Conference Edition 12th CAADP Partnership Platform Independent Evaluation of CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) Volume 2: Annexes April 9, 2016 Chris Gerrard (Team Leader) Gem Argwings-Kodhek Ali Marouani Godfrey Mudimu Additional Assistance from Diane Bombart Andrea Deisenrieder Markus Palenberg i Table of Contents Annex A. Timeline of Key Events in the CAADP MDTF/ CTF Projects, and Related Events in CAADP ..................................................................................................................... 1 Annex B. MDTF and CTF Results Frameworks ...................................................................... 4 Annex C. Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................... 14 Annex D. Meetings of the CAADP Partnership Platform and MDTF Partnership Committee ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Annex E. Previous Reviews of the CAADP MDTF ............................................................... 21 Annex F. Country Progress from Signed CAADP Compacts to Business Meetings ............. 31 Annex G. CAADP MDTF: Financial Contributions, Commitments, and Disbursements ..... 38 Annex H. Support from the MDTF Technical Assistance Fund and Service Agency ........... 44 Annex I: Implementing Partner Organizations ....................................................................... 50 Annex J: Comparing the Preparation Time of the MDTF Child Trust Fund Projects with Other World Bank-Supported Agricultural and Rural Projects in Africa ................... 54 Annex K. Keyword Searches of World Bank Country Assistance Strategies and Project Appraisal Documents .................................................................................................. 65 Annex L. Persons Consulted ................................................................................................... 72 1 Annex A. Timeline of Key Events in the CAADP MDTF/ CTF Projects, and Related Events in CAADP Date MDTF and CTF Projects CAADP 2003 African Union Summit meets in Maputo, Mozambique. Adopts Maputo Declaration. Launches CAADP as an integral part of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Establishes 6% growth target and 10% public expenditure target. 2004 2005 2006 (September 28-29) First CAADP Partnership Platform (PP) meets in Midrand, South Africa. Framework document for CAADP Pillar IV is issued — improving African agricultural productivity. 2007 (March 30-31) The first African country, Rwanda, signs a CAADP Compact. (September 25-28) 2nd CAADP Partnership Platform (PP) meets in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The AU calls for the establishment of an MDTF to be administered by the World Bank as a mechanism through which to channel financial support for CAADP processes. 2008 (September 30) World Bank’s Africa Region formally authorizes the establishment of the CAADP MDTF Program. (November 10) Final CAADP MDTF Program Document is issued. (March 17–20) 3rd CAADP PP meets in Victoria, Seychelles. (January) Framework document for CAADP Pillar II is issued — improving rural infrastructure and trade￾related capacities for market access. (March) Framework document for CAADP Pillar III is issued — improving African food security. 2009 MDTF Interim Steering Committee meets in February, March, June, August, and September. Interim Steering Committee approves an MDTF contribution to a program of agriculture public expenditure reviews. World Bank undertakes identification missions for Child Trust Funds (CTF) projects for COMESA (May), AUC (June), ECCAS (September), and NEPAD (September). (January) Framework document for CAADP Pillar I is issued — mainstreaming and upscaling of sustainable land and water management in Africa’s agriculture and rural development agenda. (March 26–27) 4th CAADP PP meets in Pretoria, South Africa. (November 9–10) 5th CAADP PP meets in Abuja, Nigeria. Formally endorses the governance structure of the CAADP MDTF. 2 Date MDTF and CTF Projects CAADP 2010 (January-February) World Bank organizes Joint Technical Review missions for NEPAD, COMESA, AUC, and ECCAS CTF projects. World Bank undertakes identification missions for CTF projects for ECOWAS (February) and SADC (May). (April) MDTF Partnership Committee (PC) meets for the first time in Johannesburg. (June 8) World Bank approves AUC, COMESA, CMA/WCA, ECCAS, and NPCA CTF projects. (August-November) COMESA, CMA/WCA, ECCAS, and AUC CTF projects become effective. AUC and NPCA decide, with the concurrence of the MDTF PC, to pursue a different approach than originally designed to the pillar programs. NEPAD Secretariat becomes part of the AU as the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA). (April 21–23) 6th CAADP PP meets in Johannesburg, South Africa. (November 2010) Ministerial Conference on Higher Education in Agriculture in Africa calls for reform and renewed investment in tertiary agricultural education. Leads to the establishment of the Tertiary Education for Agriculture Mechanism (TEAM Africa). 2011 (March) World Bank organizes Joint Technical Review mission to SADC. (April 11) NPCA CTF project becomes effective. (November) Independent Mid Term Review of the CAADP MDTF is issued, commissioned by DFID on behalf of contributing donors, and prepared by William Kingsmill, Amdissa Teshome, and Stephen Tembo. (March 23–25) 7th CAADP PP meets in Yaoundé, Cameroon (May 4–6) World Economic Forum on Africa meets in Cape Town. AUC, NPCA and the WEF jointly found the Grow Africa Partnership to mobilize more private sector investment in African agriculture. (June 30 – July 1) Workshop in Dublin initiates the preparation of agricultural science agenda for Africa. 2012 (January) World Bank organizes Joint Technical Review mission to ECOWAS. (April 17-19) Mid Term Review of the CAADP MDTF. 50 stakeholders attend workshop in Johannesburg. Contributing donors agree in principle to extend MDTF for an additional two years. (April) Service Agency starts operating “as part of a transitional facility moving from the Pillar Lead Institutions arrangement to the knowledge, information and skills system.” (October) World Bank formally approves two-year extension of MDTF. “Sustaining CAADP Momentum” exercise is initiated. (May 3–4) 8th CAADP PP meets in Nairobi, Kenya (July) AU Heads of State and Government declare 2014 to be the Year of Agriculture and Food Security to mark the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Maputo Declaration. 3 Date MDTF and CTF Projects CAADP 2013 (March) Workshop during CAADP PP meeting reaches agreement on a revised Program Development Objective (PDO) and Results Framework for the MDTF. (May) Operational plan for the Knowledge, Information and Skills program is issued. (June) Two-year extension of the MDTF becomes effective with receipt of all the countersigned donor amendment letters. (July) MDTF Partnership Committee meets in Accra. Adopts new governance arrangements. (August) World Bank approves ECOWAS and SADC CTF projects, including new PDO and Results Framework. (October) ECOWAS and SADC CTF projects become effective. (March 25–28) 9th CAADP PP meets in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2014 (January 24) AUC, NPCA, COMESA and ECCAS CTF projects are formally restructured with additional finance and revised PDO and Results Framework. (February) Independent Assessment of the CAADP MDTF is issued, commissioned by DFID on behalf of the contributing donors, and prepared by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), Laboratoire d'Analyse Régionale et d'Expertise Sociale (LARES), and the Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF). (March 19–22) 10th CAADP PP meets in Durban, South Africa (June 27) AU Heads of State and Government renew their commitment to the principles and values of the CAADP process in the “Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods” (October 11) World Bank and EU jointly organize a Senior Officials Meeting of Development Partners in Washington, DC, to mobilize support for the Malabo Declaration. (October) CAADP Results Framework 2015–2025 is finalized at the annual ReSAKSS conference. 2015 (May) Service Agency Review is issued, commissioned by the World Bank on behalf of the MDFT Partnership Committee and prepared by Michael Wales and Patrick Tawonezvi. (December 31) The AUC, NPCA, COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, and SADC CTF projects formally close. (January) African Heads of State and Government formally endorse the Implementation Strategy and Roadmap at the AU Summit meeting. (March 25-26) 11th CAADP PP meets in Johannesburg, South Africa. 2016 (April 12–14) 12th CAADP PP meets in Accra, Ghana 4 Annex B. MDTF and CTF Results Frameworks Table B-1. Original MDTF Parent Results Framework, November 10, 2008 Program Development Objective (PDO) African agricultural programs and institutions at the national, regional, and continental levels are scaled up and more effective through: (a) Technical guidance and support (b) Political support (c) Financial support. Key Activities Supporting capacity building and activities of African institutions to lead the adoption and utilization across the Continent of the AU/NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Facilitating enhanced donor coordination in their support to activities under CAADP and to African agriculture more broadly. Key Results The MDTF will contribute towards the achievement of the following results:  African agricultural institutions at the national, regional, and continental levels will be strengthened to lead, plan, and implement agricultural development and investment programs through access to: technical guidance, policy and financial support  CAADP Country Roundtable processes completed in all interested countries in Africa and the outcomes of the Country Roundtable processes are reflected in national budgets and strategies  Regional CAADP Roundtable processes completed in each major region of Africa and the outcomes of the Regional Roundtable processes are reflected in budgets and strategies for COMESA, ECOWAS, ECCAS and SADC  National agricultural strategies, institutions, and programs are supported by and are consistent with the pillar frameworks for each of the four pillars of CAADP  Framework papers for each of CAADP’s four pillars are adopted by the AU. Component 1 ($17.5 million over 5 years) CAADP Support Platforms. To support the development and implementation of CAADP processes (especially the CAADP Partnership Platform, Country Roundtable processes, and Regional Roundtable processes) and the organizations leading these processes (especially NEPAD and the RECs). Subcomponent 1a The Continental Level. In most cases implemented by the NEPAD secretariat and the AU, to build and strengthen the common vision of CAADP. Also, capacity building for the agricultural directorates of NEPAD and the AU. Subcomponent 1b The Sub-regional Level. Capacity building for the agricultural directorates of at least four RECs (ECOWAS, SADC, COMESA, and ECCAS) and activities undertaken by these RECs to develop and implement CAADP processes in their respective regions. Subcomponent 1c The National Level. To finance regional support measures for national governments in areas related to strategic sector analysis, institutional reform, evidence-based policy review and reform, program design and costing; etc. Funds for activities under this subcomponent would in some cases be channeled through the relevant REC, and in some cases be channeled directly to the country. Support will focus on activities that will accelerate the CAADP country roundtable processes. 5 Component 2 ($20 million over 5 years) CAADP Pillar Frameworks. To support the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of CAADP pillar programs and the organizations responsible for them at continental, sub-regional, national and local levels. Subcomponent 2a CAADP Pillar 1 – Sustainable Land and Water Management. Subcomponent 2b CAADP Pillar 2 – Development of Infrastructure, Access to and Effectiveness of Agricultural Markets. Subcomponent 2c CAADP Pillar 3 – Increased Food Supply, Reduced Hunger, and Improved Response to Food Crises. Subcomponent 2d CAADP Pillar 4 – Improved Agricultural Productivity. Subcomponent 2e CAADP Cross-Cutting Themes – Livestock, Fisheries, Forestry, Gender, Climate Change, etc. Component 3 ($12.5 million over 5 years) Technical Assistance and Trust Fund Management. To support the strategic management of the Trust Fund and the harmonization of the activities of Africa’s development partners in their support of CAADP. World Bank-executed. Component 3a Technical Assistance ($10.0 million). Component 3b Trust Fund Management, Administration and Supervision ($2.5 million). Table B-2. Revised MDTF Parent Results Framework, October 2013 Program Development Objective PDO Level Results Indicators Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national, regional and continental level  Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by number of countries and type of changes)  Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures  Percentage of investment plans and programs demonstrating alignment with CAADP evidenced priority sectors (as measured by score on a 5 point alignment scale)  Number of African agricultural policy positions advocated at continental (Minister Meeting) and global levels (G8, G20, others) Intermediate Results Areas Intermediate Results Indicators 1. Sustainable capacity for the planning and implementation of CAADP process and systems at Continental, Regional and National level established 1.1 Number and type of change in systems, structures or policy focus within the CAADP framework 1.2 Number of CAADP core institutions that increase their institutional effectiveness rating as established in periodic institutional assessments 1.3 Number of joint agreed action points defined by CAADP support institutions where at least 75% of the targets are delivered 6 Intermediate Results Areas Intermediate Results Indicators 1.4 Quality of technical support to National Governments and RECs as measured by average quality assessment score at country and regional level 1.5 Number of countries in the current year actively engaged in a CAADP process or implementing CAADP related plans or programs 1.6 Percentage of recommendations from NAIP technical reviews adopted, including cross-cutting issues 2: Accountability and evidence-based planning and decision making at Continental, Regional and National levels institutionalized 2.1 Functioning and effective platforms for mutual accountability created 2.2 Number of countries using technical evidence generated through CAADP analysis in official decision-making, strategies, plans or programs 2.3 Number of products and processes at continental and regional level for CAADP monitoring, learning and strategic thinking 2.4 Levels, quality and satisfaction of/with responsiveness by REC to stakeholders demands and vice-versa 3: Internal/external communication and overall knowledge management among CAADP stakeholders at International, Continental, Regional and National levels improved 3.1 Evidence of use of communication products in agriculture policies and decision making 3.2 Number of new knowledge systems, and/or policy initiatives/dialogue established at continental, regional and national level 3.3 Number of mutually agreed technical assistance and other capacity strengthening initiatives to support country and regional level activities 4: Development and management of mutually beneficial CAADP partnerships at Continental, Regional and National levels improved 4.1 Number of African agricultural policy position papers jointly agreed at CAADP Governance fora 4.2 Policy and financial commitments made at Global fora, development partner visits or other platforms after AU-DREA strategic engagement 4.3 Effective CAADP governance through greater CTF co-ordination and collaboration 4.4 Levels of partner satisfaction with partnerships 4.5 Number of partnerships for effective technical support and joint assistance developed 7 Table B-3. First Four CTF Results Frameworks, June 2010 to May 2011 COMESA AUC ECCAS NPCA Project Paper June 22, 2010 August 21, 2010 June 22, 2010 May 1, 2011 Effectiveness August 27, 2010 October 29, 2010 November 22, 2010 April 11, 2011 Project Development Objective Improved strategic planning and implementation of agricultural investments at the national and regional levels. Improved alignment of agricultural policies and increased political commitment to CAADP in Member States through support of AUC-DREA. Improved strategic planning and budgeting of agricultural investments at the national and regional levels within the ECCAS sub-region by strengthening ECCAS’ capacity to support the CAADP roundtable process at the country and regional level. Improved coordination and monitoring of CAADP processes at national, regional, and continental levels. To directly contribute to the overall CAADP MDTF objective of scaled-up and more effective African agricultural programs and institutions at national, regional and continental levels through improved access to technical, political and financial support. PDO Level Results Indicators Number of national CAADP Compacts signed by the end of 2012 Number of countries whose investment plans have been designed, reviewed and adopted by 2013 Regional Compact signed by the end of 2011 Regional investment plan adopted by 2012 Number of countries where CAADP Compacts are reflected in national budgets and strategies Annual progress review of CAADP implementation at AU Ministerial meetings AU organs formally adopt the Pillar Frameworks and integrate them into the AUC planning process The Mutual Accountability Framework (MAF)1 is adopted by CAADP stakeholders Number of Compacts signed by the end of 2012 Number of national investment plans adopted by mid-2013 Regional Compact signed by the end of 2012 Regional investment plan adopted by mid-2013 Number of countries where CAADP Compacts are reflected in national budgets and strategies Number of agricultural Peer Reviews under the African Peer Review Mechanism undertaken and recommendations issued to the respective Member States (MS) Design and development of Mutual Accountability Framework completed Percentage of countries and regions with signed Compacts that have undergone post-Compact review process NPCA provides technical assistance to RECs to actively coordinate and implement CAADP processes in MS 1. The CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework is being developed to help monitor commitments made by CAADP partners – member states, regional bodies, donors. The objective is that partners should adhere to agreed principles of coordinated efforts, harmonization of development assistance, and alignment with continental and country policies, strategies and plans. 8 COMESA AUC ECCAS NPCA Implementation strategy for updated Pillar structure and cross-cutting topics developed Comprehensive CAADP M&E System for all CAADP processes in place Continental learning platform and database is functional and regularly updated. Components (a) Support for the COMESA Secretariat Strategic Functions (b) Strengthen the COMESA Secretariat CAADP Coordination Unit’s Capacity. (a) Support for key AUC-DREA activities in advancing CAADP (b) Strengthen AUC-DREA’s capacity. (a) Strengthen the institutional capacities of ECCAS General Secretariat (b) Facilitate and coordinate the CAADP process at country level (c) Facilitate and coordinate the CAADP process at regional level (d) Develop horizontal strategic functions. (a) Support for NPCA strategic functions (b) NPCA capacity building. Strategic functions Supporting implementation of CAADP and COMESA strategies at the national level Strengthening regional planning and policy formulation Facilitating monitoring and evaluation of regional strategic objectives and targets Facilitating regional communication and information strategies Capacity building at the regional and national level for CAADP implementation Supporting partnerships to fulfill strategic objectives Advocacy at the continental, global, regional, and national levels Policy harmonization and coordination at the continental and regional levels Strategic communication for political engagement Resource mobilization and partnerships. Promoting the quality in CAADP implementation at regional and national levels Managing communication and information in support of CAADP implementation and partnerships Monitoring and assessment of CAADP Impact Partnership and coalition building to link resources with agriculture investment programmes Harnessing key thinking and experience on African agriculture issues to articulate African perspectives and contribute to the evolution of the CAADP agenda 9 Table B-4. Revised Results Frameworks for AUC, NPCA, COMESA, and ECCAS, and Original Results Frameworks for ECOWAS and SADC AUC NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC Project Paper February 10, 2014 February 10, 2014 February 10, 2014 January 30, 2014 August 5, 2013 August 12, 2013 Effectiveness January 24, 2014 January 24, 2014 January 24, 2014 January 24, 2014 October 4, 2013 October 16, 2013 Project Development Objectives Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level — defined as systems, structures and institutions that are inclusive; evidence￾based; scaled up and more effective in leveraging technical, financial and political support; and more robust in identifying and delivering on priorities. Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national and regional level — defined as systems, structures and institutions that are inclusive; evidence based; scaled up and more effective in leveraging technical, financial and political support; and more robust in identifying and delivering on regional integration priorities. PDO Level Results Indicators 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by countries and types of changes achieved). 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by countries and type of changes achieved). 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by countries and type of changes achieved). 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by countries and type of changes achieved). 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of regional and national structures in agricultural policy making (disaggregated by number of countries and type of changes) 1. Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making. 10 AUC NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC 2. Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures. 2. Percentage of regional and national￾level agriculture policies, plans and programs demonstrating alignment with CAADP principles (as measured by score on a 5-point alignment scale). 2. Percentage of investment plans and programs demonstrating alignment with CAADP evidenced priority sectors (as measured by score on a 5-point alignment scale). 2. Percentage of investment plans and programs demonstrating resource alignment with CAADP evidenced priority sectors (as measured by score on a 5-point alignment scale). 2. Percentage of national and regional stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures 2. Percentage of investment plans and programs demonstrating alignment with RAP/CAADP evidenced priority sectors. 3. Percentage of investment plans and programs demonstrating resource alignment with CAADP evidenced priority sectors (as measured by score on a 5-point alignment scale). 3. Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures. 3. Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures. 3. Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms and structures. 3: Percentage of NAIPs/RAIP programs implemented demonstrating alignment with CAADP evidenced priority sectors (as measured by score on a 5 point alignment scale) 3. Percentage of stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, review processes, and accountability mechanisms. 4. Number of African agricultural policy positions advocated at continental level. 4. Number of African agricultural policy positions advocated at continental (HOSG) level. 4. Number of African agricultural policy positions advocated at regional (Ministerial) level. 4. Number of African agricultural policy positions advocated at regional (Ministerial) level. 4. Number of agricultural policy positions advocated at regional (Ministerial) levels 4. Number of agricultural policy positions advocated at regional (Ministerial) levels. 11 Intermediate Results Indicators (Outputs) AUC NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC Intermediate Results 1 Sustainable capacity for the planning and implementation of CAADP process and systems at Regional and National Level established Intermediate Results Indicators 1.1. Number of countries completing the Business Meeting with AUC-DREA political and organizational leadership input. 1.2. Number of Ministerial and Heads of States CAADP related decisions implemented at REC and Member State level. 1.3. Percentage of joint agreed action points defined by CAADP support institutions, which are implemented. 1.4. Proportion of activities planned by DREA supported agencies aligned with CAADP principles. 1.5. Proportion of activities planned by all three DREA divisions aligned with CAADP principles. 1.1. Level of satisfaction of technical support to National Governments and RECs. 1.2. Percentage of countries with at least 85% of National Agricultural Plans financed. 1.3. Number of countries with functional CAADP technical nodes. 1.4. Number of policy frameworks translated into new programmes reinforcing CAADP implementation. 1.1 Number of countries in the current year where CAADP principles are embraced in processes , plans and policies 1.2 Number of experts/staff at national and regional level trained to support CAADP implementation 1.3 Number of countries where programs and projects in the Investment Plan have mobilized resources 1.4 Level of satisfaction with the quality of NAIP independent technical review 1.1 ECCAS CAADP operational Team fully resourced. 1.2 ECCAS Regional Agricultural Investment Plan (RAIP) completed and approved. 1.3 Number of countries in the current year where CAADP principles are embraced in processes, plans and policies. 1.4 Numbers of RAIP/NIAP technical reviews in which cross￾cutting issues have been positively addressed. 1.1. Number of countries in current year engaged in comprehensive post￾Compact analytical work. 1.2. Percentage of recommendations from NAIP technical reviews adopted, including cross-cutting issues. 1.3. Number of countries and percentage change in resource mobilization in support of NAIPs/RAIP in current year. 1.1. Number of countries where CAADP principles are embraced in processes, plans and policies (disaggregated by SADC only and SADC-COMESA countries). 1.2. Number of Regional Agricultural Policy related protocols adopted or formally rolled out in at least two thirds of SADC Member States. 1.3. Percent change in the level of financing for investment plan programs and projects (disaggregated by country). 1.4. Percentage of recommendations from technical reviews adopted, including cross-cutting issues (gender, climate change, environment and poverty). 12 AUC NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC Intermediate Result 2 Accountability and evidence-based planning and decision making at Regional and National levels institutionalized Intermediate Results Indicators 2.1. Functioning and effective platforms for mutual accountability created at Continental level 2.2. Number of RESAKSS M&E and policy analysis products that have informed CAADP and MAF implementation 2.1. Number of country-level CAADP￾aligned joint sector reviews. 2.2. Percentage of countries using technical evidence generated through CAADP analysis in official decision￾making, strategies, plans or programs. 2.3. Effective structures and systems in place for accountability and capturing feedback from stakeholders at regional and continental levels. 2.1 Number of countries that maintain multi-stakeholder platforms for participation in decision making structures at national and regional level 2.2 Level of participation of different stakeholders in the CAADP agenda at national and regional level 2.3 Number of national governments having and applying M&E systems that generate data on core CAADP indicators as per continental CAADP M&E framework 2.1 Permanent Committees for Knowledge Management and Evaluation are operational in all - ECCAS Member States. 2.2 Permanent Regional Committee for Knowledge Management and Evaluation is operationalized. 2.3 Levels, quality and satisfaction of/with responsiveness of ECCAS to stakeholders 2.1. ECOWAP/CAADP governance architecture established and functional. 2.2. Establishment of a functional ECOWAP/ CAADP M&E system that collects data and generates reports disaggregated by at national and regional level. 2.3. Levels, quality and satisfaction of/with responsiveness by ECOWAS to stakeholders demands and vice-versa. 2.1. Number of countries that maintain multi-stakeholder platforms for participation in decision making structures at national level. 2.2. Data collection of RISDP/RAP/CAADP M&E system fully functional and generates reports at national and regional level. Intermediate Result 3 Internal/external communication and overall knowledge management among CAADP stakeholders at Regional and National levels improved Intermediate Results Indicators 3.1 Evidence of use of communication products in agriculture policies and decision making 3.2 Demand for CAADP information increasing – website hits, responses to bulletins, briefings. 3.1. Number of new knowledge and/or policy packages made available and shared with CAADP stakeholders 3.2. Frequency of discussions on CAADP 3.1 Levels of satisfaction with CAADP information and knowledge packages. 3.2 Tools for CAADP communication and information sharing (both internal and external - website, 3.1 Number of mutually agreed technical assistance initiatives and other capacity strengthening initiatives to support country and regional level activities. 3.1. Knowledge management systems in place - ECOAGRIS operationalized and connected to existing systems at national and regional levels 3.2. Number of mutually agreed technical assistance 3.1. Tools for CAADP communication and information sharing (both internal and external – website, publications/ report) are developed and regularly updated and disseminated. 13 AUC NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC 3.3 Increase in diversity in information users different sectors e.g. government ministries, media, civil society. at International and Continental level fora. 3.3. Level and quality of support to CAADP processes provided by non-agricultural sectors and actors. publications/ report) are developed and regularly updated and disseminated 3.3 Level of satisfaction with responsiveness by COMESA to stakeholders technical assistance demands 3.4 Number of mutually agreed technical assistance and other capacity strengthening initiatives to support country and regional level activities 3.2 Levels of demand for CAADP information and/or technologies 3.3 Levels of satisfaction with, and utilization of, CAADP information and technologies. and other capacity strengthening initiatives to support country and regional level activities 3.2. Number of mutually agreed technical assistance and other capacity strengthening initiatives to support country and regional level activities. Intermediate Result 4 Development and management of mutually beneficial CAADP partnerships at Regional and National levels improved Intermediate Results Indicators 4.1 Number of African agricultural policy position papers jointly agreed at CAADP Governance fora 4.2 Percentage of action points across different stakeholders agreed upon and implemented as tabled at the Partnership Platform 4.1. Level of future funding sources identified and brokered for CAADP 4.2. Percentage increase in levels of private sector investments into African agriculture. 4.3. Level of alignment of partner support to CAADP principles. 4.4. Effective CAADP governance through greater CTF co￾ordination and collaboration. 4.1 Number of partnerships for effective technical support and joint assistance developed (as measured by # of formal MOUs, TORs, contracts, conventions or frameworks) 4.1 Levels of partner satisfaction with partnerships 4.2 Number of partnerships for effective technical support and joint assistance developed (as measured by number of formal MOUs, TORs, contracts, conventions or frameworks) 4.1. Number of partnerships for effective technical support and joint assistance developed, disaggregated by national and regional 4.1. Number of partnerships for effective technical support and joint assistance developed (as measured by # of MOUs, TORs, contracts, conventions, or frameworks). 14 Annex C. Evaluation Matrix Development Effectiveness “Development effectiveness” is understood to comprise the OECD/DAC standards of relevance, efficacy, and sustainability. The MDTF consists of a number of activities. Some are Bank-executed and others are recipient-executed by one of the seven CTF organizations (AUC, NPCA, COMESA, CMA/WCA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, and SADC). The essential theory of change of the MDTF has been to strengthen the capacity of the lead organizations to provide support to country￾level agricultural policy making and planning. Then more countries would prioritize agriculture and put in place improved policies and investment plans. These would in turn attract both public funds and private sector investment. Then better policy and planning and increased levels of investment would generate sustained growth in the agriculture sector which would in turn deliver developmental benefits in terms of jobs, income, and food security. Evaluation Issues and Questions Relevance 1. Supply-side relevance. What activities have the World Bank and CTF organizations undertaken with financing from the MDTF and the CTF grants? What have been the objectives and design of these activities? How well have these been aligned with the objectives and strategies of CAADP and the MDTF? How well have the sum total of the activities been aligned with objectives and strategies of CAADP and the MDTF? 2. Demand-side relevance. How relevant have the activities been to the immediate country-level beneficiaries such as policy makers and planners? How have their needs and priorities been taken into account (e.g. needs assessments, professional judgment, etc.)? What has been the overall demand for the activities undertaken by the executing agencies? To what extent are the overall MDTF and CTF objectives still relevant both for African partners and for the contributing donors in the context of the evolving CAADP agenda? 3. Subsidiarity. Which MDTF/CTF activities are being undertaken at which levels (continental, regional, and national)? To what extent are these activities being carried out at the most appropriate level in terms of filling gaps, efficient delivery, and responsiveness to the needs of beneficiaries? 4. Comparative advantage. What are the comparative advantages of the executing agencies in comparison with other organizations that could provide similar support to CAADP processes? How well have the executing agencies played up to their comparative advantages? How well does the MDTF as a whole compare with other possible instruments for supporting CAADP processes and organizations? How well has the MDTF contributed to a need that other donors and instruments could not have met as effectively? 15 Evaluation Issues and Questions 5. Value added. What has been the overall value added of the MDTF and the CTFs to CAADP processes, to transforming the enabling environment for African agricultural policies and programs, to more effective agricultural policies and programs, and to increased investment in agriculture? 6. Relevance of design. To what extent were the strategic approach and the priority activities of the MDTF and CTFs appropriate for achieving their overall objectives? To what extent was the focus on the original beneficiary organizations (central organizations, RECs, pillar organizations) appropriate? How appropriate were the CTFs in contributing effectively to the MDTF’s objectives? How well did the original and the actual distribution of the financial resources to the different MDTF components reflect the needs? 7. Results frameworks. How well have the MDTF and CTF results frameworks been articulated in relation to their objectives, strategies, and activities? How realistic and plausible have these results frameworks been? What is the validity of the assumptions underlying these results frameworks, including those relating to external factors that are crucial for the intended outcomes and impacts? How have the results frameworks contributed to effective monitoring and reporting of MDTF and CTF activities? (See also the section on monitoring and reporting below.) Efficacy 8. Activities and outputs. How has the implementation of the MDTF and the CTFs unfolded in relation to their original designs? What activities have been started and completed? What outputs have been produced? What constraints — both internal and external — did the executing agencies face in implementing their activities? How did they overcome these constraints in order to implement the activities? Which activities have been the most/least effective in contributing to the achievement of the MDTF and CTF objectives? 9. Partnerships. Who have been the principal implementing and other partners of the executing agencies? What types of organizations are these (international, local, public sector, private sector, civil society, academia, etc.)? What roles have the partners played (consultation, collaboration, design, implementation, outreach, communication, etc.)? How instrumental have the partners been in completing the activities and in achieving the outputs and outcomes of the MDTF and CTFs? 10. Outcomes. What outcomes have the MDTF and the CTFs achieved in each of the following outcome areas:  Capacity strengthening. To what extent have the MDTF and CTFs contributed to strengthening the sustainable capacity for the planning and implementation of CAADP processes and systems at the continental, regional, and national levels? How much have they improved the capacity of the lead institutions to support the implementation of CAADP? What capacities now merit further attention in the future?  Country-level planning and decision making. To what extent have the MDTF and the CTFs contributed to institutionalizing evidence-based policy making and planning at the country level? To what extent have the lead institutions increased their ownership and leadership in CAADP processes? How much have they contributed to strengthening political commitment to agriculture, to improving agriculture policy making and investment planning in countries, and to transforming national policy commitments and budgets? What changes have been observed in African agriculture sector as a result? 16 Evaluation Issues and Questions  Communication and knowledge management. To what extent have the MDTF and the CTFs contributed to improving the internal/external communication and overall knowledge management among CAADP stakeholders at the international, continental, regional and national levels? How much have they contributed to strengthening the quality and focus on African technical and peer support provided to national processes?  Alignment and coordination. To what extent have the MDTF and the CTFs contributed to improving the development and management of mutually beneficial CAADP partnerships at the continental, regional, and national levels? How much have they contributed to improving the alignment and coordination of development partners in supporting CAADP? How much have they contributed to strengthening continental and regional policy priorities and partnerships? Likely Sustainability 11. Sustainability of the benefits. What is the likely sustainability of the benefits arising from the MDTF and CTF activities after the MDTF has closed? What are the assumptions underlying this assessment? What actions have the World Bank and CTF organizations taken or plan to take to enhance sustainability? What are the expected roles and activities of other actors in this process, including the complementary activities of development partners? 12. Sustainability of the program. What is the likely sustainability of the activities that the CTF organizations have undertaken with the support of the MDTF after the MDTF closes? What are the principal strengths of the CTF organizations to sustain their support for CAADP processes (e.g. inclusive membership, effective governance and management, adequate financial resources, etc.)? What are the principal threats to sustainability (e.g. declining relevance in a changing regional context, competition from other sources of supply, difficulty in demonstrating results, weak governance and management, difficulty in mobilizing financial resources, etc.)? What is the long term perspective on funding, operations, and capacity strengthening within the CTF organizations after the MDTF closes? 13. If the MDTF partners were to agree upon a follow-on Malabo facility, what recommendations would the evaluation make to improve the objectives, design, and implementation of this facility? What recommendations would the evaluation make to each of the MDTF partners in this respect? Cross-Cutting Issues: Inclusion, Gender, and Climate Change 14. What has been the coverage of these cross-cutting issues in project documents and results frameworks for the parent MDTF, the original CTFs, and the restricted CTFs? What has been the coverage of these issues in MDTF/CTF outputs and outcomes, including CAADP Compacts and National Agricultural Investment Plans and other CAADP documents? 15. What lessons can be learned from the experience with these cross-cutting issues in the MDTF and CTF activities? How might these lessons be incorporated into the objectives and design of a follow-on Malabo facility? 17 Organizational Effectiveness “Organizational effectiveness” is understood to comprise the proficiency of the MDTF’s governance, implementation, and administrative structures, functions, and processes in facilitating the achievement of the MDTF’s objectives in an efficient and transparent manner. This includes the monitoring and reporting on the MDTF’s activities and results. Evaluation Issues and Questions Governance and Management 16. Governance and management arrangements. What are the roles and responsibilities of the CAADP Partnership Platform, the MDTF Partnership Committee, the NPCA Secretariat, the Fund Administrator (the World Bank), and others involved in the governance and management of the MDTF? How clearly have these been articulated and understood among those involved, including the division of responsibilities between the governance and management bodies? How do these roles and responsibilities compare with standard functions of governance and management, taking into account the particular circumstances of the MDTF? 17. Legitimacy. To what extent do the governance and management arrangements permit and facilitate the effective participation and voice of the different MDTF stakeholders in the governance and management decisions, taking into account their roles and responsibilities? What role have donors played in governing the MDTF? 18. Efficiency of governance. How efficiently has the Partnership Committee carried out its governance functions without sacrificing quality, including its strategic direction and oversight of the MDTF? How efficient have its decision-making processes been, including efficiently acting upon reports received? How well have these decision-making processes been linked to broader decision-making processes within CAADP? 19. Proportionality. To what extent have the governance and management responsibilities been commensurate with the authority to make decision? 20. Accountability. To what extent are the lines of accountability within the program well-defined, accepted, and being followed? How efficient and effective have the Secretariat and the Fund Administrator been? Have there been any significant gaps in either programmatic or fiduciary accountability? 21. Transparency. To what extent have the MDTF’s decision-making, reporting, and evaluation processes been open and available to the general public, subject to any confidentiality requirements (e.g. in human resource management)? To what extent have any conflicts of interests been identified and managed transparently? Efficiency 22. Sources and uses of funds. What have been the principal sources and uses of funds for the MDTF? To what extent have the executing agencies supplemented MDTF funds with other sources of funding to implement MDTF activities? 18 Evaluation Issues and Questions 23. Financial management, budgeting, reporting, and compliance. To what extent has the MDTF had good financial management, budgeting, and reporting? To what extent have financial reports been adequate, complete and correct, including reports on cash flow, and budgeted versus actual income and expenditure and forecasts? How robust and effective have been the MDTF’s financial control and risk management systems at both the World Bank and the lead organizations? What due diligence procedures have been in place for the CTFs? 24. Resource allocation. What have been the criteria and procedures for allocating MDTF and CTF funds to its various components and specific activities? How effective and efficient have been these criteria and the procedures been? How have the resource allocation processes and timing affected the implementation of the MDTF’s activities? 25. Administrative costs. What have been the administrative costs of the MDTF and CTFs? To what extent have these been realistic and reasonable in relation to benchmarks from other similar programs? 26. Have there been any areas of obviously inefficient use of resources, for example, in the use of facilities and services? Monitoring and Reporting 27. Monitoring systems. To what extent have the MDTF and CTFs put in place (a) results framework, (b) measurable indicators that meet the monitoring and reporting needs of MDTF governance and management, (c) systematic and regular processes for collecting and managing data, including baseline data, and (d) feedback loops from monitoring and reporting to decision-making? To what extent has monitoring been sufficiently results-oriented, robust and meeting the needs of the stakeholders? How relevant and useful have the indicators been for assessing the progress, outputs, and outcomes of individual activities? 28. Reporting systems. To what extent have the lines of reporting been clear? What have been the differences in reporting between the various components of the trust fund? To what extent have the reporting systems (both financial and technical) between sound and unambiguous? To what extent have the reports been useful and being used? To what extent has there been full coherence between the reporting to the World Bank and the contributing donors? 29. Linkages with other CAADP activities. To what extent has the monitoring and reporting of the MDTF and CTFs been integrated with that of other CAADP activities such as ReSAKSS and the GIZ capacity building initiative? World Bank Performance 30. Roles and responsibilities. What have been the roles and responsibilities of the World Bank in relation to the MDTF and CTFs — fiduciary, identification and preparation, implementation (of Bank-executed activities), supervision (of recipient executed activities), fund administrator, etc.? 31. Quality at entry. To what extent did the Bank identify, facilitate the preparation of, and appraise the MDTF and CTFs such that these were most likely to achieve planned development outcomes, consistent with the Bank’s fiduciary role. 19 Evaluation Issues and Questions 32. Quality of supervision. To what extent did the Bank proactively identify and resolve threats to the achievement of relevant development outcomes and to the Bank’s fiduciary role. 33. Fund administrator. How effective has the Bank been in managing fiduciary services and support? 34. Implementer of Bank-executed activities. How effective has the Bank been in (a) strengthening the capacity of CAADP partners, (b) providing technical assistance, (c) facilitating productive partnerships (donor to donor, donor to Africa, World Bank to Africa, etc.)? 35. Development partner. What have been the strategic, operational, and financial linkages between MDTF activities and the World Bank’s country operations? To what extent have these contributed to each other’s achievements? 36. Convener. To what extent has the World Bank been effective in convening meetings that contribute to the achievement of the MDTF and CAADP objectives? 37. Monitoring and reporting. To what extent have the quality and scope of the monitoring and reporting activities of the World Bank been sufficient? 20 Annex D. Meetings of the CAADP Partnership Platform and MDTF Partnership Committee Year No. CAADP Partnership Platform No. CAADP MDTF Interim Steering Committee and Partnership Committee 2006 1 Johannesburg, September 28–29, 2006 2007 2 Addis Ababa, September 25–28, 2007 2008 3 Victoria, Seychelles, March 17–20, 2008 Interim Steering Committee Meetings 2009 4 5 Pretoria, March 26–27, 2009 Abuja, November 9–10, 2009 Washington, DC, February 4–6, 2009 Midrand, March 26–27, 2009 Dakar, June16, 2009 Washington, DC, August 10-11, 2009 Addis Ababa, September 5, 2009 Partnership Committee Meetings 2010 6 Johannesburg, April 21–23, 2010 1 Johannesburg, April 2010 2011 7 Yaoundé, Cameroon March 23–25, 2011 2 3 Yaoundé, March 2011 September 2011 2012 8 Nairobi, May 3–4, 2012 4 5 Nairobi, May 5, 2012 Washington, DC, July 19–20, 2012 2013 9 Addis Ababa, March 25–26, 2013 6 7 Addis Ababa, January 21–22, 2013 Accra, July 19–20, 2013 2014 10 Durban, South Africa, March 19–22, 2014 8 9 Brussels, May 12–13, 2014 Addis Ababa, November 19, 2014 2015 11 Johannesburg, March 25–26, 2015 10 11 12 Parys, South Africa, February 25, 2015 Cape Town, June 16, 2015 Johannesburg, October 22, 2015 21 Annex E. Previous Reviews of the CAADP MDTF Table E-1. Mid Term Review of the MDTF supporting the CAADP, November 2011 [Note: This review was commissioned and paid for by DFID on behalf of five contributing donors to the MDTF (European Commission, Ireland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and USA). It was conducted by William Kingsmill, Amdissa Teshome, and Stephen Tembo.] Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Relevance The MDTF has been relevant in supporting the following CAADP features:  It is an African-owned initiative and agenda  It provides an African platform for advocacy for agriculture and rural development  It represents an opportunity to strengthen capacity of key institutions, and has defined roles for and linkages between key institutions  It represents an opportunity to strengthen African knowledge communities  It focuses on resource mobilization, and has provided comprehensive guidelines on investment planning processes  It is about accountability  It marks a shift from a project approach to a sector wide approach and institutional development. There is broad understanding that, at the end of its first decade, there is a need for CAADP to generate a renewed vision for the future. There is a need to complement the emphasis on investment programming with the need to generate effective policies and institutions, which could contribute to a renewal of CAADP. (This NPCA has been looking at this.) There is a need for a stronger emphasis on the “critical constraints” or “key blockages” to increasing agricultural output: such analysis would offer the potential of developing stronger links between programs and results. It would include policy constraints as well as institutional and investment requirements. The MDTF should support the process of renewing the CAADP vision. The concept of Pillar Institutions has proven to be problematic and will be reviewed by a separate study. There is broad agreement that the concept of individual centers of excellence for each pillar is inadequate, and that support should be delivered to create research and knowledge networks across the continent. Efficacy (Outputs and Outcomes) As of November 2010, the MDTF had supported directly or indirectly the preparation of:  Framework documents for each of the 4 Pillars  Roundtables and Compacts in 22 countries  Investment Plans in 18 countries, including external technical Reviews in 17 countries 22 Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations  Business Meetings in 12 countries  An ECOWAS regional compact, developed and reviewed The MDTF has supported the “readiness” of the continent to absorb additional donor resources, for example, GAFSP. However, the magnitude of donor resources made available has not reflected earlier commitments made, notably at the L’Aquila 2009 G8 Summit. The management of expectations in relation to donor resources for investment in African agriculture needs explicit attention now. The external technical review process should be strengthened to better tackle the funding gaps in donor resources. Although absolute levels of government spending on agriculture have increased, the amounts spent relative to national expenditure have in many cases declined. The CAADP target of 10% has only heuristic value and is inappropriate in many countries. NAIPs often contain long lists of enabling investments, requiring significant institutional capacity and external financing, both of which are severely constrained. It would be better to have shorter lists of problems where public policy and programming can be effective and where political space exists – or can be created – to implement reforms. More attention should be given to political economy, and to deeper understanding of how technical policies and political reality can be matched. Impacts Growth in agricultural output across the continent has been highly variable but in general has been about half the level sought by CAADP, even in recent years. MDTF stakeholders should put in place a process to collect substantive evidence on the impact of the CAADP framework on a continuing basis and use it to inform the CAADP processes. Sustainability The complexity of the current investment planning processes is diminishing their sustainability. The CAADP investment planning procedures need to be radically simplified and integrated into broader public expenditure management processes. The CTFs have been used to buy-in significant additional staff time, but the sustainability of this approach is problematic. It would have been helpful if the project design had included, say, five to ten year institutional development strategies for each institution, which would have provided exit strategies from donor support. The CTFs need to be supported to equip themselves with staff and skills for the challenging role of catalysts for change and facilitators. The results framework and M&E should reflect these needs. 23 Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Although the MDTF is only half way through its implementation period, the headroom for new activities is severely constrained given existing commitment levels. Consider now whether and how to generate additional support for the MDTF. Inclusion, gender, and climate change The MDTF has been relevant in supporting the following CAADP features:  CAADP has provided processes for dialogue and coordination with the many development partners engaged in the sector at various levels (even before the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda).  It offers a broad strategic framework for policy development, and potentially opens up policy processes for greater participation.  It has started to include the private sector and other non-state actors (NSAs). Support for NSAs (e.g. farmers associations) needs to continue to be investigated. A new approach is needed for working with commercial farmers and agro-industry. More attention should be given to gender issues. Governance, management and administration The Operations Manual (version 2, April 2010) is outdated since it focused on the approval processes for CTF grants as opposed to implementation or the requirements for M&E. There is a consensus that, at a practical level, the governance of the MDTF can and should be improved. None of the stakeholders were content with the governance of the MDTF. The PC needs ground rules for day-to-day engagement to transact business between meetings. The donors and the RECs might consider establishment of their own forums that could meet formally ahead of PC meetings to decide on their line to take. Contributing donors need to send unambiguous and consistent signals about the accountability they expect. We would like to see AfDB and UNECA more actively involved. The MDTF should adopt a more formal approach to the conduct of its business, including:  An annual timetable for meetings  An annual work plan, including for non-CTF components.  Financial reporting templates.  Agreed deadlines for circulation of papers, which contain clear issues, options, recommendations, and financial implications  All stakeholders allowed to attend as observers. Consider re-establishing the PC as a Technical Committee reporting to a Stakeholder Council, which would be a subset of the Business Meeting membership. 24 Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations The NPCA currently lacks the resources to executive the secretariat function properly. The PC needs a professional secretariat. A consultancy should be implemented in South Africa to provide the necessary support. Monitoring and reporting The initial results frameworks had a number of weaknesses:  They did not explicitly include objectives for, and achievements in, institutional strengthening, although implicitly this has been a major focus.  Thy focused on low-level public investment planning activities, but not improved levels of, or efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure.  They did not address the strengthening of policy capabilities. The Bank has not provided monitoring reports on Bank-executed TA. There is a consensus that stronger results frameworks are now needed for the parent and child trust funds. The CAADP community has begun to react to the new emphasis on “development effectiveness and the results agenda.” A ‘line of sight’ (or chain of argument and set of assumptions) is needed between the activities supported by the MDTF and the eventual objective of increasing output and productivity. The results framework should reflect a more substantive agenda in terms of:  Quality of investment plans and technical review processes  Policy analysis, review, development and dialogue  Capacity building  Lesson learning Each CTF should develop a “dashboard” for its own use and the use of its clients so that agricultural productivity and output are kept in sight at all times. World Bank performance The Child Trust Funds has been highly appropriate instruments and have supported the priority institutions. The Child Trust Funds and the Bank-executed Technical Assistance (TA) window, have been effective. The Bank was able to mobilize support quickly and flexibly through the TA window to fill the urgent gaps while the CTFs were being designed. There was limited formal institutional appraisal or diagnosis of existing capacity, and the planned activities did not include staff development or strengthening of management systems and processes. There is a case for modest support to IGAD and EAC for regional planning and coordination (but not via their own CTFs). The Bank should have helped the CTF organizations to put in place management information systems, including their own for monitoring effectiveness and efficiency. 25 Table E-2. ECDPM Independent Assessment of the CAADP MDTF, February 2014 [Note: This review was commissioned and paid for by DFID on behalf of five contributing donors to the MDTF (European Commission, Ireland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and USA). It was conducted by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), Laboratoire d'Analyse Régionale et d'Expertise Sociale (LARES) and the Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF).] Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Relevance There is no obvious alternative to the MDTF in terms of supporting the Lead Institutions and the overall CAADP process at the regional, continental, and international levels in terms of producing:  The same level of coordination  Lesson sharing  A “whole of Africa” approach. There is a widely-held perceived need for continuation of an MDTF to support the overall CAADP process. The overall CAADP needs to be “relaunched” as a condition for the suggested improvements in the MDTF to work (see below). To clarify and systematize the implementation of subsidiarity, there needs to be a three￾dimensional institutional analysis of:  The existing mandates of AUC, NPCA, and the RECs  The value added of the MDTF vis-à-vis the rest of CAADP support.  Thematic task division (“who does what”)  Capacities (comparative advantage on each relevant theme). The relaunching of CAADP should include:  A stronger role for countries and national-level stakeholders (e.g. the private sector) in continental CAADP.  Better mainstreaming of CAADP in official AU and REC organs.  A new Partnership Agreement and a new CAADP Results Framework to clarify and systematize the implementation of subsidiarity in CAADP processes and CAADP support. Efficacy (Outputs and Outcomes) Capacity of Lead Institutions MDTF support has mainly focused on hiring of staff, organizational capacity, process planning, financial management capacity, and technical assistance (TA). Building capacities in knowledge management, and policy and strategic analysis have received less attention. The MDTF has played a key role in building the capacity of institutions tasked with advancing CAADP at continental and regional level and in improving coordination around CAADP. The following relatively consensual options should be explored:  Reduction of ad hoc TA activities  Increased focus on technical capacity building, and more systematic planning and monitoring of it  Stronger and more targeted institutional strengthening objectives  More efforts on knowledge management at all levels 26 Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations MDTF and CAADP Performance at the National Level CAADP has played a major role in raising awareness, putting agriculture at center stage for African economic growth and food security, and providing an open forum for discussion on agricultural issues at continental, regional, and national levels. However, progress at the national level has been mixed, to a large extent due to national political economy dynamics (which one should expect the MDTF to resolve).  In some countries, CAADP has led to better inter-sectoral coordination, improved donor coordination, and enhanced investments by governments, private sector, and development partners.  In other countries, CAADP remains a process with low levels of ownership and financial sustainability. MDTF could have done more to equip countries and Lead Institutions with tools to move from NAIPs preparation to actual implementation. One can still observe a disconnect in terms of speed between the continental and national level processes. The CTFs need to devote a larger share of their support to urgently address demands from national stakeholders and to sustain implementation progress in-country after NAIPs are launched. This may require a moratorium on continent-wide CAADP sub￾processes (e.g. KIS) and top-down selected thematic priorities (e.g. agribusiness strategies). There was a good degree of consensus on the following:  More political economy analysis should be undertaken with CAADP, pre-compact and post-compact  The MDTF should equip countries and Lead Institutions with tools to from NAIP’s preparation to actual implementation  The MDTF should support country-level Joint Sector Reviews as a way of contributing to country-level CAADP implementation Donor Alignment and Coordination in CAADP There remains limited alignment of broader CAADP support to actual investment priorities identified in national and regional investments plans. Deficiencies lie both with African countries/regions and with development partners. The MDTF has considerably increased coordination at different levels – particularly among African Lead Institutions, between sectors, and among MDTF contributing DPs. Coordination between contributing and non￾contributing DPs has been weak. Relatively consensual recommendations include:  Strengthen information exchange, both within African governments/RECs and within development partner structures  DPs should more systematically test their alignment to CAADP at continental, regional, and national levels.  More transparent/systematic tracking and planning/ coordination of CAADP support activities. Impacts There are important shortcomings in the way MDTF support has translated to impacts on the ground at the national level. Such shortcomings could be addressed during the ongoing design for a future MDTF. 27 Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Governance, management and administration Making the MDTF more effective requires improving the governance of the MDTF and clarifying its role vis-à-vis the CAADP structures and other types of CAADP support. Preconditions for such MDTF improvements to work include:  A stronger role of national stakeholders in continental CAADP  Better mainstreaming of CAADP in official AU-RECs organs  Stronger subsidiarity. Consider the following improvements in MDTF governance:  Clarify/formalize the relationship between the Partnership Committee (PC), the Development Partners Task Team (DPTT), and the Business Meeting (BM) in the Partnership Agreement.  Clarify MDTF accountability and reporting lines, particularly “vertically”.  Monitor outputs of MDTF support.  Study pros and cons of different options to reform the composition and procedures of the PC. Efficiency (cost￾effectiveness) The MDTF is more cost-effective than separate CAADP ear-marked budget support to different Lead Institutions. World Bank performance Providing support through the CTFs is more effective in building capacity than providing support through the “TA window” (component 3 of the MDTF). Consider new CTFs to support more African institutions, including continental and regional networks of NSAs as well as priority themes (possibly through CAADP Joint Action Groups). 28 Table E-3. CAADP Service Agency Review, May 2015 [Note: The Service Agency was conceived in response to the growing demand for technical support from countries and RECs taking part in CAADP implementation and the acknowledgement that neither the World Bank’s MDTF Team nor NPCA were in a position to manage the amount of work required. Following the publication of an ‘expression of interest’ (EOI) in October 2010, the contract was awarded to HTSPE Ltd, and the SA started functioning in April 2012 “…as part of a transitional facility moving from the Pillar Lead Institutions arrangement to the knowledge, information and skills (KIS) support system.” HTSPE was acquired by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) in Bethesda, Maryland, in late 2013 and began operating under the name DAI from mid-2014. The evaluation was commissioned by the World Bank on behalf of the MDTF Partnership Committee, paid for from the MDTF, and prepared by Michael Wales and Patrick Tawonezvi.] Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Efficacy (Outputs and Outcomes) The SA delivered 2,515 person days of TA between April 2012 and February 2015, and disbursed almost $5 million, of which $1.1 million managed events under the AU Year of Agriculture and Food Security in 2014. The technical support delivered through the SA contributed to seven NAIPs, 9 Independent Technical Reviews (ITRs), and four business meetings, representing 22%, 30%, and 16%, respectively, of these completed CAADP processes. The SA contributed to raising investment in agriculture directly through one GAFSP project – in 2013 for $31.3 million – and indirectly to other unquantified bilateral donor investments. The technical services delivered through the SA have directly benefited 21 countries and one REC (the East African Community). The SA has satisfactorily delivered TA in support of CAADP processes. It has provided AUC and NPCA with a powerful tool with which to implement their goal of accelerated implementation of CAADP across the continent. It has been a small but important part of implementing CAADP processes since 2012. 29 Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations The SA played a key role in delivering technical inputs in support of the formulation of major CAADP policy documents and facilitated the accelerated implementation of CAADP processes. The SA contributed 441 person-days to the design of the KIS program, to the “Sustaining the CAADP Momentum” exercise, to formulating the CAADP Results Framework, and to the road map for the implementation of Malabo. The technical support to these tasks helped to lay the foundations for CAADP’s approach to sector transformation. The delivery of TA support can be effectively outsourced. Outsourcing could play an important part in the future implementation of KIS. Explore possible alternatives to a single, continent-wide SA for delivery of TA under KIS. Invest in developing a CAADP/KIS web site as the interface between country￾level demand for TA and the one (or more) SA(s). Revisit the “Post-Compact Guidelines” and the role that TA can play in supporting implementation of the Malabo Declaration. The NPCA has not elaborated the way in which subsidiarity should be applied, and many RECs and countries lack the capacity to take effective control of over the technical support needed. The overarching system for delivering technical support in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity could be improved, thereby giving client governments (and RECs) greater control over the technical support provided. Sustainability Draft and publish an EOI for partnering with DAI during a transition period. Prepare a realistic TA delivery work plan for transitional period in 2015. Inclusion, gender, and climate change Efforts to create a strong African consultant database were not actively pursued. Nonetheless, 88% of the consultants on the 209-strong SA consultant database and 73% of those actually employed are African. The SA consultant database includes only 24 women (11%), and only 8 women (12%) have been actually employed through the SA. Eighty-four percent of the consultants on the SA database are English speaking, 45% French speaking, and 30% bilingual. Seven French-speaking and 12 English-speaking countries benefited from the SA. Building the consultant data base was not implemented because (a) the SA started at a time when CAADP itself was evolving and (b) the implementation of the KIS program (of which TA delivery would be a key element) was delayed. The important goal of expanding the pool of African consultants was only partially achieved. The consultant pool should be expanded and operated in a more transparent way. 30 Major Findings Conclusions / Lessons Recommendations Governance, management and administration There is a perception that the operation of the SA has not been sufficiently transparent. This relates to:  The fact that over 50% of the funds passing through the SA have been for NPCA “overhead” activities and not for supporting country-level CAADP processes.  Concerns about the prioritization of tasks.  Fears that the selection of consultants has not followed any formal procurement procedure. The interface between CAADP management and a Service Agency needs to be clearly defined. Strengthening CAADP organizations’ oversight would enhance the effectiveness of outsourcing. Establish a “Management Committee” for the SA. Update the Operations Manual. Efficiency (cost￾effectiveness) The SA has proved competitive (by international comparison) in delivering short-term TA services, both in terms of daily rates paid and level of margin. Overall, the margin of 13% charged by HTSPE is not considered excessive. The SA proved efficient in delivering technical experts on time for requested assignments despite being faced with a single channel through NPCA, difficult communications, and complicated travel and visa arrangements. On average, the SA has successfully deployed individuals and teams within two weeks. Many requests from NPCA to the SA were one week or less. The SA represents good value for money. However, there is little incentive to economize on the fee rates paid or the margins charged because budgets are prepared on a “cost plus” basis. Monitoring and reporting A formal quality assurance system is needed to enhance accountability and learning opportunities. World Bank performance The slow start to implementation mainly reflected the evolving nature of CAADP, the emerging priorities for delivering KIS and ensuring greater subsidiarity, and the existence of “political” factors, in particular AUC/NPCA’s concerns about the recruitment of a non￾Africa-based international consulting company to manage the SA. The World Bank has managed the SA contract satisfactorily. 31 Annex F. Country Progress from Signed CAADP Compacts to Business Meetings REC Countries that have signed Compacts Dates when Compacts signed NAIP Ready Technical review for the NAIP Business Meeting held COMESA 1. Rwanda 30-31 March 2007 Yes Yes (4-8 Dec 2009) Yes (8-9 Dec 2009) 2. Burundi 24-25 August 2009 Yes Yes (22-31 Aug 2011) Yes (14-15 March 2012) 3. Ethiopia 27-28 September 2009 Yes Yes (Sept 2010) Yes (6-7 Dec 2010) 4. Swaziland 3-4 March 2010 Yes Yes (July 2015) Planned Dec 2015 and postponed 5. Uganda 30-31- March 2010 Yes Yes (2-10 Sept 2010) Yes (16-17 Sept 2010) 6. Malawi 19 April 2010 Yes Yes (10-16 Sept 2010) Yes (28-29 Sept 2011) 7. Kenya 23-24 July 2010 Yes Yes (6-14 Sept 2010) Yes (27th Sept 2010) 8. Zambia 18 January 2011 Yes Yes (March 2013) Yes (30 May 2013) 9. Democratic Republic of Congo 18 March 2011 Yes Yes (May 2013) Yes (7-8 Nov 2013) 10. Seychelles 16 September 2011 Yes Yes (17-23 Oct 2015) Yes (19 Nov 2015 11. Djibouti 19 April 2012 Yes Yes (12-22 Nov 2012) /Second Review in progress No 12. Sudan 29-29 July 2013 In process Pending No 13. Madagascar 21 October 2013 Yes Pending No 14. Zimbabwe 22 November 2013 Yes Yes (January 2015) Planned 15. Mauritius 23 July 2015 Pending Pending No ECOWAS 1. Togo 29-30 July 2009 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 2. Sierra Leone 17-18 September 2009 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 3. Niger 29-30 September 2009 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (14-15 Dec 2010) 4. Liberia 5-6 October 2009 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 5. Mali 12-13 October 2009 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (4-5 Nov 2010) 6. Benin 15-16 October 2009 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (6-7 June 2011) 7. Gambia 27-28 October 2009 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (4-5 Nov 2010) 8. Ghana 27-28 October 2009 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 9. Nigeria 29-30 October, 2009 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 10. Cape Verde 10-11 December 2009 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (16-17 Nov 2010) 11. Senegal 9-10 February 2010 Yes Yes (4-9 June 2010) Yes (14-17 June 2010) 12. Guinea – Conakry 6-7 April 2010 Yes Yes (19-25 Sep 2010) Yes (4-5 June 2013) 13. Burkina Faso 22 July 2010 Yes Yes (11-17 Jan 2012) Yes (26 March 2012) 32 Source: NPCA Notes: a. The Business Meeting for ECOWAS’ Regional Investment Plan was held on June 14–17, 2010, and the plan is already under implementation. b. ECCAS’ regional compact was signed on July 10, 2013, and the Regional Investment Plan is in place. c. IGAD’s Regional Compact was signed on October 21, 2013. d. COMESA’s Regional Compact was signed in November 2014. e. EAC’s Regional Compact and Regional Results Framework are in place. f. SADC’s Regional Compact and Regional Results Framework are in place, and the Regional Investment and Implementation Plan is in progress. g. The following countries have launched CAADP implementation and are working towards signing a Compact: 1. Comoros 2. South Africa (launched on October 20, 2011) 3. South Sudan (Investment Plan advanced) 4. Eritrea 5. Botswana (to launch in December 2015) h. The following countries are engaging to launch CAADP implementation: Algeria, Egypt, Namibia, Somalia, and Tunisia. REC Countries that have signed Compacts Dates when Compacts signed NAIP Ready Technical review for the NAIP Business Meeting held 14. Ivory Coast 26-27 July 2010 Yes Yes (June 2012) Yes (12-14 Sept 2012) 15. Guinea Bissau 17-18 January 2011 Yes Yes (26 May-3 Jun 2011) Yes SADC 1. Tanzania 6-8 July 2010 Yes Yes (20-31 May 2011) Yes (9-10 Nov 2011) 2. Mozambique 8-9 December 2011 Yes Yes (3-13 Dec 2012) Yes (12 April 2013) 3. Lesotho 4 September 2013 Yes Pending No ECCAS 1. CAR 15 April 2011 Yes Yes (14-21 May 2012) Yes ( a light business meeting took place in 2013) 2. Gabon 9-10 May 2013 Yes Yes Yes (17 Dec. 2015) 3. Cameroon 15-17 July 2013 Yes Yes (15-22 Aug 2014) Yes (14-15 Sept. 2015) 4. Sao Tome & Principe 16-17 October 2013 Yes Yes (25 Aug-2 Sept 2014) Yes (14-15 Oct. 2015) 5. Equatorial Guinea 5 December 2013 Yes Yes No 6. Congo Brazzaville 10 December 2013 Yes Yes Yes (17 Nov. 2015) 7. Chad 16 December 2013 Yes Yes No 8. Angola 5 August 2014 In process Pending No UMA 1. Mauritania 27-28 July 2011 Yes Yes (5-16 Feb 2012) 20-21 March 2012 33 Table F-1. Cumulative Numbers of African Countries That Have Signed Compacts, Had Reviews of NAIPs, and Held Business Meetings, 2007–2015 Year COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC UMA Total Signed Compacts 2007 1 1 2008 1 1 2009 3 10 13 2010 7 14 1 22 2011 10 1 15 2 1 29 2012 11 1 15 2 1 30 2013 14 6 15 3 1 39 2014 14 7 15 3 1 40 2015 15 7 15 3 1 41 Independent Technical Reviews of NAIPS 2009 1 1 2010 5 12 17 2011 6 13 1 20 2012 7 1 15 2 1 26 2013 9 1 15 2 1 28 2014 9 4 15 2 1 31 2015 12 7 15 2 1 37 Business Meetings Held 2009 1 1 2010 4 10 14 2011 5 11 1 17 2012 6 14 1 1 22 2013 8 1 15 2 1 27 2014 8 1 15 2 1 27 2015 9 5 15 2 1 32 Business Meetings as Percent of Compacts Signed 60% 71% 100% 67% 100% 78% Business Meetings as Percent of No. of Member States 47% 63%a 100% 33%b 33% 65% a. This does not include Burundi and DR Congo, that have been supported by COMESA. b. This does not include Angola (supported by ECCAS), or Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zambia, or Zimbabwe (supported by COMESA). 34 Table F-2. Agriculture Public Expenditure Reviews [Note: This program has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ($4.9 million) and CAADP MDTF ($732,999), and has been executed by the World Bank’s Africa Region in collaboration with NPCA. CAADP encourages governments and development partners to target public expenditure on the agriculture sector as a strategic and effective entry point to initiate policy reforms and make investment decisions to stimulate growth in the sector, thereby reducing poverty and hunger.] Country Title Date COMESA Countries Malawi Malawi - Basic agricultural public expenditure diagnostic review (2000-2013) : November 2013 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ethiopia, ECOWAS Countries Togo Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review January 2012 Burkina Faso Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (2004–2012) January 15, 2013 Liberia Agriculture Sector Public Expenditure Review January 2013 Ghana Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review April 2013 Senegal Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (AgPER) May 27, 2013 Guinea Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (2003-2012) November 2013 Nigeria Agricultural Public Expenditure Review at the Federal and Subnational Levels in Nigeria (2008-12) August 22, 2014 Sierra Leone Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (2003-2012) February 2015 Côte d’Ivoire ECCAS Countries Cameroon Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review (2003–12) May 31, 2014 Chad Public Expenditure Review in the Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food Security Sector October 31, 2014 SADC Countries Tanzania Public Expenditure Review, National Agricultural Input Voucher Scheme (NAIVS) February 2014 35 Country Title Date Botswana Agriculture Public Expenditure Review, 2000-2013 October 22, 2014 (slightly revised in March 2015) South Africa Source: ReSAKSS, http://www.resakss.org/node/2113 Table F-3. Joint Sector Reviews Country Title Date COMESA Countries Ethiopia Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Malawi Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2105 Uganda 2015 ECOWAS Countries Burkina Faso Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Ghana Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Senegal Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Benin 2015 Togo 2015 SADC Countries Mozambique Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Tanzania Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) Assessment Report 2014 Source: http://www.resakss.org/publications/594 36 Table F-4. GAFSP Grants Awarded to African Countries (as of 2014) Country Name Date Grant Awarded Public Sector Window Grant Private Sector Window Investment Private Sector Window Advisory Services ECOWAS Countries 340.8 12.1 1.228 Burkina Faso Sustainable Water Management and Food Security Project (PAMESAD) Sep 2013 37.1 Burundi Platform for Food Security and Rural Development Program in Imbo and Moso (PNSADR-IM) May 2012 30 Cote d’Ivoire Société Ivoirienne de Banque (SIB) Risk Sharing Facility Société Ivoirienne de Productions Animales (SIPRA) Nov 2013 July 2012 1.5 0.112 The Gambia Food and Agriculture Development Project (FASDEP) May 2012 28 Liberia Smallholder Agricultural Productivity Enhancement and Commercialization Program (SAPEC) Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) May 2012 Apr 2013 46.5 0.560 Mali Food and Nutrition Security Enhancement Project (PReSAN-KL) GWFP HSBC Sep 2013 37.2 4.6 Niger Water Mobilisation Project to Enhance Food Security in Maradi, Tahoua, and Zinder Regions (PMERSA-MTZ) Nov 2010 33 Senegal Food Security Support Project in the Louga, Matam, and Kaffrine (PASA Lou/Ma/Kaf) GWFP Banque Internationale pour le Commerce et l’Industrie du Sénégal (BICIS) May 2012 June 2013 40 6 0.02 Sierra Leone Smallholder Commercialization Programme (SCP) Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) June 2010 Apr 2013 50 0.536 Togo Agriculture Sector Support Project (PASA) Rural Development Support Project (PADAT) June 2010 June 2010 19 20 COMESA Countries 222.7 12 0.697 Ethiopia AfricaJUICE Agricultural Growth Project (AGP) June 2013 Nov 2010 51.5 3 0.06 Kenya ECOM FTC Kenya GWFP Kenya Co-op Bank Jan 2013 Sep 2013 0.617 0.020 37 Country Name Date Grant Awarded Public Sector Window Grant Private Sector Window Investment Private Sector Window Advisory Services Malawi Malawi Mangoes Smallholder Irrigation and Value Addition Project (SIVAP) May 2012 June 2013 39.6 5 Rwanda Land Husbandry, Water Harvesting and Hillside Irrigation Program (LWH) June 2010 50 Uganda Mutisectoral Food Security and Nutrition Project (acronym) Pearl Dairy Sep 2013 Nov 2013 27.6 4 Zambia Agriculture Productivity and Market Enhancement Project (GAFSP-APMEP) Sep 2013 31.1 SADC Countries 22.9 Tanzania Expanding Rice Production Project GWFP CRDB Bank May 2012 22.9 UMA Countries 4.8 Mauritania Tiviski Dairy Aug 2014 4.8 38 Annex G. CAADP MDTF: Financial Contributions, Commitments, and Disbursements Table G-1. Annual Donor Contributions, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2016 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total EU 3,228.5 3,141.7 324.4 6,690.5 5,708.7 552.5 19,646.3 USAID 3,100.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 4,500.0 3,000.0 2,000.0 18,100.0 UK 11,595.3 3,988.3 15,583.5 Netherlands 650.0 1,300.0 1,300.0 2,600.0 650.0 6,500.0 Ireland 2,184.6 846.3 331.8 337.5 335.5 4,035.7 France 1,290.9 38.8 1,329.7 Total 6,978.5 4,975.5 18,922.1 7,612.7 11,522.3 5,937.5 8,694.2 552.5 65,195.2 Cumulative Contributions 6,978.5 11,954.0 30,876.1 38,488.7 50,011.0 55,948.5 64,642.7 65,195.2 Source: World Bank Group, Unaudited Trust Funds Financial Reports for the single-donor TF071148 (USAID) and the multi-donor TF071150 (other donors). Data for fiscal year 2016 are through December 31, 2015, only. Figure G-1. Cumulative Donor Contributions, by Donor, FY2009–2016 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 EU USAID UK Netherlands Ireland France $US Thousands 39 Table G-2. Annual Trust Fund Commitments, FY2009–2016 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Bank￾Executed Activities Technical Assistance 1,520.0 4,394.8 2,200.0 2,100.0 1,947.6 3,660.0 1,275.0 1,835.0 18,932.4 Supervision 538.5 1,350.0 1,650.0 1,361.5 1,650.0 1,190.0 1,170.0 700.0 9,610.0 Agriculture PERs 820.9 820.9 Program Management and Administratio n 128.2 100.0 100.0 162.2 91.5 -1.1 580.8 Subtotal 2,186.7 5,844.8 4,770.9 3,623.7 3,689.1 4,848.9 2,445.0 2,535.0 29,944.1 Recipient￾Executed Activities NPCA 3,500.0 4,500.0 8,000.0 COMESA 4,500.0 1,700.0 6,200.0 AUC-DREA 4,000.0 2,000.0 6,000.0 ECCAS 3,900.0 2,000.0 5,900.0 ECOWAS 4,900.0 4,900.0 SADC 3,900.0 3,900.0 CMA/WCA 1,100.0 1,100.0 Subtotal 17,000.0 19,000.0 36,000.0 Total 2,186.7 5,844.8 21,770.9 3,623.7 3,689.1 23,848.9 2,445.0 2,535.0 65,944.1 Cumulative Commitments 2,186.7 8,031.4 29,802.3 33,426.0 37,115.1 60,964.1 63,409.1 65,944.1 Source: See Table G-1. Commitments from the single-donor trust fund TF071148 (USAID) and multi-donor trust fund TF071150 (other donors) have been consolidated. 40 Figure G-2. Recipient-Executed Activities, Cumulative Commitments, FY2009–2016 Figure G-3. Bank-Executed Activities, Cumulative Commitments, FY2009–2016 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 NPCA COMESA AUC-DREA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC CMA/WCA $US Thousands 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Technical Assistance Supervision Agriculture PER Program Management $US Thousands 41 Table G-3. Annual Trust Fund Disbursements, FY2009–2016 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Bank-Executed Activities Technical Assistance 520.2 3,107.8 3,061.9 1,726.4 2,704.0 2,938.3 2,604.1 188.2 16,850.7 Supervision 199.5 1,518.2 1,429.1 1,606.6 1,746.9 1,147.9 1,148.2 576.1 9,372.5 Agriculture PERs 79.2 66.4 102.2 366.0 116.8 2.6 733.0 Program Management and Administration 106.2 29.7 120.8 190.6 103.2 29.6 580.1 Subtotal 826.0 4,655.7 4,690.9 3,589.9 4,656.2 4,481.7 3,869.1 766.9 27,536.3 Recipient￾Executed Activities NPCA 1,076.5 926.2 1,497.3 750.1 2,509.7 905.5 7,665.2 COMESA 1,720.9 0.0 1,394.2 1,385.0 1,695.5 0.0 6,195.5 AUC-DREA 729.2 286.1 1,411.8 867.3 1,728.0 633.2 5,655.6 ECCAS 270.4 597.5 1,608.6 1,279.5 1,185.0 785.4 5,726.4 SADC 1,903.3 0.0 1,903.3 CMA/WCA 660.9 439.1 0.0 1,100.0 ECOWAS 500.0 0.0 500.0 Subtotal 4,457.8 2,248.9 5,911.8 4,281.9 9,521.5 2,324.0 28,745.9 Total 826.0 4,655.7 9,148.7 5,838.8 10,568.1 8,763.6 13,390.5 3,090.9 56,282.2 Cumulative Disbursements 826.0 5,481.6 14,630.3 20,469.1 31,037.1 39,800.8 53,191.3 56,282.2 Source: See Tables G-1 and G-2. 42 Figure G-4. Recipient-Executed Activities, Cumulative Disbursements, FY2009–2016 Figure G-5. Bank-Executed Activities, Cumulative Disbursements, FY2009–2016 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 NPCA COMESA AUC-DREA ECCAS SADC CMA/WCA ECOWAS $US Thousands 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Technical Assistance Supervision Agriculture PER Program Management $US Thousands 43 Table G-4. Total Contributions, Commitments and Disbursements, FY2009–2016 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Annual Contributions 6,979 4,975 18,922 7,613 11,522 5,937 8,694 553 65,195 Commitments 2,187 5,845 21,771 3,624 3,689 23,849 2,445 2,535 65,944 Disbursements 826 4,656 9,149 5,839 10,568 8,764 13,391 3,091 56,282 Cumulative Contributions 6,979 11,954 30,876 38,489 50,011 55,949 64,643 65,195 Commitments 2,187 8,031 29,802 33,426 37,115 60,964 63,409 65,944 Disbursements 826 5,482 14,630 20,469 31,037 39,801 53,191 56,282 Cumulative Commitments/ Contributions 31% 67% 97% 87% 74% 109% 98% 101% Disbursements/ Commitments 38% 68% 49% 61% 84% 65% 84% 85% Disbursements/ Contributions 12% 46% 47% 53% 62% 71% 82% 86% Source: See Tables G-1 and G-2. 44 Annex H. Support from the MDTF Technical Assistance Fund and Service Agency Table H-1. Support for CAADP Framework and Thematic Development Date Activity / Event Amount (US$) To AUC/NPCA Translation of CAADP Program Document 4,454 Translation of CAADP Review 5,963 NPCA - CAADP 5yr Review Exercise 130,944 NPCA – Support for Events Management 123,359 AUC/NPCA – Food Security 59,940 NPCA – M&E support 63,000 AUC/DREA TA Support 56,790 AUC /DREA - Translation 3,300 NPCA - Event Mgmt 113,719 AUC/NPCA - MDTF Governance 65,000 Support to the Partnership Committee and NEPAD Secretariat 83,171 2010 Sep-Oct CAADP Post-Compact Support – Pillar experts (~40) for technical reviews and business meetings 347,920 Support for NPCA Pillar Review 14,250 To UNZA/CILSS (Pillar 1) 2010 February Pillar 1 Stakeholder Validation Workshop, Bamako 30,910 2010 Finalization of CAADP Pillar 1 Framework Document 214,000 To CMA/WCA (Pillar 2) Preparation of Strategic/Operational Plans (Consulting firm) 78,475 CMA – Value Chain and Finance Support (Consultant contract) 31,750 To UKZN/CILSS (Pillar 3) Preparation of Strategic and Operational Plans (Consultant contract) 17,500 CAADP FAFS Direct support to countries and RECs (Consultant contracts) 16,760 2010 Implementation of Pillar 3 Activities 860,074 For Pillar4 Workshop for CAADP Pillar 4 Institutions and Development Partners in Zurich Development of Strategic and Operational Plan for AFAAS (Consulting firm) 65,000 Workshop for CAADP Pillar 4 Institutions and Development Partners in Zurich World Bank-Identified Support Preparation of Strategic and Operational Plans (Consultant contracts) 323,596 Support to Agricultural Education in Africa 11,280 45 Table H-2. Support for Meetings and Events Date Activity / Event Amount (US$) 2009 March 4th CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting (Midrand, South Africa) 45,269 2009 April Joint Ministers of Agriculture Meeting (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) 152,166 2009 April Sub-theme A Workshop (Nairobi, Kenya) 3,244 2009 June Private Sector on CAADP Implementation (Dakar, Senegal) 39,504 2009 June CAADP Day and Heads of State Summit (Tripoli/Sirte, Libya) 251,793 2009 September DONOR MEETING (Addis Ababa) 19,176 2009 November 5-6 Planning Meeting for CAADP PP (Abuja) 373,360 2009 November 9-10 5TH CAADP Partnership Platform Meeting (Abuja) 2009 November 12-13 ECOWAS/ECOWAP FINANCING (Abuja) 2009 Nov 30 - Dec 4 13th Africa Forum (Nairobi) 29,074 2010 March 15-19 CAADP Pre Planning Meeting, Inter-Pillar Agreement, and Pillar 3 Review (Lusaka) 23,748 2010 Apirl 21-23 6th CAADP PP (Johannesburg) 230,511 2010 May 24-25 Orientation workshop for the CAADP Resource Group (Kampala) 6,195 2010 May 13-14 AU-IBAR conference (Entebbe) 2010 June Pillar Experts in-country Support to CAADP Implementation 33,375 2010 July 21 CAADP Day (Ouagadougou) 10,167 2010 August 2-3 CAADP ReSAKSS SC (Johannesburg) 28,843 2010 October 25-30 Conference of Agriculture Ministers responsible for Agriculture (CAMA) (Lilongwe) 77,342 2010 October 4-8 2010 CAADP Africa Forum (Ouagadougou) - 2011 January 10-11 CAADP Stakeholder Strategic Planning Meeting (Pretoria) - 2011 Jan-Feb CAADP Meetings (Lessons Learned, Capacity Building, Donor support to Pillar 4 initiatives) (Zurich) 6,900 2011 February 3-5 AUC-NPCA-RECs Planning (Accra) 21,695 2011 Feb 28 - Mar 1 CAADP Experts-Pillar meeting (Nairobi) 2011 March 11 Meeting on Agriculture Education (London) 10,477 2011 March 7th Partnership Platform Meeting (Cameroon) 2011 Africa Food and Nutrition Day (Kampala) 69,580 2011 FAO Council Meeting for African Ministers on the integration of climate change into the CAADP process (Rome) 2012 MAF and Country SAKSS Planning Meeting (Dar Es Salaam) African Carbon Forum (Marrakech) MDTF Governance 2009 February ISC Meeting (Washington, DC) 3,711 2009 June ISC Meeting (Dakar) - 2009 August ISC Meeting (Washington, DC) 3,097 2010 April 16-17 1st PC Meeting (Johannesburg - 46 Table H-3. Support for National and Regional Processes Date Activity / Event Amount (US$) To COMESA and COMESA Countries TA Support - Strategic/Operational Plans (Consultant contract) 40,376 CAADP Implementation Support (Consultant contract) 53,550 2009 August Burundi Roundtable & Compact 40,971 2009 September Ethiopia Roundtable 9,105 2009 October 29 Uganda Roundtable 2009 December Rwanda Post Compact Review 58,987 2010 March 10 Swaziland Roundtable 20,980 2010 March 12 Zambia Roundtable 33,870 2010 March 29-30 Uganda Compact signing (Entebbe) 4,180 2010 April Malawi Compact Signing 2010 July Kenya Compact Signing 2010 September 1-17 Uganda Technical Review/Business Meeting – Kampala 51,874 2010 September 5-27 Kenya Technical Review/Business Meeting – Nairobi 50,236 2010 September 5-27 Malawi Technical Review – Lilongwe 12,270 2010 September 22-23 Ethiopia Technical Review - 2010 December 6-7 Ethiopia Business meeting, Addis 4,458 2011 January 18 Zambia Business Meeting, Lusaka - 2011 February 22-25 COMESA review meeting Lusaka 8,336 To ECCAS and ECCAS Countries 2010 March Central African Republic, CAADP Launching CAR - In country TA support for CAADP Compact development To ECOWAS and ECOWAS Countries 2009 October Ghana Roundtable 2010 February Senegal Roundtable 2010 May-June Capacity Building for Resource Groups/Experts Tech. Review & ECOWAS Business Meeting (Dakar) 360,165 2010 June Senegal Business Meeting 2010 July Cote-d'Ivoire Roundtable 2010 September 10 Orientation Workshop - Dakar (Benin, Cape Verde, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Gambia) 24,371 2010 September 10 ECOWAS Pillar Support and Technical Reviews (Mali) - 2010 September 24-29 Technical Reviews - Dakar (Benin, Cape Verde, Mali, Niger, Guinea, Gambia) 32,445 2010 September 24-29 ECOWAS Technical Steering Team Meeting (Dakar) 14,724 2010 November 8-9 Cape Verde Business Meeting (Praia) 21,530 2010 November 4-5 Mali Business Meeting (Bamako) 15,670 2010 November 4-5 Gambia Business Meeting (Banjul) 13,742 2010 November 4-5 Benin Business Meeting (Cotonou) 3,182 47 Date Activity / Event Amount (US$) BENIN ESW - Finalization of Ag. Sector Strategy 50,000 2010 November 10 CAADP MDTF child trust fund proposal Retreat (Cotonou) - 2010 December 14-15 Niger Business Meeting (Niamey) 27,260 To SADC and SADC Countries Tanzania Post-Compact Support 2011 May Tanzania Technical Review 2011 December Mozambique In-Country Consultation Meetings & Compact Signing 2013 Regional Agricultural Policy (Consultant contract) 35,000 Lesotho CAADP Launch 2013 April Mozambique Business Meeting Additional Requests AgPER (Gates Foundation Proposal) 820,876 Source for Tables H-1 to H-3. World Bank, Stakeholder Status Reports, and World Bank Self-Assessment Report on Bank-Executed Activities. Table H-4. Service Agency Projects and Budgets, April 2012 to February 2015 Project No. Project Name / Task Country / Region Budget (US$) Support for CAADP Framework and Thematic Development 1 Roadmap for further work by the KIS Design Team Africa 92,590 3 Results Framework (SDD) Africa 42,148 4 Strategic Review Project All Countries 57,421 6 Sustaining the Momentum / Strategic Review Africa 373,011 10 Working paper on Rural Transformation in Africa and Framework for Rural Futures Programme All Countries 31,500 16 Knowledge, Information and Skills - Design Team Africa 150,445 21 CAADP Partnership Platform Africa 21,412 23 Investment Plan Analysis Africa 110,148 24 Results Framework for CAADP Africa 57,420 36 Rome Support Africa 121,243 42 Facilitating Strategic Thinking Africa 125,450 46 Process Facilitator Africa 19,326 49 Gender in Agriculture Africa 14,740 51 Expert Support to Countries on CAADP Implementation Africa 25,110 53 Irrigation Development Africa 33,110 57 Options for Policy Processes Africa 12,936 58 Implementation strategy of the CAADP Results Framework and Malabo Declaration South Africa 69,437 61 Food and Nutrition Security Africa 11,805 62 Service Agency Review Africa 76,475 48 Project No. Project Name / Task Country / Region Budget (US$) 63 Support to Analytical Work and Programme Development Africa 45,480 Support for Meetings and Events 11 Orientation Seminar for the Agriculture-climate change experts All Countries 41,236 13 Orientation Seminar for Fisheries Experts Africa 22,750 15 CTF Results Framework Revision Workshop Zambia 10,400 31 Nairobi Theory of Change Seminar Africa 16,205 34 Focal Person Training Workshop in Abuja Africa 14,129 37 Private sector meeting Nigeria 16,729 43 Magaelisburg workshop Africa 35,750 45 Support to YoA NEPAD meetings Africa 128,090 59 Validation Workshop Africa 233,772 60 Post-Malabo events Africa 328,515 Support for National and Regional Processes 2 Revision of Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan Mauritania 12,279 5 Independent Technical Review Central Africa 27,777 7 Developing the Agriculture Component of the SSDI South Sudan 146,595 8 Programme Design Support in Agriculture and Climate Change Niger 6,870 9 Independent Technical Review Mozambique 64,331 12 Support for Formulation of Investment Plan Seychelles 166,378 14 Independent Technical Review Djibouti 97,383 17 Formulation of Agriculture Investment Plan South Sudan 128,122 18 Orientation Seminar for Livestock Experts Kenya 10,112 19 Business Meeting Ivory Coast 7,222 21 Pre-Stocktaking Preparatory Analysis for Alignment to CAADP Principles Botswana 12,914 22 Study on Development of EAC Regional CAADP Compact Tanzania 25,525 25 Support for Formulation of Investment Plan II Seychelles 47,967 26 Pre-stocktaking support to the ECCAS Region Congo Brazzaville 16,643 28 Independent Technical Review Zambia 57,957 29 Revision of Investment Plan Mozambique 16,523 30 Independent Technical Review Congo DR 56,168 32 Business Meeting Zambia 4,770 33 Business Meeting Guinea 12,871 35 CAADP Implementation Support Lesotho 18,891 38 Business Meeting Central Africa 5,327 39 Support to Government of Siena Leone Study Tour Myanmar 3,384 40 Stocktaking Lesotho 37,650 41 Support to National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) Djibouti 34,539 47 Stocktaking Botswana 6,585 49 Project No. Project Name / Task Country / Region Budget (US$) 48 Backstopping Investment Plan Analysis Sudan 12,175 50 Independent Technical Review Rwanda 31,448 52 Economic Model Swaziland 45,270 54 Consistency Analysis Lesotho 56,190 55 Analysis to Support Stocktaking Botswana 23,610 56 Independent Technical Reviews Sao Tome / Cameroon 122,059 64 Independent Technical Review Zimbabwe 16,810 Source: Michael Wales and Patrick Tawonezvi, 2015, “CAADP: Service Agency Review,” Annex 9. 50 Annex I: Implementing Partner Organizations [Note: This list has been derived from the Self-Assessment reports and the visits by evaluation team members to each of the CTF organizations. It focuses on external partner organizations identified by the reports and visits that have contributed to MDTF-supported activities. Therefore, it does not include the six CTF organizations themselves, country Focal Points, or the contributing donor partners. Nor does it include individual consultants contracted to undertake work for the CTF organizations. It does include some partners like GIZ and IFAD that have been both financial and technical partners.] Acronym Organization Role/Activity AUC/NPCA Partners AFAAS African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services An explicit mandate to implement the agricultural advisory services aspects of CAADP. AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Has worked on discrete problems related to seed production, soil health, and agriculture markets in alignment with the CAADP framework. EAC East African Community Finalized the Regional CAADP Compact and a Regional Results Framework; EAFF East African Farmers Federation Holding three regional forums In 2011–12 and continental forums in 2012 and 2014, which led to the establishment of the continental farmers’ organization (PAFO) and a strengthened mechanism for engagement between the continental and the regional farmers’ organizations. SACAU Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions UMAGRI L'Union maghrébine des agriculteurs ECDPM European Centre for Development Policy Management The preparation of a road map leading to the development of EAC’s Regional CAADP Compact, FAO Food and Agricultural Organization Technical partnership. Recruitment of AUC staff and technical expertise. Helped organize a consultation with UNCCD on the promotion of agricultural research and development in semi-arid zones in Africa (SAFGRAD). FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa Development of the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa Worked together to establish the Tertiary Education for Agriculture Mechanism (TEAM) FAST Forum for African Seed Testing Implementation of the Africa Seed and Biotechnology Programme (ASBP) GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Financial and technical partnership. Recruited a CAADP technical adviser and an adviser on Agriculture and Climate Change Grow Africa Helping to rally private sector financing into African agriculture. NPCA now houses the Grow Africa secretariat and contributes to its policy and governance direction. 51 Acronym Organization Role/Activity IAPSC Inter-African Phytosanitary Council Promotion of effective plant health and quarantine services for agricultural production, trade and food security IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development Financial and technical partnership. IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Support several key positions of CAADP staff, including Pillar II and Pillar III and CAADP activities. IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development Regional Compact prepared and signed in October 2013. League of Arab States Enhanced cooperation between Arab and AU states. ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System Co-organized annual ReSAKSS conferences. Production and validation of CAADP Annual Outlook and Trends Reports (ATORs). Developed guidelines for undertaking Joint Sector Reviews in 2012. UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Helped organize a consultation with FAO on the promotion of agricultural research and development in semi-arid zones in Africa (SAFGRAD). UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Co-organized International Conference on Land Policy in 2014 for implementation of AU Land Policy Framework and Guidelines COMESA Partners ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa Works with CAADP country teams set up by COMESA, to identify key areas of intervention to accelerate the CAADP processes in member states. AU-IBAR African Union – InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources Implementation of VET-GOV programme to improve the institutional environment at national and regional levels to provide effective and efficient animal health services FAO Food and Agricultural Organization Support for Post-Compact processes in integrating agriculture water management within the framework of CAADP Pillar 1 through the Partnership for Agricultural Water in Africa (AgWA) GEF Global Environment Facility through NPCA Up-scaling of Sustainable Land Management through knowledge management and monitoring and evaluation GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Not specified. IPAA Integrated Partnership Assistance Agreement A USAID program providing broader support to COMESA that has also contributed to CAADP-related activities UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Land Policy Initiative Support to mainstream land issues in COMESA programmes to advance the implementation of African Union Declaration on Land 52 Acronym Organization Role/Activity ECCAS Partners FAO Food and Agricultural Organization In charge of supporting the preparation of the Compacts and NAIPs. HubRural In charge of supporting the design of the regional agricultural policy and investment plan IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Analytical studies on growth and poverty reduction in support of the NAIP preparations ECOWAS Partners CILSS Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel Working with member states as a regional technical partner CORAF Conseil ouest et centre african pour la recherche et le development agricoles Working with member states as a regional technical partner FAO Technical partnership HubRural HubRural In charge of facilitating the ECOWAP+10 event. IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center Working with member states as a regional technical partner IFPRI Analytical studies on growth and poverty reduction ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System In charge of developing the monitoring and evaluation system. ROPPA Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs de l'Afrique de l'ouest Not specified SADC Partners ASCCI Association of SADC Chambers of Commerce and Industry Not specified CCARDESA Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa Not specified ESAFF Eastern and Southern African Farmers Forum Not specified FAO Food and Agricultural Organization Technical Cooperation Agreement (TCP) for the development of the RAP / CAADP Investment Plan FinMark Trust Development of an Accelerating Inclusive Rural and Agricultural Financing Programme in SADC to implement the RAP. GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Preparation of Anti-Poaching, Aquaculture, Climate Change and Green Economy strategies. ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System Not specified SACAU Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions Not specified SAT Southern African Trust Not specified 53 Acronym Organization Role/Activity SPCF SADC Sugar Producers Consultative Forum Not specified UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Revised Sub-Regional Action Programme to Combat Desertification and preparation of a regional consensus position paper for negotiations in the UNCCD CoP 12 54 Annex J: Comparing the Preparation Time of the MDTF Child Trust Fund Projects with Other World Bank￾Supported Agricultural and Rural Projects in Africa This annex presents the results of an analysis comparing the preparation times of the seven CAADP MDTF Child Trust Fund grants with other World Bank-supported agricultural and rural development projects in Africa, mapped to the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Board and approved from fiscal years 2006 to 2015 inclusive. The annex compares the elapsed times between standard project preparation milestones for the seven CTF grants with those of five categories of agricultural and rural development projects in Africa, as follows:  Standard IBRD/IDA investment projects  Regional projects  Development Policy Operation (DPOs)  Full-size Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects  Global Food Crisis Response (GFRP) Projects. The 115 comparator projects approved between 2006 and 2015 were classified according to these categories because of a priori reasons why some categories of projects take less or more time to prepare than standard IBRD/IDA projects, as explained below. The 115 projects include 9 projects in North African countries because CAADP is a continental-wide initiative of the African Union. The elapsed times between the following project cycle milestones (Figure J-1) was measured for each project, as well as from the beginning of the preparation phase (Concept Review) to the end (Effectiveness). Figure J-1. Simplified Project Preparation Cycle Methodology SAMPLING The analysis is based on the portfolio of active and closed projects in Africa, mapped to the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Board and approved between FY2006 and FY2015, which were downloaded from the Bank’s Operations Portal on July 28, 2015. This includes the World Bank product lines normally considered part of the “lending portfolio”: 1. Concept Review 2. Begin Appraisal 3. Bank Approval 4. Effectiveness 55 IBRD/IDA projects, full size GEF projects, recipient-executed activities, and special financing. It does not include Economic and Sector Work, External Training, Non-Lending Technical Assistance activities, or Medium-Sized GEF projects – which are not generally considered part of the “lending” portfolio. GEF and IBRD/IDA projects that are blended and processed as one project through the World Bank’s cycle have been treated as one project in order to avoid duplication. Both blended and stand-alone GEF projects have been included in the GEF category of projects, since both types of GEF projects involve additional (dual) project cycle steps including an initial GEF CEO review for inclusion in the GEF work program, subsequent approval by the GEF Council, and then CEO endorsement before final World Bank approval. As a result, a 2013 IEG Global Program Review of the World Bank Group’s Partnership with the Global Environment Facility found that GEF projects generally take longer to prepare than standard IBRD/IDA projects — a finding that is confirmed by the analysis below. The dates of the projects cycle milestones were extracted individually from the Operation Portal based on their project ID numbers. Missing or inconsistent dates (such as appraisal dates that occurred before concept reviews) were checked and revised from individual project documents in Portal. The analysis does not include the 57 “Additional Financing” projects, because these represented follow-on financing for projects that are (mostly) already included in the analysis, and 48 recipient-executed and special financing projects for which the dates of the four project cycle milestones in Figure J-1 were not readily available in the Operational Portal. In addition, the analysis excluded the following projects because there were too few projects to form a separate category:  3 “Carbon Offset” projects supported by one of the carbon finance facilities administered by the World Bank  5 activities labelled “Global Programs and Partnerships” and supported by parent multi-donor trust funds like the CAADP MDTF  3 other multi-donor trust funds – for AFAAS, CCARDESA, and FARA – also similar to the parent CAADP MDTF  3 recipient-executed activities financed from the Nile Basin Initiative and South Sudan multi-donor trust fund  1 avian influenza activity – part of the Global Program on Avian Influenza Control and Human Pandemic Preparedness (GPAI) established by the Bank in response to the outbreak of avian influenza in poultry flocks in East Asia in 2003-04. (Most of these projects were approved before FY2006.)  1 project financed by Pilot Program for Climate Resilience – part of the Climate Investment Funds. The final sample consisted of 122 projects that were classified into six categories. The categories were established based on a priori reasons why some categories of projects take less or more time to prepare than standard IBRD/IDA investment projects: 56  GFRP projects were expected to take less time to reach effectiveness because these were part of an emergency program of response to the rapid increases in global food prices in 2007–08, and whose preparation mostly followed a standard template.  DPOs were also expected to take less time to reach effectiveness because these are fast-disbursing operations to provide balance of payments and budget support in response to government commitments to identified policy reforms, and are often part of a series of such projects to a given country, as in the case of four DPOs to Ghana approved in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.  Regional projects were expected to take more time to reach effectiveness than standard IBRD/IDA projects because these involve reaching agreements with the governments or more than one country.  GEF projects were expected to take longer to reach effectiveness because these involve dual project cycle steps involving approval by the GEF Council and CEO in addition to the Bank, as explained above. Table J-1 provides an overview of the sub-samples of projects considered in the overall elapsed time analysis. Table J-1. Categories and Sample Sizes Category No. Comments on samples GFRP projects 15 Includes 2 regional projects Development Policy Operations 10 Includes 1 GEF project Standard IBRD/IDA investment projects 58 All the projects labeled as the “IBRD/IDA” product line and not included in any of the other categories Regional projects 11 Includes 3 GEF projects and 2 GFRP projects GEF projects 27 Including 3 regional projects and 1 DPO project CAADP CTF projects 7 Total 128 122 projects of which 6 are included in two categories THE PROJECT CYCLE OF THE SEVEN CTF PROJECTS The seven CTF projects followed a slightly different project cycle from standard IBRD/IDA projects, as evidenced by the dates that are recorded in project documents and shown in Table J-3. First, as explained by members of the Bank’s MDTF task team to the evaluation team, the Bank’s Board had just approved (in October 2007) a new Trust Fund Administration Framework, and Bank management was in the process of putting this new framework in 57 place as the CAADP MDTF got underway.2 Therefore, there was not a normal Concept Review process for these seven recipient-executed grants. Rather, the effective Concept Review for the seven projects took place on September 16, 2008, at the decision meeting which authorized the establishment of the overall MDTF program. The Concept Review dates for the first five projects in Table I-3 are really the date (June 1, 2010) of the joint Decision Meeting to proceed with these projects. Even such a decision meeting would normally have taken place, in the case of a standard IBRD/IDA project, as part of the identification phase of project and before, not after the appraisal phase as shown in Table I-3. Second, the seven projects did not have a standard appraisal phase. Rather, the Bank’s task team organized what were called “Joint Technical Review” missions to each CTF organization involving representatives of the African Union Commission, the NPCA, and contributing donors to enable other African institutions and development partners to comment and contribute to the SOPs. These Joint Technical Reviews assessed each organization’s CTF proposal for technical content and consistency with CAADP mandates, identified technical or capacity gaps that needed to be addressed, and made formal recommendations to the CAADP Partnership Committee on whether the proposals should be financed. Since these were the last missions that occurred before each of the projects were approved and became effective, these were effectively the appraisal missions. Regarding the joint sector reviews as the beginning of the appraisal stage seems fair and justified in relation to the other 115 comparator projects, but regarding September 2008 as the concept review is unfair because the identification missions did not take place until May 2009 at the earliest. It took time for the World Bank to assemble task teams to start working on the respective CTFs and prepare their conceptual frameworks. Therefore, the present elapsed time analysis has chosen to regard the date of the respective identification missions as the Concept Review for each project. There are no equivalent dating issues with respect to the other two milestones of Bank approval and effectiveness, which phases followed the standard Bank project cycle. Results of the Analysis The results of this elapsed time analysis should be read and interpreted with care. The sizes of the overall sample and sub-samples are small and do not allow for comparisons over time. The project cycle speed of some categories might have improved or deteriorated since FY2006. Projects that were still in the pipeline as of July 1, 2015 are not represented in the results either. The comparative results are presented in Table J-2 and Figure J-2 to J-5, for each of the three internal phases and the overall preparation time from Concept Review to Effectiveness. Table J-2 provides the average number of months that each category of projects has taken to travel between the indicated milestones. The four charts show the cumulative percentage of projects in each category that have reached the indicated milestones on the vertical axis and the number of months to reach these milestones on the horizontal axis. 2. This was the framework that established three categories of Bank-administered trust funds: Bank-executed trust funds (BETFs), recipient-executed trust funds (RETFs) like the seven CTF grants, and financial intermediary funds (FIFs). 58 Table J-2. World Bank-Supported Agricultural Projects in Africa: Average Number of Months for Project Preparation Category No. of Projects Average Number of Months Standard Deviation: “Concept Review” to “Effective￾ness” From “Concept Review” to “Begin Appraisal” From “Begin Appraisal” to Bank Approval” From “Bank Approval” to “Effective￾ness” From ”Concept Review” to “Effective￾ness” GFRP projects 15 1.6 2.3 1.8 5.8 4.2 Development Policy Operations 10 13.3 4.6 4.0 21.8 22.6 Standard IBRD/IDA investment projects 58 12.9 3.6 7.8 24.2 12.3 Regional projects 11 11.4 4.8 8.3 24.4 12.7 GEF projects 27 19.2 6.8 7.8 33.9 20.0 First Five CAADP CTF grants 5 6.3 4.0 5.2 15.5 2.6 All Seven CAADP CTF grants 7 10.8 9.9 4.2 24.9 16.4 All Projects 122 12.5 4.4 6.6 23.5 15.9 As expected, the GFRP projects reached effectiveness in the shortest amount of time – taking an average of only 5.8 months from Concept Review. The DPOs also generally reached effectiveness more quickly than standard IBRD/IDA projects except for two outliers — the second Agriculture DPO in Ghana (approved in 2010) and IDA/GEF Forest and Environment Development Project in Cameroon (approved in 2006). The GEF projects uniformly reached effectiveness more slowly than all the other project categories, primarily due to the lengthier period of time from concept review to appraisal — an average of 19.5 months compared to 13.1 months for standard IBRD/IDA investment projects. Some surprisingly, there is no discernable difference in the project preparation times between regional projects and standard IBRD/IDA projects — both averaging about 24 months from concept review to effectiveness. The first five CTF projects in Table J-3 achieved effectiveness more slowly than GFRP projects and DPOs, but more quickly than standard IBRD/IDA projects – taking an average of 15.5 months from concept review to effectiveness. On average, they took half as much time to begin appraisal (6.3 months compared to 12.9 months), the same amount of time to get approved, and less time to become effective (5.2 months compared to 7.8 months). Once projects are approved, “effectiveness” actually depends on lifting the “effectiveness conditions” in the project documents and financing agreements. Once approved, the CTFs 59 achieved effectiveness more quickly because there were fewer effectiveness conditions in comparison with standard World Bank investment projects, which often require parliamentary ratification, publication in the official gazette, etc. But the last two CTF projects in Table J-3 — for ECOWAS and SADC — took 44 and 53 months, respectively, from concept review to effectiveness, which increases the overall average preparation time for the seven projects to 24.9 months, which is about the same as that for standard IBRD/IDA investment projects. Among other factors, the ECOWAS and SADC preparation process had to be slowed down in 2013, pending the outcome of the process to extend the MDTF for an additional two years beyond December 2013. The preparation of the ECOWAS & SADC CTFs had also been lagging mostly because of issues on the recipient side such as a low degree of ownership, involvement, and interest. At a certain point, there was no point going forward with the preparation of these CTF projects. Further work on their preparation was appropriately suspended until after the two-year MDTF extension was in place. 60 Table J-3. Key Project Cycle Dates for CAADP Child Trust Fund Grants (presented in chronological order by date of effectiveness, from the earliest to the latest projects) Project ID Project Name Identifi￾cation mission Pre￾appraisal mission Joint Sector Review (Appraisal) Bank Approval Project Paper Effective￾ness P121899 CADDP MDTF: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Child Trust Fund 4-May￾2009 12-Oct￾2009 1-Feb￾2010 8-Jun￾2010 22-Jun￾2010 27-Aug￾2010 P121915 CAADP MDTF: Conference of Ministers of Agriculture of West and Central Africa (CMA/WCA) Child Trust Fund 14-Sep￾2009 14-Dec￾2009 25-Jan￾2010 8-Jun￾2010 22-Jun￾2010 10-Sep￾2010 P121908 CMDP MDTF: African Union Commission Child Trust Fund 10-Jun￾2009 14-Dec￾2009 22-Feb￾2010 8-Jun￾2010 21-Oct￾2010 29-Oct￾2010 P121913 CAADP MDTF: Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Child Trust Fund 14-Sep￾2009 14-Dec￾2009 22-Feb￾2010 8-Jun￾2010 22-Jun￾2010 22-Nov￾2010 P121914 CAADP MDTF: NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA) Child Trust Fund 14-Sep￾2009 14-Dec￾2009 25-Jan￾2010 8-Jun￾2010 1-May￾2011 11-Apr￾2011 P130576 CAADP MTDF: Economic Community of West African States 17-Feb￾2010 7-Nov￾2010 2-Jan￾2012 23-Aug￾2013 5-Aug￾2013 4-Oct￾2013 P130640 CAADP MDTF: SADC Secretariat Child Trust Fund 13-May￾2009 18-Nov￾2010 7-Mar￾2011 26-Aug￾2013 12-Aug￾2013 16-Oct￾2013 61 Figure J-2. Elapsed Time from Concept Review to Effectiveness 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Months GFRP Projects DPOs Standard IBRD/IDA Regional Projects GEF Projects CAADP CTF Grants Percent of Projects 62 Figure J-3. Elapsed Time from Concept Review to Begin Appraisal 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Months Percent of Projects GFRP Projects DPOs Standard IBRD/IDA Regional Projects GEF Projects CAACP CTF Grants 63 Figure J-4. Elapsed Time from Begin Appraisal to Bank Approval 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Months Percent of Projects GFRP Projects DPOs Standard IBRD/IDA Regional Projects GEF Projects CAADP CTF Grants 64 Figure J-5. From Bank Approval to Effectiveness 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Months Percent of Projects GFRP Projects DPOs Standard IBRD/IDA Regional Projects GEF Projects CAADP CTF Grants 65 Annex K. Keyword Searches of World Bank Country Assistance Strategies and Project Appraisal Documents The evaluation conducted a keyword search and analysis of the extent to which the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) and Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) have referenced CAADP, CAADP processes, and CTF organizations as a first step in assessing linkages between the CAADP MDTF and the Bank’s own country operations. First of all, the evaluation identified a total of 126 CASs, Country Partnership Strategies, and Interim Strategy Notes, and 166 PADs or their equivalent for African agricultural projects. These were downloaded from the World Bank’s information systems — primarily from “Imagebank,” but also other internal portals or the GEF website when necessary. Second, a number of keywords were selected, as follows:  CAADP (acronym + spelled out), Maputo, Malabo  NAIP (acronym + spelled out)  Names of trust funds, the names of the two continental and four regional organizations (acronym + spelled out)  CAADP processes: ITR (acronym + spelled out), Business Meeting, CAADP Compact. Third, the keyword search was performed using the software “Agent Ransack,” which is able to search a folder of electronic documents in text or PDF format for specific words and terms automatically, efficiently, and timely. When conducting a keyword search with this software for a set of documents, it generates an overall summary of the number of occurrences of a specific term, the number of documents containing the term, and the textual context in which the term appears. These summaries were generated for all the previously defined keywords in all eligible CASs and PADs separately. During this analysis, the acronym “CAADP” turned out to be by far the most relevant keyword (Table K-1). Certain terms such as Maputo, Malabo, CTF, Child Trust Fund, MDTF, and Multi￾Donor Trust Fund appeared to have multiple meanings and to depend on the context. Therefore, these terms had to be excluded from the analysis and the tables hereafter. Based on the summaries that were generated, further analysis was conducted on the occurrences of keywords, as follows  Over time, from FY2005–2015 for the CASs, and from FY2006–2015 for PADs to 2015 (Figures K-1 and K-2)  By project category in World Bank PADs (Table K-2). Finally, the actual textual references to “CAADP” in the project appraisal documents were analyzed for the strength of the project’s alignment with CAADP. This analysis concluded that five or fewer references to CAADP was generally little more than lipservice in terms actually building on identified CAADP processes at the country level. The 26 projects that were more strongly aligned to CAADP are listed in Table K-3, and the 8 CASs with the most occurrences of “CAADP” are listed in Table K-4. 66 Table K-1. Results of Keyword Searches of Country Assistance Strategies and Project Appraisal Documents Country Assistance Strategies, 2005–2015 a Project Appraisal Documents, 2006–2015 b Words or Expressions Searched For No. of CASs in which occurring Percent of 126 CASs Total no. of occurrences Average no. occurrences / CAS No. of PADs in which occurring Percent of 166 PADs Total no. of occurrences Average no. occurrences / PAD CAADP (or Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme) 20 16% 49 2.5 69 42% 712 10.3 AUC (or African Union Commission) 0 0% 0 5 3% 27 5.4 NPCA (or NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency) 0 0% 0 3 2% 17 5.7 COMESA (or Common Market for Eastern and Central Africa) 28 22% 78 2.8 13 8% 52 4.0 ECCAS (or Economic Community of Central African States) 7 6% 13 1.9 4 2% 6 1.5 ECOWAS (or Economic Community of West African States) 37 29% 195 5.3 29 17% 392 13.5 SADC (or Southern African Development Community) 28 22% 168 6.0 19 11% 262 13.8 CAADP Compact 1 1% 1 1.0 18 11% 48 2.7 NAIP (or National Agriculture Investment Plan) 3 2% 4 1.3 14 8% 102 7.3 ITR (or Independent Technical Review) 0 0% 0 1 1% 1 1.0 Business Meeting 0 0% 0 1 1% 1 1.0 a. Includes Country Assistance Strategies, Country Partnership Strategies, and Interim Strategy Notes for African countries, including North African countries (total = 126) b. Includes Project Appraisal Documents, Program Documents, Project Documents, and Project Papers for African projects mapped to the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Board (total = 166). This does not include the 12 appraisal documents for the CAADP MDTF and associated Child Trust Fund grants. 67 Figure K-1. Occurrences of “CAADP” in Country Partnership Strategies Over Time (n=126) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5 10 15 20 25 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 CASs in which occurring Not occurring Percent of CASs in which occurring 68 Figure K-2. Occurrences of “CAADP” in Project Appraisal Documents Over Time (n=166) 69 Table K-2. Occurrences of “CAADP” in Different Categories of World Bank Appraisal Documents No. of appraisal documents in which occurring No. of such documents Percent of documents in which occurring Total no. of occurrences Average no. of occurrences per document Regional Projects 12 16 75% 211 17.6 Development Policy Operations 7 10 70% 193 27.6 GEF-IBRD/IDA Blended Projects 9 20 45% 44 4.9 Other Projects (not categorized) 30 67 45% 331 11.0 GEF Stand-Alone Projects 4 10 40% 27 6.8 Global Food Crisis Response Projects 10 28 36% 64 6.4 Additional Financing 12 37 32% 53 4.4 All Projects 69 166 42% 712 10.3 Table K-3. Twenty-Six Appraisal Documents with the Most Occurrences of “CAADP” (listed in descending order of the number of occurrences) Project ID Country Project Name Task Team Leader Approval Fiscal Year No. of Occurrences P143367 Africa African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (AFAAS) for a Second Multi-Donor Trust Fund Project Wilhelm Janssen 2014 82 P122796 Ghana Third Agriculture Development Policy Operation Jan Joost Nijhoff 2011 55 P129489 Mozambique First Agriculture Development Policy Operation (AGDPO-1) Wilhelm Janssen 2013 48 P112684 Africa CAADP Pillar IV Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Forum For Agricultural Research In Africa (FARA) Jan Joost Nijhoff 2008 48 P122808 Ghana Fourth Agriculture Development Policy Operation Jan Joost Nijhoff 2012 38 P113629 Africa Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA) Melissa Brown 2014 37 70 Project ID Country Project Name Task Team Leader Approval Fiscal Year No. of Occurrences P110147 Ghana Second Agriculture Development Policy Operation Christopher Paul Jackson 2010 34 P147000 Africa Additional Grant to the Forum For Agricultural Research In Africa (FARA) for a FARA Multi-Donor Trust Fund David J. Nielson 2013 31 P148927 Rwanda Transformation Of Agriculture Sector Program Phase 3: Program For Results Tim Robertson 2015 28 P117148 Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and CORAF a The Food Price Crisis Response Program: 2nd Series of Projects under the First Phase of the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP-1B) Abdoulaye Toure 2011 24 P114264 Ghana Ghana Commercial Agriculture Johannes Georges Pius Jansen 2012 19 P095091 Mali Fostering Agricultural Productivity Project Bleoue Nicaise Ehoue 2010 15 P109737 Nigeria Nigeria Scaling Up Sustainable Land Management Practice, Knowledge, and Coordination Abimbola Adubi 2011 15 P094084 Africa West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program (WAAPP) Abdoulaye Toure 2007 14 P122065 Western Africa West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program APL (WAAPP-1C) Abdoulaye Toure 2011 14 P148114 Guinea Guinea Agricultural Support Project Amadou Alassane 2015 13 P118045 Togo Togo Agricultural Sector Support Project Christian Berger 2011 12 P129565 Western Africa West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program 2A Abdoulaye Toure 2012 12 P146930 Mozambique MZ Second Agriculture Development Policy Operation AgDPO-2 Jan Joost Nijhoff 2015 11 P109224 Uganda Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services Joseph Oryokot 2010 10 P117593 Africa Uganda- Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project APL1A Assaye Legesse 2010 9 P107598 Mozambique PROIRRI Sustainable Irrigation Development Aniceto Timoteo Bila 2011 9 71 Project ID Country Project Name Task Team Leader Approval Fiscal Year No. of Occurrences P108144 Senegal Sustainable Land Management Project Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane 2010 6 P094183 Africa AFCC2/RI Agricultural Productivity Program for Southern Africa (APPSA) Melissa Brown 2013 6 P145160 Africa Additional Financing-West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program 2A Abdoulaye Toure 2013 6 P143417 Cameroon Agriculture Investment and Market Development Project Manievel Sene 2015 6 a. Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain Pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles. Table K-4. Eight Country Partnership Strategies with the Most Occurrences of “CAADP” (listed in descending order of the number of occurrences) Country Document Fiscal Year No. of Occurrences Zambia Country Partnership Strategy for the Period FY13-FY16 2013 7 Zimbabwe Interim Strategy Note for the Period FY13-FY15 2013 5 Ethiopia Country Assistance Strategy 2008 3 Sierra Leone IDA, IFC, AfDB Joint Country Assistance Strategy for FY10-FY13 2010 3 Uganda Country Assistance Strategy for the Period FY2011-2015 2010 3 Togo Interim Strategy Note for the Period FY2-FY13 2011 3 Senegal Country Partnership Strategy (FY2013-2017) 2013 3 Lesotho Systematic Country Diagnostic 2015 3 72 Annex L. Persons Consulted Name Position Organization Washington, DC Mark Cackler Practice Manager, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Robert Townsend Adviser, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank David Nielson Lead Agriculture Economist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Willem Janssen Lead Agriculture Economist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Tim Robertson Sr. Agriculture Specialist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Melissa Brown Sr. Economist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Bremala Nathan Sr. Operations Officer, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Christian Berger Sr. Agriculture Specialist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Adetunji A. Oredipe Sr. Agriculture Economist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank, Abuja Catherine Defontaine M&E Consultant World Bank, Paris Aileen Marshall Sr. Partnership Specialist, African Region, External Communications World Bank Elliot Mghenyi Sr. Economist, Agriculture Global Practice World Bank Jeff Hill USAID Patterson Brown USAID Karen Brooks Manager, Policies, Institutions and Markets IFPRI Peter Hazell Administer of Impact Assessment program IFPRI World Wide Ousmane Badiane Director for Africa IFPRI / ReSAKSS, Dakar Joseph Karugia, Eastern and Central Africa Coordinator ReSAKSS, Nairobi William Kingsmill Principal The Policy Practice, London Luis Jiménez McInnis Director, Partnership and Resource Mobilization IFAD, Rome Vincent Ribier CIRAD, Paris Michael Wales Retired FAO London Earnan O’Cleirigh Irish Aid Monique Calon Netherlands 73 Name Position Organization Liz Kirk DFID Ed Smithson Statistics Adviser DFID Harry Hagan Wealth Creation Team DFID EU, Brussels Ms. Marie-Helene Novak European Commission Ms. Aude Sauvaget European Commission Mr. Hubert Cathala, European Commission Mr. Vittorio Cagnolati European Commission, Cyprus AUC, Addis Ababa H. E. Tumusiime Rhoda Peace Commissioner AUC-DREA Janet Edeme Acting Director AUC-DREA Komla Bissi CAADP Coordinator AUC-DREA Maurice Lorka N’Guessan CAADP Adviser, Agriculture Science, Technology and Innovation AUC-DREA Ernest Ruzindaza Senior CAADP Adviser to the Commissioner AUC-DREA Biruk Temtine Finance Officer AUC Vincent Moola Procurement Officer, CAADP Support AUC Mr. Zena Habtewold Biru CAADP Focal Point Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Dejene Abesha, Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture Godfrey Bahiigwa (via Skype) Office Head, Eastern and Southern Africa IFPRI / ReSAKSS Bart Minten Program Leader, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program IFPRI Eulogio Montijano Garcia￾Courtoy Programmer Manager, Operations Delegation of the European Union to the African Union Retta Gudisa Director, Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency NPCA, Midrand Mohamed Abdisalam Division Head, Program Implementation and Management Division NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency Martin Bwalya Division Head, Program Development and Coordination NPCA Augustin Wambo Yamdjeu Head, CAADP Unit NPCA Simon Kisira Strategic Planning, Knowledge Mangement and Monitoring and Evaluation NPCA Unami Mpofu Senior Programme Officer, Capacity Development and Institutional Alignment NPCA 74 Name Position Organization Abraham Surfo Advisor, Agriculture Technical Vocational Education Training (ATVET) and Agribusiness NPCA (seconded from GIZ) Erick Sile Advisor, Agricultural Finance NPCA (seconded from GIZ) Mwanja Ng’anjo Program Officer, Information and Advocacy NPCA Tichaona Mangwende NEPAD Science, Technology, and Innovation Hub NEPAD Mandivamba Rukuni Managing Trustee Barefoot Education for Africa Trust (BEAT) Bongeka Mdleleni Deputy Director, Africa Relations Directorate, and CAADP Focal Point Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Republic of South Africa Bongiwe Njobe Former Director General Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Republic of South Africa Tobias Takavarasha Resident Representative to South Africa FAO Ousmane Djibo Programme Officer, Support to CAADP GIZ COMESA, Lusaka Nalishebo Meebelo Director COMESA Sam Kanyrukiga COMESA William Dothi Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist COMESA Kabungo Mkasanga Nzima CAADP Project Accountant Finance, COMESA Josephat Kinyele Procurement Specialist PSU, COMESA George Magai Director Trade and Markets Alliance For Commodity Trade In Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA) Joseph Silavwe Program Manager Regional Cooperation EU delegation to Zambia and COMESA Mlotha Damaseke Agriculture Specialist USAID Zambia Brian Martalus Feed The Future Division Chief USAID Zambia Derrock Sikombe Chief Agricultural Economist and CAADP Coordinator, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Republic of Zambia Dr Benson Chishala Senior Lecturer, Land Management Specialist University of Zambia, Dept of Soil Science ECCAS, Libreville Clotilde Nizigama SGA-DPBARH, CEEAC Richard Lariot Agent comptable, CEEAC 75 Name Position Organization Rassembaye Ngarhimdi Chef de Projet FS-PDDAA-CEEAC Nina Natacha Sackamenou Makandja Expert en gestion Financière et Comptable FS-PDDAA Adelino Jorge Do Bom Jesus Expert en Agriculture et développement rural Guinée Equatoriale-Gabon-Angola￾Sao Tomé et Principe Levy Nziengui Mombo Assistant Administratif et Financier FS-PDDAA-CEEAC Mesmin Ndong Biyo’o Point Focal national PDDAA Gabon Odile Angoran Chargé des Politiques Agricoles FAO Abdoulaye Seye Expert Financement et Développement Agricole et Rural Ismaël Fofana Coordonnateur IFPRI Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre ECOWAS, Abuja Mr Alain SY Traore Director of Agriculture ECOWAS Mrs Fatmata Seiwoh M & E Specialist ECOWAS Mrs Khadi Ramatu Sacooh Commissioner for Finance ECOWAS Mr Manson Nwafor Policy Analyst RESAKSS Mr Ken Ukaoha Esq President National Association of Nigerian Traders Mr Sylvester Baye Deputy Focal Point Ministry of Agriculture SADC, Gaborone Margaret Nyirenda Director FANR Martin Muchero Regional Agriculture Programme Technical Coordinator FANR Dagmore Tawonezvi Programme Officer, Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation FANR