Conference Edition 
12th CAADP Partnership Platform 
Independent Evaluation of CAADP Multi-Donor Trust 
Fund (MDTF)
Volume 3: CAADP Focal Point and Partner Survey Results
April 9, 2016
Chris Gerrard (Team Leader)
Gem Argwings-Kodhek
Ali Marouani
Godfrey Mudimu
Additional Assistance from
Diane Bombart
Andrea Deisenrieder 
Markus Palenberg

Contents 
Overview of the Two Surveys Conducted .................................................................................. iii
Focal Point Survey ........................................................................................................................ 1
A. PDO Level Results ............................................................................................................... 3
B. Intermediate Results Area 1 .............................................................................................. 10
C. Intermediate Results Area 2 ............................................................................................. 24
D. Intermediate Results Area 3 ............................................................................................. 33
E. Intermediate Results Area 4 .............................................................................................. 37
F. Other Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 38
Partner Survey ............................................................................................................................ 43
A. PDO Level Results ............................................................................................................. 46
B. Intermediate Results Area 1 .............................................................................................. 54
C. Intermediate Results Area 2 ............................................................................................. 57
D. Intermediate Results Area 3 ............................................................................................. 62
E. Intermediate Results Area 4 .............................................................................................. 63
F. Other Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 76

iii 
Overview of the Two Surveys Conducted 
Following the Inception Report that was issued in October 2015, the evaluation has 
administered two surveys — to country-level CAADP Focal Points and to CAADP Partners 
working primarily at the continental and regional levels. This volume reports the results of 
both surveys. 
Many of the survey questions have been drawn directly from the revised MDTF Results 
Framework (Volume 2, Table B-4) that was adopted by the parent MDTF and the six CTF 
projects in 2013 after the Mid Term Review. The revised Results Frameworks of the six CTF 
projects have a common Project Development Objective (PDO), four common PDO Level 
results indicators, and four common Intermediate Results Areas to facilitate aggregating the 
achievements into a coherent assessment of the overall achievements of the MDTF. Then 
each of the six CTF projects adopted slightly different indicators in each of the four 
Intermediate Results Areas that reflected their own specific circumstances. The two surveys 
have incorporated most of the latter indicators into the survey questions because the surveys 
were administered continent-wide. 
Both surveys were administered in October and November 2015. The first survey was 
administered to CAADP Focal Points in 47 countries, to which 35 current and former Focal 
Points from 32 countries responded, for a response rate of 68 percent in terms of countries. 
The second survey was administered to 97 CAADP Partners who have worked with one or 
more of the six CTF organizations at the regional and continental levels. A total of 41 
Partners responded for a response rate of 42 percent. Both surveys were administered in 
English and French. 
The evaluation thanks AUC-DREA, NPCA, COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, and SADC for 
providing the names and e-mail addresses of their Focal Points and Partners. Where the 
organizations reported different Focal Points (one current and one former Focal Point, or one 
technical and one M&E Focal Point), the survey was sent to both individuals. This explains 
why there were three responses from one country and two from another. 
Ten of the questions in the two surveys were essentially the same, that is, asking the same 
question but from different perspectives — that of Focal Points working at the country level 
and that of Partners working at the regional and continental levels. 
Tests for significant differences between the responses of Focal Points and Partners were 
conducted using the Chi-square test based on the total number of responses to each of the 
four possible responses — such as “high,” “considerable,” “modest,” or “not at all” — to 
each closed-ended question, after excluding the “don’t know” and “not applicable” 
responses. An “*” by a particular subquestion indicates a significant difference at the 90% 
level of confidence, and “**” indicates a significant different at the 95% level of confidence. 
Overall, there were no significant differences in the distribution of survey responses between 
CAADP Focal Points and Partners in 41 of the 48 subquestions that were the same in the two 
surveys. In general, the Partners felt that more had been achieved in the various areas than 
the Focal Points, but not significantly so. This and the relatively high response rates for 
surveys of this kind give credibility to the findings. 
iv
Both surveys were tested and launched after the evaluation team had conducted a number of 
interviews in order to allow for relevant and informed questions. The surveys aimed to 
determine the generality of the experiences that CAADP stakeholders had so conveyed to 
members of the evaluation team. The results of the surveys have been triangulated with the 
other evaluative evidence collected and in this way have contributed to the overall findings 
and conclusions of the evaluation. It is also hoped that these detailed results will serve as 
reference material to inform future decision-making. 
Both surveys were confidential. The responses to the closed-ended questions are presented in 
aggregate form, making it impossible to identify individual responses. References to 
particular countries have been redacted from the responses to the open-ended questions also 
to preserve confidentiality. It goes without saying that the views expressed in the written 
responses to the open-ended questions do not represent the official views of any country or 
organization. 
The aggregate responses to the closed-ended questions are presented graphically rather than 
numerically to facilitate a more ready interpretation of the results. In general, the most 
positive response to each series of subquestions appears at the top of each chart, and the least 
positive response occurs at the bottom of each chart. 
It goes without saying that the Results Framework for the CAADP MDTF and associated 
CTF projects, which was finalized in 2013, is not the same as the overall CAADP Results 
Framework, which was finalized in 2014–15. The MDTF Results Framework, on which 
many of the questions in the two surveys have been based, was motivated by the MDTF 
partners in the MDTF Partnership Committee to demonstrate results in the context of specific 
donor-supported projects. The CAADP Results Framework, which emerged from the 
Sustaining CAADP Momentum exercise and the 2014 Year of Agriculture, was motivated by 
the desire of African countries to renew their commitment to the principles and values of the 
CAADP process in the form of the 2014 Malabo Declaration. 
The MDTF and associated CTF projects have largely been contributing to the Level 3 
objectives in the 2015 CAADP Results Framework, “Strengthening Systemic Capacity to 
Deliver Results.”1 The development objective of the MDTF and CTF projects has been an 
“improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national, 
regional and continental levels,” where an improved environment has been 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.” The MDTF and CTF projects have not viewed 
themselves as directly or immediately accountable for achieving the higher-order and longer￾term Level 2 objectives in the CAADP Results Framework of "Agricultural Transformation 
and Sustained Inclusive Agricultural Growth.” 
There are, however, two questions in the Partner Survey — questions 3 and 4 on pages 48–50 
below — that have been based on Levels 3 and 2 of the overall CAADP Results Framework. 
 
1. AUC and NPCA, 2015. “The CAADP Results Framework 2015–2025: Going for results and impacts.”
1
Focal Point Survey 
Table 1. Focal Point Survey Recipients and Respondents 
Country Current REC Membership a Sent Survey Completed 
Survey
Burundi COMESA/ECCAS x 1
Comoros COMESA x 1
Djibouti COMESA x 1
Egypt COMESA x
Eritrea COMESA x
Ethiopia COMESA x 1
Kenya COMESA x 2
Libya COMESA
Madagascar COMESA/SADC x 1
Malawi COMESA/SADC x 1
Mauritius COMESA/SADC x
République Démocratique 
du Congo COMESA/ECCAS/SADC x
Rwanda COMESA x
Seychelles COMESA/SADC x 1
South Sudan COMESA
Sudan COMESA x 1
Swaziland COMESA/SADC x 1
Uganda COMESA x 1
Zambia COMESA/SADC x
Zimbabwe COMESA/SADC x 1
COMESA Total 18 12
Angola ECCAS/SADC x 1
Burundi ECCAS/COMESA x 1
Cameroun ECCAS x 1
Congo, République du ECCAS x
Guinée Equatoriale ECCAS x
Gabon ECCAS x 1
République Centrafricaine ECCAS x 1
République Démocratique 
du Congo ECCAS/COMESA/SADC x
São Tomé et Principe ECCAS x 1
Tchad ECCAS x 1
ECCAS Total 10 7
Bénin ECOWAS x 1
Burkina Faso ECOWAS x 1
2
Country Current REC Membership a Sent Survey Completed 
Survey
Cabo Verde ECOWAS x
Côte d'Ivoire ECOWAS x 1
Gambia ECOWAS x 1
Ghana ECOWAS x 1
Guinée ECOWAS x 1
Guinea-Bissau ECOWAS x 1
Liberia ECOWAS x 1
Mali ECOWAS x 1
Niger ECOWAS x
Nigeria ECOWAS x 3
Senegal ECOWAS x
Sierra Leone ECOWAS x 1
Togo ECOWAS x
ECOWAS Total 15 11
Angola SADC/ECCAS x 1
Botswana SADC x 1
Lesotho SADC x
Madagascar SADC/COMESA x 1
Malawi SADC/COMESA x 1
Mauritius SADC/COMESA x
Mozambique SADC x
Namibia SADC x
République Démocratique 
du Congo SADC/COMESA/ECCAS x
Seychelles SADC/COMESA x 1
South Africa SADC x 1
Swaziland SADC/COMESA x 1
Tanzania SADC x 1
Zambia SADC/COMESA x
Zimbabwe SADC/COMESA x 1
SADC Total 15 9
Individual Countries Total 47 32
3
A. PDO Level Results 
Question 1. To what extent do you feel that the enabling environment for agricultural 
programs and policies in your country has improved in the following ways? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The country has just completed its SNAIP and yet to be rolled out. However, central government 
ministries have been appraised of the SNAIP as the framework for agricultural development for the 
next 10 years. 
 After devolution there has been stalemate. New policies (aligned to the new constitution) need to 
be put in place. Policy making has become more complicated due to the existence of two levels of 
government —the National government and County governments that came into being in 2013. It 
has not been easy for the two levels to work together and this has led to a slowdown in the number 
of policies developed. 
ECCAS Countries 
 ______ est en phase d'opérationnaliser le cadre institutionnel de mise en oeuvre du PDDAA. 
 Le cadre de résultat du PNIA s'inspire largement du cadre de résultat du PDDAA continental et des 
engagements de la déclaration de Malabo. La mise en oeuvre du PNIA n'étant pas encore 
pleinement effective, il est difficile d'apprécier si l'alignement des interventions sur le PNIA sera 
systématique. 
4
ECOWAS Countries 
 Il est clair que l'environnement propice aux politiques agricoles est en train de beaucoup 
s'améliorer actuellement car le niveau et la qualité du dialogue et de l'inclusivité s'est beaucoup 
amélioré. Le PDDAA apparaît comme une boussole fédératrice dans nos pays et permet de 
canaliser les divers acteurs y compris les Partenaires techniques et financiers quand bien même 
beaucoup reste encore à faire. 
SADC Countries 
 The CAADP concept is new and the uptake is very minimal. Most stakeholders do not know what 
CAADP is all about and what it can offer. 
Question 2. To what extent do you attribute the improvements that have occurred to the 
following? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 Also NGOs and UN Agencies. 
 Farmers have invested a lot in agricultural investments — more than the government. Donors and 
the government have played a big part in funding programmes and projects. Other stakeholders 
include traders, input providers, processors and agro-input dealers. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To continental organizations (AUC-DREA and
NPCA)
To non-state actors such as farmers’ organizations
To regional organizations (COMESA, ECCAS,
ECOWAS, and SADC)
To your own government and your own country￾level CAADP processes
To development partners (such as the six donors
and the World Bank supporting the CAADP MDTF)
High degree Considerable degree Modest degree Not at all
5
ECCAS Countries 
 Les autres sont représentés par le secteur privé et les ONG. 
 En dehors de l'union européenne et la Banque mondiale, les partenaires qui soutiennent le FFMD 
n'interviennent pas dans le secteur agricole au ______. La FAO a joué un rôle important aux côtés 
du gouvernement. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Foreign investors. 
 Private sector. 
Question 3. What are the most important ways in which your own country has benefited 
from the CAADP-related support provided by the continental and regional organizations 
during the last five years? 
COMESA Countries 
 1. The development of the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy. 2. Advocacy with Cabinet 
Ministers. 
 L' élaboration du plan nationale d' investissements agricole. 
 (1) Dialogue platform meetings for knowledge management. (2) Training to sharpen skills. 
 General guidance of CAADP. Gap Analysis study assistance. SNAIP development. Training on 
CAADP-related areas. Joint Sector Review Study. Assistance on ITR. 
 1. Bringing all stakeholders in the sector together when agricultural issues are being discussed. 
2. Consultation has much improved. 3. More officials have been capacitated in M&E related 
knowledge. 4. Country now started producing her Food Balance Sheet. 
 Mainly the independent technical review of the MTIP. ReSAKSS has also supported the 
assessment for the JSR process. They have also supported the Ministry of Agriculture CAADP 
team technically. 
 Capacity building & information sharing. 
 The preparation of the NAIP, documents and the Training staff workshops and we are aiming to get 
more. 
 1. A few staff have undergone training on CAADP related activities. 2. Agricultural joint sector 
reviews have been initiated to assess progress especially on CAADP commitments. 
 Alignement du PNIAEP au PDDAA. 
 Satisfaisant. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Pas du tout. 
 Par les appuis technique pour la conceptions et élaborations des documents de politiques 
agricoles, sécurité alimentaire et nutritionail. 
 La FAO avec son assitance dans la révue du secteur agricole, élaboration du pacte et l´élaboration 
du plan national d´investissement agricole, sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle (PNIASAN). 
L´IFPRI dans son travail de modelisation et d´élaboration des bochures sur les projections macro 
et micro- économique du pays. 
 Au niveau de la CEEAC nous avons bénéficié de l'assistance technique de la FAO et l'IFPRI qui 
ont signé des contrats avec la CEAAC. Au niveau continental, nous avons participé aux différents 
forum et rencontres sur le PDDAA. 
6
 L'organisation de l'atelier de lancement. Financement de l'élaboration du PNIASAN. Atelier de 
renforcement de capacité des Point Focaux et leur équipement en matériel informatique, Atelier 
d'échanges d'expérience. 
 Par le partage d'information dans le cadre des réunions organisées avec les pairs. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Political, technical and coordination support from ECOWAS. Support from NPCA for the 
popularization of the Compact in 2009. 
 Regional cooperation. Training and workshops. Guidance through the annual CAADP partnership 
platform meetings. 
 Assistance techniques (expertise dans les différentes). Appuis financiers. 
 A travers des appuis techniques et financiers directs au processus PDDAA, des formations, des 
échanges d'expériences et quelques appuis à la mobilisation de ressources. 
 Les organisations régionales ont contribué à l'élaboration du PNIA et pris part à la Table ronde de 
mobilisation des ressources. 
 Preparation of NAIP (METASIP). Training of Country team. Bringing on board all key stakeholders 
in the development of the agricultural sector. Technical support. 
 Provision of independent review of the GNAIP and capacity building of NAIP stakeholders. 
 Formulation des PNIA, réunions d'échanges et de partage des outils et documents de travail. 
 L'appui à l'élaboration du PNIP-SA (PNIA) et le business meeting. 
 PMU programs. 
SADC Countries 
 NEPAD financing of pre-stock taking and stock taking exercises. 
 Multi consultative stakeholder workshops at country level; Financial and policy analyses. 
 None. 
Question 4. What are the least important ways in which your own country has benefited 
from the CAADP-related support provided by the continental and regional organizations 
during the last five years? 
COMESA Countries 
 Not immediately apparent. 
 Le business meeting. 
 1. Review of the National Agriculture Investment Plan — not that reviews are bad but there seems
to be little or no coordination at the regional communities when sending missions to review policy 
and strategic documents. 2. Studies & consultancies in the course of implementing the CAADP. 
 Bridging finance since in the past years of CAADP implementation, my country was not eligible 
because of sanctions. 
 We are yet to receive any assistance from the Multi-Donor Trust Fund. 
 There has been little support in terms of bankable projects managed by our own institutions. 
 1. Awareness creation of the CAADP commitments to all the stakeholders related to the Agriculture 
sector. 
 Il m'est difficile de répondre à cette question. Madagascar participe toujours aux différentes 
réunions dans le cadre du PDDAA mais le problème c'est qu'il y a toujours une nouvelle 
représentante du pays pour participer à ces réunions. Cette remarque peut être positive dans le 
7
sens où de nouvelles personnes fassent connaissances du processus PDDAA mais peut être 
négative également car les informations ne sont pas continuent. 
 Je ne sais pas. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Le plus d´encadrement dans l´accomplissement par les etats membres de la feuille de route 
établie dans les deux fases donc au niveau des actions du pré-pacte et do post-pacte. 
 L'équipe pays du ______ n’a pas bénéficié d'appui spécifique de la part de la CEEAC 
 L'appui pour la mise en place du cadre institutionnel de mise en oeuvre de PNIASAN. Financement 
des ateliers de sensibilisation et de renforcement de capacité des cadres nationaux impliqués dans 
le processus PDDAA. 
 Dans l'accompagnement technique et logistique pour organiser les évènements au niveau national. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Resource mobilization to implement the NAIP. 
 Actions de formation. Mécanismes de suivi évaluation. 
 Moins d'appui à la mobilisation des ressources financières et de solutions aux problèmes liés à 
l'accès au marché. 
 La coordination pour la mise en oeuvre et le suivi-évaluation du PNIA. 
 Financial support for METASIP implementation though I concede that the development of the 
agricultural sector should be the sole responsibility of the country. 
 No idea. 
 Insuffisance des ressources financières. 
 Le suivi évaluation d'une façon générale. 
 Regional meetings. 
SADC Countries 
 The country has just begun to engage in CAADP process. 
 Technical experts at continental level. 
Question 5. What are the most important ways in which your own country has changed as 
a result of its involvement in CAADP? 
COMESA Countries 
 1. Our past strategic plans were not fully costed. 2. Past plans were not linked to current national 
policies. 3. Past policies and plans were developed with much less stakeholder consultation. 
 Notre pays a amélioré sa politique nationale agricole.
 1. Program coordination. 2. Alignment of programmes and donor support. 3. Resource 
mobilization. 4. Program leadership and direction. 5. Transparency and accountability. 
 Results yet to be seen once the SNAIP is being implemented. However, there has been some 
slight improvement in the engagement of other stakeholders on the SNAIP. 
 1. Planning now takes the inclusive approach. 2. Ministries of Finance and Agriculture now working 
relatively close to each other. 3. Development partners and Non-State Actors including civil society 
now view Government as an equal partner. 
 Realized the need for reviewing the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS), which is the 
tool for implementing CAADP. Following signing of CAADP Compact in 2010, there has been 
8
better sector coordination and more elaborate policy making processes. The agriculture sector 
stakeholders are more keen in working together and in having joint results. Each actor feels that 
their contribution is important and hence more puts more effort. 
 In improving partnership & coordination with DPs supporting agriculture, food security & natural 
resources development programmes. 
 1. Realization of the fact that the Agriculture sector can play a vital role as a driver for economic 
growth in most African countries. 
 Au départ, en 2008 Madagascar a élaboré son Programme Sectoriel Agricole ou PSA mais ce 
document n'a pas été validé à cause de la crise socio-politique de 2009. En 2011 nous avons 
repris le document mais en tenant compte du PDDAA et c'est ainsi que le Programme sectoriel, 
agriculture, élevage et pêche (horizon 10 ans) et le programme national d'investissement AEP 
(horizon 5 ans) ont été élaborés cette année 2015. 
 Satisfaisant en general une trés leger amelioration. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Pour le moment les acteurs du PDDAA dans le pays sont graduellement sensibilisés a ce qui 
concerne les principes du PDDAA. 
 Grace au PDDAA, notre Pais ai aujourd’hui un document de politique pour être mis en place 
pendant les prochaines cinque annéés. 
 A faisant ces politiques et l´élaboration d´autres documents sur la base des principes du PDDAA. 
 En matière de communication et d'échanges le PDDAA a mis en place une plate forme d'échanges 
entre les différents acteurs du secteur agricole. 
 La gouvernance du secteur agricole avec l'adoption du principe d'inclusivité. 
 L'élaboration des politiques agricoles est plus inclusive. La rivalité entre les institutions publiques 
en charge respectivement de la planification et de l'agriculture tend à s'estomper et la collaboration 
s'améliore. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 The agriculture sector has been transformed as a result of the following: Clear, common strategy. 
Alignment of development partners. Enthusiasm for participation by farmers, civil society and other 
actors. A lot of improvement in processing and value addition. Significant improvement in access to 
rural finance. Farmers linked to the market through the rehabilitation/construction of feeder roads. Much 
awareness created among the population about the role of agriculture in powering our economy. 
 Agriculture as a business. Increased growth. We have some trained leaders and champions for 
change on CAADP, but are waiting to be mobilized. 
 Dans l'élaboration des politiques sectorielles (cas de formulation du PNIA 2011-2015). Dans les 
mécanismes des revues conjointes du secteur rural. 
 Dans la mobilisation des acteurs nationaux, dans l'amélioration du suivi-évaluation, dans 
l'harmonisation des textes réglementaires agricoles et dans le dialogue avec les PTFs. 
 Une politique agricole arrimée avec une approche régionale. 
 Working with all partners in the agricultural sector. Joint sector reviews annually. Development of 
an agreed investment plan. Regional cooperation. 
 Several Agricultural Projects are implemented successfully and they have imparted well on the 
target beneficiaries because they were aligned to the guiding principles of the CAADP. 
 Amélioration des cadres de discussion, de concertation. 
 La programmation des activités annuelles se fait de façon harmonisée. 
 Knowledge sharing. 
9
SADC Countries
 We were able to share information with other member states. 
10 
B. Intermediate Results Area 1 
Question 6. Has your country established sustainable capacity to plan and implement 
CAADP processes and systems at the national level in the following ways? (n=35) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 I have no exact number. However, there has been group training in team building in country, at 
regional workshops and training sessions in gender, M&E, policy development, food security (with 
University of Pretoria), and in sustainable land management and many others. 
 (c) Allocation of at least ten per cent of the national budget to agriculture. (f) Over twenty staff 
members were trained. 
 (c) Adopted the principle of inclusivity in planning. Adopted CAADP principles in national plans e.g. 
in the ZimASSET. 
(f) 110 CAADP champions trained. The CAADP focal team members trained on M&E of CAADP 
implementation process. 
 (c) Signed CAADP Compact in 2010. This is now overtaken by events after 2013 when the country 
moved into implementing the new constitution. New relevant policies need to be put in place. The 
current NAIP is also overtaken by events. (f) Six (6) officers from the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock and Fisheries have been trained with support of the ReSAKSS. 
 More than 10 staffs had been participated in CAADP-related training in the area of policy analysis 
and motorizing and evaluation. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
(f) Trained expert/staff at the national level to
support CAADP implementation?
(e) Adopted or formally rolled out protocols 
related to your regional community’s Regional 
Agricultural Policy or Regional Agricultural …
(d) Engaged in comprehensive post-Compact
analytical work?
(c) Implemented Ministerial and Heads of State
decisions relating to CAADP?
(b) Prepared a National Agricultural Investment
Plan (NAIP)?
(a) Embraced CAADP principles in processes,
plans, and policies?
Yes No
11 
 (c) Three were three decrees for the process of the NAIP, and the last one is for the business 
meeting preparations which was planned to have it by the mid of December. (f)Training of the staff 
in the all concerned institutions is not less than 150 person. 
ECCAS Countries 
 (c) Adoptée et mis en œuvre des politiques visant à accroître la production alimentaire et de 
réduire la faim; Renforcée la recherche et la vulgarisation pour les production durables. 
 (c) Avec la chute de prix du petrole le pays a décidé de reviser le budget alloué par l´état pour 
l´agriculture et pêche. 
 Le ______ s'est engagé dans le processus PDDAA. Les acteurs nationaux ont signé un Pacte. Le 
âys s'est doté d'un PNIASAN. 
 Environ 100 cadres des Ministères Techniques impliqués dans le processus PDDAA ont participé 
à des atelier sur la Gestion axée sur les Résultats (GAR) outils de gestion du processus PDDAA. 
 Effort pour s'aligner à l'engagement de Maputo en décidant une allocation substancielle au 
financement du PNIA (on passerait de 5% du budget en faveur du secteur rural en 2014 à environ 
9% en 2020. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Support is required to train experts at national level. 
 (c) Implementation of the National Food Security Programme NPFS for which ______ received an 
Award by FAO. (f) All staff of all the Technical line Departments in the Ministry. Sixty (60) persons 
drawn from the public sector, private sector and civil society organizations in ______ were trained 
in year 2011 as leaders and champions for change in CAADP process. 
 (c) De même les décisions relatives à l'allocation budgétaire de 10%, sur le foncier, sur les 
pesticides dans l'espace ont été pis en compte. (f) 2 experts ont bénéficié de diverses formations 
sur le genre, le suivi-évaluation et la prise en compte de l'environnement. 
 Les formations sont envisagées au niveau de l'exécution des projets financés par les bailleurs sous 
forme d'appui institutionnel. 
 (c) l can count 4 major decisions, namely: Prepared NAIP; reporting on the 10% expenditures; 
review of NAIP to reflect Malabo; set up Steering Committee for NAIP implementation. (f) 6 
persons at the National level. 
 (c) All the projects under the Ministry of Agriculture are aligned to the GNAIP and the decision to 
give 10% of the national budget to agriculture was signed by the Head of State, although not 
honored fully. (f) Almost 10 experts were trained, but we have problems with staff movements 
within the Ministry which have resulted into lot of focal persons been changed for GNAIP. 
 (f) 2 personnes. 
SADC Countries 
 (c) We have done the consultations in the provinces to raise the awareness and understand the 
status of agriculture in the country and the draft CAADP Compact is prepared and it’s on 
consultation at the DGs Cluster Level. The Agriculture Expenditure Review Exercise is towards 
finalization. (f) There are four experts in my country, but I'm not too sure about the meaning of type 
of training provided. The question is not clear. 
 (c) Maputo Declaration; the year of Agriculture 2013. (f) Ten. 
12 
Question 7. If your country has prepared a NAIP, has your Country: (n=31) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 (c) 54% of planned public sector investments. 
 1. The National investment plan has been climate-aligned with support from COMESA. 
2. The National investment plan was aligned to the Malabo with assistance from NPCA. 
3. There are ongoing national discussions on how to overcome the gaps of human capacity and 
institutional capacity in both quantitative and qualitative terms as identified during the NAIP 
technical review. 
 Notre plan National d' investissements agricole est presque achevé et nous attendons les 
commentaires du NEPAD sur le rapport du PNIASA afin d' organiser la réunion d'affaires vers la fin 
de 2015. 
 (b) Implemented proposed reforms of the Farm Input Subsidy Programme, Gender and HIV/AIDS 
issues are mainstreamed in the Investment Plan. (c) Government has mobilized resources for the 
Farm Inputs Subsidy Programme (FISP). 
 (b) Recommendations from ITR will attended and streamlined in the post-HLBM roadmap. 
(c) Resource mobilization is still ongoing as the country prepares for the HLBM. (Swaziland) 
 (b) 4% of recommendations. 
 Percentage of planned public sector investments – 40%. 
 Le PNIAEP de ______ a été déjà soumis au COMESA pour une revue technique indépendante. 
Cette activité est encore en cours et nous nous sommes en attente des recommandations. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Nous organisons la Conférence des bailleurs de fonds ce mois de décembre 2015. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
(c) Mobilized financial resources for programs
and projects in the NAIP?
(b) Adopted recommendations from NAIP
technical reviews, including recommendations
on cross-cutting issues (such as inclusion,
gender, and climate change)?
(a) Had an independent technical review of the
NAIP?
Yes No
13 
 (b) Toutes les recommandations (100%) de la revue technique ont été intégrées au PNIASAN. 
(c) Des 5% de prévision de mobilisation, l'investissement public prévu est à 1%. 
 Toutes les recommandations demandées avant la Business Meeting ont été mise en oeuvre (étude 
additionnelle pour mieux prendre en compte le genre et pour prioriser les activités du PNIA. d'autres 
telles que l'adaptation du dispositif de pilotage et de suivi du PNIA et de sa mise en oeuvre sont à 
l'étude. Les engagements de l'Etat représentent 55% du coût total du PNIA. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 (b) About 70% of the recommendations have been considered. (c) Slightly above 50% of the 
required resources were mobilized. 
 The NAIP is a living document which is subject to review and improvement as we implement. 
Gender issues and climate change must be mainstreamed continually during these reviews to be 
validated by the CAADP country team. 
 70% des recommandations ont été prises en compte pour améliorer le PNIA. 
 Pour l'instant, la mobilisation de financement a atteint 52% du coût du PNIA, y compris le 
financement du secteur privé, de l'ordre de 28% et le reste en tant que financement public. 
 (b) 70%. (c) 60%. 
 The percentage of recommendation can be almost 45% and up to 6% of public investment was 
given. 
 (c) Le Financement du Fonds mondial (GAFSP) est actuellement en place. 
14 
Question 8. To what extent has your country been successful in mobilizing investment 
resources for your National Agricultural Investment Plan? (n=24) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 En ce qui concerne notre PNIASA, notre pays a prévu une contre-partie nationale.
 The funding under GAFSP came too late after devolution was effected and major sector changes. 
 As much as the Investment plan for the sector has been in place, little has been done by the 
Government to fund programs and projects to actualize the implementation of the plan. 
 Nous nous sommes encore en attente de la revue technique indépendante et du business meeting 
pour évaluer les points 23 et 24. 
 PNA non encore elaboré. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Notre plan d´investissement est en cours d´élaboration. 
 La table ronde avec les partenaires a eu lieu le 14 et 15 Octobre de cette année, à Londres. Dans 
ce cas, le Gouvernement a présenté un programme de développement pour les prochaines 
années. Conformément des informations retenues par la presse, le résultat de la Conférence de 
London est intéressant. Nous attendons du rapport officiel. 
 Nous organisons la conférence des bailleurs de fonds la semaine prochaine. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SADC Countries,
non-COMESA (n=1)
ECCAS Countries
(n=2)
COMESA Countries
(n=10)
ECOWAS Countries
(n=11)
All Countries (n=24)
Most of the plan has been funded Much of the plan has been funded (more than 50 percent)
Some of the plan has been funded (less than 50 percent) Very little of the plan has been funded
15 
 Les partenaires Financiers sont préoccupés beaucoup plus sur les actions d'urgence que celle de 
développement. 
 Lors de la 2ème journée de la Business meeting, les engagements de l'Etat et des partenaires ont 
couvert 95% des besoins du PNIA. Certains partenaires étaient toujours en discussion avec leur 
siège et n'ont pas communiqué leur engagement séance tenante. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 But the conditions and the usual constraints in the release of funds are still the same. So even the 
50% funded, only about 40% have been utilized so far. The support is still in bits and pieces in the 
form of projects instead of using the programme approach (basket fund). AUC-DREA / NEPAD and 
the RECs must work on this aspect if the dream of the CAADP is to be realized. 
 Le coût global du PNSR était de 1376,84 milliards. Les financements acquis étaient 847,32 
milliards soit 61,54%. Le gap à rechercher était de 529,52 milliards soit 38,46%. Les financements 
mobilisés au 31 décembre 2014 étaient 1231,75 milliards soit 89,46% du coût total du programme. 
 The actual level of funding is not calculated yet, it may be higher than stated above. 
 Une évaluation du PNIP-SA permettra de mieux élucider la situation. 
SADC Countries 
 And the little funding it receives goes back through hiring consultants. 
Question 9. To what or to whom do you attribute your country’s success or failure in 
mobilizing investment resources for your National Agricultural Investment Plan? 
COMESA Countries 
 The proper costing done by FAO. The foresight of the Minsters of Agriculture and the Principal 
Secretaries the strategic approach advised by COMESA and NPCA. 
 Collaborative work between Government, Donors, and non-state actors. 
 Poor political will. Less engagement by senior officials (i.e. HoDs) in the Ministry of Agriculture. 
 The country is coming from a depression and revenue flows are still very minimal as most 
companies are operating below capacity. 
 The government is committed to supporting agricultural activities. The Ministerial management 
committee. Well trained staff in agricultural issues. The GAFSP funding was based on the MTIP. 
 Based on our investment plan 60% is attributed to Government through public expenditure While 
the remaining balance i.e., 40% from our DPs. 
 The Government to give more priority to the sector in terms of resource mobilization. 
 PNIA non encore elaboré. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Plan en cours d´élaboration. 
 Nous attendons du rapport officiel. 
 À la situation d'insécurité en ______. 
 Le succès de la conférence de mobilisation des ressources pour le financement du PNIA est 
attribuable à l'implication de l'ensemble des parties prenantes sous le leadership fort du 
gouvernement. 
16 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Not to a specific group but the system, i.e. the system of funding projects by development partners 
has not changed.
 All stakeholders have contributed to successes. I blame the past government for failures with that 
Minister of Agriculture 2011 to 2015. 
 La mobilisation et l'adhésion de tous les acteurs au plan national d'investissement agricole. La 
volonté politique du gouvernement. L'existence d'une structure unique de coordination du 
développement rural. L'assistance technique et /ou financière des organisations régionales 
africaines et internationals. L'amélioration de la gouvernance dans le secteur rural. 
 Lenteur administrative, contraintes nées des réformes budgétaires, insuffisance de soutien 
régional. 
 Le succès de mobilisation de ressources d'investissement revient à l'équipe nationale, notamment 
le Gouvernement à faciliter l'action des Bailleurs et du secteur privé. 
 The Development Partners have supported financially and technically. 
 Frequent staff dismissals who have gather wealth of knowledge in resource mobilization. 
 Absence de stratégie efficace de mise en œuvre, manque de documents de projets. 
 La situation socio sécuritaire que le ______ a connu en 2012. 
 Government-donor working group and the Regional office. 
SADC Countries 
 Ministry of Agriculture leadership for not supporting CAADP Initiative in the past. 
 We have not yet developed the investment plan. 
17 
Question 10. To what extent is your national government satisfied with the following? (n=35) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 We are particularly satisfied with the technical support to develop the investment plan and the 
intervention/ cooperation with FAO in partnership with COMESA and NPCA and the facilitation of 
the discussions with the various local partners including the Ministry of Finance. 
 Pas encore le business meeting national et le plate-forme. 
 The CAADP Partnership Platform can be arranged and implemented better than is the case now. 
Information sharing, and most importantly continuity if issues remain an important challenge! 
Engagement of politicians need to be well thought of and structured to make the partnership 
platform more appealing to all stakeholders. 
 Comme la revue technique est encore en cours, aucune réponse n'est donnée aux points 3 et 4 ci￾dessus et sont cochés. 
ECCAS Countries 
 L´assistance de ces organismes aux États Membres doit etre effective et non virtuelle. 
 Le service de l'Agriculture de la CEEAC ne dispose pas des capacités (ressources humaines) 
nécessaires pour coordonner le processus PDDAA dans la sous région. 
 Durant tout le processus PDDAA, la ______ a reçu l'appui technique et financier de la CEEAC. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The political and organizational leadership input
provided by AUC-DREA for your country-level
Business Meeting
The level and quality of technical support
provided by your regional organization (COMESA,
ECCAS, ECOWAS, or SADC) to your national-level
CAADP processes
The level and quality of technical support
provided by continental organizations (AUC-DREA
and NEPAD) to your national-level CAADP
processes
The quality of the technical and procedural
information provided at the CAADP Partnership
Platforms that you have attended
The quality of the Independent Technical Review
of your NAIP
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
18 
 Lors des réunions de la PPP, beaucoup de travaux sont en parallele; si bien qu'on est obligé de 
choisir de participer à certains et de sacrifier d'autres. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 The role of AUC-DREA is not felt in our country since their participation in their initial support in the 
compact signing and popularization, thereafter there has been no direct interactions that can 
specifically benefit the country though AU/NEPAD initially declared ______ as CAADP Champion. 
The role of the AUC-DREA in mobilizing resources for the NAIPs is also not visibly recognized as 
compared to the REC (ECOWAS). We have never been able to attend any PP Forum. 
 ______ a bénéficier d'un appui technique de la CEDEAO à travers la mise à disposition de 
plusieurs consultants pour faire l'état des lieux du secteur, réaliser la modélisation de son PNIA et 
la revue technique avec l'appui de l'IFPTI. De même nous avons été encadré par l'IFPRI pour 
préparer la table ronde sur le PNIA. 
 Le soutien technique est d'un niveau faible. Juste des ateliers et rien d'autres. Il y a une nécessite 
de faciliter le suivi et évaluation et d'appui véritablement la coordination de mise en oeuvre de 
PNIA, à partir d'outils et de moyens conséquents. 
SADC Countries 
 ______ is just about to launch the CAADP process and sign the Compact sometime in December 
2015. 
 CAADP PP needs some areas of improvement especially at the member state level and the REC 
because most of the time you find Multilateral Institutions/ UN Agencies leading the process, 
instead of showing how the Member states have improved by implementing CAADP framework in 
their countries. 
19 
Question 11. To what extent do you feel that the capacity of the following organizations has 
been sustainably strengthened since 2010 to lead/enable/encourage national governments to 
establish CAADP processes? 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The capacity of the regional organizations need improvement (i.e. technical capacity). 
 In some instances like in NPCA there has been some deterioration as some very experienced and 
senior officials in CAADP were relocated to other duties within the NPCA. This was the same case 
in COMESA as well. 
 COMESA has on been assuring our country of support for several activities. 
 Much improvement surtout avec le COMESA et le SADC. AUC-DREA et NPCA ne concerne pas 
notre pays. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Les organisations continentales n'écrivent pas aux dirigeants pour leur rappeler leurs 
engagements. Les capacités de la CEEAC de coordonner le Processus PDDAA dans la sous 
région se sont détériorés avec la fin des contrats des experts payés par le FS-PDDAA. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SADC Countries, non COMESA (n=3)
ECCAS Countries (n=6)
ECOWAS Countries (n=13)
COMESA Countries (n=12)
All Countries (n=34)
Your REC AUC-DREA and NPCA
Percent "Much improvement" and "Some improvement"
20 
 L'appui de l'UA-DERA à la ______ s'est fait par l'intermédiaire de la CEEAC. C'est à partir de 2010 
que la ______ s'est engagée dans le processus PDDAA jusqu'à la tenue du Business meeting en 
décembre 2013 grâce à l'appui de la CEEAC. 
 Les points focaux ont été conviés très régulièrement à des réunions de concertation organisées 
par l'UA et le NEPAD. Le FFMD a permis d'etoffer le personnel du Service agriculture de la 
CEEAC pendant les 5 années du projet; mais ce personnel va repartir avec la fin du projet sans 
que la CEEAC ait internalisé ou capitalisé les compétences développées. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 With the ECOWAP modelled along the CAADP. 
 I am working with the non-state actors. We are developing our two years plan to capture, study, 
national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and advocacy strategy and the 
framework to develop NAIP#2. 
SADC Countries 
 There is need to improve relationship between the continental organizations and RECs. There is a 
problem for an example NPCA working with member states because they don't have technical 
expertise like Fisheries experts, Agriculture expects, etc., which the RECs have. There is an 
improvement in the capacity of SADC because they have units that deals with Regional Agriculture 
Policy issues and they have also been working more closely with the member states. 
 The pace is going with is very little since the song of improving agriculture and food security for 
African countries it would be that at least all the African countries to have their Investment Plan and 
implemented by now. 
21 
Question 12. Overall, how satisfied have you been working with the continental and 
regional organizations during the last five years: 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 With such a small team in Seychelles, the support from the continental and regional partners have 
been invaluable in achieving our CAADP milestones. 
 Work has been satisfactory even though some areas need improvement. 
 Not clear who drives/ influence/ own the various agenda. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Il faut qu´il y est un changement qu niveau de la CEEAC a ce qui concerne la façon de diriger les 
choses avec les états membres. 
 C'est avec l'appui de ces organisations que le processus PDDAA s'est intrduit en ______. 
 Le FFMD a surtout renforcé les compétences des personnels contractuels de la CEEAC et non les 
capacités des équipes-pays qui en avaient grand besoin et les auraient valorisé sur la durée. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 There is not much link with AUC-DREA and NEPAD. 
 Je n'ai pas trop senti l'UA-DERA et APCN comme la CEDEAO, je les connais très peu. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ECCAS Countries (n=6)
COMESA Countries (n=12)
ECOWAS Countries (n=13)
SADC Countries, non COMESA (n=3)
All Countries (n=34)
With your REC With AUC-DREA and NPCA
Percent "Satisfied" and "Very satisfied"
22 
Question 13. What actions would you like the continental and regional organizations to 
emphasize in the future? 
COMESA Countries 
 Continue to advocate with non-state actors for CAADP principles and processes. 
 Sur l' organisation de la ronde. L'assistance technique. 
 Build local capacity of countries to implement programmes to achieve results and impact. 
 Capacitation of national CAADP institutions. Providing guidance in the CAADP NAIP 
implementations. Assist countries in resource mobilization for the implementation of their NAIPs. 
Serving as an external M&E for NAIPs implementation at country level.
 Emphasize on agriculture statistics generation and carrying out National Agriculture surveys and 
creation of public expenditure platforms. 
 Africa owned and driven initiatives. Member countries need to increase funding to the sector to at 
least 10% of the government budget, focus more on food safety and strengthen mutual 
accountability. 
 More pro-active engagement with planned interventions. 
 They should have a regular dialogue with the countries representatives (on line). 
 1. More Technical assistance is required especially in the areas of rigorous policy analysis. 
2. Follow up on the commitments made by respective Heads of State in deepening the CAADP 
processes in the planning and policy processes at country level. Holding them accountable. 
 Tenir une séance d'informations du PDDAA à tous les acteurs à ______ car actuellement, seuls 
quelques cadres des ministères concernés les acteurs membres de la préparation du PNIAEP 
étaient au courant du processus PDDAA. Par ailleurs, cette réunion d'informations doit être faite 
dans les 22 régions de ______. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Encadrement plus effectif des etats membres pour bien materialiser leurs plans d´investissement 
par ce que pendant l´elaboration des ces plans notre communauté donc la CEEAC se peu 
engager. 
 Au niveau de communication il fallait avoir plus d’échange d'information en utilisation le portugais 
et aussi. Que cettes Organisations soit plus visible dans notre pais. 
 Encadrement des ètats membres dans leur démarche en vue de la materialisation des principes du 
PDDAA Renforcement des capacités de points focaux et les acteurs (producteurs,societé civile et 
autes. 
 Renforcement des capacités et mobilisation des ressources pour l'équipe pays. Mobilisation des 
Fonds pour la mise en oeuvre de PNIA. 
 L'appui technique et financier de l'équipe (plate forme) nationale de mise en oeuvre du processus 
PDDAA à travers l'opérationnalisation du PNIASAN. Organisation des ateliers de renforcement de 
capacité. Voyages d'échange d'experiences. Stratégie de communiication. 
 Sur le renforcement des capacités des équipes-pays de manière générale et en particulier après la 
phase de planification, sur les capacités des unités en charge du suiv/évaluation du PNIA. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Resource mobilization to be able to implement the NAIPs. Peer Review of member states with 
regards to the 10% and Malabo Declaration. 
23 
 Agricultural investment. Implementation of regional policies and trade. More support to the CAADP 
country team and the joint sector reviews processes. 
 Mobilisation des ressources. Partage de connaissances et d'expériences. Formation d'experts 
nationaux. Renforcement du suivi évaluation. 
 Sur la recherche agricole, la mobilisation du financement adapté à l'agriculture, les changements 
climatiques, l'accès au marché et l'agro-industrie en Afrique. 
 Les actions doivent porter sur les outils d'évaluation, de coordination au niveau des pays. 
 Support for national NAIP implementation especially financial and technical. 
 They should both improve on their communication — both in terms of the language spoken and 
written and no bias in information disseminated in relation to funding opportunities to member 
countries. 
 Sur le renforcement des capacités en matière de suivi-évaluation et en matière d'élaboration de 
projets. 
 La communication. 
 Study, national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and advocacy strategy and the 
framework to develop NAIP#2. 
SADC Countries 
 Planning should be prioritized at REC level and National governments to align their projects to the 
REC priority areas. This has worked for ECOWAS. 
 To encourage members states to implement the continental and the regional agenda and 
incentivize those members states who have done so successfully. 
 If the donors have already release their money just donate it for implementation for those countries 
with investment plan in place like ______, no need of extending bureaucracy and a number of 
consultants and finally finish the money without helping our farmers. 
24 
C. Intermediate Results Area 2 
Question 14. Has your country institutionalized accountability and evidence-based 
planning and decision making at the national level in the following ways? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 A multi-sectoral platform on nutrition is being set up with technical cooperation from FAO. An initial 
discussion is ongoing with ReSAKSS to set up a SAKSS node in ______. 
 M&E still to be strengthened under Program 5 of the SNAIP. 
 The country is in the process of establishing a SAKSS node. 
 The country is currently finalizing an assessment of the JSR process supported by USAID/Africa 
Lead and ReSAKSS. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Les pays de la région CEEAC n'ont pas reçu l'appui nécessaire pour la mise en place de système 
de suivi évaluation. 
 La ______ est en pleine phase de renforcement de capacité dans le domaine de Gestion Axée sur 
les Résultats et la mise en place du cadre Institutionnel de mise en oeuvre du PNASAN. 
 La reflexion est engagée pour la mise en place de l'unité de suivi évaluation dont la RTE a 
demandé qu'elle soit rattachée au Secretariat général du ministère de l'agriculture. Il y a lieu de 
revoir le dispositif actuel qui place le Secretariat technique du Comité de pilotage de la stratégie de 
développement du secteur rural auprès du Ministre en charge de l'Economie et du Plan. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Has established a functional M&E system that
collects data and generates national-level reports
on core CAADP indicators
Uses technical evidence generated through CAADP
analysis in official decision making, strategies,
plans, and programs
Has undertaken a country-level joint sector review
aligned with CAADP
Maintains multi-stakeholder platforms for
participation in national-level decision making
structures
Yes No
25 
ECOWAS Countries 
 The M&E system established but funds were not available for robust implementation. 
 Conformément au cadre institutionnel de mise en œuvre de son PNIA, le Bénin a adopté une 
approche multiacteurs de programmation et de suivi-évaluation du secteur agricole avec des 
revues sectorielles conjointes. Cependant le nœud SAKSS national vient d'être mis en place avec 
l'appui de l'IFPRI à travers le ReSAKSS et n'est pas encore bien fonctionnel. 
 Un cadre de concertation multi acteurs a été mis en place et qui contribution à la revue conjointe 
du secteur. 
 However, we have not been able to collect data on some of the indicators because of the 
unavailability of data at the national level. 
 La plus grande partie de ces mesures est en cours. 
 Le processus de l'étude de secteur conjointe est entamé. Mais l'étude proprement dite ne 
commencera qu'en 2016. 
SADC Countries 
 As indicated above the country is about to sign the Compact, therefore these questions are not 
applicable. However, the Ministry of Agriculture is about to institute a consultancy to develop a 
comprehensive M&E system for the agricultural sector which will encompass CAADP activities and 
indicators. 
 The CAADP principles are internalized in part in government planning and decision making 
processes. 
26 
Question 15. To what extent are the following stakeholder groups involved in national 
agricultural policy making structures in your country? (n=35) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 Policies are developed with wide stakeholder consultations but the interplay of different policies of 
different sectors are sometimes difficult to align. 
 International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), Local leaders. 
 The Ministry engages all stakeholders in policy formulation. 
 Of late private sector actors are involved because of the inclusive nature of the ZimASSET. 
However, civil society and development partners are being invited to attend the ZimASSET update 
meetings. 
 Tous les acteurs de développement sont appelés à être impliqués et ont les mêmes influences 
durant la période de l'élaboration de la PNIAEP. Ils étaient tous représentés à tous les niveaux de 
discussion (Noyau central Copilo, Equipe pays, ...). 
 En general l'elaboration des politiques se font d'une maniere participative sous la supervision d'un 
ou quelques facilitateurs. 
ECCAS Countries 
 L’Assemblée National par la Commission des Afferes Economique. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Civil society organizations
Commercial private sector
Farmers’ organizations
Government agencies
Involved with much influence Involved with some influence
Involved but with little influence Little or no involvement
27 
 Les autres sont réprésentés par les Partenaires Techniques et Financiers (PTF) [FAO, Banque 
Mondiale]. 
 Dans autre groupe d'acteurs, nous pensons à la communauté des partenaires au développement 
dont ceux intervenant dans le secteur rural ont été associés de bout en bout au processus PDDAA. 
Bien que participant à l'Equipe-pays multisectorielle mise en place pour la mise en oeuvre du 
PDDAA, le patronat ne s'est pas beaucoup impliqué dans les travaux. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Development Partners are also fully involved with much influence. 
 The donors and development partners are involved with some influence, in their own interest. 
 Collège des collectivités territoriales (Communes et Régions). 
 Le secteur privé commercial s'intéresse relativement peu aux questions de politique agricole sauf 
pour défendre des intérêts commerciaux spécifiques. 
 Le secteur privé et la société civile font des orientation et énoncent leur preoccupation. 
SADC Countries 
 Through the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) chaired by the Minister of Agriculture for the 
Agricultural sector, farmer organizations represented by their mother body, private sector 
represented by Business ______ and other Civic Organizations sit in the PAC to guide in the 
formulation of sector policies formulation. 
Question 16. What actions would you recommend to bring about greater involvement of 
non-state actors in national agricultural policy making in your country? 
COMESA Countries 
 They need more information and greater understanding of the sector. They should be given some 
more responsibilities in agricultural sector investment plan implementation to encourage close 
working relationship between state and non-state actors. 
 Joint capacity building of public sector and non-state actor players in policy making, adherence to 
roles and responsibility, use of credible statistics and research evidence in policy making. 
 Develop interest in agriculture of NSAs. Identify specific business-case for involvement of NSAs. 
 Support work of Thematic working groups which are CAADP Pillar based. There is need to support 
fully provincial and district coordination working committees. Continue calling upon non-state actors 
to work with government officials. 
 The non-state actors are already greatly involved. Need to strengthen the NSA institutions and set 
clear policy framework, mutual accountability mechanisms. 
 To participate the non-state actors in the national policy making process, it needs to build their 
capacity and strengthen their apex body. 
 They are already involved. 
 Being part of the policy and planning process of Government programs from the onset. 
 Ils doivent être toujours considérés comme le levier de croissance — ils doivent participer à la 
réduction de la pauvreté. 
 La structuration des des organisations professionnelles et d'autres acteurs civils par la circulation 
de l'information aussi bien des actions entreprises, en cours et futur et les impliquer dans le suivi 
evaluation a travers une plate forme multiacteurs. 
28 
ECCAS Countries 
 Sensibilisation, mobilisation er organiser les actons plus inclusives au niveau des departements 
ministeriels en charge de l´agriculture,peche et environnement. 
 Il sont déjà impliquée atraves de la participation de la Plateforme des ONGs (FONG-STP), la 
Plateforme des producteurs agricoles (FENAPA-STP) et Chambre de Commerce. 
 Faire connaitre a une grande échele dans le paysm donc a tous les acteurs les principes du 
PDDAA et les informations ayant trait a ce programme. 
 Sensibilisation, information et formation. 
 1. Une forte sensibilisation par le biais d'organisation des ateliers de renforcement de capacité. 
2. Alignement des ONG internationales sur les principes PDDAA. 
 Mettre en oeuvre les activités de renforcement de capacités identifiés dans le PNIA à leur intention 
pour leur permettre de mieux comprendre leur rôle et être en mesure de mieux servir les intérêts 
des catégories d'acteurs qu'ils représentent. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 AUC-DREA /NEPAD /NPCA should help mobilize resources to build the capacity of the non-state 
actors to be able to fully participate. 
 Constant engagement through meetings and workshops. Participatory monitoring and evaluation. 
Establish and strengthen the CAADP country team with the non-state actors as equal stakeholders 
in the CAAADP process. 
 Formation des acteurs civils sur le guide d'élaboration des politiques sectorielles agricoles. 
Implication dans l'évaluation des politiques agricoles. 
 Une bonne dissémination et vulgarisation des documents de politiques et stratégies axées sur les 
intérêts aussi bien nationaux que spécifiques à chaque groupe d'acteurs et la mise en place de 
cadres de concertation dont le fonctionnement doit être budgétisé. En effet plusieurs cadres de 
concertation n'ont pas fonctionné faute de financement. 
 Les actions à recommander doivent porter sur la responsabilité de la société civile dans le succès 
d'un PNIA et sur leur structuration. 
 Support regular training of these actors at the constituency level; training conducted mainly for the 
leaders at the National level. 
 Formation and institutionalization of a technical multidisciplinary working group. 
 Assurer le plaidoyer et développer les plateformes de concertation. 
 Le renforcement de capacité des acteurs est nécessaire pour motiver davantage et mieux 
impliquer tous les acteurs dans la mise en oeuvre des politiques et stratégies dans le secteur 
Agricole. 
 I am working with the non-state actors. We are developing our two years plan to capture, study, 
national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and advocacy strategy and the 
framework to develop NAIP#2. 
SADC Countries 
 There must be a neutral chair who is not politically inclined so that he/she can objectively direct the 
discussion. Members usually are interested in "what is in for me" without regard to the national 
interest. 
 Government to use other platforms which are not government-led like farmers days, community 
meetings. 
 To be involved in each aspect which will make them to develop an ownership. 
29 
Question 17. How closely connected or involved are you, as the CAADP Focal Point, with the 
senior policy making and management functions of your Ministry of Agriculture? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The policy division is very small and in close contact with the National decision makers. 
 Conseiller Technique et point focal du CAADP. 
 As CAADP Focal Point I am in a position to provide advise to policy makers and politicians on 
CAADP Issues. Such advice can be taken or not depending on the practicality, merit, and 
relevance to the overall national policy framework. In other words I am close to the top leadership 
of the Ministry and I have input in the general policy debate in the Ministry. 
 The challenge is that I do not sit in HoD’s meeting where major decisions are taken. 
 In Ministry structures I am relatively senior since I am at Deputy Director level in the Policy and 
Planning Department. I often attend senior management meetings. 
 I work in the Directorate of Agricultural Policy Research and Regulation which coordinates the 
policy making process. I sometimes handle the duties of Director. 
 Je parle d'une certaine influence par le fait que les decisions sont participatives mais parfois on 
s'impose par l'argumentation. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SADC Countries, non
COMESA (n=3)
COMESA Countries
(n=12)
ECCAS Countries
(n=6)
ECOWAS Countries
(n=12)
All Countries (n=33)
Involved with much influence Involved with some influence
Some involvement but with little influence
30 
ECCAS Countries 
 En tant que Point Focal, je suis coordonnateur des équipe multi-secterial du pais. Lors de 
l'élaboration des documents de politique agricole, c'est le équipe multi-secterial du pais que 
coordonnait toutes les activités liées aux élaborations des tout documents. 
 Je travaille directement avec le Ministre et le Secrétaire Général du Ministère de l'Agriculture, de 
l'Elevage et de la Pêche. 
 Je suis Chargé de Mission (Conseiller Tchnique) du Ministre en charge de l'Agriculture. A ce titre je 
participe aux réunions de prise de décision au niveau du mon Ministère. 
 Avant ma désignation comme Point Focal, j'étais déja impliqué dans l'élaboration des politiques du 
ministère de l'agriculture et du secteur rural en general. Avant d'être désigné Point Focal, j'étais 
impliqué comme consultant dans les travaux de la phase pré-PACTE (revue des politiques 
sectorielles...). 
ECOWAS Countries 
 I am working closely with the Hon Minister and team, participate fully in the formulation and 
implementation of policies, programme and projects in the sector and coordinate the inter-linkages 
of such projects and the participation of non-state actors. Most of the time represent the country in 
CAADP/ECOWAP related issues. 
 Except during the reign of terror by the Minister of Agriculture from 2011 to 2015. 
 I have been Head of Budget and now Director of Policy, Planning and Budget Directorate of the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 
 As the head of Planning, Policy, Projects and Programmes, Monitoring and Evaluation and 
Statistics I head and facilitate all the technical write up for the Ministry. 
 I am working with the government and non-state actors. We are developing our two-year plan to 
capture, study, national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and advocacy strategy 
and the framework to develop NAIP#2. 
SADC Countries 
 Most decisions are done at the top and cascaded to departments for implementation. When those 
decisions are made there is very little influence to be made in order to incorporate CAADP issues. 
31 
Question 18. How closely connected are your country-level CAADP processes to the 
national economic policy making and budgeting processes in your country? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 Notre pays a augmenté depuis deux ans le budget de l' agriculture. 
 Agriculture is the backbone of our economy and so whatever processes happen in agriculture have 
a strong bearing and influence to national economic policy formulation and budgeting process. 
 It is in the budgeting for 2016/17 that CAADP will feature to some degree in the budgeting process 
within Government. 
 A budget provision for CAADP activities has been considered for inclusion in the 2015/2016 
budget. 
 Actuellement nous sommes en phase de recrutement d'un consultant internationale pour la 
compilation des trois documents de l'analyse situationnelle, la redaction du compact, l'elaboration 
du PNIA et la table ronde. Toute fois les documents d'analyse situationnelle sont validés et 
certaines recommendations sont suivis dans la programmation de certaines activités e conformité 
avec le document SCADD. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Une grande partie des projets présentés lors des réunions budgétaires sont intégrés dans les 
PNIA. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SADC Countries, non
COMESA (n=3)
ECCAS Countries
(n=6)
COMESA Countries
(n=12)
ECOWAS Countries
(n=12)
All Countries (n=33)
Much connection and influence Some connection and influence
Some connection but with little influence Little or no connection
32 
 C'est maintenant que le processus PDDAA est entrain d'être connecter à la budgétisation 
nationale. 
 Nous avons travaillé de manière etroite avec le Ministère en charge de l'économie pour simuler le 
niveau d'engagement de l'Etat en faveur du PNIA qui est soutenable. Les budgets-programmes 
des ministères du secteur rural sont tirés des domaines thématiques du PNIA. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Les cadres de dépenses à moyen terme (CDMT) et le budget-programme du secteur agricole sont 
basés sur le cadre programmatique du PNIA du Bénin. 
 PPMED is the secretariat to the CAADP Process in ______; leads in the planning and Budgeting 
processes of the agricultural sector at national, regional and continental levels 
 All the activities in agriculture are planned towards the successful implementation of the NAIP 
Pillars. 
 La revue des dépenses publiques, la revue sectorielle conjointe et les CDMT alimentent 
l'élaboration des politiques de budgétisation. 
 I am working with the non-state actors. We are developing our two years plan to capture, study, 
national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and advocacy strategy and the 
framework to develop NAIP#2. 
33 
D. Intermediate Results Area 3 
Question 19. To what extent do you feel that the internal/external communications and 
overall knowledge management among CAADP stakeholders at the regional and national 
levels have changed in the last five years (since 2010) in the following ways? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The success of CAADP rests in the fact that the framework was flexible and able to change to 
meet the needs of member states over time since its inception in 2005. New knowledge and more 
experience allowed the framework to learn from mistakes and improve. 
 There is need for more work to be done to enhance CAADP communication at the national level 
especially at grass root level. 
 In the country since the focus has been on the development of the SNAIP no communication tools 
have been developed and used yet on CAADP. 
 Cette question de communication doit être améliorée surtout pour les pays francophones. En effet, 
ces pays ont le plus souvent des difficultés pour se communiquer ou s'informer en anglais. Tous 
les documents doivent donc être traduits obligatoirement en langue française et qu'à chaque 
réunion sur le PDDAA une amélioration sur cette question de traduction doit être faite. 
 Les correspondances sur le processus PDDAA et autres activités liées au processus ne se fait pas 
d'une maniere general avec le point focal PDDAA comores, les informations sont disparates et le 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Through increased diversity of information users
in different sectors such as government ministries,
media, and civil society
Through the development of new tools for CAADP
communication and information sharing
Through the use of CAADP communications
products in agricultural policies and decision
making
Through the regular update and dissemination of
the information shared
Through more frequent discussions on CAADP at
international and continental level fora
Much improvement Some improvement No change Some deterioration
34 
point focal n'arrive pas à se situer. Les organisations continentales et regionales n'actualisent pas 
leurs bases des données; Certaines missions et information lui echappe. Par exemple depuis ma 
nommination au poste de point focal en juillet 2013, les informations ou autres actions liées au 
processus ne passe pas directement par moi si non trés rarement par moi ou rien. Je crois que il 
fallait donner au point focal PDDAA, le role d'interface (leadership) entre les pays et les 
organisations regionales ou continentales. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Les informations au suject du PDDAA sont le plus en plus diffuse entre acteurs du PDDAA et les 
autres. 
 A mon avis, c'est nécessaire renforcée l’équipe existent au pais pour qu'il soit capables de couvrir 
les activités pas seulement pour le gouvernement, mais aussi au niveau régional et continental. Et 
il faut aussi avoir du renforce au niveau de la traduction des documents pour meilleur faciliter les 
échanges d’expérience entre les Paises de façon a permettre la dissémination et partilher les 
informations. 
 Les outils de comunication de la CEEAC doivent etre élaborés en vue de servir les pays membres 
dans leur tache d´informer et de sensibiliser les différents acteurs aux principes du PDDAA. 
 Il ya un problème de proffessionnalisme dans le domaine de la communication agricole. C'est 
durant des évênements ponctuels qu'il est fait appel aux communicateurs alors que la 
communication agricole devrait être permanente. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 The change listed here are more at the regional and international levels rather than at the country 
level. 
 Ces 05 dernières années, les signataires du Pacte au Bénin sont très impliqués dans les actions et 
revues du secteurs agricoles il sont informés sur ce que fait l'Etat et informent les structures 
gouvernementales de leurs actions. Il participent au Groupe thématique agriculture, aux suivi sur le 
terrain, à l'élaboration des projets, aux forum sur le PDDA et sont en complicité avec le Ministère 
de l'agriculture pour faire avancé les dossiers sur l'agriculture à travers des plaidoyers et pressions 
à divers niveaux. 
 La communication doit aller dans le sens de la mise en oeuvre et de l'implication des différents 
acteurs. 
SADC Countries 
 The uptake of this NEPAD Initiative across government is very minimal. Many officers are not 
familiar with CAADP or seem to be interested. 
 At National Level there is improvement, but at the regional level it’s only starting to improve this 
year. 
35 
Question 20. To what extent is your national government satisfied with the following? 
(n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The farmers associations in ______ could have been more cooperative in CAADP processes. 
 The support is not customized to priority needs or demands at country level at a specific time. 
Rather at any point the support is determined by RECs in line with regional issues I guess! 
 CAADP activities were being spearheaded by the Agricultural Sector Coordinating Unit (ASCU). 
The Unit became defunct after the New Constitution ushered a different government structure in 
2013. In May 2015, a Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries was formed to streamline 
CAADP activities. There is little or no information available on past CAADP activities. 
ECCAS Countries 
 La plupart des soutiens se fait au niveau régional. Il faudra desormais plus d'actions au niveau 
national. 
 La représentation dans l'Equipe -Pays multisectorielle chargée de la mise en oeuvre du PDDAA 
n'était pas systématiquement assurée et parfois la réprésentation l'était par des personnels de bas 
niveaux. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The level and quality of support to CAADP
processes provided by non-agricultural sectors
and actors
The number of new knowledge and policy
packages that NPCA has made available and
shared with CAADP stakeholders
The number of mutually agreed technical
assistance and other capacity strengthening
initiatives to support country and regional level
activities
The responsiveness of your regional organization 
(COMESA, ECCAS, ECOWAS, or SADC) to 
stakeholders’ demands for technical assistance
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
36 
ECOWAS Countries 
 La CEDEAO fait beaucoup mais les attentes des pays sont très nombreuses. Les questions 
relatives au financement de l'agriculture et à l'accès au marché pour les produits agricoles sont 
toujours des préoccupations majeures qui n'ont pas encore eu une réponse appropriée. Au Bénin, 
à part les organisations de la société civile à travers la PASCIB, les acteurs non-agricoles ne 
s'impliquent pas encore correctement dans le développement du secteur de l'agriculture. 
 L'organisation régionale n'a pas été réactive, mais attentiste pour compiler les résultats. 
SADC Countries 
 As mentioned earlier, CAADP concept is new and the uptake is very minimal. Most stakeholders 
do not know what CAADP is all about and what it can offer. 
 The buy in at Senior Management level is not yet fully achieved as we have not yet signed the 
CAADP Compact. 
37 
E. Intermediate Results Area 4 
Question 21. To what extent do you feel that the development and management of mutually 
beneficial CAADP partnerships at the regional and national levels have changed in the last 
five years (since 2010) in the following ways? (n=31) 
Additional Comments 
ECCAS Countries 
 La ______ est encore en phase de renforcement de capacité des acteurs impliqués dans le 
processus PDDAA. 
 Les réunions de concertation à l'échelle de la sous région, même lorsqu'elles sont planifiées 
longtemps à l'avance se déroulent dans l'impréparation et une certaine improvisation. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 The change is more at the regional level rather than in ______. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The level of future funding sources identified and
brokered for CAADP
The number of action points across different
stakeholders agreed upon and implemented as…
The level of private sector investments into
African agriculture
The number of African agricultural policy position
papers jointly agreed at CAADP Governance fora
The number of partnership events efficiently and
effectively delivered.
More effective CAADP governance through
greater coordination and collaboration among…
The number of partnerships established for
effective technical support and joint assistance
The level of alignment of partner support to
CAADP processes
Much improvement Some improvement No change Some deterioration
38 
F. Other Survey Results 
Question 22. The CAADP MDTF has aimed to strengthen the capacity of six continental 
and regional organizations to provide support to country and regional-level CAADP 
processes so that more countries would put in place improved agricultural policies and 
investment plans. Better policy and planning would aim to attract both public and private 
investments that would generate sustained agricultural growth that would in turn deliver 
developmental benefits in terms of jobs, income, and food security. To what extent do you 
agree with the following statements? (n=35) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 The capacity required at continental level is more about strategy, negotiating skills, diplomatic and 
protocol skills and knowledge, whereas at the RECs these are all important but in addition, the 
need for specialists of technical subject matters. Economic modelling is important to identify the 
best options for investments in national and regional investment plans. 
 Notre pays a pris une initiative d' augmenter la croissance agricole durable, la réduction de le 
pauvreté et la sécurité alimentaire. 
 Ces trois points évoqués plus hauts sont nécessaires pour le développement du secteur rural en 
particulier l'agriculture, l'élevage et la pêche (AEP). Et c'est dans ce sens que les ministères 
concernés AEP ont éléboré leur programme d'investissement sur les 5 ans à venir. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strengthening the capacity of continental and
regional institutions is a very effective way of
supporting regional and country-level CAADP
processes.
Public expenditure planning and budgeting are a
very good strategic entry point to improve
country-level agricultural policies and institutions.
Broadly based agricultural growth is a very
effective way to create wealth and reduce poverty
in agriculture-based economies in Africa.
Strongly agree Agree Disagree
39 
 Le renforcement des capacités des institutions continentales et régionales est une bonne chose 
pour la suppervision du processus PDDAA mais il fallait aussi renforcer les capacites des comités 
de pilotage nationaux du PDDAA surtout en matiere de planification budgetisation et suivi 
evaluation. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Le fonds FS-PDDAA qui s'achève a plus été orienté ces efforts vers la coordination au niveau 
continental et au niveau sous régional (REC). Il faut maintenant orienter tous les efforts dans les 
pays. 
 80% de la population centrafricaine vivent en milieu rural et pratiquent l'agriculture. S'il ya 
croissance du secteur agricole, celle-ci bénéficiera à 80 % de la population donc inclusive et 
reduira la pauvreté. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Strengthening of regional bodies alone is sufficient, national capacities is the key because the 
actions occur at the country level, so the capacity building should be extended to the countries in 
very strong way. 
 There is need to promote intra and inter regional trade for a sustainable growth. Also, the CAADP 
country team which is made up of stakeholders from the public sector, private sector, civil society 
organizations and the donors/development partners must be strengthened and supported for good 
things to happen in the countries and ownership. 
 Le renforcement des capacités ne serait efficace qu'au niveau des pays qui ont la charge de 
l'élaboration et de la mise en oeuvre de cette politique. L'action des institution régionale doit se 
focaliser sur les influences des décideurs politiques à accorder plus de ressources et aussi à lever 
certaines barrières de développement agricoles, notamment les freins au financement des 
exploitations agricoles. 
 Le renforcement des capacités permet aux équipes d'avoir une compréhension commune des 
outils. La planification et la budgétisation permettent de construire un cadre de dépenses à moyen 
terme plus efficace qui veille sur la qualité des dépenses. La croissance agricole facilité la 
génération des emplois et des débouchés. 
SADC Countries 
 Due to budgetary constraints, some projects which were planned during the NDPs were shelved. 
Through the NAIPs, these projects could be prioritized and defined in the NAIPs to complement the 
NDPs thus supporting the above mentioned pronouncements. 
40 
Question 23. How familiar are you with the following? (n=33) 
Additional Comments 
COMESA Countries 
 There is need to properly define the roles of the Regional organization in their support to countries. 
 I have attended several workshops organized by AUC/NEPAD, COMESA and EAC on various 
aspects of CAADP since May 2015. This has made it easy for me to internalize CAADP and the 
Malabo Declaration commitments. 
 The CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund should as much as possible support country processes in 
addition to continental & regional organizations. 
ECCAS Countries 
 En ce qui concerne le cadre de resultats du PDDAA (2015-2025) et la Stratégie de mise en oeuvre 
de la feuille de route pour la réalisation de la vision 2025, nous en avons entendu parlé et cela 
nous a été brièvement présenté. Il faut que ces éléments fassent l'objet de communication 
approfondie et de formation pour qu'ils deviennent familiers. 
ECOWAS Countries 
 Je ne suis pas bien informé sur Fonds Fiduciaire Multi-Donateurs pour le PDDAA administré par la 
Banque Mondiale. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund administered
by the World Bank that has been helping to
strengthen the capacity of African continental and
regional organizations to support regional and…
The Implementation Strategy and Roadmap to
Achieve the 2025 Vision on CAADP
The roles of continental and regional
organizations in supporting country-level CAADP
processes
The CAADP Results Framework, 2015–2025
The Malabo Declaration on Accelerated
Agricultural Growth and Transformation for
Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods
Highly familiar Considerably familiar Modestly familiar Not at all familiar
41 
Question 24. Do you have any additional comments that you would like to share with respect to 
your experiences as your country’s CAADP Focal Point?
COMESA Countries 
 Being the CAADP focal point provides a unique opportunity to bring together all the important 
stakeholders and ensure that the agricultural sector is mainstreamed into the plans and policies of 
other important and relevant sectors, thereby creating a multi-sectoral approach to agricultural 
development. 
 The Multi-Donor Trust Fund has been so helpful. However, regional communities could improve in 
terms of support delivery in terms of predictability and adequacy. 
 I feel more should be done by AUC and RECs in making sure member states take the issue of 
mutual accountability and statistics generation seriously. 
 The follow up and desire by the continental and regional organizations for the country to make 
speedy progress on CAADP implementation has been encouraging. The biggest handicap I have 
faced however is the many other activities I have had to undertake besides CAADP. Setting up a 
country SAKSS node is expected to ease the work load and also have an effective Monitoring and 
Evaluation system. 
ECCAS Countries 
 Durant le temps que je suis point focal du PDDAA dans mon pays surtout a ce qui concerne le 
concepts nouveaux pour l´organisation des acteurs et les contacts avec les partenaires techniques 
et financiers au dévellopément et les solides cnnaissances sur les déclrations de Maputo et celui 
de Malabo. 
 (1) Ca a été un boulot difficile, parce que nous avons travaillé sans un lien budgétaire. (2) 
L'absence d'une équipe de communication lié a insuffisance des documentes en portugais, ai 
aussi difficulté les travailles de l’équipe multi-sectorielle du Pays. (3) Bien que le portugais soit 
l'une des langues de travail de la CEEAC, je vous demande de nous envoyer un formulaire de 
questionnaire en portugais plutôt qu'en français. Donc, pour le prochain travail d'enquête je vous 
serais reconnaissant de m'envoyer le formulaire d'enquête en portugais, pour éviter toute 
interprétation erronée. (4) Aussi, puisque nous arrivons à la fin du FS-PDDAA, il est nécessaire 
que nous créions une structure fonctionnelle de suivi-évaluation de toutes les activités au niveau 
national et regional. 
 La participation des points focaux a toutes activités a l´ échele régional et continental soit inclusive 
parce que les critéres d´indication des points focaux des pays pour sa participation aux 
evenements ne sont pas clairs. 
 L'equipe pays est la cheville ouvrière du processus PDDAA sur le plan national mais aussi sur le 
plan continental et régional. J'ai constaté que les équipe pays n'ont pas bénéficié de l'appui 
nécessaire notamment du FS-PDDAA. Ce manque d'appui et de soutien a affaibli le rôle des 
Equipe pays et minoré la perception de l'importance de ces équipes par les Gouvernements. Si la 
communauté internationale appuie les équipes pays les gouvernement seront plus attentives aux 
travail de ces équipes. Les prochains Fonds subsidiaires doivent prendre en compte les besoins 
des équipes pays et la mise en oeuvre dans les pays des PNIA. 
 Le processus PDDAA est une opportunité pour la ______. Cependant pour son appropriation au 
niveau national il faudra un appui technique et Financier afin de sensibiliser et de renforcer la 
capacité des acteurs impliqués dans le processus. 
 Avec des moyens plus limités, le projet de la FAO financé par la l'Allemagne et basé à Rome a 
apporté un soutien plus efficient à l'Equipe Pays du ______ que le FFMD, pour ce qui est du 
42 
renforcement des capacités des membres de l'Equipe-pays à contribuer à la phase de planification 
du processus PDDAA.
ECOWAS Countries 
 AU should urge member states to give greater to CAADP. 
 Nous avons toujours souhaité que la CEDEAO et le NEPAD descendent davantage dans les pays 
en soutien aux équipes techniques pour faire avancer les réformes et mieux la mise en œuvre des 
décisions. 
 NAIP Focal Person per member country should be properly instituted to avoid confusions once 
there are changes of personnel. As in the case of ______ the central Project Coordination Unit 
(CPCU) is the focal implementing institution for GNAIP, but the head of Planning services of the 
Ministry of Agriculture used to change focal person position with the officers from the CPCU which 
is so confusing at times. 
 We need support for study, national stakeholder dialogue, awareness, communication and 
advocacy strategy and the framework to develop NAIP#2. 
SADC Countries 
 It will be appreciated if you can share the report of this survey. 
43 
Partner Survey 
Table 2. Survey Respondents and Recipients by Organizational Type 
Organizational Type Respondents Recipients Response Rate
Development Partners (17) (32) (53%)
FAO 8 10 80%
USAID 4 7 57%
EU 2 5 40%
GIZ 2 2 100%
UNCCD 1 1 100%
DFID 0 4 0%
Gates Foundation 0 2 0%
UNECA 0 1 0%
Research Organizations (9) (18) (50%)
IFPRI/ReSAKSS 4 8 50%
ASARECA 2 3 67%
CORAF 2 2 100%
HubRural 1 2 50%
CCARDESA 0 1 0%
FARA 0 2 0%
Agribusiness 5 12 42%
Civil Society Organizations 4 6 67%
RECs (non MDTF)
IGAD 2 4 50%
EAC 0 2 0%
UMA/AMU 0 1 0%
MDTF Reviewers a 4 4 100%
Farmers’ Organizations 0 9 0%
Other country-level partners 0 9 0%
Total 41 97 42%
a. Lead authors of the Independent Mid-Term Review, Sustaining CAADP Momentum, and Service Agency 
Review.
44 
Table 3. Which organization have you worked with the most closely? Please indicate the 
type of contribution that best describes your principal involvement as a partner with that 
organization. (Select only one.) 
AUC￾DREA NPCA COMESA ECCAS ECOWAS SADC Total Percent
Guidance — Preparing documents 
and guidelines to support CAADP 
processes
1 3 1 2 7 17%
Implementation — Actively using 
the guidelines and consensus 
results to design and implement 
follow-on activities
1 3 1 2 7 17%
Capacity strengthening —
Contributing to training and other 
activities to build the capacity of the 
organization, its clients, and 
beneficiaries
3 1 2 1 7 17%
Advocacy — Working with the 
organization to advocate for 
CAADP principles
4 1 1 6 15%
Consensus-building — Facilitating 
consensus among different 
stakeholders
1 1 2 4 10%
Funding — Providing financial 
support to CAADP activities. 1 1 2 5%
Monitoring and reporting —
monitoring the progress that African 
organizations and countries are 
making in implementing CAADP 
activities
1 1 2 5%
Other (please specify below) 1 1 1 2 1 6 15%
Total 10 11 6 2 8 4 41 100%
Percent 24% 27% 15% 5% 20% 10% 100%
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Attending information conferences. 
 Notre organisation couvre tous les domaines ci-dessus, il aurait fallut accepter plusieurs options. 
NPCA Partners 
 Actually we have equally supported the development of guidelines, consensus building, funding 
CAADP activities, implementation and capacity strengthening. 
 Participation à différentes réunions de concertation du NEPAD, comme la plateforme des 
partenaires. 
45 
COMESA Partners 
 The EU through the 9th and 10th EDF funds has been supporting COMESA programmes with the 
main ones being the Regional Integration Support Mechanism and the Regional Integration 
Support Programme. None of this directly supports CAADP activities except that we had 
emphasized the need for input from the COMESA CAADP team into the 11th EDF specific areas of 
support especially those related to enhancing regional value chains. 
 To ensure host government is accountable to its CAADP process. 
ECCAS Partners 
 Provided technical support to the CAADP processes at national and regional level in Central Africa 
with the Framework of an agreement signed between ECCAS and FAO. 
 Appui technique dans l'analyse strategique pour informer et guider la programmation des 
interventions et des investissements dans l'agriculture. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 J'ai activement contribué au renforcement des capacités des acteurs nationaux (services publics, 
société civile et organisations professionnelles) au cours des processus et exercices de 
préparation des PNIA dans un certain nombre de pays membres de la CEDEAO. J'ai activement 
appuyé ces exercices, aidé à la formulation des PNIA, expliqué les rôles des différentes parties 
prenantes, renforcé leurs capacité afin que l'exercice soit inclusif, aidé à la préparation et à 
l'organisation des rencontres statutaires, animé la préparation de requêtes de financement à la 
suite des "Business meeting". Ces exercices ont été des occasion de renforcement des capacités 
des acteurs. 
 I've worked particularly with the Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development to promote 
coordination and inclusiveness among their stakeholders and managed a project with a focus to 
build their capacity to better manage the implementation of the regional agriculture policy 
(ECOWAP/CAADP). 
 Concertation, Suivi rapport. 
 En plus de la concertation, le renforcement des capacités a aussi été fortement concerné. 
SADC Partners 
 FAO Investment Centre providing support to SADC with its Regional Agriculture Policy Investment 
Plan (RAP-IP). 
 Through our implementing partners, we have provided funding and technical assistance to SADC 
to advance the CAADP agenda including the Regional Agricultural Policy and the Regional 
Agricultural Investment Plan. We have also supported consensus building support among regional 
stakeholders and member states. Our support has touched every category you have noted above. 
46 
A. PDO Level Results 
Question 1. To what extent do you feel that the enabling environment for agricultural 
programs and policies in the country, subregion, or region that you work on has improved 
in the following ways? 
None of the response rates between CAADP Focal Points and Partners are significantly different. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Le PDDA est trop vite oublié au niveau des pays... pas de méchanisme pour assurer la durabilité, 
pour mainteninr le "momentum". 
NPCA Partners 
 It's a mixed picture. I am not in a position to provide accurate answers regarding the situation in all 
of the 10 countries I have been working on. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Le niveau régional est plus efficace que le niveau national en ces matières. Beaucoup reste à faire 
par les pays, même si les régions performent bien.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The level of future funding sources identified and brokered for
CAADP
The number of action points across different stakeholders
agreed upon and implemented as tabled at the Partnership
Platform *
The level of private sector investments into African agriculture
The number of African agricultural policy position papers
jointly agreed at CAADP Governance for a *
The number of partnership events efficiently and effectively
delivered.
The number of partnerships established for effective technical
support and joint assistance
The level of alignment of partner support to CAADP processes
More effective CAADP governance through greater
coordination and collaboration among continental and regional
organizations
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=38)
Percent "Much improvement" and "Some improvement"
47 
Question 2. To what extent do you attribute the improvements that have occurred to the 
following? 
None of the response rates between CAADP Focal Points and Partners are significantly different. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 And civil society has also played a good role. 
 If national effort is limited, less can be done. 
 Les autres partenaires financier et du développement en dehars du MDTF. 
NPCA Partners 
 Les organisations régionales et sous régionales de recherche, de formation et de développement 
ainsi que les organisations internationales comme les CGIAR. 
COMESA Partners 
 Difficult to attribute changes or the lack of it to individual institutions. 
 The farmer organizations are key. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To continental organizations (AUC-DREA and
NPCA)
To non-state actors such as farmers’ 
organizations
To regional organizations (COMESA, ECCAS,
ECOWAS, and SADC)
To countries’ own governments and country￾level CAADP processes
To development partners (such as the six
donors and the World Bank supporting the
CAADP MDTF)
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=36)
Percent "High degree" and "Considerable degree"
48 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Les pays et les organisations continentales doivent mieux faire. Les premiers pratiquent mal 
l'alignement et contribuent peu de ressources. Les dernières en voulant opérer directement dans 
les pays sans passer/mettre à contribution les régions. 
SADC Partners 
 The youth. 
Question 3. To what extent do you feel that the CAADP activities you have worked on have 
contributed to the following Level 3 results in the CAADP 2015–2025 Results Framework? 
(n=34) 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Les PNIA ont presque tous été considérés comme des phénomènes uniques, au lieu d'être –
comme c'était l'intention – un processus dynamique de meilleure planification et mise en oeuvre. 
NPCA et les RECs ne sont pas parvenu à mettre en place ce processus dynamique... sauf peut￾être un peu la CEDEAO. Le MDTF aurait dû contribuer à cela, mais il a failli. La mise en place 
d'équipes compétentes, bien formées et rétribuée, pour améliorer la planification sur bases des 
principes du PDDAA n'était pas une priorité (malheureusement). Une enquête parmi les acteur du 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Effective and accountable institutions, including
assessing implementation of policies and
commitments
Increased public and private investments in
agriculture
Increased capacity to generate, analyze and use
data, information, knowledge and innovations
Strengthened capacity for evidence-based
planning, implementation and review
Improved multi-sectoral coordination,
partnerships and mutual accountability in
sectors related to agriculture
Effective and inclusive policy design and
implementation processes
High degree Considerable degree Modest degree Not at all
49 
secteur au niveau des pays montrerait probablement le peu de connaiissance sur l'existence 
même du PDDAA, en particulier à l'intérieur des pays (autre problème: oubli de la 
décentralisation?). 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Les effets et impacts ne sont toujours pas très nets. 
Question 4. To what extent do you feel that the CAADP activities you have worked on have 
contributed to the following Level 2 results in the CAADP 2015–2025 Results Framework? 
(n=31) 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 This organization has been strong in delivering most areas of level 2 of the CAADP Results 
Framework. 
NPCA Partners 
 Timely data is still sadly lacking in these areas. IFPRI is failing badly. 
COMESA Partners 
 Mostly sensitization has occurred. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Expanded local agro-industry and value chain
development inclusive of women and youth
Improved management of natural resources for
sustainable agriculture
Increased intra-African regional trade and
better functioning of national and regional
markets
Increased resilience of livelihoods and improved
management of risks in the agriculture sector
Increased agricultural production and
productivity
High degree Considerable degree Modest degree Not at all
50 
ECCAS Partners 
 Most NAIPs have not engaged in the implementation phase. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Très peu de statistiques disponibles permettent de formuler des réponses exactes à ces question. 
Un domaine à développer dans nos pays. 
 Les dispositifs de suivi-évaluation ne sont pas encore suffisamment performants pour aider à faire 
la part des choses.
Question 5. What do you consider to be the major strengths of the CAADP? 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Comprehensive development approach. Focus on marginalized groups (youth and women). 
 A rallying point for all stakeholders around a common agenda. Helping countries to look at 
themselves from a different but unique and homegrown perspective. 
 Its potential to galvanize political commitment, influencing governments. Its potential to track 
progress in an aggregated way. Its potential to link up with other sectors, particularly after the 
Malabo Declaration, rather than looking only at agricultural production and productivity. Its huge 
potential in resource mobilization, including domestic resource mobilization. 
 Coordination and ensuring synergies. 
 Clear deliverables for each actor. 
 Its regional involvement is its major strength compared to the national attributes, especially the 
case of my country, ______. 
 It has a continental mandate backed by the heads of state. 
 The emphasis on evidence as a basis for reform. The emphasis on the need for strong M&E at 
country level. The emphasis on higher investments in agriculture. The emphasis on capacity 
building. 
 La concertation régionale et sous-régionale, et les partenariats effectifs avec les partenaire 
techniques et financiers. 
 To have raised the importance of FSNARD in Africa. 
 Le fait que l'agriculture, la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition sont restés une priorité politique en 
Afrique pour plus de dix ans. 
NPCA Partners 
 Forces multi-platform dialogue and a more strategic overview of agriculture. 
 Frame of reference; advocacy; peer pressure. 
 Its power and appeal to position agriculture as the main driver behind Africa's transformation 
process. The vision and rallying power behind CAADP. The continental and regional approach 
behind it. 
 Evidence based planning inclusive process export support to countries. 
 African ownership. 
 High political buy-in. Positive peer pressure on public investment, processes, etc. Framework 
brings diversity of players around same table and to the degee that even some investments are 
negotiated through CAADP. 
51 
 Providing a forum for knowledge sharing and learning. Supporting countries with less developed 
policy and planning capacity to improve the quality of their processes. Bringing together the donor 
community around shared goals. 
 Working together. 
 Le développement de la nouvelle phase "Sustaining the CAADP Momentum" a été très participatif 
et inclusif. Des domaines tels que l'Agroforesterie, a Foresterie et l'aquaculture qui avaient été 
oubliés ont été inclus. 
COMESA Partners 
 Coordination and peer pressure reviews exerts on host countries to make progress on agreed 
upon resolutions. 
 Capacity building and supporting the creation of networks and partnerships. 
 Identification of national priorities and bringing together of key players to look for solutions. 
ECCAS Partners 
 The consultation process throughout the implementation of CAADP, numerous stakeholders. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Cohérence et pertinence des axes et actions. Flexibilité. 
 Joint planning. 
 Consensus à l'échelle continental sur des volontés, des visions communes sur la place de 
l'agriculture dans le développement économique de l'Afrique. Encouragement à l' utilisation à 
l'échelle continental d'approches et outils communs de planification et de gestion des politiques. 
Encouragement à l'internalisation du principe du partenariat dans la formulation et le suivi des 
politiques, et des programmes de développement. Encouragement du renforcement des capacités 
des acteurs nationaux, pilotes des exercices nationaux. 
 Le PDDAA a permis une approche commune sur le development Agricole dans les pays et 
regions. 
 The participatory and inclusive approach in the design. 
 La facilitation de la concertation. 
SADC Partners 
 Inculcating multi-stakeholder interactions in the pursuit of national and regional initiatives. 
 Set of common principles at continental level. 
 A comprehensive vision for the continent for agricultural development, poverty reduction and food 
security. 
 Support at the highest level – Heads of State. Africa-owned. 
52 
Question 6. What do you consider to be the major weaknesses of the CAADP, and how do 
you feel that these should be addressed? 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Harmonization, intersectoral linkage. 
 Keeping the profile of CAADP requires high level leadership and the quality of CAADP managers 
at continental level seem to be slowing down. 
 Lack of sufficient clarity on roles and responsibilities across institutions (e.g. between AUC and 
NEPAD) and across levels (i.e. continental, regional and national), which does not facilitate good 
alignment and support by development partners: this should be clarified by the concerned 
institutions. Too much focus on processes, not sufficiently on results/impacts: a good programme 
of work should show clear direction and added value of each activity. A good monitoring and 
evaluation framework must be put in place. Continental and regional processes are not oriented 
sufficiently to promote and support national ones: the whole CAADP architecture should be built 
from bottom to top, responding to needs, and not the opposite. Governments should understand 
that the regional and continental institutions are accountable to their member states, not to donors. 
Development partners should promote accountability.
 Limited African-owned funds to support the CAADP institutions, hence relies on external support. 
 No resources to implement and monitor. The private sector not challenged enough. 
 Non-Linkage of the Agricultural Transformation Agenda program into the CAADP tracking system. 
 It has a weak/unclear conceptual framework. 
 Coordination at the political level should improve. Funding sources should not be predominantly 
foreign. African government must fund it, too. Lack of tools at the regional body level to force 
government to act in accordance with CAADP principles. 
 N'ayant pas une vue plus large des activités du PDDAA, je puis répondre à cette question. 
 Despite huge investment in the CAADP process, failure to establish a well organized management 
system with clear subsidiarity principles to advocate for and guide CAADP planning and 
implementation. Lack of quality communication and guidelines despite major donor support. 
 Un processus extrêment coûteux, mal géré, et que les donateurs on financé sans exigé que les 
structures africaine soient bien gérées, efficace et respectent le principe de subsidiarité. Si au 
niveau politique, les sommets de l'UA ont bien relayé les messages du PDDAA, ceux-ci n'ont pas 
été soutenus ai niveau des pays une fois que le Business Meeting avait été organisé. Donc un 
coût/bénéfice peu glorieux! 
NPCA Partners 
 Nations still see it as a parallel process to their normal planning process. 
 Insufficient focus on country level; region-continental interface. 
 Lack of political will at country-level. Lack of institutional capacities at regional and continental 
level. 
 Private sector financing. The 10% public sector financing should create the enabling environment 
for the private sector to invest. 
 Lack of proper problem definition by donors and governments in terms of what ails African 
agriculture, partly because it is intrinsically difficult, partly because the problems donors want to 
address are not always the same ones that governments want to address. 
 Not enough focus on private sector investment and too much focus on donor funding. 
53 
 Too targeted on processes — encourage flexibility in planning and implementation. Inadequate 
technical capacity to respond to country expressed needs — strengthen system for assessing 
needs and providing technical support. 
 RECs coordination. 
 La mise en oeuvre au niveau des pays n'est toujours pas inclusifs et certains acteurs comme les 
institutions de formation ne sont pas très fortement impliqués au niveau institutionnel. Les 
Communautés Economiques Régionales ne font pas l'effort de connaitre et d'inclure toutes les 
organisations sous régionales africaines (certaine discrimination observée). 
COMESA Partners 
 Does not prescribe on growth sub sectors – just says investments in agriculture.
 Lack of consistent follow-up. 
 Over reliance on development partners for funding. 
ECCAS Partners 
 Countries should put more funding in the process. The multi-donor funds were a major factor in the 
success of CAADP in Central Africa. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Manque de moyen de contrôle et de pression sur les gouvernement. Approche un peu top-down. 
 Too much talk...need investment vehicle. 
 Peu d'outils pour aider à la mobilisation des ressources suite aux Business Meeting. Rythme inégal 
dans la mise en oeuvre du PDDAA dans les différentes régions du continent. Du fait de la faiblesse 
des capacités des acteurs nationaux, les exercices sont encore pilotés par des experts dans 
beaucoup de pays. Beaucoup de réunions peu utiles dont les ressources pourraient être mieux 
utilisées dans des études statiques ou de S&E. 
 Sur le terrain certains des partenaires techniques et financier ont continuer a financer des activites 
en dehors du PDDAA. 
 Endogenous funding by the countries to reach the 10% of national budget as agreed in Maputo. 
 Manque d'impact tangible sur les réalités locales (exploitations, ménages, communautés de base) 
SADC Partners 
 Knowledge about CAADP needs to be spread and explained broadly within national and regional 
economies. 
 Build more on national processes instead of duplicating them. The same danger is present with 
Malabo. 
 Communications and awareness among all stakeholders and groups. 
 Influencing performance and compliance of countries. 
54 
B. Intermediate Results Area 1 
Question 7. Has the country that you work on mostly established sustainable capacity to 
plan and implement CAADP processes and systems at the national level in the following 
ways? 
** Indicates significantly different responses between the two groups at the 95% level of confidence. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Trained expert/staff at the national level to
support CAADP implementation? **
Adopted or formally rolled out protocols 
related to your regional community’s Regional 
Agricultural Policy or Regional Agricultural …
Engaged in comprehensive post-Compact
analytical work?
Implemented Ministerial and Heads of State
decisions relating to CAADP?
Prepared a National Agricultural Investment
Plan (NAIP)?
Embraced CAADP principles in processes,
plans, and policies?
CAADP Focal Points (n=35) CAADP Partners (n=30)
Percent "Yes"
55 
Question 8. If applicable, has the country that you work on mostly: 
** Indicates significantly different responses between the two groups at the 95% level of confidence. 
Additional Comments (on questions 7 and 8) 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Some countries especially DRC and South Sudan have not attained those high level targets. 
 Not sure as we work in a number of countries in Africa. NEPAD could support AFAAS to look at 
this in terms of extension and advisory services. 
 Our CAADP is for regional actions, CAADP still in initial stages. 
 The SADC RAP is just being operationalized now and so countries have not had a chance to adapt 
their NAIPs to the RAP. The answers above also depend on the country. Countries such as 
Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia have made significant headway in the CAADP process whereas 
South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Mauritius, etc. are progressing gradually. 
 Comme indiqué plus haut nous n'avons pas travaillé sur un pays spécifique mais sur l'échelle 
régionale. 
 Moyenne/aperçu de plusieurs pays... Les PNIA ont presque tous été considérés comme des 
phénomènes uniques, au lieu d'être – comme c'était l'intention – un processus dynamique. NPCA 
et les RECs ne sont pas parvenu à mettre en place ce processus dynamique... Sauf peut-être la 
CEDEAO. Le MDTF aurait dû contribuer à cela, mais il a failli. La mise en place d'équipes 
compétentes, bien formées et rétribuée, pour améliorer la planification sur bases des principes du 
PDDAA n'était pas une priorité (malheureusement). 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mobilized financial resources for programs and
projects in the NAIP?
Adopted recommendations from NAIP
technical reviews, including recommendations
on cross-cutting issues (such as inclusion,
gender, and climate change)? **
Had an independent technical review of the
NAIP?
CAADP Focal Points (n=30) CAADP Partners (n=22)
Percent "Yes"
56 
NPCA Partners 
 It's a very mixed picture. I am not in a position to provide accurate answers regarding the situation 
in all of the 10 countries in which I work. 
COMESA Partners 
 Subsidies vs. growth sector investments. 
 Most of the 11 countries I work in have addressed the above. 
 There are mixed results in the different countries I work in. 
ECCAS Partners 
 The financial resources mobilization is still ongoing 
ECOWAS Partners 
 ECOWAS has done well in CAADP. 
 Seulement niveau regional. 
 En ce qui nous concerne, il s'agit plus du PRIA (régional) que du PNIA (national). 
SADC Partners 
 The last question...given the RAP and Regional Investment Plan is in development, I don’t think 
this is yet possible. 
57 
C. Intermediate Results Area 2 
Question 9. Has the country that you work on mostly institutionalized accountability and 
evidence-based planning and decision making at the national level in the following ways? 
None of the response rates between CAADP Focal Points and Partners are significantly different. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Most countries we work in have effectively benefited from CAADP to strengthen their M&E systems 
and they are considered rigorous. 
 Some of the countries in the SADC including Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and 
Zimbabwe have made some progress in opening up in order to strengthen their M&E through 
SAKSS nodes, and if funding can become available, going forward M&E systems can strengthen 
further in these countries going forward. 
 This varies a lot between countries. 
NPCA Partners 
 It's a very mixed picture. I am not in a position to provide accurate answers regarding the situation 
in all of the 10 countries mentioned above. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Has established a functional M&E system that
generates national-level reports on core
CAADP indicators
Uses technical evidence generated through
CAADP analysis in official decision making,
strategies, plans, and programs
Has undertaken a country-level joint sector
review aligned with CAADP
Maintains multi-stakeholder platforms for
participation in national-level decision making
structures
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=29)
Percent "Yes"
58 
COMESA Partners
 Decision making by policy makers is more for political economy than on evidence. Also the M&E 
system is still under development. 
 There is mixed progress in the many countries I work in. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 ______ est un exemple dans ce domaine parce qu'ayant instaurer le modèle de gestion axé sur les 
résultats comme mode de gestion au niveau du secteur. 
 The M&E system has not been effective since the policy and implementation plan was developed. 
 Si un gros effort a été consenti dans l'internalisation du processus PDDAA, peu d'avancées sont 
enregistrées en matière de suivi-évaluation. 
SADC Partners 
 Mixed picture. In general multi stakeholder platforms exist, and some countries have done the JSR 
with the support of ReSAKSS. However the evidence generated is rarely used to improve policies 
and planning, and most countries still don’t have a functional M&E system to report on CAADP 
indicators. 
Question 10. To what extent are the following stakeholder groups involved in national 
agricultural policy making structures in the country, subregion, or region that you work on? 
None of the response rates between CAADP Focal Points and Partners are significantly different. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Civil society organizations
Commercial private sector
Farmers’ organizations
Government agencies
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=36)
Percent "Involved with much or some influence"
59 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Donors are engaging and are more involved and are influencing more than others some of the 
policy directions. 
 Replies refer to continental level. There has been 'apparent' consultations with CSO, farmers 
organizations and private sector, but in my view more to 'tick to box', rather than to seek real 
contributions. Governments level of involvement is variable, with some countries really committed 
and active and others simply observers. However in general there is little concept of accountability 
of continental/regional institutions to member states, so there is generally little demand for these 
institutions to respond to country needs. There is also poor articulation of country needs by 
countries themselves, so the two levels remain quite disengaged. 
 Development partners. 
 Certains donateurs. 
NPCA Partners 
 Research institutions 
 Development partners 
 It's a very mixed picture. I am not in a position to provide accurate answers regarding the situation 
in all of the 10 countries mentioned above. 
COMESA Partners 
 Politicians or the executive. 
 Research institutions and institutions of higher learning. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Traders. 
 L'exercice PDDAA a permis une montée en puissance des OP, de la Société civile et du privé dans 
la préparation et le suivi de la mise en oeuvre des politiques agricole mais des efforts sont encore 
à fournir afin que ces organisation trouvent leur place effective. Cette culture doit être internalisée 
par les acteurs des services publics. 
 The various stakeholders signed a regional compact for the implementation of the ECOWAP/RAIP. 
There was not much follow-up by ECOWAS Commission to ensure the various actions and 
commitments were achieved as signed. 
 CORAF/WECARD.
 Le secteur privé commerciel tarde encore à s'engager pleinement dans le processus. 
SADC Partners 
 Public-private dialogue characterized by mistrust and misinformation. Government-centred attitude 
from Ministries of Agriculture, who are reluctant to let go and recognize the roles of other 
stakeholders. 
60 
Question 11. What actions would you recommend to bring about greater involvement of 
non-state actors in national agricultural policy making in the country, subregion, or region 
that you work on? 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 The Joint Sector Review Process is the only effective approach that carry incentives to get different 
actors together. The approach would see more non-state actors getting more interested in 
engaging in policy making. 
 Firstly, NEPAD should profile these actors. They should be engaged at national and regional level. 
Invite them to meetings, etc., but engage them directly, e.g. NEPAD has never engaged AFAAS 
yet, this is AUC strong partner in Extension and Advisory services in Africa. 
 Involving apex business women association like ______ women entrepreneurs association limited. 
 I would recommend the tracking system for M&E and in my country in particular I recommend 
linking the current Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) in the CAADP tracking system. 
 Learning from others, share experiences. 
 Make the requirement that that they should be involved in law, i.e. pass legislation to that extent, so 
that there is some negative consequence of non-involvement. Give non-state actors bigger roles to 
play in sectoral meetings including Joint Sector Reviews. Let them be part of the planning 
processes, let them be auditors and let them be audited in the context of mutual accountability. 
Their voices should carry weight too, and governments should not always be at liberty to ignore 
their advice. 
 Pour le niveau sous-regional et regional il est important de les faire représentants dans toute plate￾formée mise en place pour traiter de ces questions. Si les acteurs civils sont représentés ils 
apporteront certainement leurs contributions. 
 To mainstream processes, keep it simple, centered around one initiative, and build capacity. 
 Renforcement des capacité, prévoir un cadre institutionnel "légal' reconnu. 
NPCA Partners 
 Il faut donner aux acteurs civils nationaux non gouvernementaux les capacites de participer aux 
politiques. il s'agit: de capacites de dialogue politique et strategique, de capacites humaines et 
financieres de partage, de discussion et de receherche de consenus au sein de leurs organisations 
respectives des propositions politiques et strategiques nationales. 
 Greater facilitation of participation through broader networking channels not just workshops where 
people are flown to a regional venue. More consensus building and sensitization at country level. 
More communication about success stories. 
 I would recommend an agricultural development and private sector partnership platform for South 
Africa. 
 Capacity development. Peer pressure. Examples of effective engagement and results. 
 Implement the recommendations as stipulated in the CAADP Non-State Actor (NSA) Strategy. 
 At continental level: Strengthen the linkage between PAFO and the continental CAADP process. At 
regional level: the RECs should strengthen their work relationship with the regional farmer 
organization (ROPPA, PROPAC, EAFF, UMAGRI, and SACAU). At national level: FOs should be 
engaged by the public sector in charge of developing the agricultural development policies. 
 Adopt a multi-sector approach that opens more space for private sector. 
 Give them a structural responsibility in the policy making process, rather than simply consultation. 
 More involvement of CSOs, private sector. 
61 
 Il faudrait réorganiser les acteurs civiles et mieux partager l'information sur le PDDAA. 
COMESA Partners 
 Stakeholder involvement is currently happening at a reasonable level, however, as earlier stated, it 
is the implementation of such consensus resolutions that are not implemented. Also for political 
expedience, a lot of policy reversals without prior consultation by policy makers makes 
participation/investments in agriculture very risky. 
 The creation of clear operational guidelines for the various actors. 
 Civil society needs to be better coordinated and to contribute constructively as other stakeholders 
with an aim of seeing improvements for the common good, which means making tradeoff. 
ECCAS Partners 
 Most non-state actors do not have the capacity to be involved in agricultural Policy making. Their 
capacity needs to be strengthened in the area of policy making. 
 Meilleur structuration et organization des acteurs non etatiques. Renforcement de capacite. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Renforcer les capacités des organisations des producteurs, du secteur privé et de la société civile 
pour une meilleure implication et influence des politiques. 
 PPP dialogue meetings. 
 Plus de capacités de réflexion et de capacités techniques au niveau des acteurs civils. Ceci 
permettra d'asseoir leur crédibilité. Implication dans les organes de pilotage et de S&E des 
politiques et des grands programmes de développement. Modernisation de leur mode de 
fonctionnement. 
 Improved coordination between ECOWAS and the individual stakeholders. Detailed action plans 
for the various stakeholders commitments. Proper function of the regional agricultural policy fund. 
 La société civil devra être impliquê des le debuts du processus comme ca étê fait au niveau de 
l'Afrique de l'ouest par la CEDEAO. 
 The private sector needs to be well organized and structured at national and regional levels. 
 Mettre en oeuvre des projets de renforcement de capacités d'implication (formulation de 
propositions, plaidoyer-lobbying pour la valorisation des propositions formulées). Faciliter les 
concertations entre les leaders des organisations d'acteurs et leurs "bases" (bénéficiaires finaux 
des politiques). 
SADC Partners 
 Parliament (in its role as monitoring and requiring accountability of the Executive) should request 
the Ministry of Agriculture to draft guidelines on the participation of all relevant stakeholders (with 
an explicit highlighting of non-state actors) in policy-making processes. 
 Difficult question. There have to be incentives for all stakeholders to engage and participate. 
Continue and strengthen the platforms, provide financing directly to Non-State Actors, as is the 
case now. Better link the Grow Africa and CAADP processes, go beyond the Ministry of 
Agriculture. Involve Ministry of Finance to a greater degree, also President’s or Prime Minister’s
Office when needed. 
 Increased consultations, that result in clear policy actions. Some non-state actors are not well 
organized and consequently decision makers may not hear a comprehensive position from certain 
sectors or elements with the sector. 
 Make them aware, involve them. 
62 
D. Intermediate Results Area 3 
Question 12. To what extent do you feel that the internal/external communications and 
overall knowledge management among regional and national-level CAADP stakeholders 
have changed in the last five years (since 2010) in the following ways? 
** Indicates significantly different at the 95% level of confidence, and * at the 90% level of confidence. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners
 Communication and knowledge management has been weaker part of CAADP. 
 Il y a eu une tentative de site web, mais depuis 5 années... c'est un désastre. Tant d'argent 
dépensé... mais la communication/échange d'information n'ont jamis été une priorité ni de NPCA ni 
de MDTF. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Les forums se tiennent fréquemment. Cependant, les outils et techniques de communication sont à 
renforcer. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Through increased diversity of information
users in different sectors such as government
ministries, media, and civil society **
Through the development of new tools for
CAADP communication and information
sharing *
Through the use of CAADP communications
products in agricultural policies and decision
making **
Through the regular update and dissemination
of the information shared
Through more frequent discussions on CAADP
at international and continental level fora
CAADP Focal Points (n=32) CAADP Partners (n=33)
Percent "Much improvement" and "Some improvement"
63 
E. Intermediate Results Area 4 
Question 13. To what extent do you feel that the development and management of mutually 
beneficial CAADP partnerships at the regional and national levels have changed in the last 
five years (since 2010) in the following ways? 
* Indicates significantly different responses at the 90% level of confidence. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 But more needs to be done at the national level. 
 Il faut noter que pour ce qui nous concerne notre implication dans les processus PDDAA est 
principalement réalisée à travers TerrAfrica qui traite de pillier "gestion durable des terres et des 
eaux" du PDDAA. 
 Probably too many parallel initiatives over and above CAADP. 
 Il y a trop d'initiatives parallèles qui font ombrage au PDDAA. Au lieu d'avoir un programme 
continental, regional et pays clair et simple, il y en a plusieurs, lancés par les pays, les RECs, les 
partenaires techniques et financiers; le MDTF n'a pas permis de focaliser les efforts sur le PDDAA, 
au contraire. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The level of future funding sources identified and brokered for
CAADP
The number of action points across different stakeholders
agreed upon and implemented as tabled at the Partnership
Platform *
The level of private sector investments into African agriculture
The number of African agricultural policy position papers
jointly agreed at CAADP Governance for a *
The number of partnership events efficiently and effectively
delivered.
The number of partnerships established for effective technical
support and joint assistance
The level of alignment of partner support to CAADP processes
More effective CAADP governance through greater
coordination and collaboration among continental and regional
organizations
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=38)
Percent "Much improvment" and "Some improvement"
64 
NPCA Partners 
 The current structure of the partnership need to be assessed and revitalized where need be. The 
value addition of each platform need to sharpen and the interrelation between the different 
platforms. 
 Based on casual empiricism. 
 The next level is crafting effective implementation modalities that dove tail with national 
governmental systems. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Beaucoup de rencontres régionales sont réalisées. Cependant les effets tardent à se faire en 
matière de mobilisation de ressources et d'alignement. 
SADC Partners 
 A part from GAFSP there have not been additional sources of funding available at country level, for 
both public and private sector investment. The WEF/G8 Grow Africa initiative has allowed some 
improved public-private dialogue in select countries, and limited additional private sector 
investment. Evidence of additional externally financed public sector investment for agriculture at 
country level is hard to come by. Most partners have their multi-year planning and programming 
frameworks, and these are the resources that are available, irrespective of whether the country has 
a NAIP, does its Business Meeting, etc...To a certain degree, countries have been taken for a ride 
with this CAADP process, as they were expecting additional resources, which have not 
materialized. On the other hand they were also expected to invest more domestic resources and in 
a better way, and that has happened to some degree. 
65 
Question 14. CAADP has adopted an aspirational statement on partnerships and alliances 
to guide the development and management of mutually beneficial partnerships at the 
regional and national levels. Please rate the progress that the country which you work on 
has made in terms of applying these principles. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 This all depends on the leadership of the partnerships and the aspirations to be achieved. 
 It is difficult to generalize in such a diverse region as the Horn of Africa. 
NPCA Partners 
 I am not in a position to provide accurate answers regarding the situation in all of the 10 countries 
in which I work. 
 Responses based on the specific countries with which I have been most closely engaged in East 
and Southern Africa. 
COMESA Partners 
 As indicated earlier, we do not support any CAADP programmes or directly agriculture 
programmes in COMESA except for a few fragmented ones under the COMESA cluster Initiative. 
However, we are very keen on absorbing some of the CAADP activities under the 11th ED 
COMESA sub envelope specifically dealing in Regional Value Chains. The IPPSD division of 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dialogue, (peer) review and mutual accountability
stimulate and broaden the practice of benchmarking,
mutual learning, and harmonization of national
development efforts
Partnerships and alliances go beyond conventional inter￾sector linkages to include comprehensive interventions
with clear collaborative work arrangements such as inter￾ministerial cooperation and public-private partnerships
Dialogue, (peer) review and mutual accountability at the
national level open the door to collective responsibility and
inclusive participation down to local (grassroots) structures
Partnerships and alliances facilitate alignment and
harmonization of development efforts between national
governments and development partners
Partnerships and alliances enable and ease access to
greater technical expertise (knowledge and skills)
Partnerships and alliances raise participation in the policy
making process by farmer organizations and other
stakeholders, including the private sector
A great deal of progress Considerable progress Modest progress No progress
66 
COMESA was asked to include input from the CAADP team into the Project Identification Fiches. 
These are yet to be finalized. 
 Whereas peer review and consensus building is great, it is the lack of implementation that hinders 
progress. Stakeholders may be consulted and resolutions passed only to end on the shelf of some 
ministry. That type of peer review yields nothing! 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Le processus PDDAA a effectivement d'excellent principes relativement au partenariat, aux 
alliances et à la revue par les pais mais, dans la pratique du processus de la préparation des PNIA 
par exemple, plusieurs partenariats et alliances n'ont été que très formels. Dans plusieurs pays, les 
ministères de l'agriculture ont piloté l'essentiel de l'exercice, impliquant autant que possible, la 
société civile (OP et ONG) tannique le secteur privé a rarement joué un rôle actif. Cela est 
particulièrement vrai pour les premiers pays ayant conclu l'exercice. Voilà un domaine à améliorer 
au cours du prochain cycle. 
 ECOWAS is holding the first ever regional agriculture joint sector review. 
 Beaucoup d'efforts reste à faire en matière d'alignement et d'implication des communuatés et 
acteurs à la base (vilages, collectivités locales). 
SADC Partners 
 There has been a disconnect between the actions of development partners supporting the MDTF 
at regional/continental level and the actions of those same partners at national level. The World 
Bank for instance participated in all these regional fora, and managed the MDTF, but at country 
level not one single additional project was mobilized to finance the NAIPs, and very often the WB 
country staff had only very partial understanding of and sympathy for the on-going CAADP 
process. The same can be said of all the major partners involved in supporting the MDTF, including 
the EU, DFID, USAID. With respect to multi-sectoral coordination, Ministries of Agriculture have 
tended to see the NAIP as theirs, and as an instrument for more public financing for their Ministry, 
with limited involvement of other stakeholders such as farmers organizations, private sector, civil 
society, etc. There have been some minor progress in all these issues, but more could have been 
achieved through a closer interaction between regional/continental level support and country level 
support. 
67 
Question 15. To what extent do you feel that your organization’s involvement has enhanced 
the relevance and effectiveness of the CAADP activities that you have worked on in the 
following ways? (n=37) 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 During EC chairmanship of the DPTT, efforts were made to map donors' support to CAADP 
through the publication: "Catching the picture of CAADP support flows". 
 Building capacity for CAADP implementation through trainings. 
 Sur financements propres, ou de donateurs en dehors du MDTF. 
NPCA Partners 
 Provided capacity building at country and regional level on the CAADP process both historical and 
ongoing. 
COMESA Partners 
 Activities supported by USAID mostly follow national priorities. 
ECCAS Partners 
 By consulting national stakeholders one will realize that FAO's involvement in the process 
enhanced the relevance and effectiveness of the CAADP activities. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Helped in attracting funding for CAADP
activities
Helped in scaling up/out the beneficial
outcomes from CAADP activities
Helped in outreach and communication of
CAADP activities
Increased the relevance of CAADP activities
from the point of view of users and
beneficiaries
Increased the relevance of CAADP activities
from the point of view of generating useful
information
To a high degree To a considerable degree To a modest degree Not at all
68 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Consensus building in Africa. 
 TCI en tant que service technique spécialisé dan la formulation de projets de développement rural 
a prolongé dans ces activités normales, l'explication et l'utilisation des principes du PDDAA auprès 
des acteurs nationaux. 
 Notre organisation est le principal facilitateur de dialogue PDDAA dans sa zone d'intervention. Elle 
est aussi largement impliquée dans l'élaboration des programmes, la mobilisation de ressources et 
la mise en place de structures d'exécution, de financement et de suivi-évaluation. 
SADC Partners 
 FAO's involvement has resulted in a modest increase in attracting funding for CAADP activities, 
and in outreach and communication of CAADP activities. 
Question 16. To what extent have the CAADP activities that you have worked on... (n=37)
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 Most activities at continental level were intended to feed a process, but it was not clear to me what 
this process is adding to country processes which is where real progress and impact can take 
place. In addition, there has not been sufficient clarity on the distribution of roles and 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
... did not duplicate activities that were
underway in other organizations?
... provided strong and high quality evidence to
support the results?
... generated results that made sense and were
easily understood?
... produced results that are being adopted to
address development challenges?
... had a good understanding of the policy￾making processes in the country in which the
activities were being conducted?
... produced results that are proving useful for
decision making?
... addressed the most important issues relating
to agricultural and rural development?
To a high degree To a considerable degree To a modest degree Not at all
69 
responsibilities of different AU institutions (for example, between AUC and NEPAD), and on the 
principle of subsidiarity (what is best done at continental, at regional and at country level). 
 AFAAS is still a young organization hence not many activities apart from the well appreciated 
extension Week and Country forums emergence to support CAADP processes at national level. 
 La mise en place récente des cadre stratégiques d'investissement dans la GDT a fait des avancés 
importantes sur les questions posées ci-dessus. Mais pour ce qui est de l'appéciations des 
résultats et impacts nous devons encore attendre quelques temps. 
COMESA Partners 
 M&E still under start up. 
ECCAS Partners 
 By consulting national stakeholders one will realize that FAO's involvement in the process 
enhanced the relevance and effectiveness of the CAADP activities. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Des rapports de performances sont régulièrement produits. Cependant, il reste à systématiser 
l'annexe de livrables à ces rapports. 
SADC Partners 
 I found the premise of this question a bit confusing, but answered from the perspective of my 
personal involvement in CAADP support activities. 
70 
Question 17. Overall, how satisfied have you been working as a partner on CAADP 
activities? 
There are no significant differences between the degrees of satisfaction of working with different 
organizations.
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 CAADP has become a brand on the continent and globally. Agriculture had moved out of the list of 
priorities by governments but also at global debate it was relegated to only donors. The African 
ownership and leadership has been regained through CAADP. 
 As representative of a development partner contributing to the WB-managed MDTF, I feel 
resources have not been properly prioritized, roles and responsibilities not clarified, and the 
continental processes are not designed to promote, add value and respond to country needs. 
 NEPAD needs to engage all the regional organizations so as to support the national CAADP 
processes, especially now in the renewed CAADP momentum – Malabo Declaration. 
 The private sector should have participated better and delivered on key metrics. 
 We are still at the regional (REC) level are at the investment planning phase. 
 Je suis satisfait de ma collaboration avec les service du department de l'économie rural et de 
l'agriculture, aisni que su SAFGRAD, et également avec le NEPAD. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
With SADC (n=4)
With AUC-DREA (n=10)
With ECOWAS (n=8)
With NPCA (n=11)
With COMESA (n=5)
With ECCAS (n=2)
With All Organizations
(n=40)
Very satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied
71 
 Nous avons apporté un appui important et reconnu dans un grand nombre de pays pour le 
Compact, les PNIA/PNIASA, leur mise en oeuvre (la plupart du temps, sans financement du 
MDTF). 
NPCA Partners 
 Lack of institutional and HR capacities on partner side continues to be a challenge. The challenge 
may deteriorate with the MDTF coming to a close. 
 Slow progress. Progress undermined at times by some donors, at others by competition between 
African institutions, at others by limited appreciation of “the problem” by governments. An African 
owned narrative for improving agricultural performance based on a convincing problem analysis is 
still illusive. 
 CAADP has brought agriculture back into a priority policy agenda. It is the most visible and 
successful regional integration framework of the AU well beyond other sectors. MDTF has allowed 
AUC and NPCA to learn and experience a high level of learning in regional and continental 
programming. This can only be experiential learning since know of such can only be at the point of 
action. 
 Satisfied with the goals but frustrated with the bureaucratization of everything. 
 Il aurait fallu que le PDDAA s'appuie plus sur toutes les organisations régionales africaines et pas 
de manière selective. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Il n'y a pas de mesures pour suivre véritablement et contraindre les états membres à suivre 
scrupuleusement les orientation. Parfois l'alignement est sur le papier. 
 It is a unique framewok well elaborated with inclusive particpation of all stakeholders that can help 
the transformation of African Agriculture. 
 Quelque esprit et réflexe de concurrence gène la coopération inter-institutionelle. Certains acteurs 
semblent "défendre" des intérêts plutôt personnels (dévoiement de ressources, accaparement). 
SADC Partners 
 Frustrated by the excessive focus at continental and regional level, and the lack of focus and 
support at national level. Frustrated that Investment Plans are prepared and then not financed, that 
M&E systems are not strengthened to provide expected reporting, frustrated at the continuing 
mistrust between public and private sector, and at the continued poor alignment and weak 
coordination of development partners at national level. 
 Progress is painfully slow and investment toward key CAADP objectives and meeting CAADP 
targets are not high priorities in some countries. Regional economic community resources, 
structures and capacities are also lacking to advance the CAADP agenda. 
72 
Question 18. How would you rate the overall quality of your organization’s partnership 
with CAADP activities in comparison with the activities of other organizations that you 
work with? 
There are no significant differences between the quality of the partnerships with different organizations.
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 EU has taken an active role in CAADP governance as Chair of the Development Partners Task 
Team. 
 C'est partenarit qui traite de sujets concrets sur la base de programmes de travail concrets. 
 MDTF did not manage to improve management/organization/communication (see CAADP website 
as an example). 
NPCA Partners 
 NEPAD has some talented and committed staff. 
ECCAS Partners 
 FAO played a major role in the formulation of the national agricultural investment plan in Central 
Africa. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
With ECOWAS (n=8)
With COMESA (n=5)
With AUC-DREA (n=10)
With NPCA (n=9)
With SADC (n=3)
With ECCAS (n=2)
With All Organizations
(n=37)
Much better Better Same Worse
73 
ECOWAS Partners 
 TCI est une institution dont le travail est largement basé sur le partenariat (BM; IFAD, AfDB, etc). Il 
est difficile de dire qu'un partenariat est meilleur à l'autre. 
 En fait, toutes nos activités sont centrées sur le PDDAA. 
SADC Partners 
 In most cases FAO mobilizes its own financing to provide support to Regional and National level 
partners and provides independent and technically sound advice. 
Question 19. What are the most important ways in which your organization has benefited 
from your association with CAADP activities? 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 In bringing together government, non-state actors and farmers in one dialogue. Forming policy in 
identifying the gaps. 
 Raising the profile of agriculture on the continent. Helping countries to be more clear on their 
priorities. 
 AFAAS has been strongly promoting the FAAP principles, working with FARA and subregional 
research organizations. 
 Knowledge and networking. 
 My organization has benefited through the inclusion of gender perspectives into the CAADP 
activities. 
 Alignment with the continental and global agendas (e.g., Agenda 2063 of the AU. 
 Our program has expanded the pool/network of experts on which we can rely on to solve issues 
relevant for CAADP. 
 Notre associations aux activités du PDDAA, comme indiqué plus haut s'est faite à travers 
TerrAfrica et les reunions de concertations ou de preparation de documents organisées par 
SAFGRAD. Cette participation a permis de promouvoir la gestion durable des terres objet de 
l'UNCCD. Ceci est donc un grand atout pour la mise en oeuvre de la convention en Afrique. 
 We did not benefit per se, as we provided support, provided funding outside the MDTF, etc. 
NPCA Partners 
 Mon organisation a profite de sa participation aux activites du PDDAA a travers: Ses echanges 
avec les organisations sous regionales africaines: mise a jour et enrichissement mutuel sur le plan 
des politiques et strategies agricoles en Afrique et dans le monde. Meilleure connaissance des 
politiques sectorielles et economiques nationales. Identification de cadres africains de haut niveau 
capables de conduire les processus de dialogue politique, de preparer des programmes 
d'investissement, d'evaluer des politiques et programmes. 
 We've produced training material on lessons learnt and how to develop NAIPs and RAIPs. 
 FAO funded the CAADP consultative process in SA involving 9 Provinces and resulted in the draft 
CAADP compact, though not yet signed. 
 Helped to focus program support. 
 Our organization has been acknowledged as one of NPCA's/AUC-DREA's most valued partners. 
This has helped to raise the profile of our support programme. 
74 
 The implementation of concrete ATVET measures in 6 Countries. The establishment of a climate 
change Fund in support to adaptions measures in the countries and also the capacity development 
in drafting well sound proposals to accept international. 
 Stronger networks of players, activists, experts and analysts. 
 Learning and outreach. 
 A reçu beaucoup d'information et de documentation sur le PDDAA. 
COMESA Partners 
 In the spirit of complementarity and finding synergies, I have been able to attend meetings on 
CAADP to try and learnt and understood issues that maybe of interest to us and use that 
information in the planning of programmes under the EUR85 million sub envelope under the 11th 
EDF. Therefore our association with CAADP has been through learning about their programmes 
and using that information to feed into our identification phase of the 11th EDF process. 
 Not sure about the benefits. Suffice to say that we have tried to ensure that policies are 
predictable, consistent for the growth of the sector and the economy as a whole. 
 In respect to capacity building. 
 Prioritization of our interventions so that they are relevant to the regional and national aspirations. 
ECCAS Partners 
 FAO was one of the major CAADP actors since the beginning of the process by preparing the initial 
documents. Therefore FAO had much to give in term of providing expertise and support to the 
implementation in Africa. 
 Deroulement d'un processus politique avec des objectifs quantitatifs dote de cibles et references. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Information on agro spending. 
 Les apports et appuis techniques de TCI ont été appréciés. La vision de TCI sur la nécessité et la 
forme à donner au renforcement des capacités des a acteurs nationaux a été largement partagée 
avec les partenaires. 
 Notre organization a donnes des instructions claires d'aligner tous les activites sur le terrain avec le 
ECOWAP/PDDAA. 
 CORAF/WECARD signed MOU with ECOWAS in 2005 and with ECCAS in 2008 as the technical
arms of these organizations in the implementation of the Pillar 4 of CAADP. CORAF/WECARD 
aligned its Strategic and Operational Plans on CAADP and the regional agricultural policy of 
ECOWAS (ECOWAP). This has provided opportunities to get funding of its Operational Plans by 
Development Partners and also by ECOWAS. 
 Capitalisation d'expériences. Visibilité améliorée. Utilité accrue. Ressources financières 
complémentaires. 
SADC Partners 
 Having a voice in the discussion of activities with implications for the sugar industry. 
 FAO has benefitted from being involved in the CAADP process. However not enough internal 
communication between those attending CAADP PP meetings and meetings at continental level, 
with support at country level. However FAO has mostly provided support to country level and 
regional level with the preparation of investment plans. Strengthen national processes instead of 
adding a layer of regional processes on fragile national institutions. 
75 
 As a key supporter and donor of the CAADP agenda in Africa it is part of my responsibilities to 
participate, engage and monitor the progress of CAADP in the region. Our high-level donor 
objectives which include reduced poverty and improved food security are long term goals that 
require an enabling environment conducive for agricultural sector growth. CAADP synthesizes the 
key components and policies that are needed for the regions and the continent to harmonize their 
policies and investment. 
 Harmonization and common focus of CAADP goals across countries; use of common framework. 
76 
F. Other Survey Results 
Question 20. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? 
None of the response rates between CAADP Focal Points and Partners are significantly different. 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 On the third question I agree, providing that continental and regional institutions response to 
country needs, which is not always the case. 
 Agriculture is the competitive edge of Africa globally. 
 Si la croissance agricole est généralisée l'offre sera supérieure à la demande ce qui aura des 
impacts négétifs sur les economies des pays concernés. 
NPCA Partners 
 I believe that the greatest opportunity for Africa is through an agriculture-led social and economic 
transformation, and because smallholder agriculture holds the largest population, leveraging public 
sector investment wisely is crucial. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strengthening the capacity of continental and
regional institutions is a very effective way of
supporting regional and country-level CAADP
processes.
Public expenditure planning and budgeting are
a very good strategic entry point to improve
country-level agricultural policies and
institutions.
Broadly based agricultural growth is a very
effective way to create wealth and reduce
poverty in agriculture-based economies in
Africa.
CAADP Focal Points (n=35) CAADP Partners (n=41)
Percent "Agree" and "Strongly Agree"
77 
COMESA Partners 
 Budgeting by countries must be followed by effective implementation. Also, the implementation 
should concentrate on growth sub-sectors of agriculture like R&D and NOT subsidies that limit 
private sector participation. 
ECCAS Partners 
 By consulting national stakeholders one will realize that FAO's involvement in the process 
enhanced the relevance and effectiveness of the CAADP activities. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Je crois que la croissance agricole est effectivement un moyen pour réduire la pauvreté. Mais ce 
moyen tout important qu'il soit ne pourrait être efficace que s'il est suivi d'une bonne gouvernance 
et d'une bonne articulation/complémentarité avec les autres pans des économie africaine. Cela 
n'est malheureusement pas toujours le cas. 
 L'accroissement de la production agricole va nécessairement développer les industries d'amont 
(production d'équipements et d'intrants) et les industries d'aval (transformation des produits, 
circuits de distribution). Les ressources publiques, plutôt que l'aide au développement, doit être le 
moteur des investissements agricoles pour le développement rural et la sécurité alimentaire. 
SADC Partners 
 Strengthening continental and regional institutions has not always translated into very effective 
country level support. NPCA has been involved in putting together teams to review the National 
Agriculture Investment Plan, and the RECs have financed the Business Meeting, but this has not 
resulted in increased investment at country level. At regional level only ECOWAS and ECCAS 
have a regional investment plan at the closing of MDTF, with mixed results regarding their 
implementation. SADC and COMESA still don’t have an investment plan, despite receiving large 
amounts of financing a few years ago. 
 Increasing the participation of smallholder farmers and producers into supply chains and value 
chains is critical to create wealth, reduce poverty and grow the regional agricultural sector. Policies 
should be designed to encourage investment, increase competitiveness and trade in the region. 
78 
Question 2125. For how many years have you been involved in the implementation of 
CAADP activities in any capacity? (n=38) 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of Respondents
Number of Years Involved in the Implementation of CAADP
79 
Question 22. How familiar are you with the following? 
Additional Comments 
AUC-DREA Partners 
 I was effective and leading in some cases in the design of all these. 
 AFAAS is CAADP institution that was born in 2014. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 J'ai participer aux activités d'élaboration de la stratégie et de la feuille de route pour 
l'opérationnalisation de la déclaration de Malabo. 
 Notre travail a été basé sur ces éléments. 
 Une expérience en Afrique Centrale m'a le plus familiarisé au FFMD. 
SADC Partners 
 I am very concerned about the MDTF coming to a close in December 2015. SADC is beginning to 
make good progress in the development of the RAP implementation plan and agriculture 
investment plan. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund
administered by the World Bank that has been
helping to strengthen the capacity of African…
The Implementation Strategy and Roadmap to
Achieve the 2025 Vision on CAADP
The roles of continental and regional
organizations in supporting country-level
CAADP processes
The CAADP Results Framework, 2015–2025
The Malabo Declaration on Accelerated
Agricultural Growth and Transformation for
Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods
CAADP Focal Points (n=33) CAADP Partners (n=39)
Percent "Highly familiar" and "Considerably familiar"
80 
Question 23. Do you have any additional comments that you would like to share with respect to 
your experiences as your country’s CAADP Focal Point?
AUC-DREA Partners 
 CAADP has a strong role, and has brought donors to a common rallying point for agriculture in 
Africa. CAADP needs strong leaders at the continental and regional (RECs) level. Donors need to 
make meaningful commitments and support common and pooled resources. 
 CAADP is an African-owned programme which needs to be embraced by all actors. It brings strong 
partners all levels – national, regional and international. CAADP is highly recognized by the 
development partners hence NEPAD-NPCA. AFAAS signed an MOU with AUC and it’s only 
through close working with NEPAD-NPCA that we can realize the provisions of this MOU, hence I 
call upon AFAAS and NEPAD-NPCA to engage and work together in supporting CAADP in regard 
to agriculturally extension and advisory services. I have always followed the CAADP issues and 
happy to continue that engagement. 
 We need more accountability from the actors on the delivery on the respective metrics. 
 Personally I believe that the CAADP ideology is still very relevant in the transformation process 
needed for Africa's Agricultural Sustainability and Development processes. 
 The CAADP process needs more political and financial support from within Africa and outside and 
development partners need to do more. Areas that are critical for implementation include analysis, 
M&E, capacity building and policy. Good policies save lives. 
 Le MDTF n'a pas fédéré une coordnation efficace des PTF, au contraire elle a exacerbé des 
groupes qui n'étaient pas coordonnés. L'appui à NPCA en particulier aurait pu être beaucoup plus 
efficace! Nous sommes loin de la déclaration de Paris et de l'Agenda d'Accra! 
NPCA Partners 
 It has been a very rewarding experience in terms of the high profile now being given to all aspects 
of agriculture and food security. 
 The design of the new support structures and guidelines need to be tailored to country needs. 
Therefore the regional and continental CAADP institutions have a lot to learn from countries and 
therefore, they should in at the center of any design process. 
 The next level must focus on support at the country level. 
 CAADP management is overstretched and has little capacity to respond to or use the outputs of 
studies and consultancy services. 
 RECs should work together and avoid duplicating activities. 
 J'ai assisté à 2 ou 3 Réunions de partenariat du PDDAA et e suis fière d'avoir contribué au 
développé de la phase 2 du PDDAA. Je déplore seulement que malgré les déclarations d'intention, 
le NEPAD n'arrive ou ne veut toujours pas a officiellement impliquer les organisations sous 
régionales africaines d'éducation dans la mise en rouvre. 
COMESA Partners 
 We understand that COMESA has approved the setting up of an Agriculture Unit within the 
Secretariat. This is the right step in the right direction as it will help to consolidate the various 
fragmented agriculture activities in the COMESA region. Although i do not have any experience in 
working on any CAADP activities, it is my hope that n future, the EU will consider to fund directly 
CAADP in COMESA from the EDF funds. 
 Host governments must improve on implementation. Zambia has done well in terms of consulting 
stakeholders on issues in the agricultural sector, but it has failed to move the growth due to political 
81 
economy and frequent changes of policy makers at e.g. Ministerial and Permanent Secretary 
levels. They need to keep the enabling policy environment favorable, predictable and consistent. 
ECOWAS Partners 
 Need practical investment vehicle. 
SADC Partners 
 The support for the Malabo phase should focus more at country level, and less at continental and 
regional level. 
 CAADP processes take considerable time to conduct comprehensive and meaningful 
consultations. 
 CAADP needs to further exploit the goodwill it has from countries and other regional bodies.