ proper mechanism--there is no "the" proper mechanism because it is a joint effort. 3 Jan 19, 2015 7:36 AM The proper mechanism would be a citizen led process which allow citizens Civil society and Private sector to develop tools and mechanisms which best represent their aspirations, interests and views. ReSAKSS should only catalyze this process, not lead in its development. Efforts should instead be going to strengthening civil society and private sector to support and promote ReSAKSS and not the other Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 233 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) way round. 4 Jan 19, 2015 6:06 AM Not enough knowledge about CAADP to comment on 5 Jan 15, 2015 9:59 AM As I alluded to above, the private sector in country is pretty oblivious to the ReSakss and the tools it provides. Some outreach to the private sector would be useful to give them a better sense of how they can influence policy. 6 Jan 15, 2015 8:04 AM see comment above. 7 Jan 15, 2015 7:35 AM ReSAKSS struggles to engage the private sector as mentioned above. The information generated by ReSAKSS has less value to private sector actors, more relevant to long term planning for governments and donors. 8 Jan 15, 2015 7:15 AM no uniform proper mechanism - build on existing dynamics QUESTION 20 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Do you have any recommendations on how ReSAKSS should focus its future efforts so that it can be better equipped to support CAADP and agricultural policy development (at the country, regional and/or continental levels)? Answer Options Response Count 64 answered question 64 Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 234 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) skipped question 87 Number Response Date Response Text 1 Jan 23, 2015 12:49 PM Pursue the establishment of national SAKSS and strengthen existing ones through training, visits between the different SAKSS and funding activities to enable their operation. 2 Jan 23, 2015 9:24 AM Work in closer coordination with NEPAD NPCA 3 Jan 22, 2015 10:27 PM Better facilitation of the national Caadp focal point and team to integrate ReSAKSS. Otherwise, the modelisation is appraised as a sort of OVNI (flying unidentified subject) dropping from the top IO down to the country/region/continent... In addition, gender (women and youth) and climate changes issues need to be better integrated in the ReSAKSS. 4 Jan 22, 2015 4:19 PM Align ReSAKSS with domestic priorities and M&A systems. 5 Jan 22, 2015 9:08 AM To have more update analysis and improve the information sharing system 6 Jan 22, 2015 4:19 AM The activities should be given more publicities 7 Jan 21, 2015 10:37 PM At regional and subregional level, ReSAKSS should be more linked to the subregional organizations for co-developping and co-implementing inititaives, capacity strenthenning, harmonization of M&E méthodologies, etc. 8 Jan 21, 2015 11:21 AM To disseminate information as widely as possible 9 Jan 21, 2015 11:18 AM ReSAKSS should continue to build capacity in policy analyses ate the country level and support sharing of lessons and best practices at the regional and continental levels. 10 Jan 21, 2015 10:50 AM There needs to be greater awareness about the absolute necessity for the collation, development and use of accurate statistics at country regional and national levels. There is a dearth of reliable cross country/region/continent data across a wide range of variables that are absolutely crucial for the development of appropriate policy. 11 Jan 21, 2015 9:39 AM Enhance M&E at much lower level 12 Jan 21, 2015 8:59 AM HAVE MORE TECHNICIANS 13 Jan 21, 2015 8:40 AM working more with other development partners, improve its collaboration with national and regional research institutions, translate the documents in other languages such as french. 14 Jan 21, 2015 8:18 AM Need to create a more dynamic exchange of information 15 Jan 21, 2015 7:58 AM Involving Head of governments in the processes achieving CAADP goals through Summit confernces Working through UN agencies such as FAO and ILO 16 Jan 21, 2015 7:12 AM More involvement of ReSAKSS on country level 17 Jan 21, 2015 7:05 AM 1. It should have strong linkage and partnership with national level civil society and private organization 2. It should involve national universities and research institution 3. It should integrate community level facts/realities for contextual policy formulation 4. It should establish a separate national level node that operates independently 18 Jan 21, 2015 6:27 AM --- 19 Jan 21, 2015 5:50 AM Providing appropriate tools for decision-making at all levels Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 235 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 20 Jan 21, 2015 4:14 AM Any 21 Jan 21, 2015 4:00 AM ReSAKSS is a great tool and should now focus on resource mobilization drive at country level 22 Jan 20, 2015 10:10 PM At the very least an organisation that claims to support CAADP and monitor its progress should keep and updated website. As of today 19 January 2015 the majority of status updates for CAADP were issued in 2013. Given the importance of results and the stated capacity of ReSAKSS to support CAADP this is, at the very least disappointing. 23 Jan 20, 2015 6:22 PM Time generation of data and information 24 Jan 20, 2015 4:30 PM More support of continental intergration of policies will help. 25 Jan 20, 2015 10:54 AM 1. country level focus 2. building country capacities for strategic policy analysis 3. supporting country level and continental level Mutual accountability process of CAADP (Malabo) 26 Jan 20, 2015 10:11 AM N/A 27 Jan 20, 2015 9:50 AM Capacity and system development at country level is critical so that more reliable and up-to-date relevant data can be collected 28 Jan 20, 2015 6:36 AM Use the system to analyse the supply chain managament in order to consider the needs of farmers for making profit of their agricultural businesses. 29 Jan 19, 2015 4:27 PM It is working well within the existing policy framework at national and regional level 30 Jan 19, 2015 2:24 PM None 31 Jan 19, 2015 12:47 PM To do more communication to reach larger public because they are doing great job but many people ignore it! 32 Jan 19, 2015 12:43 PM They better focus among others on advocating or create awareness about what they do 33 Jan 19, 2015 12:03 PM Linkages with other policy related initiatives developed by other institutions/partners including the wide range of advocacy partners 34 Jan 19, 2015 10:58 AM In ECCAS, there is not a ReSAKSS and ECCAS is link at ILRI ReSAKSS. It is very difficulte to work together for many raisons/ 1 language (ECCAS is the REC and it has Portugal, Espanish and french as working language; 2 Kenya is very far to us in share data and information. IlRI is deconnecte to us. If we have the ReSAKSS in ECCAS Local (GABON) it facilate all problèmes. 35 Jan 19, 2015 10:12 AM Make know ReSAKSS to researchers in agriculture at University. Give to agricultural university reseachers information through our mail adress 36 Jan 19, 2015 8:40 AM ReSAKSS should make more effort to be known in Burundi by engaging activities than it is now. They may bring their assistance to enhance their support to agricultural sector. They can make available their experts to work closely with Burundi team. ReSAKSS has promise to open a team that may work with them but we are still waiting. 37 Jan 19, 2015 8:02 AM none Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 236 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 38 Jan 19, 2015 7:42 AM Emphasizing a multisectoral approach at country level would enable inclusion of all actors in the CAADP process. The strengthening of training of a critical mass of experts to push the agenda would be commendable. Allowing and incorporating innovative and sometime qualitative approaches into the stream of tools employed in country. 39 Jan 18, 2015 8:15 PM my suggestion is that RESAKSS should engage more with civil society at national levels 40 Jan 18, 2015 1:54 PM 1. Secretariat needs to visit and discuss in-country issues with relevant authority for improve visibility 41 Jan 17, 2015 4:03 PM ReSAKSS can further support the CAADP -In Establishing regional databases and tools (logisciels) statistical analyzes. -To Strengthen the capacity of state for climate change -Monitoring And Evaluation of Agricultural Markets 42 Jan 16, 2015 9:56 AM great visibilty in-country is still needed, especially through research institutions. 43 Jan 16, 2015 9:33 AM Pas de recommandation 44 Jan 16, 2015 8:35 AM Please place a RESAKSS coordinator with the RECS (or at least nearby). 45 Jan 15, 2015 10:02 PM ReSAKSS should determine a strategy for the mechanisms it develops to be more clearly African owned; this implies that the burden of financing ReSAKSS should be shared to a larger extent by African institutions. African leadership of ReSAKSS processes can still be significantly increased. 46 Jan 15, 2015 9:50 PM 1) Expand support to regional policy dialogue and analysis. 2) Assess how to manage support at the country level without creating heavy institutional structures. The SAKSS nodes at country level are build on a flexible model that adjusts to country context but one open question has always been the appropriate level of institutional capacity building required and whether specifc institutional structures (SAKSS nodes) should be created. 3) Articulate the linkage to CAADP's KIS initiative - it is not clear and KIS is intended to support increased capacity and analysis at country level. What is the link or complementary of SAKSS and KIS? 47 Jan 15, 2015 8:55 PM One way for improving country support using regional and continental capacities is to strengthen peer support and review between countries. This should enhance cross-country learning and networking between experts in relatively weak areas of capacity. 48 Jan 15, 2015 4:01 PM In the selection of team of technical professional experts, ReSAKSS should focus more on private technicians, because they are the ones in contact mostly with the stakeholders. Even in the support of CAADP, they should focus more on private sector and private stakeholders, in order to make things move quickly, most of the government structures are too politicised and doesn't allow big debate. 49 Jan 15, 2015 11:06 AM I think ReSAKSS has done a good job in many aspects at the regional and continental level. However, it has been weak in its impact on the private sector and even on policy making at national level. 50 Jan 15, 2015 10:59 AM ReSAKSS should be empowered to be the central repository of all agriculture data in the sector and to make the information available on the internet. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 237 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 51 Jan 15, 2015 10:00 AM Reaching out to the private sector through workshops or conferences and publicizing its web-based tools to the private sector. 52 Jan 15, 2015 9:59 AM Poursuivre et intensifier les actions du ReSAKSS 53 Jan 15, 2015 9:39 AM One of the recommendations on how ReSAKSS should focus its future efforts so that it can be better equipped to support CAADP and agricultural transformation at all levels in Africa is a more active role in the implementation phase of agricultural development policy process in Africa. There is also need to directly develop programmes/initiatives that will engage youth in agricultural development policies and activities at national, regional and continental levels. 54 Jan 15, 2015 9:00 AM Do ReSAKSS supports NEPAD? 55 Jan 15, 2015 8:44 AM Distribute evidence-based policy briefs. Conduct in-country seminars to solicit for suggestions/topics for research and dissemination of results 56 Jan 15, 2015 8:34 AM ReSAKSS should enlarge its stakeholder base to include the academia and other government establishments.They should periodically showcase what they have been doing (particularly research findings) with these enlarged stakeholders as to drum wide range support for policy advocacy. 57 Jan 15, 2015 8:07 AM It would be good to more actively appear in partnerships and networks and make aware/ inform on ReSAKSS work and also potential aspects for working with them, using tools etc. - make clear potential practical application and cooperation. Despite us being actively and strongly involved in CAADP in our day-to-day work, ReSAKSS does not really play a role visible to us. We would like to learn more about them, the tools etc., and potential added value, and to see how/ on what practical steps we could best link up. 58 Jan 15, 2015 8:03 AM Need to strongly collaborate with Country Ministries like Agriculture, Commerce as well as the Private Sector especially Research Institutions in the Agricultural sector 59 Jan 15, 2015 7:59 AM I can see that t is a great institution, educating all the concerned ones what ReSAKSS has done so far and what it expectes for all the concerned partners. 60 Jan 15, 2015 7:39 AM The ReSAKSS mechanism should be used to build the capacity of LOCAL agricultural analytical institutions in Africa. Additional resources should be invested to improve primary data collection systems and gain national government support and investment in local systems. FEWSNET - which has not been mentioned in this survey - is a technically advanced system that should also be localized - but not without guarantees that governments will invest, support and maintain these critical systems. Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 238 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 61 Jan 15, 2015 7:29 AM At the Country level: More evidence-based policy researches are needed for policy makers and other public office holders. Besides, researchers and scholars should be trained on how to interact and disseminate research findings to the end users.The impact of ReSAKSS is less felt at this level because of higher concentration and focus at the regional level. More so, efforts should be made to connect researchers and scholars with other stakeholders at this levels because many researchers at times do not even know whom to work with. Also, there be adequate dissemination of its activities. There is need for more inclusiveness here. Regional level: Work done at this level are not disseminated to researchers satisfaction. The level of activities updates is inadequate. Stakeholders here should be connected so that adequate interaction could be established. Continental level: CAADP activities should be adequately disseminated especially on the website. Many of the reports are not available on the website especially updates to the programme and its pillars. Staff of AU/NEPAD/CAADP should be encourage working with researchers and scholars in this area and not comments on research done without providing evidences. 62 Jan 15, 2015 6:46 AM Funding for the increased use of the models at both country and regional levels 63 Jan 15, 2015 6:20 AM Provide regular interaction forums with key stakeholders to ensure knowledge sharing among the stakeholders 64 Jan 15, 2015 5:15 AM No QUESTION 21 Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Survey Is there anything else the evaluation team should know about ReSAKSS for the purposes of this evaluation? Answer Options Response Count 45 answered question 45 skipped question 106 Number Response Date Response Text 1 Jan 22, 2015 10:27 PM The ReSAKSS expert should share modelisation findings with the Caadp team evaluation, and discuss the accuracy of data used with the Caadp national team and focal point, with an option of taking into consideration some factual truths not always officialised by politicians. Once the evaluation team and national colleagues have aquired a common understanding of available knowledge and its strategic analysis, evaluation results/recommandation may have higher chances to be implemented by the country/region... Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 239 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 2 Jan 22, 2015 9:08 AM ReSAKSS needs to strengthen the capacities of SAKSS nodes at country level by recruiting qualified experts or by improving the analysis knowledge of selected member's of the SAKSS node. ReSAKSS should also give more operational tools for the National M&E System to improve M&E activities at country and regional level Let me give you an example, in CAR the technical review team provides key information regarding the level of Government investment in the Agricultural Sector to the Ministry of Agriculture who haven't this data! I think personally that ReSAKSS needs to be more visible at country level. 3 Jan 22, 2015 4:19 AM The activities should be given more publicities 4 Jan 21, 2015 11:21 AM None 5 Jan 21, 2015 10:50 AM You probably have gathered the required information at this stage. 6 Jan 21, 2015 9:39 AM None 7 Jan 21, 2015 8:59 AM RAS 8 Jan 21, 2015 7:12 AM Nothing else 9 Jan 21, 2015 7:05 AM I filled this survey on behalf of (representing) national network of civil organizations that are member in Food Security and Environment Forum as well as East and Southern Africa Food Security Network. I would like to take this opportunity to express that civil societies at national and regional level are highly interest to engage in the ReSAKSS and CAADP process, they want to be perceived as partners and contributor to the processes. Hence, urge ReSAKKS and CAADP for the need to take up national and regional civil society networks in the process. 10 Jan 21, 2015 6:27 AM This type of evaluation is very important for future efforts of ReSAKSS therefore it is better to conduct the evaluation regularly. 11 Jan 21, 2015 5:50 AM Nothing 12 Jan 21, 2015 4:14 AM Any 13 Jan 21, 2015 4:00 AM ReSAKSS should concentrate more on SAKSS capacity training at the country level in terms of data collection, processing, storage, interpretation and application 14 Jan 20, 2015 10:10 PM ReSAAKS should be the leading edge of CAADP. It should be generating evidence that can inform key policy processes. However, the moment it feels overly ambitious and non responsive to the needs CAADP. 15 Jan 20, 2015 6:22 PM Possible inclusion of M&E experts across the continent 16 Jan 20, 2015 4:30 PM Nothing at the moment. 17 Jan 20, 2015 10:54 AM How ReSAKSS will ultimately be handing over its mandate to continental , regional and country level institutions. 18 Jan 20, 2015 10:11 AM N/A 19 Jan 20, 2015 6:36 AM I need to see some publications about the results from ReSAKSS in some regions. 20 Jan 19, 2015 2:24 PM None 21 Jan 19, 2015 12:47 PM nothing more for me 22 Jan 19, 2015 10:58 AM ReSAKSS may capacity building with the M&E tools to ressouce personin the REC (ECCAS) 23 Jan 19, 2015 10:12 AM ResaKSs is not well known by researchers community, mainly in my country 24 Jan 19, 2015 8:40 AM ReSAKSS has not started to work in Burundi: only six persons have been trained in Nairobi and they promise they can help Burundi with modelling but we did not get funds to pay them. 25 Jan 19, 2015 8:02 AM None Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 240 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) 26 Jan 19, 2015 7:42 AM ReSAKSS needs to develop a media strategy to popularize its tools, information and expertise among a wider range of stakeholders. At the moment ReSAKSS is known and appreciated by very few professionals and especially those involved with the CAADP process and yet the largest pool of professionals, statisticians are unaware of this resource. The citizens should receive, use and utilise information and knowledge from ReSAKSS more and use it to engage their national governments. 27 Jan 18, 2015 8:15 PM nothing 28 Jan 18, 2015 1:54 PM Publication process slow so that clientele do not receive the relevant information. Materials are not readily circulated to authorities and scientists and university FoA. 29 Jan 17, 2015 4:03 PM All aspects have been addressed In my opinion this is sufficient for evaluation. 30 Jan 16, 2015 9:56 AM more visibility of its work 31 Jan 16, 2015 9:33 AM Rien à signaler 32 Jan 16, 2015 8:35 AM Yes, we really appreciate RESAKSS! 33 Jan 15, 2015 9:50 PM Attribution of some results to ReSAKSS is likely complicated by the fact that AUC, NPCA and RECs also supported and facilitated CAADP processes, such as stocktaking, round table discussions, and joint sector reviews. 34 Jan 15, 2015 11:06 AM It might also have been a good idea to evaluate ReSAKSS by its actual impact in supporting (or not) CAADP to achieve some of its national targets. E.g. How many countries are allocating 10 percent of their national budgets to the agricultural sector and to what extent has ReSAKSS supported CAADP in this regard? 35 Jan 15, 2015 10:59 AM Direct evaluation of each ReSAKSS specialist at the country, regional and continent level should occur annually. 36 Jan 15, 2015 9:59 AM This évaluation is very important. 37 Jan 15, 2015 9:00 AM I think that the questions in the survey are to detailed. 38 Jan 15, 2015 8:44 AM None 39 Jan 15, 2015 8:34 AM None for now. 40 Jan 15, 2015 8:03 AM Should the CAADP 10% minimum target be the same for all countries? And what has been the impact of this minimum target 10% target in terms of poverty reduction and agricultural growth? 41 Jan 15, 2015 7:59 AM I suggest focus needs to be made on women as well and strengthening the participation of the private sector and civil society organizations 42 Jan 15, 2015 7:29 AM The supporting institution to each pillar of CAADP should be encourage to do more. More so, they should engage scholars with policy research experience and not pure academia. An inclusive research should be commission at all levels that will involve policy makers and researchers in order to build interaction among them. 43 Jan 15, 2015 6:46 AM It is ok 44 Jan 15, 2015 6:20 AM No 45 Jan 15, 2015 5:15 AM None Draft Final Performance Evaluation Report of the Regional Strategic Analysis 241 and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ANNEX IX: IFPRI RESULTS FRAMEWORK Meeting Knowledge and Capacity Needs of Evidence and Outcome Based Agricultural Policy Planning and Implementation among African Countries Results Framework and Key Milestones 242 RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS FRAMEWORK – RESULTS TABLE FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK – RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS TABLE Vision of Success and the Most Significant Result of this Grant Our vision of success is that in 3 to 5 years African countries have the necessary knowledge and capacity to successfully design and execute evidence-based policies and strategies that lead to a stronger position of the agricultural sector in country priorities and is evidenced by increased agricultural sector investments and growth. Connection to Relevant Foundation Strategy The project is well aligned with the Foundation's Policy and Statistics Area under its Agricultural Development Strategy. The Foundation supports the need to "improve the evidence base that is necessary for better agricultural investment and policy decisions". In particular, it supports data collection, policy analysis, impact and learning, and policy implementation; all areas that will be covered by the project. Objective #1 To consolidate ReSAKSS’ unique niche and value addition as the leading knowledge platform to support evidence and outcome-based agricultural policy planning and implementation in general and under the CAADP agenda in particular. We will complete these Activities Further develop content for the ReSAKSS website and extend its reach as the main platform for review, learning, dialogue, and benchmarking processes under CAADP. Implement at the country level an M&E framework to track CAADP implementation progress and performance. This will entail: (i) regularly facilitating the collection, documenting, and processing data to generate required indicators at regional and national levels and (ii) linking country level and regional teams and developing standardized protocols for data collection, measurement and reporting that they can use. Key Milestone ? Expected to produce these Outputs A state of the art ReSAKSS website serving as the leading source of information to guide agricultural policies and strategies and in particular the CAADP implementation process. 1. An annual Africa-wide Agriculture Sector Trends and Outlook report is published and available through the ReSAKSS website to serve as CAADP M&E report to track implementation progress and sector performance. 2. Three Regional Agriculture Sector Trends and Outlook reports documenting the status of agricultural growth, poverty reduction, and food security are published every year for Eastern/Central, Southern, and West Africa by the respective ReSAKSS nodes. Key Milestone ? Expected to contribute to these Outcomes African policymakers (AUC, NEPAD, RECs, governments) and key stakeholders have access to and use baselines, data, tools, and analyses to inform and guide agricultural policy planning and implementation. 1. Review and dialogue processes under the CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework (MAF) are adequately supported by high quality M&E and other necessary technical reports; 2. CAADP review and dialogue processes by African governments, the AUC, NEPAD, RECs, development partners, and other key stakeholders are guided by better technical information as demonstrated by the access to and use of the reports and other related M&E products. Key Milestone ? Provide capacity support for the 24 Country SAKSS nodes are Governments and key stakeholders establishment of country-owned strategic analysis and knowledge support systems (SAKSS) following the completion of national CAADP Roundtables. established to support CAADP planning, implementation, dialogue, and review processes at the country level. have access to and use country specific baselines, analyses, and data to inform and guide agricultural policy and strategy planning and implementation at the country level. 243 Starting in 2013 until 2014, transition ReSAKSS to regional analysis and knowledge systems (PAKS) that are be designed and established by AUC and RECs in the next 3 years. ReSAKSS activities as described above will continue under during the transition phase. In 2013-2014, ReSAKSS platforms are transferred to local host entities and continue to operate satisfactorily. Technical support activities are transferred successfully to the Africa-based host entities and continue to operate satisfactorily. African policymakers (AUC, NEPAD, RECs, and governments) and key stakeholders have access to and use baselines, data, tools, and analyses to inform and guide agricultural policy planning and implementation. Objective #2 To establish and operate the African Growth and Development Policy (AGRODEP) Modeling Consortium by building upon an emerging critical mass of local modelers and a growing number of high quality data sets in order to create a world-class modeling community in Africa. We will complete these Activities Develop a Shared Modeling Infrastructure around a consolidated core of existing IFPRI models dealing with agricultural sector policy issues and long term projections. Specific modules would be added through collaboration with other centers of expertise to address specialized needs. Sub￾activities include: (a) Construct a core modeling platform; (b) Develop an IT￾based exchange and collaboration platform; and (c) Examine property rights policies on data and modeling tools. Set up a Common Distributed Key Milestone ? Expected to produce these Outputs State of the art modeling tools are available via an IT-based platform for use by AGRODEP modelers and collaborating partners. Web-based data portal is Key Milestone ? Expected to contribute to these Outcomes Emergence of a critical mass of modeling expertise capable of analyzing agricultural development issues of strategic importance to African countries. Demonstrated use of data portal by Key Milestone ? Database by linking existing key data sources, complementing them as necessary, and developing (in collaboration with key partners) shared standards, formats, and exchange protocols that would facilitate access to high quality and consistent datasets. Sub￾activities include: (a) Conduct data stocktaking exercise; (b) Develop data policies and protocols; and (c) Establish web-based data portal. established and operates satisfactorily by meeting the data needs of AGRODEP members. agricultural development practitioners. Establish a Network of Experts, made up of experts from leading African research organizations, universities, research entities from the private sector, and linked to experts from leading centers of expertise of the North. Sub￾activities include: (a) Refining membership criteria, (b) Inviting and processing membershi applications, (c) facilitating research and colloboration among experts A Network of AGRODEP Experts that includes at least 30 local members is functioning satisfactorily as evidenced by its advanced modeling skills and the quality and number of their publications. A dynamic research community that is responsive to analytical needs under the CAADP agenda and emerging agricultural development issues of strategic importance to African countries. 244 Establish a Community of Practitioners, to serve as fora for scientific exchange, training, and capacity building. Networking activities will include: (a) Developing a family of state of the art models and high quality modeling databases; (b) Facilitating joint research activities on issues of strategic importance to Africa; (c) Organizing technical meetings and outreach events to promote scientific exchange among experts and interaction with policy practitioners; and (d) Organizing training workshops and seminars to support young scientists, upgrade skills of Consortium members, and promote technical and methodological innovation. Starting in 2013 until 2014, AGRODEP will transition to having a closer partnership and collaboration with the ReSAKSS host entities to be established under the leadership of the AUC and RECs. A Community of Practitioners is established and facilitates collaboration and scientific exchange: on data and modeling techniques, joint studies, training workshops, and discussion. In 2013-2014, Consortium operates satisfactorily with (i) Effective modeling and data collaboration and partnership is established with ReSAKSS host entities. (ii) Joint analytical agenda is established with ReSAKSS and implemented successfully. (iii) Shared governance structure with ReSAKSS is in place and operates satisfactorily. The marginalization of Africa and its concerns in leading international models and studies are overcome and conditions for a stronger and more credible African voice in the strategic debate about agricultural growth and poverty reduction on the continent are created.. The Knowledge work by ReSAKSS and the analytical activities by AGRODEP are fully aligned, as reflected in the existence of joint programming and collaborative products and services. 245 RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWO FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK AMEWORK –– KEY KEY MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTON MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES MILESTONES ILESTONES Objective # 1 Key Milestones Baseline (if relevant and available) Period One Period Two Period Three Period Four Period Five Grant End Insert period start date (Jan/2011) Insert period end date (Dec/2011) Insert period start date (Jan/2012) Insert period end date (Dec/2012) Insert period start date (Jan/2013) Insert period end date (Dec/2013) Insert period start date (Jan/2014) Insert period end date (Dec/2014) Insert period start date (Jan/2015) Insert period end date (Dec/2015) Insert grant end date (Dec/2014) Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Cumulative target at grant end A state of the art ReSAKSS website serving as the leading source of information to guide agricultural policies and strategies and, in particular, the CAADP implementation process. To be calculated for 2010 by end of December 1. Number of websitte visits increased by 50%; 2. Number of downloads increased by 25% compared to baseline 1. Number of websitte visits increased by 100%; 2. Number of downloads increased by 50% compared to baseline 1. Number of websitte visits increased by 200%; 2. Number of downloads increased by 100% compared to baseline 1. Transition action plan is agreed with new host entities and is operational; 2. the Website management is fully transferred to the host entities; 1. Agreements definging partnership framework between IFPRI and host entities is signed; 2. Collaborative program between IFPRI and host entities is agreed. 1. Host entities take over management of the IT platform and knowledge support for the CAADP review and learning process; 2. IFPRI-host entities partnership is in place. An annual Africa-wide Agriculture Sector Trends and Outlook report is published and available through the ReSAKSS website to serve as CAADP M&E report to track implementation progress and sector performance. The Africa￾wide reports has been publised since 2008 The 2010 report is presented at the second CAADP PP in 2011 and available on the ReSAKSS website The 2011 report is presented at the second CAADP PP in 2012 and available on the ReSAKSS website The 2012 report is presented at the second CAADP PP in 2013 and available on the ReSAKSS website Planning and implementaion of the of the CAADP M&E report is coordinated with new host entities Publication of the Africa￾wide Trends and Outlook Report is transferred to the host entities Host entities have taken over preparation and publication of the Africa-wide Trends and Outlok Report. Three Regional Agriculture Sector Trends and Outlook reports documenting the status of agricultural growth, poverty reduction, and food security are published every year for Eastern/Central, Southern, and West Africa by the respective ReSAKSS nodes. First 3 regional reports publised for 2009 will be publised in 2010 All three 2010 reports are available on the ReSAKSS website before the second CAADP PP in 2011 All three 2011 reports are available on the ReSAKSS website before the second CAADP PP in 2012 All three 2012 reports are available on the ReSAKSS website before the second CAADP PP in 2013 Planning and implementaion of the of the CAADP M&E report is coordinated with new host entities Publication of the 3 regional Trends and Outlook Reports is transferred to the host entities Host entities have taken over preparation and publication of the 3 regional Trends and Outlok Reports. Country SAKSS nodes are established to support CAADP planning, implementation, dialogue, and review processes at the country level. One country SAKSS node established in Rwanda in 2010 At least 3 country SAKSS node established by each ReSAKSS node in 2012 At least 6 country SAKSS node established by each ReSAKSS node in 2011 At least 8 country SAKSS node established by each ReSAKSS node in 2011 SAKSS nodes plan and implemnet country level M&E work SAKSS nodes publish country versions of Trends and Outlook Reports SAKSS nodes lead the M&E work and publication of country Trends and Outlook Reports 246 Objective # 2 Key Milestones Baseli ne (if relevant and available) Period One Period Two Period Three Period Three Period Three Gr ant En d Insert period start date (Jan/201 0) Insert period end date (Dec/201 0) Insert period start date (Jan/201 1) Insert period end date (Dec/ 2011) Insert period start date (Jan/201 2) Insert period end date (Dec/ 2012) Insert period start date (Jan/201 3) Insert period end date (Dec/201 3) Insert period start date (Jan/201 4) Insert period end date (Dec/201 4) Insert grant end date ( D e c/ 2 0 1 4) Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Target at period end Cumulative target at grant end State of the art modeling tools are available via an IT-based platform for use by AGRODEP modelers and collaborating partners. The MIRAGE and IMPACT models are customized and available for use by AGRODEP members; the ACT model is developed and successfully tested; at least 10 LHR style country CGE models are developed and successfully tested. All three models plus the generic LHR model and DREAM, and the first 10 country models are loaded onto the AGRODEP website and available for use by Consortium members; at least 20 LHR style country CGE models are developed and successfully tested; one regional CGE model is developed and successfully tested. All core models (MIRAGE, IMPACT, DREAM, LHR) plus 20 counry models and one regional model are accessible through the website; at least 30 LHR style country CGE models are developed and successfully tested; At least 2 regional models are developed and successfully tested. 1. Agreements definging partnership framework between AGRODEP and host entities is signed; 2. Collaborative program between AGRODEP and host entities is agreed. AGRODEP are customized, where necessary and relevant, to meet analytical needs of host entities AGRODEP serves as modeling platform for host entities and national SAKSS nodes Web-based data portal is established and operates satisfactorily by meeting the data needs of AGRODEP members. Interactive website is ready for use by Consortium members SAMs 1. Agreements definging partnership framework between AGRODEP and host entities is signed; 2. Collaborative program between AGRODEP and host entities is agreed. AGRODEP data activities are coordinated with that of the host entities AGRODEP and host entities' data platforms are linked A Network of AGRODEP Experts that includes at least 30 local members with advanced modeling skills as reflected by the quality and number of their publications. The membership of AGRODEP reaches at least 10 active members with advanced skills engaged in concrete collaborative research case studies using the AGRODEP models The membership of AGRODEP reaches at least 20 active members with advanced skills engaged in concrete collaborative research case studies using the AGRODEP models The membership of AGRODEP reaches at least 30 active members with advanced skills engaged in concrete collaborative research case studies using the AGRODEP models 1. Agreements definging partnership framework between AGRODEP and host entities is signed; 2 Collaborative program between AGRODEP and host entities is agreed. AGRODEP members provide modeling and other analytical support to host entities AGRODEP's analytical agenda is aligned with the knowledge needs of the host entities A Community of Practitioners is established and facilitates collaboration and scientific exchange on data, modeling techniques, joint studies, training workshops, and discussion. At least 2 training courses, 1 regional workshops, and one Africa-wide technical conference are organized At least 4 training courses 2 regional workshops, and one Africa-wide technical conference are organized At least 6 training courses 3 regional workshops, and one technical conference are organized 1. Agreements definging partnership framework between AGRODEP and host entities is signed; 2. Collaborative program between AGRODEP and host entities is agreed. Training program is implemented in collaboration with host entities AGRODEP and host entities' capacity building programs are integrated 247 ANNEX X: REVIEW OF PHASE 1 OF THE EVALUATION PART ONE: CONSOLIDATION OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS AND KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (RESAKSS) COMPONENT 1.1 CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSITIONING TO RESAKSS ACTIVITY 1.1 A: IT-BASED PLATFORMS FOR REVIEW, LEARNING, DIALOGUE, AND BENCHMARKING ACTIVITY 1.1.B: M&E SYSTEMS TO TRACK POLICY IMPLIMENTATION PROGRESS OUTCOMES COMPONENT 1.2 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL SECTOR TRENDS AND EMERGING STATEGIC ISSUES ACTIVITY 1.2.A: ANNUAL REGIONAL SECTOR TENDS AND OUTLOOK REPORTS ACTIVITY 1.2.B: STRATEGIC ANALYSES ON EMERGING ISSUES COMPONENT 1.3: CAPACITY SUPPORT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTRY KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS COMPONENT 1.4: RESAKSS GOVERNANCE, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT MODALITIES PART ONE: CONSOLIDATION OF THE REGIONAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS AND KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (RESAKSS) NO . RECOMMENDED ACTIONS IN 2009 EVALUATION 1 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE NEPAD SECRETARIAT - DIRECT OUTPUT 1: APART FROM PROVIDING INFORMATION TO NEPAD TO FACILITATE EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CAADP IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE, THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TAILORED TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AT THE LOWER LEVELS TOO (RECS AND COUNTRY). SINCE CAADP IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE ANCHORED AT COUNTRY LEVEL, THIS LEVEL SHOULD RECEIVE PARTICULAR FOCUS IN THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE M&E SYSTEM, GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE LEVEL WHERE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CAADP ACTIVITIES WILL BE TARGETED. (PG. 7) X X X X X 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE NEPAD SECRETARIAT - DIRECT OUTPUT 2: THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY CAN BE IMPROVED UPON TO MAKE IT RELEVANT TO COUNTRY LEVEL PROCESSES. THERE IS NEED TO HARMONISE COMMUNICATION AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION (RESAKSS AND M&E) INTO THE BROAD COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. AUDIENCES SHOULD BE STRATEGICALLY TARGETED AND THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS FOR FEEDBACK. (PG. 7) X X X X 248 3 IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, PREAMBLE: THE ACTUAL WORK FOLLOWS THE SIGNING OF THE COMPACT AS PREPARATION OF INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN THAT OUGHT TO ATTRACT FUNDING FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES INCLUDING; GOVERNMENT, COOPERATING DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR. (PG 16) X X 4 IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, 2.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS - AGRICULTURE PROFILE: THERE IS NEED TO HOLD AN URGENT MEETING BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR TO BE ATTENDED BY ALL KEY POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES AND STAKEHOLDERS OF THE MDTF. THE MAJOR AIM OF THE MEETING SHOULD BE TO DISCUSS AND AGREE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND, INCLUDING ALL PROCEDURAL ISSUES. THE RESULT OF THE MEETING SHOULD FORM AN INPUT INTO A PROCEDURAL MANUAL ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND, INCLUDING HOW IT SHOULD BE ACCESSED. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT. (PG. 20) X 5 IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, 2.2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – TRACKING SYSTEM: THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE TRACKING TOOLS SHOULD BE ONE OF THE KEY FOCUS AREAS IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. THIS SHOULD ENTAIL AMONG OTHERS: (I) CAPACITATING RESAKSS TO ELABORATELY EXPLAIN THE TOOLS TO STAKEHOLDERS AT VARIOUS LEVELS: CONTINENTAL (AU AND NEPAD); REGIONAL (ECOWAS AND COMESA) AND COUNTRY LEVEL (FOCAL POINT PERSONS AND FOCAL POINT INSTITUTIONS); (II) HAND-HOLD THE RECS AND COUNTRY LEVEL STAKEHOLDERS IN USING THE TOOLS. ITEMS (I) AND (II) UNDER THE KEY ISSUES TRACKING SYSTEM ABOVE, SHOULD BE FURTHER ELABORATED ON IN PHASE II TO ALLOW COUNTRIES ADJUST THEIR TARGET FIGURES AS APPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE NEED TO GENERATE THE KIND OF AGRICULTURE GROWTH THAT WOULD BRING ABOUT POVERTY REDUCTION AND INCREASED FOOD SECURITY AT COUNTRY LEVEL. ACTION BY: RESAKSS AND NEPAD. (PG. 22) X X X X X X 6 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR I (LAND AND WATER MNGMT): AS MOST COUNTRIES WILL HAVE SIGNED THEIR COMPACTS BY THE END OF THE YEAR, THEY WILL NEED TO DRAW FROM THE PILLAR I FRAMEWORK AS THEY PREPARE THEIR DETAILED INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES. THERE IS NEED, THEREFORE, TO SPEED UP THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT TO ALL COUNTRY LEVEL KEY PLAYERS AS WELL AS TO THE REST OF THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS AT CONTINENTAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS. THE RECS NEED TO ORGANIZE SEVERAL MEETINGS TO ENABLE PILLAR I INSTITUTION PRESENT AND DISCUSS THE FRAMEWORK WITH ALL THOSE CONCERNED. THIS WILL FACILITATE GREATER USE OF THE FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT. ACTION BY: NEPAD. (PG. 23) X 249 7 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR II (RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND MARKET ACCESS): AS NOTED IN THE CASE OF PILLAR I RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION, THE SIGNING OF COMPACTS BY THE MAJORITY OF COUNTRIES BY THE END OF THE YEAR PROVIDES A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNTRIES TO DRAW FROM THE PILLAR II FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT DURING THE PREPARATION OF INVESTMENT PROPOSALS. THE PILLAR INSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE PRO-ACTIVE IN FACILITATING THIS PROCESS. ONE WAY IS BY HOLDING A WORKSHOP EARLY NEXT YEAR TO WHICH ALL FPPS AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD BE INVITED TO DISCUSS HOW EACH COUNTRY COULD DRAW FROM THE PILLAR DOCUMENTATION DURING THE INVESTMENTS PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT. CLEAR PROCEDURES OF HOW THE PILLAR INSTITUTION COULD BACKSTOP THE COUNTRIES SHOULD ALSO BE DEVELOPED AND EXPLAINED. ACTION BY: PILLAR II LEAD INSTITUTION IN COLLABORATION WITH NEPAD. (PG. 24) X X 8 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR II (RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND MARKET ACCESS): GIVEN THE FREE LABOUR MARKET, IT IS NOT ALWAYS PRACTICAL TO TIE UP PEOPLE TO SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONS. IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE LOSS OF TRAINED HUMAN RESOURCE THROUGH THE LABOUR MARKET AND OTHER CAUSES SUCH AS DEATH, THERE WILL BE NEED TO ENSURE THAT CAPACITY BUILDING OF HUMAN RESOURCE IS GIVEN PREMIUM AT ALL TIMES. THIS REQUIRES A SYSTEMATIC TRAINING SCHEDULE, STRATEGICALLY DEVELOPED, TARGETING ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS. THIS IS A TYPICAL TASK IFPRI COULD CONTINUE IN, GIVEN ITS STRENGTH IN CAPACITY BUILDING AS DEMONSTRATED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. ONE KEY AREA IFPRI COULD FOCUS ITS CAPACITY BUILDING EFFORTS IN PHASE II WITH RESPECT TO CMA COULD BE M&E (THROUGH RESAKSS). AMONG OTHERS, THE M&E SYSTEM WOULD NEED TO INTERNALIZE KEY ISSUES INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: (I) TRACKING OF PROGRESS IN THE 4 PILLAR AREAS; (II) ANALYSIS OF MARKET BARRIERS WITH THE VIEW TO FINDING SOLUTIONS TO DEAL WITH SUCH; (III) VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS; AND, (IV) A CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT OPTIONS THAT OFFER THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL FOR GROWTH FOR SMALL SCALE FARMERS, TRACKING THE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES. FINALLY CMA SHOULD PARTNER WITH AN INSTITUTION IN EAST AND SOUTHERN AFRICA TO COORDINATE THE PILLAR II ACTIVITIES IN THAT REGION. ACTION BY: PILLAR II LEAD INSTITUTION IN COLLABORATION WITH IFPRI, COMESA AND ECOWAS. (PG. 25) X X X X X X 9 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR III (FOOD SUPPLY AND HUNGER): IN THE NEXT PHASE, MECHANISMS SHOULD BE DEFINED THAT WOULD ALLOW PILLAR III TO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH COUNTRIES. THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC CHANNELS AND AVENUES TO OPERATIONALIZE THESE. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT ALL THESE CHANNELS AND AVENUES BE REFLECTED IN THE PILLAR’S ANNUAL WORK PLAN AND BUDGET. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT; RECS AND PILLAR III INSTITUTION. (PG. 26) X 250 10 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR III (FOOD SUPPLY AND HUNGER): AS NOTED IN CASE OF PILLAR I, THERE IS DIRE NEED TO SECURE ADEQUATE FUNDING TO OPERATIONALIZE THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT. UNLESS THIS HAPPENS, THE DOCUMENT WILL BE OF LITTLE USE AND MOST OF THE POTENTIALLY HIGHLY USEFUL KNOWLEDGE WILL BE OF NO VALUE. ACTION BY: AU; NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RECS. (PG. 26) X 11 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR IV (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DISEMINATION AND UPTAKE): FORUM FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN AFRICA (FARA) CAN CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNTRY PROCESSES EVEN AS THE RT PROCESSES ARE BEING CONCLUDED. THIS WILL OPEN UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER DIALOGUE ON IMPROVING THE RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION AND UPTAKE COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTRY STRATEGIES. FARA SHOULD CONSIDER INCLUDING THE CGIAR CENTRES IN THE ERG BECAUSE THESE CENTRES ARE A DEPOSITORY OF EXPERTS IN VARIOUS AREAS. ACTION BY: FARA (PG. 28) X X 12 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR IV (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DISEMINATION AND UPTAKE): THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH BEING USED BY FARA CAN BE ADOPTED BY OTHER PILLAR INSTITUTIONS. AS THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE PICKS UP, PILLAR INSTITUTIONS CAN BE EXPECTED TO NOT ONLY ENSURE THAT PROGRAMMES MEET PILLAR PRINCIPLES, BUT ALSO SUPPORT COUNTRIES TO MOBILIZE RESOURCES FOR THEIR PLANS. CLOSER COLLABORATION AMONG LEAD PILLAR INSTITUTIONS AND NETWORKING WITH IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE NEXT PHASE. (PG. 28) X X 13 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR IV (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DISEMINATION AND UPTAKE): THE NEED FOR PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN LEAD PILLAR INSTITUTIONS STEMS FROM THE MANDATE OF THE PILLAR FRAMEWORK TO ASSIST COUNTRIES IN ACHIEVING THE OVERALL CAADP GOALS IN A HOLISTIC AND INTEGRATED MANNER. THIS IS BEST ILLUSTRATED BY THE CROSS -CUTTING THEMES OF PILLAR III, INCLUDING IMPROVED RISK MANAGEMENT, INCREASED SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE COMMODITIES THROUGH INCREASED PRODUCTION AND IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES, INCREASED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE VULNERABLE AND IMPROVED QUALITY OF DIETS THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION OF FOOD AMONG TARGET GROUPS. AS A RESULT, PILLAR THREE REQUIRES COORDINATION OF OTHER PILLAR ELEMENTS TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES. (PG. 28) X X 14 RECOMMENDATIONS – PILLAR IV (AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY DISEMINATION AND UPTAKE): THE SET OF TEN ACTIVITIES DEFINED BY THE PILLAR INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES, REFLECTS THE THINKING ABOUT HOW THE ROLL OUT OF THE PILLAR FRAMEWORKS SHOULD BE ORGANISED. WE ENDORSE THIS NETWORKING AND PARTNERSHIP APPROACH AND RECOMMEND THAT NEPAD/CAADP SUPPORT THE PROCESS BY ENCOURAGING ALL OTHER PARTNERS TO BUY INTO THIS IDEA AND BY FACILITATING THE PROCESS TO WORK. ACTION BY: FARA IN COLLABORATION WITH NEPAD AND RECS. (PG. 29) X 251 15 RECOMMENDATIONS – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (I): INTEGRATE AND HARMONISE INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE SOURCES (RESAKSS, PILLAR INSTITUTIONS) WITH COMMUNICATION MESSAGES. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT. (PG.31 ) X X 16 RECOMMENDATIONS – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (II): CAADP IS SUPPOSED TO ADD VALUE TO COUNTRY PROCESSES. COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE ABOUT THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT PLANS AND WHAT OPPORTUNITIES THERE ARE FOR DIFFERENT PARTIES EITHER TO INVEST OR SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS IN WHICHEVER WAY. NEPAD SECRETARIAT, THROUGH THE CAADP COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER SHOULD RESTRATEGISE TO BRING COUNTRY COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CENTRE. COUNTRIES SUCH AS GHANA HAVE PREPARED COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT THEIR AGRICULTURAL PLANS. CAADP COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER CAN START WITH IMPROVING THESE STRATEGIES, AND THROUGH THE RECS, WORK WITH THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE A STRATEGY TO MEET THEIR COMMUNICATIONS NEEDS. (PG.31) X X 17 RECOMMENDATIONS – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (III): BALANCE THE FOCUS ON PARTNERING AFRICAN MEDIA WITH MORE PRAGMATIC APPROACHES THAT WILL BRING INFORMATION ABOUT AGRICULTURAL PLANS, OPPORTUNITIES AND INFORMATION TO RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS. FOR EXAMPLE, A PARTICIPATORY M&E APPROACH AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL CAN ENHANCE INFORMATION SHARING (I.E. DISSEMINATION AND FEEDBACK) WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AT THAT LEVEL. PRESENTLY, THE STRATEGY HAS LIMITED SCOPE FOR FEEDBACK. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT. (PG.31) X 18 RECOMMENDATIONS – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (IV): THE WEB -BASED RESOURCES ARE PROBABLY BEING UNDER - UTILISED. A REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WEBSITES IS NECESSARY AT THIS STAGE. ACTION BY CAADP COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER. (PG.32) 19 RECOMMENDATIONS – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY (V): ALTHOUGH THE STRATEGY DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN COMMUNICATORS AND AUDIENCES, THE STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS FOR EACH OF THESE IS NOT CLEAR. THE ROLL - OUT OF THE STRATEGY SHOULD GROUP THE LONG LIST OF AUDIENCES ACCORDING TO WHAT IS EXPECTED OF EACH AND CRAFT SPECIFIC MESSAGES TO REACH SPECIFIC TARGETS. THIS CAN BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF CAPACITY BUILDING FOR COMMUNICATIONS AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL. ACTION BY: NEPAD THROUGH THE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER AND RECS. (PG.32) X X 20 3.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- RECRUITMENT OF EXPERTS: THE RECS AND COUNTRIES CAN PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO GROW THIS BUDDING NETWORK OF ANALYSTS. RECS COULD FINANCE RECRUITMENT OF EXPERTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO COUNTRIES. FURTHER EXPANSION OF TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES WILL EXPAND THE NETWORK AND REDUCE THE IMPACT OF STAFF ATTRITION. ACTION BY: RECS AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS , BACKED BY IFPRI FOR TRAINING. (PG. 34) 252 21 3.2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- REGIONAL PROGRAMME PLATFORMS AND ROUNDTABLES: THERE IS NEED TO DEFINE THE OBJECTIVES OF REGIONAL COMPACTS AND HOW THEY INTER-PHASE WITH THE COUNTRY COMPACTS IN TERMS OF ACTIVITIES AND HARMONIZATION OF RESOURCE FLOWS. ACTION BY: NEPAD, IN COLLABORATION WITH COMESA AND ECOWAS. (PG. 35) X X 22 3.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- TRADE SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING SYSTEMS: A STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE RISK OF NON-PARTICIPATION IS TO ENLIST THE SERVICES OF A NEUTRAL INSTITUTION TO COLLECT AND PUBLISH THE DATA. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NEUTRAL ENTITY WOULD REQUIRE NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION WHICH CAN BE CARRIED OUT BY CAADP INSTITUTIONS AS AGENCIES UNDER NEPAD. ACTION BY: NEPAD IN COLLABORATION WITH ECOWAS AND COMESA. (PG.36) 23 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE RESAKSS WEBSITE: ALTHOUGH THE RESAKSS IS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE, THE CAPACITY STRENGTHENING SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL, BUT INCLUDE ANY ACTIVITY THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BUILD CAPACITY IN THE COUNTRY TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMMES. (PG. 38) X X 24 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE RESAKSS WEBSITE: FINALLY, THE ILLUSTRATION OF THE COUNTRY CAADP PROCESS SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO SHOW WHERE EACH COUNTRY IS AT IN THE PROCESS, RATHER THAN JUST REPEAT THE SAME DIAGRAM FOR EACH COUNTRY. THE RESAKSS WEBSITE ALSO HOLDS PUBLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. HOWEVER, THE GENERAL REPORTS, SUCH AS THE ONE ON TRACKING PROGRESS IN EXPENDITURE ALLOCATION, AND THE IMPACT OF NON TARIFF BARRIERS ON TRADE IN EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA ARE TOO LONG AND OUGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY POLICY BRIEFS FOR THE NON-ACADEMIC READER. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS LIMITED LINK BETWEEN RESAKSS AND THE COMMUNICATION SPECIALISTS WHO WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE RESAKKS TO PACKAGE INFORMATION APPROPRIATELY FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF VISITORS TO THE WEBSITE, AND FOR DISSEMINATION OUTSIDE THE WEBSITE. (PG. 38) X 25 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE RESAKSS WEBSITE: PRESENTLY, ONLY CAADP AND MDG INDICATORS ARE BENCHMARKED ACCORDING TO THE CONTINENTAL AND GLOBAL TARGETS. BENCHMARKS CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR OTHER INDICATORS (E.G. FERTILIZER USE, CEREAL YIELDS) BASED SAY ON REGIONAL AVERAGES, OR WORLD BEST PRACTICES. (PG. 38) X 26 4.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE RESAKSS WEBSITE: THE M&E FRAMEWORK IS ALSO HOUSED UNDER THIS COMPONENT, RESULTING IN A SET OF WORKING PAPERS AND TRACKING OF KEY INDICATORS ON THE WEBSITE WHICH ARE BENCHMARKED TO AGREED UPON TARGETS AND GOALS (E.G. CAADP GROWTH TARGET OR MDG POVERTY TARGET). THERE ARE CLOSE TO TWO DOZEN ADDITIONAL INDICATORS THAT ARE BEING TRACKED AT THE INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY LEVEL AND REPORTED ON THE RESAKSS AND DISPLAYED SUCH AS COMPARISON BETWEEN COUNTRIES THAT CAN BE EASILY CARRIED OUT. IN ADDITION, PUBLICATIONS SUCH AS THE X X X X X 253 ANNUAL TRENDS REPORT AND SEVERAL WORKING PAPERS AND BRIEFS HAVE ACTUALLY TRACKED THE PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS CAADP TARGETS (PARTICULARLY PUBLIC SPENDING) AND OFFERED ANALYSIS TO INFORM ON THE GAPS AND COUNTRY COMPARISONS. (PG. 38) 27 4.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- THE M&E SYSTEM AND ITS PERFORMANCE: : THE POOR LINKS BETWEEN THE REGIONAL AND COUNTRY NODES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. EVEN IN COUNTRIES WHERE THE NODES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED E.G. UGANDA, THERE IS VERY LITTLE LINK WITH THE REGIONAL NODE. THIS IS PARTLY DUE TO LACK OF TRUST BY THE RESAKSS IN THE NATIONAL DATA SYSTEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTRY STATISTICAL SERVICES PRODUCE MANY OF THE MACRO INDICATORS ON THE RESAKSS WEBSITE, THE SOURCES OF THE INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS. THIS CAN ALSO BE A DISINCENTIVE FOR THE COUNTRY LEVEL STAKEHOLDERS TO VISIT THE WEBSITE. ACTION BY: RESAKSS IN COLLABORATION WITH LOCAL RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. (PG. 39) X X 28 4.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- THE M&E SYSTEM AND ITS PERFORMANCE: FINALLY, THE HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY FOR QUALITY DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS WILL NEED TO BE DEVELOPED; THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WAY TO BUILD CONFIDENCE IN COUNTRY DATA AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS. ACTION BY: RESAKSS IN COLLABORATION WITH LOCAL RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. (PG. 39) X X X X 29 4.1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS -- THE M&E SYSTEM AND ITS PERFORMANCE: THE INDICATOR DATA ON THE WEBSITE NEED TO BE RE EXAMINED TO MAKE THEM SAVE THE PURPOSE OF THE WEBSITE, I.E. TRACKING PROGRESS TOWARDS BENCHMARKS, PEER LEARNING, PROVIDING STRATEGIC AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION. ACTION BY: RESAKSS IN COLLABORATION WITH LOCAL RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. (PG. 39) X X 30 4.2.3 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS – POLICY AND STRATEGY: THERE IS URGENT NEED TO UNDERTAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF DATA AND KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL WITH THE VIEW TO IDENTIFYING GAPS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THIS SHOULD LEAD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACTION PLAN AIMED AT STRENGTHENING THE KNOWLEDGE AND DATA SYSTEMS. THE ACTION PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE SENSITIZATION INITIATIVES FOR POLITICIANS, PERMANENT/PRINCIPAL SECRETARIES, DIRECTORS AND OTHER HIGH RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. ACTION BY: COUNTRY FOCAL POINT PERSONS WITH BACKSTOPPING FROM REGIONAL RESAKSS NODE. (PG. 41) 31 4.2.3 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS – POLICY AND STRATEGY: GIVEN THAT THE PILLAR FRAMEWORK DOCUMENTS HAVE ALL BEEN FINALIZED AND MOST COUNTRIES WILL SIGN THE COMPACT BY THE END OF THE YEAR TO PAVE WAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES, THERE IS NEED TO FACILITATE FUNDING OF THE PILLAR INSTITUTIONS TO ENABLE THEM DISSEMINATE THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO THE COUNTRIES. THERE SHOULD BE AN X X X 254 INCREASED INTERACTION BETWEEN THE PILLAR INSTITUTIONS AND THE COUNTRY LEVEL FOCAL POINT PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS A POINT ALREADY EMPHASIZED. ACTION BY: NEPAD, ECOWAS AND COMESA. (PG. 41) 32 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: FIRST, TO IMPROVE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE REGIONAL KNOWLEDGE NODE AND THE COUNTRY NODES THE PARTICIPATION OF COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED. SINCE THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES IN THE RECS IS LARGE, REPRESENTATION COULD BE ON ROTATIONAL BASIS WITH SUFFICIENT SHARING OF MINUTES TO ENSURE THAT ALL COUNTRIES ARE ABREAST WITH THE ISSUES. ACTION BY: RECS IN COLLABORATION WITH NEPAD. (PG. 41) X X 33 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: SECOND, TO INCREASE THE USE OF RESAKSS PRODUCTS AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL, RECS SHOULD ENGAGE MORE IN PROMOTING RESAKSS AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL, INCLUDING RESAKSS WEBSITE AND OTHER PRODUCTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE COULD BE A RESAKSS FOCAL PERSON AT EACH REC, MANDATED TO BACKSTOP COUNTRIES WITHIN THE REGION TO DEMAND SERVICES FROM RESAKSS AND HOLD WORKSHOPS TO BUILD CAPACITY OF COUNTRY LEVEL KNOWLEDGE NODE. ACTION BY: ECOWAS AND COMESA IN COLLABORATION WITH RESAKSS. (PG. 42) X X X X 34 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: THIRD, RESAKSS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE LOCATED AT THE CGIAR CENTRES IN THE MEDIUM TERM (NEXT 3-5 YEARS) BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR STRONG TECHNICAL BACK-UP. THIS TIMEFRAME IS DEEMED REASONABLE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO BE IDENTIFIED SOME OF WHICH MAY NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE ON-SET. (PG. 42) X X X 35 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: FOURTH, THERE SHOULD BE AN ASSESSMENT OF M&E SYSTEMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL TO DETERMINE ENTRY POINTS FOR SUPPORT TO COUNTRIES. THERE SHOULD BE GREATER FOCUS ON CAPACITY BUILDING FOR COUNTRY SAKSS. ACTION BY: RESAKSS IN COLLABORATION WITH RECS AND COUNTRY FOCAL POINT PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS. (PG. 42) X X 36 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: FIFTH, THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE PILLAR FRAMEWORKS SHOULD BE LINKED TO THE RESAKSS AS KNOWLEDGE NODES. THIS WILL BROADEN THE KNOWLEDGE BASE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTRY LEVEL. IT WILL ALSO STRENGTHEN SYNERGIES BETWEEN PILLAR INSTITUTIONS, RESAKSS NODES AND THE COUNTRY LEVEL. ACTION BY: PILLAR INSTITUTIONS AND RESAKSS. (PG. 42) X X 255 37 4.3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION: SIXTH, WHILE RECS PUT IN PLACE MEASURES TO INCREASE FUNDING TO RESAKSS NODES FOR THEIR CORE ACTIVITIES, THERE SHOULD BE AN INTRODUCTION OF MECHANISMS FOR COST RECOVERY EVEN AS THE PUBLIC GOOD NATURE OF RESAKSS PRODUCTS IS MAINTAINED. SERVICES DEMANDED BY RECS, COUNTRIES AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR SHOULD BE PAID FOR. NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENSURE THAT ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN THE COUNTRY NODES ARE WELL FUNDED TO ATTRACT RESAKSS SUPPORT. IN ADDITION, COUNTRIES SHOULD FUND CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES IN COUNTRY. ACTION BY: RECS, RESAKSS AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS. (PG. 42) X X X 38 M&E SYSTEM REPORT, ANALYSIS: THE M&E DOCUMENT IS TECHNICALLY SOUND, GIVEN THAT IT ADDRESSES ALL BUT ONE OF THE SIX ATTRIBUTES OF AN IDEAL M&E SYSTEM. APART FROM PROVIDING INFORMATION TO NEPAD TO FACILITATE EFFECTIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF CAADP IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE, THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE TAILORED TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AT THE LOWER LEVELS TOO (RECS AND COUNTRY). SINCE CAADP IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE ANCHORED AT COUNTRY LEVEL, THIS LEVEL SHOULD RECEIVE PARTICULAR FOCUS IN THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE M&E SYSTEM, BECAUSE THIS IS THE LEVEL WHERE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CAADP ACTIVITIES WILL BE TARGETED. (PG. 46) X X 39 7.1. CONCLUSIONS AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD , #4: FIRST IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE NEPAD SECRETARIAT WILL ASSUME ITS POSITION OF PROVIDING THE OVERALL GUIDANCE, DIRECTION, FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND OTHERWISE, TO THE VARIOUS CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN FACILITATING CAADP IMPLEMENTATION, PARTICULARLY RECS, RESAKSS AND THE PILLAR INSTITUTIONS. THE EFFECTIVE DISCHARGE OF NEPAD’S MANDATE IN THIS REGARD ASSUMES A CERTAIN MINIMUM CAPACITY IN TERMS OF HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCE. CLEARLY, IN ITS PRESENT FORM, NEPAD DOES NOT HAVE SUCH CAPACITY. THE SPECIFIC CAPACITY GAPS THAT NEPAD HAS IS AN AVENUE THAT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS EVALUATION. (PG.54) X X 40 7.1. CONCLUSIONS AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD, #5: SECOND IS THE LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION OF THE RECS IN FACILITATING THE COUNTRY CAADP PROCESSES, GIVEN THEIR STRATEGIC POSITION. ALTHOUGH ECOWAS HAS MADE CONSIDERABLE STRIDES IN ENSURING ITS PRESENCE AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL IN THE CAADP FACILITATION PROCESS, THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. FOR COMESA, A LOT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. COUNTRIES NEED TECHNICAL BACKSTOPPING AS THEY ENGAGE IN INVESTMENT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF COMPACTS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN A FEW MONTHS TIME. RECS WILL NEED TO HAVE STAFF THAT CAN SPECIFICALLY BACKSTOP THIS PROCESS AT A TECHNICAL LEVEL. COMESA’S CAPACITY IN THIS REGARD IS PARTICULARLY INADEQUATE. (PG.54) X X X 256 41 7.1. CONCLUSIONS AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD, #6: THIRD, THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE COUNTRY LEVEL KNOWLEDGE NODES NEEDS TO BE ACCELERATED AND CONSOLIDATED IN PHASE II. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE CAPACITY OF RESAKSS AND IFPRI NEED TO BE ADEQUATELY BUILT UP, GIVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES NEEDING SUCH HELP. THE COUNTRY LEVEL WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE ATTENTION IN PHASE I AND YET IT IS THE MOST CRITICAL IN DRIVING THE CAADP AGENDA. THERE IS NEED, THEREFORE, TO MAKE IT ONE OF THE MAJOR AREAS OF EMPHASIS IN PHASE II. THIS FITS WELL WITH IFPRI’S AREA OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE THAT IS POLICY RESEARCH. (PG.55) X X 42 7.1. CONCLUSIONS AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD, #7: FOURTH, THE ROLE OF PILLAR FRAMEWORKS IN ACCELERATING CAADP PROCESSES AT COUNTRY LEVEL HAS BEEN ANOTHER AREA OF MAJOR WEAKNESS IN PHASE I. THIS MUST BE REVERSED IN PHASE II. THERE IS NEED TO DEVELOP NEW LINKAGES AND STRENGTH EXISTING ONES BETWEEN: (I) PILLAR INSTITUTIONS AND REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL BODIES/INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN CAADP FACILITATION, INCLUDING: THE AU, NEPAD, RECS AND RESAKSS; (II) THERE IS NEED TO FORGE STRONG LINKAGES BETWEEN PILLAR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY FPPS AND INSTITUTIONS. THIS WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR COUNTRY CAADP PROCESSES TO BENEFIT FROM THE RICH DEPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE BEING HELD BY THE PILLAR FRAMEWORKS AND INSTITUTIONS. (PG.55) X X X 43 7.1. CONCLUSIONS AND BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD, #11: IFPRI HAS ACQUIRED VALUABLE KNOWLEDGE DURING PHASE I RELATING TO THE FACILITATION OF CAADP IMPLEMENTATION, INVOLVING DIFFERENT ASPECTS, INCLUDING: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HAND -HOLDING; FACILITATION OF COUNTRY, REGIONAL AND CONTINENTAL LEVEL CAADP ACTIVITIES, TO MENTION BUT A FEW. AS IFPRI’S ROLES AND THOSE OF OTHER PARTNERS ARE DEFINED AND REDEFINED IN PHASE II, THERE IS NEED TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSFER OF SUCH EXPERIENCE TO THE VARIOUS PARTNERS WHO WILL ASSUME THE ACTIVITIES IFPRI HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN DURING PHASE I. UNLESS THIS IS DONE SYSTEMATICALLY, THE SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION OF CAADP MAY BE THREATENED. (PG.55) X X X 44 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, PROFILE OF AGRICULTURE : LENGTHY MDTF DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURES WORRIED MOST STAKEHOLDERS. NEED FOR AN URGENT STAKEHOLDERS MEETING BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR TO DISCUSS THE MDTF PROCEDURES AND OPERATIONALIZATION. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT (PG. 56) X 45 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE TRACKING SYSTEM: THE TOOL FOR TRACKING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE THOUGH DEVELOPED HAS HAD LIMITED USE. OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE TOOL SHOULD BE GIVEN PREMIUM IN THE NEXT PROGRAMME PHASE THROUGH BUILDING ADEQUATE CAPACITY IN RESAKSS TO HAND -HOLD X X X 257 RECS AND COUNTRY FOCAL POINT PERSONS AND INSTITUTIONS. ACTION BY: NEPAD AND RECS TO MOBILIZE FUNDING. RESAKSS TO OPERATIONALIZE. (PG. 56) 46 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, PILLAR INSTITUTIONS: THOUGH PILLARS ARE DEPOSITORIES OF EXCELLENT TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT COULD GO A LONG WAY IN INFLUENCING AFRICA’S AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COUNTRY PROCESSES, THIS HAS BEEN MARGINALLY EXPLOITED. PILLAR INSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE ADEQUATELY FUNDED TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION OF THE KNOWLEDGE THEY HOLD TO THE COUNTRIES. THIS IS PARTICULARLY CRUCIAL AS MOST COUNTRIES WILL SOON BEGIN TO PREPARE THEIR INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF COMPACTS BY MOST OF THEM EXPECTED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT; RECS AND PILLAR INSTITUTIONS (PG. 56) X X 47 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITY OF NEPAD FOR DIALOGUE AND ADVOCACY, PILLAR INSTITUTIONS: THOUGH PILLARS ARE DEPOSITORIES OF EXCELLENT TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT COULD GO A LONG WAY IN INFLUENCING AFRICA’S AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COUNTRY PROCESSES, THIS HAS BEEN MARGINALLY EXPLOITED. PILLARS SHOULD ALSO FORGE STRONG LINKS DIRECTLY WITH COUNTRIES AND BUILD STRONGER TIES WITH RECS AND RELEVANT SUB-REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT; RECS AND PILLAR INSTITUTIONS (PG. 56) X X 48 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITIES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES, RECRUITMENT OF EXPERTS: AFRICAN EXPERTS WITH MODELLING SKILLS ARE DIFFICULT TO RETAIN CONTINUITY IN PROVIDING SUCH A SERVICE. RECS SHOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TRAINING OF COUNTRY LEVEL EXPERTS IN MODELLING TO WIDEN THE EXPERT BASE. ACTION BY: RECS, COUNTRIES, IFPRI (PG. 56) 49 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITIES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES, RECRUITMENT OF EXPERTS: AFRICAN EXPERTS WITH MODELLING SKILLS ARE DIFFICULT TO RETAIN CONTINUITY IN PROVIDING SUCH A SERVICE. RECS AND COUNTRIES SHOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO ENHANCE THE MODELLING EXPERTISE. THIS COULD INCLUDE INCREASED SUPPORT TO MODELLING ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION AND COUNTRIES. ACTION BY: RECS, COUNTRIES, IFPRI (PG. 56) 50 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITIES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES, REGIONAL PLATFORM PROGRAMMES AND ROUNDTABLES: REGIONAL COMPACTS HAVE DELAYED, RESULTING IN LOSS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR REGIONAL CAADP INITIATIVES. OBJECTIVES OF THE REGIONAL COMPACTS AND HOW THEY INTER-PHASE WITH THE COUNTRY COMPACTS SHOULD BE DEFINED. ACTION BY: ECOWAS, X X 258 COMESA IN CONSULTATION WITH COUNTRIES. (PG. 56) 51 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITIES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES, REGIONAL PLATFORM PROGRAMMES AND ROUNDTABLES: REGIONAL COMPACTS HAVE DELAYED, RESULTING IN LOSS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR REGIONAL CAADP INITIATIVES. ECOWAS AND COMESA SHOULD PROVIDE STRONGER LEADERSHIP TOWARDS THE FINALIZATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPACT. ACTION BY: ECOWAS, COMESA IN CONSULTATION WITH COUNTRIES. (PG. 56) X 52 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPROVED CAPACITIES OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES, TRADE SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING SYSTEM: TRADE DATA BEING COLLECTED IS LIMITED AND ITS QUALITY QUESTIONABLE. A NEUTRAL INSTITUTION SHOULD BE ENGAGED TO COLLECT AND PUBLISH TRADE DATA. THIS WILL DEAL WITH THE QUALITY AND ADEQUACY OF THE DATA AND PROVIDE THE CONFIDENCE NEEDED FOR COUNTRIES TO REPORT THEIR TRADE POLICY INFORMATION. ACTION BY: COMESA WORKING WITH COUNTRIES. (PG. 56) 53 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, THE M&E SYSTEM AND ITS PERFORMANCE: THOUGH A GOOD M&E SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESIGNED, ITS OPERATIONALIZATION REMAINS A CHALLENGE DUE TO A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING: DATA GAPS AND POOR M&E SYSTEMS AT COUNTRY LEVEL; INADEQUATE PROMOTION OF RESAKSS WEBSITE. THE NEXT PHASE SHOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT TOWARDS THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE M&E SYSTEM, LED BY RESAKSS. THIS REQUIRES DEALING WITH THE CURRENT CONSTRAINTS. COUNTRIES SHOULD BE ASSISTED TO STRENGTHEN THEIR M&E SYSTEMS. THIS SHOULD BE PRECEDED BY AN ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IS OBTAINING. STRONGER TIES BETWEEN THE REGIONAL RESAKSS NODES AND COUNTRY KNOWLEDGE NODES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. RECS SHOULD BE FULLY ENGAGED IN PROMOTING THE RESAKSS WEBSITE. PRESENTATION OF DATA ON INDICATORS AT THE WEBSITE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR TRACKING OF PROGRESS AND PEER LEARNING. ACTION BY: NEPAD AND RECS TO MOBILIZE SUPPORT FOR RESAKSS. RESAKSS TO SPEAR HEARD THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF M&E SYSTEM. (PG. 56) X X X X X 54 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: THERE IS NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN THE M&E AND RESAKSS AND THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AND NO PROVISION FOR FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SPECIFIC TARGETING OF AUDIENCES WITH SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION X X X 259 TOOLS. SO THE SYSTEM MAY BE OVERDEPENDENT ON THE WEBSITE. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY DOES NOT PUT COUNTRIES IN THE CENTRE. HARMONIZATION IS IMPORTANT TO AVOID CONFLICTING INFORMATION AND TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE VOICE. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RESAKSS. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RESAKSS 55 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: THERE IS NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN THE M&E AND RESAKSS AND THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AND NO PROVISION FOR FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SPECIFIC TARGETING OF AUDIENCES WITH SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION TOOLS. SO THE SYSTEM MAY BE OVERDEPENDENT ON THE WEBSITE. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY DOES NOT PUT COUNTRIES IN THE CENTRE. THERE IS NEED TO LINK THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO THE STRATEGY AND TO ALLOW FOR FEEDBACK FROM THOSE WHO ARE TARGETED WITH MESSAGES. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RESAKSS X X X X 56 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: THERE IS NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN THE M&E AND RESAKSS AND THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AND NO PROVISION FOR FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SPECIFIC TARGETING OF AUDIENCES WITH SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION TOOLS. SO THE SYSTEM MAY BE OVERDEPENDENT ON THE WEBSITE. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY DOES NOT PUT COUNTRIES IN THE CENTRE. USE OF WEBSITE AND ITS RESOURCES NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED FOR ITS APPROPRIATENESS. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RESAKSS X X X X 57 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, THE COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY: THERE IS NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN THE M&E AND RESAKSS AND THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AND NO PROVISION FOR FEEDBACK FROM AUDIENCES. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SPECIFIC TARGETING OF AUDIENCES WITH SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION TOOLS. SO THE SYSTEM MAY BE OVERDEPENDENT ON THE WEBSITE. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY DOES NOT PUT COUNTRIES IN THE CENTRE. RE-ORIENT COMMUNICATION STRATEGY TO COUNTRY LEVEL ACTIVITIES IN AGRICULTURE AND THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT. ACTION BY: NEPAD SECRETARIAT AND RESAKSS X X X 58 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, POLICY AND STRATEGY ANALYSIS: THE USEFULNESS OF MODELLING RESULTS ALSO DEPEND ON OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL VARIABLES. MINIMUM SUPPORT WAS PROVIDED TO COUNTRIES TO DRAW LESSONS FROM PREVIOUS POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR INCORPORATION INTO NEW INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES. MODEL RESULTS COULD HAVE CARRIED MORE WEIGHT IF THE ANALYTICAL WORK INCLUDED A PROCESS OF VALIDATION OF RESULTS AT THE GRASS ROOT. OTHER VARIABLES SUCH AS X 260 INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN USING MODELLING RESULTS. THIS REQUIRES CAPACITY AT COUNTRY LEVEL IN SUCH ANALYSIS. GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOT IFPRI IN COLLABORATION WITH NEPAD SECRETARIAT, SHOULD SOURCE EXPERTS WHO COULD FACILITATE THIS PROCESS AT COUNTRY AND REGIONAL LEVEL. ACTION BY: IFPRI WORKING WITH EXPERT INSTITUTIONS 59 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, POLICY AND STRATEGY ANALYSIS: THE USEFULNESS OF MODELLING RESULTS ALSO DEPEND ON OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL VARIABLES. MINIMUM SUPPORT WAS PROVIDED TO COUNTRIES TO DRAW LESSONS FROM PREVIOUS POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR INCORPORATION INTO NEW INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES. MODEL RESULTS COULD HAVE CARRIED MORE WEIGHT IF THE ANALYTICAL WORK INCLUDED A PROCESS OF VALIDATION OF RESULTS AT THE GRASS ROOT. PREPARATION OF INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES WHICH MOST COUNTRIES WILL EMBARK ON AFTER SIGNING COMPACTS SHOULD INCORPORATE PREVIOUS POLICIES AND STRATEGIES. IFPRI IS REQUESTED TO FACILITATE THIS AS IN THE ABOVE CASE. ACTION BY: IFPRI WORKING WITH EXPERT INSTITUTIONS X X X 60 7.2 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ESTABLISHMENT OF RESAKSS, GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION MECHANISM: WEAK LINKAGES BETWEEN COUNTRY AND REGIONAL KNOWLEDGE NODES. IMPROVE PARTICIPATION OF COUNTRY STAKEHOLDERS AT REGIONAL KNOWLEDGE NODES ON ROTATIONAL BASIS. ACTION BY: RESAKSS IN COLLABORATION WITH NEPAD X X 261 PART TWO: THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY (AGRODEP) MODELING CONSORTIUM Component 2.1: A Shared Modeling Infrastructure Activity 2.1 a: Construction of a Core Modeling Platform Activity 2.1 b: Creation of IT-based Exchange and Collaboration Platforms Activity 2.1.c: Modeling Tools, Data, and Property Rights Component 2.2: Establishment of a Database Infrastructure Activity 2.2.a: Stocktaking of Data Sources and Available Data Activity 2.2.b: Establishing Consortium Data Policies and Protocols Activity 2.2.c: Development of an AGRODEP Data Portal Component 2.3: Membership, Research Networking, and Capacity Building Activity 2.3.a: Consortium Membership Activity 2.3.b: Research Networking Activity 2.3.c: Research Capacity Building Component 2.4:AGRODEP Coordination and Governance A. Program Coordination B. Steering Committee C. Scientific Advisory Board Part Two: The African Growth and Development Policy (AGRODEP) Modeling Consortium No. Recommended Actions in 2009 Evaluation 1 Technical Assistance to the NEPAD Secretariat - Direct Output 1: Apart from providing information to NEPAD to facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation of CAADP implementation performance, the operationalization of the system should be tailored to provide appropriate information at the lower levels too (RECs and country). Since CAADP implementation should be anchored at country level, this level should receive particular focus in the operationalization of the M&E system, given that this is the level where the implementation of CAADP activities will be targeted. (pg. 7) 2 Technical Assistance to the NEPAD Secretariat - Direct Output 2: The communications strategy can be improved upon to make it relevant to country level processes. There is need to harmonise communication and sources of information (ReSAKSS and M&E) into the broad communications plan. Audiences should be strategically targeted and there should be a process for feedback. (pg. 7) 262 3 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Preamble: The actual work follows the signing of the compact as preparation of investment programmes should be undertaken that ought to attract funding from different sources including; government, cooperating development partners and the private sector. (pg 16) 4 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, 2.1.3 Recommendations - Agriculture Profile: There is need to hold an urgent meeting before the end of the year to be attended by all key potential beneficiaries and stakeholders of the MDTF. The major aim of the meeting should be to discuss and agree on the management of the fund, including all procedural issues. The result of the meeting should form an input into a procedural manual on the management of the fund, including how it should be accessed. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg. 20) 5 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, 2.2.3 Recommendations – Tracking System: The operationalization of the budget and expenditure tracking tools should be one of the key focus areas in the next Phase of the project. This should entail among others: (i) capacitating ReSAKSS to elaborately explain the tools to stakeholders at various levels: continental (AU and NEPAD); Regional (ECOWAS and COMESA) and country level (Focal Point Persons and Focal Point Institutions); (ii) Hand -hold the RECs and Country level stakeholders in using the tools. Items (i) and (ii) under the Key Issues tracking system above, should be further elaborated on in Phase II to allow countries adjust their target figures as appropriate without compromising the need to generate the kind of agriculture growth that would bring about poverty reduction and increased food security at country level. Action by: ReSAKSS and NEPAD. (pg. 22) 263 6 Recommendations – Pillar I (Land and Water Mngmt): As most countries will have signed their compacts by the end of the year, they will need to draw from the Pillar I Framework as they prepare their detailed investment programmes. There is need, therefore, to speed up the printing and distribution of the framework document to all country level key players as well as to the rest of the key stakeholders at continental and regional levels. The RECs need to organize several meetings to enable Pillar I institution present and discuss the framework with all those concerned. This will facilitate greater use of the framework document. Action by: NEPAD. (pg. 23) 7 Recommendations – Pillar II (Rural Infrastructure and Market Access): As noted in the case of Pillar I recommendations section, the signing of Compacts by the majority of countries by the end of the year provides a unique opportunity for countries to draw from the Pillar II Framework Document during the preparation of investment proposals. The Pillar institution needs to be pro -active in facilitating this process. One way is by holding a workshop early next year to which all FPPs and other key stakeholders should be invited to discuss how each country could draw from the Pillar documentation during the investments proposal development. Clear procedures of how the Pillar institution could backstop the countries should also be developed and explained. Action by: Pillar II lead institution in collaboration with NEPAD. (pg. 24) 264 8 Recommendations – Pillar II (Rural Infrastructure and Market Access): Given the free labour market, it is not always practical to tie up people to specific institutions. In order to mitigate the loss of trained human resource through the labour market and other causes such as death, there will be need to ensure that capacity building of human resource is given premium at all times. This requires a systematic training schedule, strategically developed, targeting all key stakeholders. This is a typical task IFPRI could continue in, given its strength in capacity building as demonstrated during project implementation. One key area IFPRI could focus its capacity building efforts in phase II with respect to CMA could be M&E (through ReSAKSS). Among others, the M&E system would need to internalize key issues including the following: (i) tracking of progress in the 4 pillar areas; (ii) analysis of market barriers with the view to finding solutions to deal with such; (iii) value chain analysis; and, (iv) a continuous analysis of investment options that offer the highest potential for growth for small scale farmers, tracking the changing circumstances. Finally CMA should partner with an institution in East and Southern Africa to coordinate the Pillar II activities in that region. Action by: Pillar II lead institution in collaboration with IFPRI, COMESA and ECOWAS. (pg. 25) 9 Recommendations – Pillar III (Food Supply and Hunger): In the next phase, mechanisms should be defined that would allow Pillar III to directly interact with countries. There should be specific channels and avenues to operationalize these. It is crucial that all these channels and avenues be reflected in the Pillar’s Annual Work Plan and Budget. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar III institution. (pg. 26) 10 Recommendations – Pillar III (Food Supply and Hunger): As noted in case of Pillar I, there is dire need to secure adequate funding to operationalize the aspirations of the framework document. Unless this happens, the document will be of little use and most of the potentially highly useful knowledge will be of no value. Action by: AU; NEPAD Secretariat and RECs. (pg. 26) 265 11 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) can continue to participate in the country processes even as the RT processes are being concluded. This will open up opportunities for further dialogue on improving the research, technology dissemination and uptake components of the country strategies. FARA should consider including the CGIAR centres in the ERG because these centres are a depository of experts in various areas. Action by: FARA (pg. 28) 12 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The partnership approach being used by FARA can be adopted by other Pillar institutions. As the implementation phase picks up, pillar institutions can be expected to not only ensure that programmes meet pillar principles, but also support countries to mobilize resources for their plans. Closer collaboration among lead pillar institutions and networking with implementing partners will be required in the next phase. (pg. 28) 13 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The need for partnerships between lead pillar institutions stems from the mandate of the pillar framework to assist countries in achieving the overall CAADP goals in a holistic and integrated manner. This is best illustrated by the cross - cutting themes of Pillar III, including improved risk management, increased supply of affordable commodities through increased production and improved market linkages, increased economic opportunities for the vulnerable and improved quality of diets through diversification of food among target groups. As a result, Pillar three requires coordination of other pillar elements to achieve its objectives. (pg. 28) 14 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The set of ten activities defined by the pillar institutions themselves, reflects the thinking about how the roll out of the pillar frameworks should be organised. We endorse this networking and partnership approach and recommend that NEPAD/CAADP support the process by encouraging all other partners to buy into this idea and by facilitating the process to work. Action by: FARA in collaboration 266 with NEPAD and RECs. (pg. 29) 15 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (i): Integrate and harmonise information/knowledge sources (ReSAKSS, Pillar Institutions) with communication messages. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg.31) 16 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (ii): CAADP is supposed to add value to country processes. Communications should be about the National Agricultural Investment Plans and what opportunities there are for different parties either to invest or support the implementation of the plans in whichever way. NEPAD secretariat, through the CAADP Communications Manager should restrategise to bring country communications to the centre. Countries such as Ghana have prepared communications strategy to implement their agricultural plans. CAADP Communications Manager can start with improving these strategies, and through the RECs, work with those that do not have a strategy to meet their communications needs. (pg.31) 17 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (iii): Balance the focus on partnering African media with more pragmatic approaches that will bring information about agricultural plans, opportunities and information to relevant stakeholders. For example, a participatory M&E approach at the grassroots level can enhance information sharing (i.e. dissemination and feedback) with the stakeholders at that level. Presently, the strategy has limited scope for feedback. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg.31) 18 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (iv): The web -based resources are probably being under -utilised. A review of the performance of the websites is necessary at this stage. Action by CAADP Communications Manager. (pg.32) X 267 19 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (v): Although the Strategy distinguishes between communicators and audiences, the strategic directions for each of these is not clear. The roll -out of the strategy should group the long list of audiences according to what is expected of each and craft specific messages to reach specific targets. This can be incorporated as part of capacity building for communications at the country level. Action by: NEPAD through the Communications Manager and RECs. (pg.32) 20 3.1.3 Recommendations -- Recruitment of Experts: The RECs and countries can provide incentives to grow this budding network of analysts. RECs could finance recruitment of experts to provide services to countries. Further expansion of training opportunities will expand the network and reduce the impact of staff attrition. Action by: RECs and national governments, backed by IFPRI for training. (pg. 34) X X X 21 3.2.3 Recommendations -- Regional Programme Platforms and Roundtables: There is need to define the objectives of regional compacts and how they inter - phase with the country compacts in terms of activities and harmonization of resource flows. Action by: NEPAD, in collaboration with COMESA and ECOWAS. (pg. 35) 22 3.3.3 Recommendations -- Trade Surveillance and Reporting Systems: A strategy to reduce the risk of non -participation is to enlist the services of a neutral institution to collect and publish the data. The implementation of recommendations from the neutral entity would require negotiation and arbitration which can be carried out by CAADP institutions as agencies under NEPAD. Action by: NEPAD in collaboration with ECOWAS and COMESA. (pg.36) X X X X X X 23 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Although the ReSAKSS is about knowledge, the capacity strengthening should not be limited to knowledge systems at the country level, but include any activity that has been designed to build capacity in the country to design and implement agriculture development strategies and programmes. (pg. 38) X X X 268 24 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Finally, the illustration of the country CAADP process should be modified to show where each country is at in the process, rather than just repeat the same diagram for each country. The ReSAKSS website also holds publications for public access. However, the general reports, such as the one on tracking progress in expenditure allocation, and the impact of non tariff barriers on trade in East and Central Africa are too long and ought to be accompanied by policy briefs for the non - academic reader. This suggests that there is limited link between ReSAKSS and the communication specialists who would have supported the ReSAKKS to package information appropriately for different categories of visitors to the website, and for dissemination outside the website. (pg. 38) X 25 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Presently, only CAADP and MDG indicators are benchmarked according to the continental and global targets. Benchmarks can be established for other indicators (e.g. fertilizer use, cereal yields) based say on regional averages, or world best practices. (pg. 38) X X X 26 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: The M&E framework is also housed under this component, resulting in a set of working papers and tracking of key indicators on the website which are benchmarked to agreed upon targets and goals (e.g. CAADP growth target or MDG poverty target). There are close to two dozen additional indicators that are being tracked at the individual country level and reported on the ReSAKSS and displayed such as comparison between countries that can be easily carried out. In addition, publications such as the annual trends report and several working papers and briefs have actually tracked the progress made towards CAADP targets (particularly public spending) and offered analysis to inform on the gaps and country comparisons. (pg. 38) 269 27 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: : The poor links between the regional and country nodes should be addressed. Even in countries where the nodes have been developed e.g. Uganda, there is very little link with the regional node. This is partly due to lack of trust by the ReSAKSS in the national data systems. For example, even though the country statistical services produce many of the macro indicators on the ReSAKSS website, the sources of the information on the site is the World Development Indicators. This can also be a disincentive for the country level stakeholders to visit the website. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) X X X X X X X 28 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: Finally, the human resource capacity for quality data collection and analysis will need to be developed; this is an important way to build confidence in country data and information systems. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) X X 29 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: The indicator data on the website need to be re examined to make them save the purpose of the website, i.e. tracking progress towards benchmarks, peer learning, providing strategic agricultural information. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) X 30 4.2.3 Key Recommendations – Policy and Strategy: There is urgent need to undertake an assessment of data and knowledge systems at country level with the view to identifying gaps that would need to be addressed. This should lead to the development of an action plan aimed at strengthening the knowledge and data systems. The action plan should include sensitization initiatives for politicians, Permanent/Principal Secretaries, Directors and other high ranking government officials. Action by: Country Focal Point Persons with backstopping from regional ReSAKSS node. (pg. 41) X 270 31 4.2.3 Key Recommendations – Policy and Strategy: Given that the Pillar Framework Documents have all been finalized and most countries will sign the compact by the end of the year to pave way for the development of investment programmes, there is need to facilitate funding of the Pillar institutions to enable them disseminate their products and services to the countries. There should be an increased interaction between the Pillar institutions and the country level focal point persons and institutions a point already emphasized. Action by: NEPAD, ECOWAS and COMESA. (pg. 41) 32 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: First, to improve the interaction between the regional knowledge node and the country nodes the participation of country stakeholders needs to be improved. Since the number of countries in the RECs is large, representation could be on rotational basis with sufficient sharing of minutes to ensure that all countries are abreast with the issues. Action by: RECs in collaboration with NEPAD. (pg. 41) 33 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Second, to increase the use of ReSAKSS products at the country level, RECs should engage more in promoting ReSAKSS at the country level, including ReSAKSS website and other products. Consequently, there could be a ReSAKSS focal person at each REC, mandated to backstop countries within the region to demand services from ReSAKSS and hold workshops to build capacity of country level knowledge node. Action by: ECOWAS and COMESA in collaboration with ReSAKSS. (pg. 42) 34 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Third, ReSAKSS should continue to be located at the CGIAR centres in the medium term (next 3 -5 years) because of the need for strong technical back -up. This timeframe is deemed reasonable for alternative options to be identified some of which may need to be established from the on -set. (pg. 42) 35 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Fourth, there should be an assessment of M&E systems at country level to determine entry points for support to countries. There should be greater focus on capacity building for country SAKSS. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with RECs and country focal X 271 point persons and institutions. (pg. 42) 36 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Fifth, the operationalization of the Pillar frameworks should be linked to the ReSAKSS as knowledge nodes. This will broaden the knowledge base available to the country level. It will also strengthen synergies between Pillar institutions, ReSAKSS nodes and the country level. Action by: Pillar institutions and ReSAKSS. (pg. 42) 37 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Sixth, while RECs put in place measures to increase funding to ReSAKSS nodes for their core activities, there should be an introduction of mechanisms for cost recovery even as the public good nature of ReSAKSS products is maintained. Services demanded by RECs, countries and the private sector should be paid for. National governments should ensure that organizations involved in the country nodes are well funded to attract ReSAKSS support. In addition, countries should fund capacity building activities in country. Action by: RECs, ReSAKSS and national governments. (pg. 42) 38 M&E System Report, Analysis: The M&E document is technically sound, given that it addresses all but one of the six attributes of an ideal M&E system. Apart from providing information to NEPAD to facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation of CAADP implementation performance, the operationalization of the system should be tailored to provide appropriate information at the lower levels too (RECs and country). Since CAADP implementation should be anchored at country level, this level should receive particular focus in the operationalization of the M&E system, because this is the level where the implementation of CAADP activities will be targeted. (pg. 46) 272 39 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward , #4: First is the extent to which the NEPAD Secretariat will assume its position of providing the overall guidance, direction, financial support and otherwise, to the various critical institutions involved in facilitating CAADP implementation, particularly RECs, ReSAKSS and the Pillar institutions. The effective discharge of NEPAD’s mandate in this regard assumes a certain minimum capacity in terms of human and financial resource. Clearly, in its present form, NEPAD does not have such capacity. The specific capacity gaps that NEPAD has is an avenue that needs further investigation in the next phase of this evaluation. (pg.54) 40 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #5: Second is the level of participation of the RECs in facilitating the country CAADP processes, given their strategic position. Although ECOWAS has made considerable strides in ensuring its presence at the country level in the CAADP facilitation process, there is still room for improvement. For COMESA, a lot more needs to be done. Countries need technical backstopping as they engage in investment proposal development following the signing of compacts expected to be completed in a few months time. RECs will need to have staff that can specifically backstop this process at a technical level. COMESA’s capacity in this regard is particularly inadequate. (pg.54) 41 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #6: Third, the operationalization of the country level knowledge nodes needs to be accelerated and consolidated in phase II. This implies that the capacity of ReSAKSS and IFPRI need to be adequately built up, given the large number of countries needing such help. The country level was not given adequate attention in phase I and yet it is the most critical in driving the CAADP agenda. There is need, therefore, to make it one of the major areas of emphasis in phase II. This fits well with IFPRI’s area of comparative advantage, that is policy research. (pg.55) 273 42 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #7: Fourth, the role of pillar frameworks in accelerating CAADP processes at country level has been another area of major weakness in phase I. This must be reversed in phase II. There is need to develop new linkages and strength existing ones between: (i) pillar institutions and regional and continental bodies/institutions involved in CAADP facilitation, including: the AU, NEPAD, RECs and ReSAKSS; (ii) there is need to forge strong linkages between pillar institutions and country FPPs and institutions. This will make it easier for country CAADP processes to benefit from the rich depository of knowledge being held by the pillar frameworks and institutions. (pg.55) 43 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #11: IFPRI has acquired valuable knowledge during phase I relating to the facilitation of CAADP implementation, involving different aspects, including: financial management; hand -holding; facilitation of country, regional and continental level CAADP activities, to mention but a few. As IFPRI’s roles and those of other partners are defined and redefined in phase II, there is need to ensure a smooth transfer of such experience to the various partners who will assume the activities IFPRI has been involved in during phase I. Unless this is done systematically, the smooth implementation of CAADP may be threatened. (pg.55) 44 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Profile of Agriculture : Lengthy MDTF disbursement procedures worried most stakeholders. Need for an urgent stakeholders meeting before the end of the year to discuss the MDTF procedures and operationalization. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat (pg. 56) 274 45 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Budget and expenditure tracking system: The tool for tracking public expenditure though developed has had limited use. Operationalization of the tool should be given premium in the next programme phase through building adequate capacity in ReSAKSS to hand - hold RECs and Country Focal Point Persons and Institutions. Action by: NEPAD and RECs to mobilize funding. ReSAKSS to operationalize. (pg. 56) 46 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Pillar institutions : Though pillars are depositories of excellent technical knowledge that could go a long way in influencing Africa’s agriculture development through country processes, this has been marginally exploited. Pillar institutions should be adequately funded to ensure effective dissemination of the knowledge they hold to the countries. This is particularly crucial as most countries will soon begin to prepare their investment programmes following the signing of compacts by most of them expected before the end of the year. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar institutions (pg. 56) 47 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Pillar institutions : Though pillars are depositories of excellent technical knowledge that could go a long way in influencing Africa’s agriculture development through country processes, this has been marginally exploited. Pillars should also forge strong links directly with countries and build stronger ties with RECs and relevant sub -regional organizations. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar institutions (pg. 56) 48 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Recruitment of experts : African experts with modelling skills are difficult to retain continuity in providing such a service. RECs should continue to provide training of country level experts in modelling to widen the expert base. Action by: RECs, countries, IFPRI (pg. 56) X X 275 49 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Recruitment of experts: African experts with modelling skills are difficult to retain continuity in providing such a service. RECs and countries should provide incentives to enhance the modelling expertise. This could include increased support to modelling activities in the region and countries. Action by: RECs, countries, IFPRI (pg. 56) X X X 50 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Regional platform programmes and roundtables : Regional compacts have delayed, resulting in loss of opportunities for regional CAADP initiatives. Objectives of the regional compacts and how they inter -phase with the country compacts should be defined. Action by: ECOWAS, COMESA in consultation with countries. (pg. 56) 51 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Regional platform programmes and roundtables : Regional compacts have delayed, resulting in loss of opportunities for regional CAADP initiatives. ECOWAS and COMESA should provide stronger leadership towards the finalization of their respective compact. Action by: ECOWAS, COMESA in consultation with countries. (pg. 56) 52 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Trade surveillance and reporting system : Trade data being collected is limited and its quality questionable. A neutral institution should be engaged to collect and publish trade data. This will deal with the quality and adequacy of the data and provide the confidence needed for countries to report their trade policy information. Action by: COMESA working with countries. (pg. 56) X X X X X 276 53 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The M&E system and its performance: Though a good M&E system has been designed, its operationalization remains a challenge due to a number of reasons including: data gaps and poor M&E systems at country level; inadequate promotion of ReSAKSS website. The next phase should provide adequate support towards the operationalization of the M&E system, led by ReSAKSS. This requires dealing with the current constraints. Countries should be assisted to strengthen their M&E systems. This should be preceded by an assessment of what is obtaining. Stronger ties between the regional ReSAKSS nodes and country knowledge nodes should be developed. RECs should be fully engaged in promoting the ReSAKSS website. Presentation of data on indicators at the website should be modified to allow for tracking of progress and peer learning. Action by: NEPAD and RECs to mobilize support for ReSAKSS. ReSAKSS to spear heard the operationalization of M&E system. (pg. 56) 54 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy: There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Harmonization is important to avoid conflicting information and to establish a single voice. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS X 277 55 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy: There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. There is need to link the sources of information to the strategy and to allow for feedback from those who are targeted with messages. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS X X X 56 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy : There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Use of website and its resources needs to be assessed for its appropriateness. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS X X X X X 57 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy : There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Re -orient communication strategy to country level activities in agriculture and the opportunities available for investment. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKS S X X X X 278 58 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Policy and strategy analysis : The usefulness of modelling results also depend on other factors such as institutional and political variables. Minimum support was provided to countries to draw lessons from previous policies and strategies for incorporation into new investment programmes. Model results could have carried more weight if the analytical work included a process of validation of results at the grass root. Other variables such as institutional and political should be taken into account when using modelling results. This requires capacity at country level in such analysis. Given that this is not IFPRI in collaboration with NEPAD Secretariat, should source experts who could facilitate this process at country and regional level. Action by: IFPRI working with expert institutions X X X X 59 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Policy and strategy analysis : The usefulness of modelling results also depend on other factors such as institutional and political variables. Minimum support was provided to countries to draw lessons from previous policies and strategies for incorporation into new investment programmes. Model results could have carried more weight if the analytical work included a process of validation of results at the grass root. Preparation of investment programmes which most countries will embark on after signing compacts should incorporate previous policies and strategies. IFPRI is requested to facilitate this as in the above case. Action by: IFPRI working with expert institutions X X X 60 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Governance and coordination mechanism: Weak linkages between country and regional knowledge nodes. Improve participation of country stakeholders at regional knowledge nodes on rotational basis. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with NEPAD 279 PART THREE: INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING ADVISORY SERVICES AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT OBJECTIVES Component 3.1: Advisory Services to Support to FTF Activity 3.1.a: Overall Technical and Analytical Support Activity 3.1.b: Special Studies to Fill Knowledge Gaps Component 3.2: Institutional Capacity Building for AUC/DREA Activity 3.2.a: CAADP Political Engagement to Support Country Roundtables Activity 3.2.b: Facilitation of CAADP Partnership Platform (PP) Agenda Setting and Implimentation Activity 3.2.c: CAADP Follow-up Actions Part Three: Targeted Advisory Services and Institutional Capacity Building Advisory Services and Capacity Building Project Objectives No. Recommended Actions in 2009 Evaluation 1 Technical Assistance to the NEPAD Secretariat - Direct Output 1: Apart from providing information to NEPAD to facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation of CAADP implementation performance, the operationalization of the system should be tailored to provide appropriate information at the lower levels too (RECs and country). Since CAADP implementation should be anchored at country level, this level should receive particular focus in the operationalization of the M&E system, given that this is the level where the implementation of CAADP activities will be targeted. (pg. 7) X 2 Technical Assistance to the NEPAD Secretariat - Direct Output 2: The communications strategy can be improved upon to make it relevant to country level processes. There is need to harmonise communication and sources of information (ReSAKSS and M&E) into the broad communications plan. Audiences should be strategically targeted and there should be a process for feedback. (pg. 7) 3 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Preamble: The actual work follows the signing of the compact as preparation of investment programmes should be undertaken that ought to attract funding from different sources including; government, cooperating development partners and the private sector. (pg 16) 4 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, 2.1.3 Recommendations - Agriculture Profile: There is need to hold an urgent meeting before the end of the year to be attended by all key potential beneficiaries and stakeholders of the MDTF. The major aim of the meeting should be to discuss and agree on the management of the fund, including all procedural issues. The result of the meeting should form an input into a procedural manual on the management of the fund, including how it should be accessed. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg. 20) 280 5 Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, 2.2.3 Recommendations – Tracking System: The operationalization of the budget and expenditure tracking tools should be one of the key focus areas in the next Phase of the project. This should entail among others: (i) capacitating ReSAKSS to elaborately explain the tools to stakeholders at various levels: continental (AU and NEPAD); Regional (ECOWAS and COMESA) and country level (Focal Point Persons and Focal Point Institutions); (ii) Hand -hold the RECs and Country level stakeholders in using the tools. Items (i) and (ii) under the Key Issues tracking system above, should be further elaborated on in Phase II to allow countries adjust their target figures as appropriate without compromising the need to generate the kind of agriculture growth that would bring about poverty reduction and increased food security at country level. Action by: ReSAKSS and NEPAD. (pg. 22) X 6 Recommendations – Pillar I (Land and Water Mngmt): As most countries will have signed their compacts by the end of the year, they will need to draw from the Pillar I Framework as they prepare their detailed investment programmes. There is need, therefore, to speed up the printing and distribution of the framework document to all country level key players as well as to the rest of the key stakeholders at continental and regional levels . The RECs need to organize several meetings to enable Pillar I institution present and discuss the framework with all those concerned. This will facilitate greater use of the framework document. Action by: NEPAD. (pg. 23) 7 Recommendations – Pillar II (Rural Infrastructure and Market Access): As noted in the case of Pillar I recommendations section, the signing of Compacts by the majority of countries by the end of the year provides a unique opportunity for countries to draw from the Pillar II Framework Document during the preparation of investment proposals. The Pillar institution needs to be pro - active in facilitating this process. One way is by holding a workshop early next year to which all FPPs and other key stakeholders should be invited to discuss how each country could draw from the Pillar documentation during the investments proposal development. Clear procedures of how the Pillar institution could backstop the countries should also be developed and explained. Action by: Pillar II lead institution in collaboration with NEPAD. (pg. 24) X 8 Recommendations – Pillar II (Rural Infrastructure and Market Access): Given the free labour market, it is not always practical to tie up people to specific institutions. In order to mitigate the loss of trained human resource through the labour market and other causes such as death, there will be need to ensure that capacity building of human resource is given premium at all times. This requires a systematic training schedule, strategically developed, targeting all key stakeholders. This is a typical task IFPRI could continue in, given its strength in capacity building as demonstrated during project implementation. One key area IFPRI could focus its capacity building efforts in phase II with respect to CMA could be M&E (through ReSAKSS). Among others, the M&E system would need to internalize key issues including the following: (i) tracking of progress in the 4 pillar areas; (ii) analysis of market barriers with the view to finding solutions to deal with such; (iii) value chain analysis; and, (iv) a continuous analysis of investment options that offer the highest potential for growth for small scale farmers, tracking the changing circumstances. Finally CMA should partner with an institution in East and Southern Africa to coordinate the Pillar II activities in that region. Action by: Pillar II lead institution in collaboration with IFPRI, COMESA and ECOWAS. (pg. 25) X 281 9 Recommendations – Pillar III (Food Supply and Hunger): In the next phase, mechanisms should be defined that would allow Pillar III to directly interact with countries. There should be specific channels and avenues to operationalize these. It is crucial that all these channels and avenues be reflected in the Pillar’s Annual Work Plan and Budget. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar III institution. (pg. 26) 10 Recommendations – Pillar III (Food Supply and Hunger): As noted in case of Pillar I, there is dire need to secure adequate funding to operationalize the aspirations of the framework document. Unless this happens, the document will be of little use and most of the potentially highly useful knowledge will be of no value. Action by: AU; NEPAD Secretariat and RECs. (pg. 26) 11 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) can continue to participate in the country processes even as the RT processes are being concluded. This will open up opportunities for further dialogue on improving the research, technology dissemination and uptake components of the country strategies. FARA should consider including the CGIAR centres in the ERG because these centres are a depository of experts in various areas. Action by: FARA (pg. 28) 12 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The partnership approach being used by FARA can be adopted by other Pillar institutions. As the implementation phase picks up, pillar institutions can be expected to not only ensure that programmes meet pillar principles, but also support countries to mobilize resources for their plans. Closer collaboration among lead pillar institutions and networking with implementing partners will be required in the next phase. (pg. 28) 13 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The need for partnerships between lead pillar institutions stems from the mandate of the pillar framework to assist countries in achieving the overall CAADP goals in a holistic and integrated manner. This is best illustrated by the cross-cutting themes of Pillar III, including improved risk management, increased supply of affordable commodities through increased production and improved market linkages, increased economic opportunities for the vulnerable and improved quality of diets through diversification of food among target groups. As a result, Pillar three requires coordination of other pillar elements to achieve its objectives. (pg. 28) 14 Recommendations – Pillar IV (Agricultural Research, Technology Disemination and Uptake): The set of ten activities defined by the pillar institutions themselves, reflects the thinking about how the roll out of the pillar frameworks should be organised. We endorse this networking and partnership approach and recommend that NEPAD/CAADP support the process by encouraging all other partners to buy into this idea and by facilitating the process to work. Action by: FARA in collaboration with NEPAD and RECs. (pg. 29) 15 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (i): Integrate and harmonise information/knowledge sources (ReSAKSS, Pillar Institutions) with communication messages. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg.31) 282 16 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (ii): CAADP is supposed to add value to country processes. Communications should be about the National Agricultural Investment Plans and what opportunities there are for different parties either to invest or support the implementation of the plans in whichever way. NEPAD secretariat, through the CAADP Communications Manager should restrategise to bring country communications to the centre. Countries such as Ghana have prepared communications strategy to implement their agricultural plans. CAADP Communications Manager can start with improving these strategies, and through the RECs, work with those that do not have a strategy to meet their communications needs. (pg.31) 17 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (iii): Balance the focus on partnering African media with more pragmatic approaches that will bring information about agricultural plans, opportunities and information to relevant stakeholders. For example, a participatory M&E approach at the grassroots level can enhance information sharing (i.e. dissemination and feedback) with the stakeholders at that level. Presently, the strategy has limited scope for feedback. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat. (pg.31) 18 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (iv): The web-based resources are probably being under-utilised. A review of the performance of the websites is necessary at this stage. Action by CAADP Communications Manager. (pg.32) 19 Recommendations – Communication Strategy (v): Although the Strategy distinguishes between communicators and audiences, the strategic directions for each of these is not clear. The roll-out of the strategy should group the long list of audiences according to what is expected of each and craft specific messages to reach specific targets. This can be incorporated as part of capacity building for communications at the country level. Action by: NEPAD through the Communications Manager and RECs. (pg.32) 20 3.1.3 Recommendations -- Recruitment of Experts: The RECs and countries can provide incentives to grow this budding network of analysts. RECs could finance recruitment of experts to provide services to countries. Further expansion of training opportunities will expand the network and reduce the impact of staff attrition. Action by: RECs and national governments, backed by IFPRI for training. (pg. 34) 21 3.2.3 Recommendations -- Regional Programme Platforms and Roundtables: There is need to define the objectives of regional compacts and how they inter-phase with the country compacts in terms of activities and harmonization of resource flows. Action by: NEPAD, in collaboration with COMESA and ECOWAS. (pg. 35) X 22 3.3.3 Recommendations -- Trade Surveillance and Reporting Systems: A strategy to reduce the risk of non-participation is to enlist the services of a neutral institution to collect and publish the data. The implementation of recommendations from the neutral entity would require negotiation and arbitration which can be carried out by CAADP institutions as agencies under NEPAD. Action by: NEPAD in collaboration with ECOWAS and COMESA. (pg.36) 283 23 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Although the ReSAKSS is about knowledge, the capacity strengthening should not be limited to knowledge systems at the country level, but include any activity that has been designed to build capacity in the country to design and implement agriculture development strategies and programmes. (pg. 38) X 24 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Finally, the illustration of the country CAADP process should be modified to show where each country is at in the process, rather than just repeat the same diagram for each country. The ReSAKSS website also holds publications for public access. However, the general reports, such as the one on tracking progress in expenditure allocation, and the impact of non tariff barriers on trade in East and Central Africa are too long and ought to be accompanied by policy briefs for the non-academic reader. This suggests that there is limited link between ReSAKSS and the communication specialists who would have supported the ReSAKKS to package information appropriately for different categories of visitors to the website, and for dissemination outside the website. (pg. 38) 25 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: Presently, only CAADP and MDG indicators are benchmarked according to the continental and global targets. Benchmarks can be established for other indicators (e.g. fertilizer use, cereal yields) based say on regional averages, or world best practices. (pg. 38) 26 4.1.2 Assessment of the ReSAKSS Website: The M&E framework is also housed under this component, resulting in a set of working papers and tracking of key indicators on the website which are benchmarked to agreed upon targets and goals (e.g. CAADP growth target or MDG poverty target). There are close to two dozen additional indicators that are being tracked at the individual country level and reported on the ReSAKSS and displayed such as comparison between countries that can be easily carried out. In addition, publications such as the annual trends report and several working papers and briefs have actually tracked the progress made towards CAADP targets (particularly public spending) and offered analysis to inform on the gaps and country comparisons. (pg. 38) X 27 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: : The poor links between the regional and country nodes should be addressed. Even in countries where the nodes have been developed e.g. Uganda, there is very little link with the regional node. This is partly due to lack of trust by the ReSAKSS in the national data systems. For example, even though the country statistical services produce many of the macro indicators on the ReSAKSS website, the sources of the information on the site is the World Development Indicators. This can also be a disincentive for the country level stakeholders to visit the website. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) 28 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: Finally, the human resource capacity for quality data collection and analysis will need to be developed; this is an important way to build confidence in country data and information systems. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) 29 4.1.3 Recommendations -- The M&E System and its Performance: The indicator data on the website need to be re examined to make them save the purpose of the website, i.e. tracking progress towards benchmarks, peer learning, providing strategic agricultural information. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with local research and academic institutions. (pg. 39) 284 30 4.2.3 Key Recommendations – Policy and Strategy: There is urgent need to undertake an assessment of data and knowledge systems at country level with the view to identifying gaps that would need to be addressed. This should lead to the development of an action plan aimed at strengthening the knowledge and data systems. The action plan should include sensitization initiatives for politicians, Permanent/Principal Secretaries, Directors and other high ranking government officials. Action by: Country Focal Point Persons with backstopping from regional ReSAKSS node. (pg. 41) X X 31 4.2.3 Key Recommendations – Policy and Strategy: Given that the Pillar Framework Documents have all been finalized and most countries will sign the compact by the end of the year to pave way for the development of investment programmes, there is need to facilitate funding of the Pillar institutions to enable them disseminate their products and services to the countries. There should be an increased interaction between the Pillar institutions and the country level focal point persons and institutions a point already emphasized. Action by: NEPAD, ECOWAS and COMESA. (pg. 41) 32 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: First, to improve the interaction between the regional knowledge node and the country nodes the participation of country stakeholders needs to be improved. Since the number of countries in the RECs is large, representation could be on rotational basis with sufficient sharing of minutes to ensure that all countries are abreast with the issues. Action by: RECs in collaboration with NEPAD. (pg. 41) 33 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Second, to increase the use of ReSAKSS products at the country level, RECs should engage more in promoting ReSAKSS at the country level, including ReSAKSS website and other products. Consequently, there could be a ReSAKSS focal person at each REC, mandated to backstop countries within the region to demand services from ReSAKSS and hold workshops to build capacity of country level knowledge node. Action by: ECOWAS and COMESA in collaboration with ReSAKSS. (pg. 42) 34 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Third, ReSAKSS should continue to be located at the CGIAR centres in the medium term (next 3-5 years) because of the need for strong technical back-up. This timeframe is deemed reasonable for alternative options to be identified some of which may need to be established from the on-set. (pg. 42) 35 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Fourth, there should be an assessment of M&E systems at country level to determine entry points for support to countries. There should be greater focus on capacity building for country SAKSS. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with RECs and country focal point persons and institutions. (pg. 42) 36 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Fifth, the operationalization of the Pillar frameworks should be linked to the ReSAKSS as knowledge nodes. This will broaden the knowledge base available to the country level. It will also strengthen synergies between Pillar institutions, ReSAKSS nodes and the country level. Action by: Pillar institutions and ReSAKSS. (pg. 42) 285 37 4.3.3 Recommendations – Governance and Coordination: Sixth, while RECs put in place measures to increase funding to ReSAKSS nodes for their core activities, there should be an introduction of mechanisms for cost recovery even as the public good nature of ReSAKSS products is maintained. Services demanded by RECs, countries and the private sector should be paid for. National governments should ensure that organizations involved in the country nodes are well funded to attract ReSAKSS support. In addition, countries should fund capacity building activities in country. Action by: RECs, ReSAKSS and national governments. (pg. 42) 38 M&E System Report, Analysis: The M&E document is technically sound, given that it addresses all but one of the six attributes of an ideal M&E system. Apart from providing information to NEPAD to facilitate effective monitoring and evaluation of CAADP implementation performance, the operationalization of the system should be tailored to provide appropriate information at the lower levels too (RECs and country). Since CAADP implementation should be anchored at country level, this level should receive particular focus in the operationalization of the M&E system, because this is the level where the implementation of CAADP activities will be targeted. (pg. 46) 39 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward , #4: First is the extent to which the NEPAD Secretariat will assume its position of providing the overall guidance, direction, financial support and otherwise, to the various critical institutions involved in facilitating CAADP implementation, particularly RECs, ReSAKSS and the Pillar institutions. The effective discharge of NEPAD’s mandate in this regard assumes a certain minimum capacity in terms of human and financial resource. Clearly, in its present form, NEPAD does not have such capacity. The specific capacity gaps that NEPAD has is an avenue that needs further investigation in the next phase of this evaluation. (pg.54) 40 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #5: Second is the level of participation of the RECs in facilitating the country CAADP processes, given their strategic position. Although ECOWAS has made considerable strides in ensuring its presence at the country level in the CAADP facilitation process, there is still room for improvement. For COMESA, a lot more needs to be done. Countries need technical backstopping as they engage in investment proposal development following the signing of compacts expected to be completed in a few months time. RECs will need to have staff that can specifically backstop this process at a technical level. COMESA’s capacity in this regard is particularly inadequate. (pg.54) 41 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #6: Third, the operationalization of the country level knowledge nodes needs to be accelerated and consolidated in phase II. This implies that the capacity of ReSAKSS and IFPRI need to be adequately built up, given the large number of countries needing such help. The country level was not given adequate attention in phase I and yet it is the most critical in driving the CAADP agenda. There is need, therefore, to make it one of the major areas of emphasis in phase II. This fits well with IFPRI’s area of comparative advantage that is policy research. (pg.55) 286 42 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #7: Fourth, the role of pillar frameworks in accelerating CAADP processes at country level has been another area of major weakness in phase I. This must be reversed in phase II. There is need to develop new linkages and strength existing ones between: (i) pillar institutions and regional and continental bodies/institutions involved in CAADP facilitation, including: the AU, NEPAD, RECs and ReSAKSS; (ii) there is need to forge strong linkages between pillar institutions and country FPPs and institutions. This will make it easier for country CAADP processes to benefit from the rich depository of knowledge being held by the pillar frameworks and institutions. (pg.55) X X X 43 7.1. Conclusions and Broad Recommendations for Moving Forward, #11: IFPRI has acquired valuable knowledge during phase I relating to the facilitation of CAADP implementation, involving different aspects, including: financial management; hand -holding; facilitation of country, regional and continental level CAADP activities, to mention but a few. As IFPRI’s roles and those of other partners are defined and redefined in phase II, there is need to ensure a smooth transfer of such experience to the various partners who will assume the activities IFPRI has been involved in during phase I. Unless this is done systematically, the smooth implementation of CAADP may be threatened. (pg.55) 44 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Profile of Agriculture : Lengthy MDTF disbursement procedures worried most stakeholders. Need for an urgent stakeholders meeting before the end of the year to discuss the MDTF procedures and operationalization. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat (pg. 56) X 45 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Budget and expenditure tracking system: The tool for tracking public expenditure though developed has had limited use. Operationalization of the tool should be given premium in the next programme phase through building adequate capacity in ReSAKSS to hand -hold RECs and Country Focal Point Persons and Institutions. Action by: NEPAD and RECs to mobilize funding. ReSAKSS to operationalize. (pg. 56) 46 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Pillar institutions : Though pillars are depositories of excellent technical knowledge that could go a long way in influencing Africa’s agriculture development through country processes, this has been marginally exploited. Pillar institutions should be adequately funded to ensure effective dissemination of the knowledge they hold to the countries. This is particularly crucial as most countries will soon begin to prepare their investment programmes following the signing of compacts by most of them expected before the end of the year. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar institutions (pg. 56) 47 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacity of NEPAD for Dialogue and Advocacy, Pillar institutions : Though pillars are depositories of excellent technical knowledge that could go a long way in influencing Africa’s agriculture development through country processes, this has been marginally exploited. Pillars should also forge strong links directly with countries and build stronger ties with RECs and relevant sub -regional organizations. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat; RECs and Pillar institutions (pg. 56) 48 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Recruitment of experts : African experts with modelling skills are difficult to retain continuity in providing such a service. RECs should continue to provide training of country level experts in modelling to widen the expert base. Action by: RECs, countries, 287 IFPRI (pg. 56) 49 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Recruitment of experts: African experts with modelling skills are difficult to retain continuity in providing such a service. RECs and countries should provide incentives to enhance the modelling expertise. This could include increased support to modelling activities in the region and countries. Action by: RECs, countries, IFPRI (pg. 56) 50 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Regional platform programmes and roundtables: Regional compacts have delayed, resulting in loss of opportunities for regional CAADP initiatives. Objectives of the regional compacts and how they inter-phase with the country compacts should be defined. Action by: ECOWAS, COMESA in consultation with countries. (pg. 56) X X 51 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Regional platform programmes and roundtables: Regional compacts have delayed, resulting in loss of opportunities for regional CAADP initiatives. ECOWAS and COMESA should provide stronger leadership towards the finalization of their respective compact. Action by: ECOWAS, COMESA in consultation with countries. (pg. 56) X X 52 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Improved Capacities of Regional Economic Communities, Trade surveillance and reporting system: Trade data being collected is limited and its quality questionable. A neutral institution should be engaged to collect and publish trade data. This will deal with the quality and adequacy of the data and provide the confidence needed for countries to report their trade policy information. Action by: COMESA working with countries. (pg. 56) 53 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The M&E system and its performance: Though a good M&E system has been designed, its operationalization remains a challenge due to a number of reasons including: data gaps and poor M&E systems at country level; inadequate promotion of ReSAKSS website. The next phase should provide adequate support towards the operationalization of the M&E system, led by ReSAKSS. This requires dealing with the current constraints. Countries should be assisted to strengthen their M&E systems. This should be preceded by an assessment of what is obtaining. Stronger ties between the regional ReSAKSS nodes and country knowledge nodes should be developed. RECs should be fully engaged in promoting the ReSAKSS website. Presentation of data on indicators at the website should be modified to allow for tracking of progress and peer learning. Action by: NEPAD and RECs to mobilize support for ReSAKSS. ReSAKSS to spear heard the operationalization of M&E system. (pg. 56) X 288 54 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy: There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Harmonization is important to avoid conflicting information and to establish a single voice. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS 55 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy: There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. There is need to link the sources of information to the strategy and to allow for feedback from those who are targeted with messages. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS 56 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy : There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Use of website and its resources needs to be assessed for its appropriateness. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS 57 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, The communications strategy : There is no clear link between the M&E and ReSAKSS and the communication strategy and no provision for feedback from audiences. There does not appear to be a specific targeting of audiences with specific communication tools. So the system may be overdependent on the website. Communication strategy does not put countries in the centre. Re -orient communication strategy to country level activities in agriculture and the opportunities available for investment. Action by: NEPAD Secretariat and ReSAKSS 58 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Policy and strategy analysis : The usefulness of modelling results also depend on other factors such as institutional and political variables. Minimum support was provided to countries to draw lessons from previous policies and strategies for incorporation into new investment programmes. Model results could have carried more weight if the analytical work included a process of validation of results at the grass root. Other variables such as institutional and political should be taken into account when using modelling results. This requires capacity at country level in such analysis. Given that this is not IFPRI in collaboration with NEPAD Secretariat, should source experts who could facilitate this process at country and regional level. Action by: IFPRI working with expert institutions 59 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Policy and strategy analysis : The usefulness of modelling results also depend on other factors such as institutional and political variables. Minimum support was provided to countries to draw lessons from previous policies and strategies for incorporation into new investment programmes. Model results could have carried more weight if the analytical work included a process of validation of results at the grass root. Preparation of investment programmes which most countries will embark on after signing compacts should incorporate previous policies and strategies. IFPRI is requested to facilitate this as in the above case. Action by: IFPRI working with expert institutions 289 60 7.2 Summary of Specific Challenges and Recommendations, Establishment of ReSAKSS, Governance and coordination mechanism: Weak linkages between country and regional knowledge nodes. Improve participation of country stakeholders at regional knowledge nodes on rotational basis. Action by: ReSAKSS in collaboration with NEPAD 290 ANNEX XI: APPROACHES AND TOOLS ReSAKKS Approaches, Tools, and Activities Purpose Additional Notes Refer ence Addi tion al Refe renc es Strategic analysis (concept) Obviously, overarching concept Knowedge support system (concept) Obviously, overarching concept Cartographic model / spatial analysis and information tools / georeferencing tools / GIS tools (general terms) Includes GIS, remote sensing A-21 A-21 (box ), A￾22, A-28 Econometric techniques (general term) A-27 A-24 Economywide Simulation model (general term) A-28 A￾33, A￾42, A-61 Elasticity model (general term) A-29 A-29 (box ), A￾28 Impact assessment tools (general term) A-33 Market accessibility (general concept to be analyzed) A-21 A-21 (box ) Data trends, analytics, maps, charts, and PowerPoint slides on a demand bbasis (Component 3.1 outputs) B-18 Background papers on emerging policy issues (Component 3.1 outputs) B-18 Working papers on analytics and special studies to include targeting ReSAKSS Working Paper series B-18 291 and Briefs (Component 3.1 outputs) Seminars/workshops on key topics (Component 3.1 outputs) B-18 Synthesis of ongoing work in IFPRI's Development Strategy and Governance Division (DSG) in support of CAADP - to contribute to FTF annual reports, in collaboration with technical and operational partners (Component 3.1 outputs) B-18 Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model To capture the interlinkages among sectors and institutions in the economy and address questions relating to public expenditures and budgeting. A CGE model treats both agricultural and nonagricultural sectors with the same level of detail. IFPRI has undertaken a number of regional studies in which spatial analytic tools and micro-level econometric methods are integrated with sector, sub-national, national, and regional simulation models in a general equilibrium model. (B-17) Global and country￾level models and custom-made models (B-11) A-72 A￾17, A￾18, A-19 (box ), A￾55, B￾11, B-- 17 CGE - MIRAGE Model A multi-country, multi￾sector CGE model B-12 CGE - Lofgren-Harris￾Robinson Model A single country CGE model B-12 CGE - African Commodity Model A partial equilibrium model to be developed that will focus on sector or sub-sector issues within a country B-12 CGE - Other economywide and spatial multi-market partial equilibrium models (see EMM below) Note on all of these CGE models: Must be easily accessible and presented in a form that allows their use by AGRODEP members for various anaytical purposes (B￾B-12 292 12) Economywide Multimarket (EMM) Model To identify the role that the rural and agricultural economy can play in achieving growth and poverty reduction through its linkage with the nonagricultural sector and with the overall economy. Type of economywide simulation model (see A-28). More simple are elasticity models (see A-28) A-75 A-4 (box ), A￾61 International Model for Policy Analysis Of Agricultural Commodities And Trade (Impact) To project the future of global food production and food market performance and the impact of long￾term climate change as measured by water availability. A-77 Spatial Analysis of Development Options To identify and map the magnitude and distribution of opportunities and challenges within and across countries in order to better target appropriate development alternatives. A-79 Econometric Impact Analysis of Public Investments To understand the marginal effect that a unit of investment has on a specifi c outcome variable, such as growth or poverty. A-81 Dynamic Research Evaluation for Management (Dream) To evaluate the economic effects of agricultural research and development (R&D). Users can simulate a range of market, technology adoption, research spillover, and trade policy scenarios based on a flexible multimarket partial equilibrium model. Type of economic surplus model (see A￾28) A-86 Establishing a Monitoring And Evaluation (M&E) System To track progress and performance and assess the effect over time of investments and interventions. A-88 Annual regional agricultural sector trends and outlook reports B-8 Strategic analyses on emerging issues affecting the agriculture sector (general) B-8 Establishment of the African Growth and Development Policy (AGRODEP) Modeling Consortium (approach) Consortium's main activities will center around collaboration and scientific exchange of data and modeling techniques, joint analysis and reporting, and discussion for a - virtual or physical. (B-14) B-11 B-14 293 Development of indicators to track implementation performance and progress B-7 Demonstrated use in key CAADP review and dialogue fora B-7 IT-based Exhange and Collaboration Platforms (approach/activity) Meant to suppport all ReSAKSS modeling efforts (see CGE models above). Including an AGRODEP Data Portal B-12 Targeted, short-term training on microeconomic and econometric foundations for modeling B-14 AGRODEP coordination and governance Includes program coordination, steering committee, scientific advisory board B-15 Technically well￾informed and guided implelmentation of FTF activities B-16 Sufficiently high profile of the CAADP agenda across AUC member states, as well as at the regional and continental levels B-16 Special studies to fill knowledge gaps B-17 Special study - Analysis of strategic priorities for agricultural development and investment at the multi￾country regional level using an integrated framework B-17 Special study - M&E and impact assessment of agricultural development strategies B-17 Special study - Conditions and mechanisms that affect the success of agricultural developpment strategies B-18 Institutional capacity building for AUC/DREA B-18 294 Note: Page A-31, footnote - find referenced doc and incorporate Legend ReSAKSS activity or output = italic text A = Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems for Agriculture and Rural Development in Africa: Translating Evidence into Action B = USAID $21.7M Grant Africa (IFPRI original award document) 295 ANNEX XII: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Q1. To what degree is ReSAKSS providing the right kind and level of information to support CAADP processes? Informants across all six stakeholder groups indicated that ReSAKSS information serves as a bridge, linking country-level analysis to regional efforts and continental initiatives (CAADP). The bridging role of ReSAKSS is important because even though there are other CAADP support programs implemented at the regional and continental levels, ReSAKSS is the only policy support system informants referenced, rather than other programs that support NEPAD and CAADP. ReSAKSS is playing a very important and needed role. ReSAKSS needs to enhance the bridging aspect of its activities because people value the linkage between public and private institutions, people and knowledge. Informants’ perceptions of the quality of ReSAKSS written analyses and reports varied. Certain types of analyses (related to the ATOR, M&E Frameworks, JSR, and other supporting analyses) were widely lauded as valuable contributors to supporting host country CAADP efforts. However, country informants stated that at times partnering with local organizations can drive the quality of ReSAKSS quality down. ReSAKSS does not have consistent quality assurance measures in place for its information and research products in order to maintain its stakeholder’s trust As ReSAKSS has created standard processes and expectations for CAADP stages, it should do the same for its research and information products in order to ensure a consistent level of high quality product and ongoing trust in their analysis. The level of ReSAKSS information was often cited as too academic (not as practical and action-driven as would be useful for policy makers), too lengthy, and not always in the host country’s primary language. *When ReSAKSS information is in formats that are too academic, too lengthy, and not translated into the country’s primary policy languages, ReSAKSS products are only used by a few number of people when they are intended to reach a broader audience and speak to policy To expand use of ReSAKSS research and analysis products, ReSAKSS should release them in several different formats so they can be used by different stakeholders at different levels within each country. ReSAKSS cannot depend on country partners and stakeholders to re-package 296 Informants also expressed having little patience and time for the details in ReSAKSS products and expressed desire for a certain amount of basic information regarding methods, major findings, and their implications in quick and easily digestible format. makers. Policy makers need actionable information that can readily be integrated into policy (e.g. policy briefs). *Without the correct packaging, the messages within ReSAKSS information will not be delivered and heard by policy makers at the country level. their materials in a way that allows for quality assurance in a timely manner. According to informants, some kinds of ReSAKSS information is out of data and may not be entirely accurate because there are inherent limitations of the data available at the country level for their products. *Much of ReSAKSS information is the right kind of information but there are limitations to its usefulness because the data available at the country level is at times out of date and inaccurate. ReSAKSS should work closer with central Bureaus of Statistics for the type of data that is needed for ATORs and economic modeling so that the data used in their analysis are reliable and trustworthy so that they may ensure the accuracy and quality of their information products. ReSAKSS should also continue providing training on data quality assurance at the country level. There has been confusion amongst informants about how ReSAKSS sets its research agendas and determines which types of analyses and studies to prioritize and conduct. ReSAKSS may or may not use transparent and participatory methods in its decision making processes around its research agenda setting and determination of which types of analyses and studies to prioritize, which may not be meeting the needs of its stakeholders. ReSAKSS should consider using more interactive web-based tools There is limited awareness by informants of where they can find ReSAKSS information and country-specific documents, analysis, and data (e.g. ReSAKSS websites) *Because stakeholders are not aware of where to find ReSAKSS information, there is limited use of ReSAKSS products. *ReSAKSS should create and implement an aggressive communications campaign about their knowledge management platforms that is maintained over time with proper staffing, as per the conditions of their funding (PIO grant). Q1.1 To what extent are the approaches and tools developed and the analysis supported useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities? Informants acknowledge that the standardization of indicator definitions and calculation methods in the CAADP M&E Framework are helpful because they allow for comparison and consistency over years and Sound and consistent indicator tracking of CAADP goals and objectives provides evidence to support evidence￾based decision making by governments and provides a common language for countries to learn from and ReSAKSS should continue resourcing the indicator monitoring process and also providing training on the M&E Framework and data quality assurance at the country level. 297 across countries and regions. communicate with each other about CAADP. The approaches mentioned most by informants as useful in helping countries to define agricultural investment plans and priorities included ReSAKSS facilitation of CAADP processes (e.g. CNA, stocktaking, NAIPs, JSR), training, and the peer review of documents. Informants also noted that there is still a demand for additional training. The facilitation of CAADP processes by ReSAKSS coupled with the building of capacity at the country level to do this type of analysis, has led to the successful development of NAIPs. In order to ensure that analytical tools are continuously used to support prioritization of agricultural investments, additional training is required for Ministry staff. ReSAKSS should continue to facilitate CAADP processes at the country level and deliver training to Ministry staff on how to use ReSAKSS analytical tools. ReSAKSS should also record and post its analytical tool trainings and training offerings to ReSAKSS website in order to affordably expand the utility of these courses to a broader range of stakeholders. The tools mentioned by informants as useful for NAIPs included economic modeling, standard indicators for an M&E system that links to the CAADP M&E framework, and data analysis software such as STATA and GIS. However, the utilization of these tools is limited when individuals have not received the proper training on how to use them. ReSAKSS analytical tools are useful and helpful for building an evidence base for developing the NAIPs and setting priorities. For these tools to be used widely and regularly, ReSAKSS needs to provide ongoing training to relevant people in government and make a conscious effort to link AGRODEP members to government Q1.2 To what degree are the approaches and tools encouraging gender-sensitive analysis to identify appropriate polices, programs, and strategies that address the needs of female farmers, processors and entrepreneurs? Informants reported that sex￾disaggregated data is used more often than gender￾sensitive analysis (tool). Also, informants expressed that the importance of gender analysis is understood and needed but the deeper implications of gender-sensitive research (approach) are lacking in ReSAKSS work. In some instances, informants explained that only aggregate data (not disaggregated by sex) was available for ReSAKSS due to country data limitations. Further, informants shared ReSAKSS efforts are contributing to an increased focus on gender and an overall awareness of the importance of gender issues. Often, this is through the incorporation of sex￾disaggregated data. *However, the extent to which deeper considerations of gender dynamics are impacting CAADP programming, investments, and policy formation and implementation is limited within ReSAKSS work because there isn’t expertise or investment in skills capacity to undertake gender ReSAKSS in its activities with the AUC/DREA is building gender analytic models and frameworks. ReSAKSS needs to make sure these are shared at the country level as soon as they are developed to meet the demand for gender-sensitive agricultural policy. *More technical assistance should be provided at the country level to undertake gender-sensitive research, especially given the CAADP focus on inclusion of women. 298 there is a lack of skills capacity to undertake gender sensitive policy￾focused research. sensitive policy-focused research. Informants cited the usefulness of the approach of being trained by ReSAKSS in gender analysis. ReSAKSS training on gender analysis was useful to participants. ReSAKSS should update their gender analysis training and expand the number of offerings each year. ReSAKSS should also record and post the gender analysis training course (and its materials) to their website. ReSAKSS should expand the gender resources on its website to include links to the many excellent gender analysis toolkits, indicators, and other trainings that exists. Q2. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping to move agricultural policy systems forward? Q2.1 To what degree is ReSAKSS helping countries, regions, and the African continent to strengthen their institutions for agricultural policy making and policy implementation? ReSAKSS is not consistent in its support of countries. It is seen as underfunded and overstretched and it intermittent involvement does not satisfy the institutional policy strengthening needs in MoAs. *ReSAKSS support to strengthening agricultural institutions is not consistent and occurs primarily when there is a CAADP process stage to achieve or annually when the ATOR research is being compiled or when a JSR is being prepared. It is more that ReSAKSS provides good policy analysis that agricultural institutions can use as a model. The day-to-day interaction needed to expand staff skills and institutional capacity is beyond the range of ReSAKSS resources. *The comparative advantage of ReSAKSS-being able to understand, articulate and share trends and lessons from other countries in a useful way, at the country level, should be coupled with a MoA country￾based, long-term institutional policy strengthening program so the benefits of the ReSAKSS produced analysis and information can be used effectively and consistently by policy analysts and policy makers. The SAKSS implemented to date have not been equipped with the resources needed to provide the day-to-day support for policy analysis plus the in-depth skills training needs. ReSAKSS has worked with host country governments in the development of country￾level SAKSS. This has been an overall driving effort of ReSAKSS and it has required substantial investments, some of which have been short-term In countries that have received long-term SAKSS funding (Rwanda), the development of a country￾level SAKSS has been successful and provides long￾term nexus for data and policy In order to enable SAKSS to sustainably build policy capacity of host-country governments and provide corresponding analysis, SAKSS must receive on-going financial support for at least ten years in order to 299 and others which have been long-term. analysis, while also serving as a basis for future ReSAKSS regional networks. In countries that receive short￾term funding (Mozambique) for SAKSS, it is not possible to establish the same level of ownership, commitment, and technical capacity in the MoA that is needed to drive CAADP at the country level. sustain these objectives. If SAKSS are funded for less time, the investments made in developing the personnel and technical support at the national level will be lost and will have to be re-built, which is an inefficient use of funds and resources, as seen in the case of Mozambique. ReSAKSS connects the country to the CAADP. It connects other countries to each other and the regional level even though the regional level CAADP plans may not be fully realized. The ReSAKSS system is essential to realizing CAADP. ReSAKSS should work to constantly improve and refine the work that it does in an effort to realize CAADP. There is a broad acknowledgement by informants that host countries having skills in evidence-based analysis does not translate into increased utilization of the analysis by these countries. Several hindrances were mentioned by informants to the actual utilization of evidence into policy formulation, including but not limited to: political pressures, time horizons, funding sources, foreign pressures, and interest groups. The political economy of policy making is a factor in the use of evidence and outcome￾based analysis to inform policy. ReSAKSS needs to include a political economy policy analysis model in its work on agricultural policy planning. Q2.2 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing relevant information, analysis, and tools to support policy decision-making and policy change? According to the PIO and informants, ReSAKSS role is not to engage in policy implementation but to support the strengthening of institutional capacity. However, part of strengthening institutional capacity is to be able to move from analysis to practice (missing link), which was acknowledged by informants as ReSAKSS information can only go so far to support implementation, as per the definition of its role. Whether or not ReSAKSS analysis is used to inform policy is subject to the policy decision-making at the country level. ReSAKSS should consider figuring out how to track the use of its support for analysis of policy formulation and how this connects to the need for tweaking policy at the implementation stage so that it can speak to where the needs are greatest. 300 difficult without understanding the political economy of the context of how decisions are made. According to informants, the role of ReSAKSS and SAKSS have been called to play supporting roles to country governments, respectively. At the same time, informants also expressed the sense that ReSAKSS should be at the forefront leading the charge to advance CAADP goals. Informants find there to be a lack of clarity between the overlapping roles of ReSAKSS and SAKSS at the country level, and desire clarity in some form as to who is supposed to be doing what. * There is another piece of the picture that is missing, which is the role played by a long￾term policy capacity building program in the MoA, which is different from a SAKSS. The former can usually involve support for advanced degrees and paying for staff that might be not be budgeted and external advisors, and research funds. The SAKSS support knowledge sharing and facilitate research and analysis on CAADP processes and agricultural sector policy, which includes but is not limited to the MoA. * These two competing visions should be reconciled to the political realities of agricultural policy implementation making at the country and regional level. The AUC, NEPAD, ReSAKSS donors, and IFPRI need to come up with a way of reconciling these two competing visions and then share that guidance and direction with its stakeholders. Q2.3 To what degree is ReSAKSS providing sufficient support for development and implementation of a mutual accountability process that includes analysis of commitments to and progress toward country or regional sector-level plans and thereby support policy change? ReSAKSS support of the JSR process is mixed. Informants appreciated the assessment results for standardization of the JSR report, the JSR review process, and suggestions to include stakeholders. A sense of intrusion was also expressed by informants about how ReSAKSS interjected into some government owned and driven processes. The JSR is inherently a government-led process and dialogue. The consensus is that ReSAKSS role should not be a parallel process but rather a demand-driven process. ReSAKSS should not be in the compliance role but rather an advisory role, in response to either a country request or when directed the AUC and NEPAD. AUC and NEPAD need to clearly communicate with each country government specifically and get agreement on the role that ReSAKSS can and will play in supporting their JSR process before it commences in order to ensure that ReSAKSS is providing the information that’s needed in a way that is country context specific. Q3. To what degree is ReSAKSS helping create more inclusive policy dialogues with the private sector and civil society? It is widely acknowledged by informants that ReSAKSS has encouraged country governments to bring in more non-state actors. The degree to which ReSAKSS can successfully encourage the engagement of non-state actors depends largely on the willingness of host country governments to invite them into CAADP processes. ReSAKSS should continue playing this role because it will help governments move toward a partnership and alliance relationship with the farmers, agribusiness and civil society, as per the Malabo declaration. ReSAKSS should also emphasize to country governments and RECs the need to equally invite both 301 private sector and civil society throughout CAADP processes for balanced representation. Information sharing through ReSAKSS and SAKSS is inconsistent across non-state actors in countries. The knowledge sharing system of ReSAKSS and SAKSS is not fully developed at the country level. Also, ReSAKSS cannot play the same role a SAKSS can at the country level in sharing this information with local non-state actors because they are one degree of separation away from the on-the-ground realities. In turn, this may hinder the inclusion and participation by private sector and civil society in CAADP policy formulation and implementation. ReSAKSS should more effectively share its knowledge management system that is trusted and accessible to governments and non-state actors in order to allow non-state actors to tap into what is going on with the policy dialogues at the country level and understand how they can contributed. Informants believe that ReSAKSS and SAKSS have a key role to play with encouraging the engagement of non-state actors in CAADP processes. The role ReSAKSS and SAKSS both have in encouraging the engagement of non-state actors in CAADP processes has been both affirmed and appreciated by informants, which implies that importance of this role and responsibility. *The benefit of the inclusion of non-state actors in CAADP or CAADP-type processes is not compelling enough for governments. *ReSAKSS should demonstrated the tangible value proposition of private sector and civil society engagement toward meeting NAIP goals and CAADP M&E targets. 302 ANNEX XIII: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 303 304 305 306 307 308 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523