CAADP MDTF: NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA) Child Trust Fund (P121914)

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized AFRICA Africa Agriculture Global Practice Recipient Executed Activities Specific Investment Loan FY 2011 Seq No: 4 ARCHIVED on 28-Dec-2015 ISR22333 Implementing Agencies: Public Disclosure Authorized Key Dates Key Project Dates Bank Approval Date:15-Dec-2010 Original Closing Date:31-Dec-2013 Project Development Objectives Effectiveness Date:11-Apr-2011 Revised Closing Date:31-Dec-2015 Public Disclosure Authorized Project Development Objective (from Project Appraisal Document) Improved enabling environment for African agricultural programs and policies at national, regional and continental level. Has the Project Development Objective been changed since Board Approval of the Project Objective? No PHRPDODEL Components Name Overall Ratings Public Disclosure Authorized Name Previous Rating Current Rating Progress towards achievement of PDO Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Overall Implementation Progress (IP) Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Implementation Status and Key Decisions The NEPAD Agency continued to make progress towards achievement of the CTF development objective. Examples of activities contributing to this progress include: finalizing the guidelines for the NAIP reviews, providing input into IGAD s regional investment plan and supporting national processes in Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Seychelles and Swaziland. Monitoring CAADP s impact and results is a core function of the NEPAD Agency. However, the Agency has still not increased its monitoring and evaluation capacity, despite repeated recommendations from previous missions. As a result, CAADP lacks the capacity to generate evidence of impact and quality at national and regional levels. In the meantime, however, with temporary support, the NEPAD Agency has completed its Results Framework and collected all actual values for its intermediate and PDO indicators (in partnership with AUC). The NEPAD Agency has made progress in the development of profiles for its 12/28/2015 Page 1 of 14

2 intermediate indicators and verification of baseline values and annual targets for all indicators. The collection of RF data at the PDO level provides sufficient evidence that the NEPAD Agency has indeed made progress towards achievement of the grant development objective. 12/28/2015 Page 2 of 14

3 Risks Overall Risk Rating Risk Category Rating at Approval Previous Rating Current Rating Overall Low -- Moderate 12/28/2015 Page 3 of 14

4 Key adjustments to management and resource allocations (e.g. devoting money to M&E) have taken a very long time and increased the overall risk. Results Project Development Objective Indicators PHINDPDOTBL Effectiveness and inclusiveness of national structures in agricultural policy making (Text, Custom) Value Level of inclusiveness: 68.61%; Level of effectiveness: 77.78% -- Date 01-Jan Oct Dec Dec-2015 The data that are presented here are derived from the Survey Monkey and were collected in the ECCAS[1], COMESA[2] and SADC[3] regions. The level of inclusiveness determines the level of participation of different stakeholders (government, farmers organizations, CSOs, private sector and others) in events and processes held by each country. All listed actors are strongly involved in decision-making in the agricultural sector. The level of inclusiveness, (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of participation, meaning high and very high) reaches 64.31% for ECCAS, 71.51% for COMESA and 70% for SADC. The global level of participation of the listed stakeholders for ECCAS, COMESA and SADC is as follows (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of participation, meaning High and Very High): 1. Government: 48.37% 2. Farmers organizations: 67.65% 3. CSOs: 60.41% 4. Private sector: 45.84% 5. Others: 66.47% For 2014, the level of inclusiveness was 77.34% which averaged results from two RECs: ECCAS: 73.68% and COMESA: 81% The level of effectiveness aims at evaluating the contribution of CAADP to changes that occurred in the agricultural sector. Each respondent considers that CAADP has significantly contributed to achieving progress in the agricultural sector. The level of effectiveness (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of participation, meaning important and very important) reaches 83.33% for ECCAS, 83.33% for COMESA and 66.67% for SADC). For 2014, the actual level of effectiveness was 85% with data averaged from ECCAS: 100% and COMESA: 70%. The baseline and target values for inclusiveness and effectiveness were not established. Regarding the type of changes achieved, CAADP contributes to giving more importance to the agricultural sector. [1] All ECCAS countries completed the Survey Monkey: Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic (CAR), Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tome e Principe. [2] 13 out of 16 COMESA countries completed the Survey Monkey: Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. [3] 5 out of 6 SADC countries completed the Survey Monkey: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Tanzania. PHINDPDOTBL Countries (Number, Custom Supplement) 12/28/2015 Page 4 of 14

5 Value PHINDPDOTBL Types of change (Text, Custom Supplement) Value Current actual 2014 result will only be available by end Q and shared with the Bank in Q2 2015, as this is indicator is measured annually and is new as of February, An interim ISR will be submitted as soon as this data becomes available This is a qualitative measurement, therefore, no end target established. PHINDPDOTBL Regional and national-level agriculture policies, plans and programs demonstrating alignment with CAADP principles (Percentage, Custom) Value Evidence was collected using an online survey monkey. The survey was administered in the ECCAS, COMESA and SADC regions. The global level of alignment of investment plans and programs with all four CAADP principles reached an average of 78.03% in 2015 which was comprised of 77.92% for ECCAS, 77.59% for COMESA and 78.57% for SADC (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of alignment, Somewhat Aligned and Totally Aligned). The 2015 target is 10% over the baseline. The level of alignment of investment plans and programs with CAADP principles for ECCAS, COMESA and SADC is as follows: 6. Transparency and Accountability: 83.42% 7. Local Ownership and Responsibility: 75.21% 8. Partnerships and Collective Responsibility: 76.17% 9. Inclusiveness: 77.15% In 2014, the target was 90% (this has since been determined to be overestimated) and the actual achieved was 81.78%, which was an average of ECCAS: 88.33% and COMESA: 75.2%. PHINDPDOTBL Stakeholders satisfied with the quality and utility of CAADP related sector planning, programming and accountability mechanisms andstructures (Percentage, Custom) 12/28/2015 Page 5 of 14

6 Value Date 01-Jan Oct Dec Dec-2015 The data presented was derived from Survey Monkey. For the ECCAS, COMESA and SADC regions, the satisfaction level of the different partners regarding technical assistance is as follows (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of satisfaction, meaning satisfied and very satisfied): 10. Government: 67.14% 11. Farmers organizations: 47.07% 12. CSOs: 37.82% 13. Development partners: 59.53% 14. Private sector: 24.95% 15. Others: 24.57% The 2015 target for the global satisfaction level of partners regarding the technical assistance received was 5% over the baseline. The actual achieved was 65.54% for ECCAS, 39.90% for COMESA and 30.95% for SADC (taking into account levels 4 and 5 of satisfaction, meaning satisfied and very satisfied). The rating on resource mobilization scored lowest in both regions. The criteria of rating included agricultural planning, program development, resource mobilization, program implementation and accountability. Support in agricultural planning, program development and resource mobilization was rated highest for ECCAS (83.10%, 75% and 65.97% respectively). Support in agricultural planning, program development and accountability was rated highest for COMESA (52.63%, 41.51% and 33.33% respectively. Support in program implementation, accountability and agricultural planning was rated highest for SADC (40%, 40% and 35.71% respectively). For 2014, the target was 75% and is now considered to be an overestimate. Actual achieved was 66.22% which is an average of ECCAS: 68.71% and COMESA: 63,72%. PHINDPDOTBL African agricultural policy positions advocated at continental (HOSG) level (Number, Custom) Value Date 01-Jan Oct Dec Dec-2015 In 2014, the major agricultural policy position advocated was the Malabo Declaration. The target was 11, but the achieved result was 8. In 2015, two major policies were adopted: the Malabo Implementation Strategy and Roadmap, and STC Resolutions The target was 2 additional policy papers more than the previous year. The target was achieved. Overall In 2014, the Major Agricultural Policy Position advocated was the Malabo Declaration. Target was 11 (which was 4 over the baseline), however, only 1 was achieved, bringing the actual to 8. In 2015, two major policies were adopted: the Malabo Implementation Strategy and Roadmap, and STC Resolutions. The target was at least 2 additional policy papers. 12/28/2015 Page 6 of 14

7 Intermediate Results Indicators 1.1 Level of satisfaction of technical support to National Governments and RECs (Percentage, Custom) Value This indicator captures the perceived relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the level and quality of technical support received within the rubric of Establishing sustainable capacity for the planning and implementation of CAADP process and systems at Regional and National level. Among ECCAS, COMESA and SADC countries, that provided responses to this question, the average satisfaction levels stood at 45.46% in December This is an aggregate value for the three RECs (ECCAS, COMESA and SADC). The 2015 target for this indicator was 80%. On average, technical support provided by AUC and NPCA was rated at 30.95% and 61.11% respectively. This is an aggregate value for the three RECs (ECCAS, COMESA and SADC). Regarding technical support provided by ECCAS, COMESA and SADC, member States rated their support at 57.14%, 69.23% and 50% respectively. Among ECCAS, COMESA and SADC countries, that provided responses to this question, the average satisfaction levels regarding the quality of ITRs stood at 81,25%. Reasons for the scores ranged from limited contact with AUC and NPCA, technical support not forthcoming, irregular monitoring, inadequate capacity building support of CAADP country teams and other CAADP actors, and slow response of NPCA in providing independent technical review experts. ECCAS member states also pointed out that there is a language issue as all material provided by AUC and NPCA are in English. The 2014 target was 65% and the actual achieved 66.22% - the data entered for the last ISR was incorrectly provided by NPCA. 1.3 Countries with functional CAADP technical nodes (Number, Custom) Value A functional agricultural technical node is defined as a group of people/institutions that regularly update a list of technical assistance needs from all CAADP stakeholders and that tries to make every effort possible to solicit technical support to address those needs. Based on ReSAKSS reports, the following countries have functional SAKSS nodes: Bénin, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda target was 3, actual target was 12, actual 9 12/28/2015 Page 7 of 14

8 1.4 Policy frameworks translated into new programmes reinforcing CAADP implementation (Number, Custom) Value One of the core mandates of the NEPAD Agency is to translate policy decisions and frameworks into implementable plans and programs. In 2015, three additional frameworks were translated into new programs reinforcing CAADP implementation. The CAADP Implementation Support Guidelines were adopted to help countries implement Malabo commitments and goals. The Agricultural Education and Skills Improvement Framework (AESIF) aims at leveraging the quality and quantity of skilled workforce required for the advancement of agricultural growth and the achievement of targets set in the Malabo Declaration. The Continental Education Framework aims at guiding institutional and policy reforms in the education sector to support multi-sectoral implementation of CAADP. 2.1 Country-level CAADP-aligned joint sector reviews (Number, Custom) Value As a way to operationalizing the CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework, countries are being supported to undertake Agriculture Joint sector Reviews (JSRs). To this end, JSR guidelines have been prepared, and capacity needs assessments conducted. In 2014, ReSAKSS provided ongoing technical support for JSR enhancement activities in the 7 pilot countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania). In 2015, ReSAKSS conducted JSR assessments in 11 new countries, in collaboration with AUC, NPCA, Africa Lead, the CAADP Non-State Actors Coalition, and the AGRODEP Modeling Consortium. The 11 countries are Benin, Burundi, Côte d Ivoire, DRC, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. Actual data entered for the previous ISR was incorrect. ReSAKSS is planning to add 12 countries in Countries using technical evidence generated through CAADP analysis in official decision-making, strategies, plans or programs (Percentage, Custom) Value Date 01-Jan Oct Dec Dec-2015 Findings from the Survey Monkey conducted in the ECCAS, COMESA and SADC member States reveal that 51.47% of the countries that undertook the Survey use technical evidence generated through CAADP analysis in various processes of decision-making. This percentage reaches 37.5% for ECCAS, 76.92% for COMESA and 40% for SADC. 12/28/2015 Page 8 of 14

9 There were testimonies from countries of official reference to CAADP stocktaking reports, CAADP compacts and NAIPs during annual planning and budgeting process. It is noteworthy that increasingly more countries use the technical evidence generated through CAADP processes. Application of the evidence spans planning, budgeting, programme design to accountability. The 2014 actual achieved was 50%. This data was not available at the time of the last ISR. 2.3 Effective structures and systems in place for accountability and capturing feedback from stakeholders at regional and continental levels (Text, Custom) Value Mutual Accountability system in early stages of functionality At least 2 regional functional mutual accountability systems The bi-annual joint planning and review meeting of RECs, NPCA and AUC, together with the annual CAADP Business Meeting have been structured to serve as platforms for feedback and accountability. Guidelines for the bi-annual review architecture are in place to help guide country and regional monitoring and analysis; reports and reporting flow; and accountability and learning platforms. There are on-going efforts to re-configure the CAADP PPs into mutual accountability platforms. Relatedly, there are ongoing efforts facilitating non-state actors (farmer organizations, civil society, private sector etc.) to prepare independent assessment reports on CAADP implementation at regional and continental level. In accordance with the Malabo Declaration, the Sustaining CAADP Momentum (SCM) Results Framework, together with the associated profiled indicators have been finalized. The Results Framework is now a reference instrument and will serve as the backbone for tracking, assessing and reporting progress on actions and emerging results of the Declaration. Other complementary measurement tools to the SCM-Results Framework, such as the AU-NEPAD Guidance Note on Measuring Agriculture Public Expenditures, specific toolkits for undertaking Agriculture Public Expenditure tracking, and the Agriculture JSR Guidelines have been developed. The process of validating, facilitating internalization and domesticating these tools at country level is on-going and should be completed in the first quarter of target was "Functional MA system at continental level" and actual text should have read "Mutual Accountability system in early stages of functionality" 12/28/2015 Page 9 of 14

10 3.1 New knowledge and/or policy packages made available and shared with CAADP stakeholders (Number, Custom) Value Date 01-Jan Oct Dec Dec-2015 PHIRIIND_COMMENT 3.2 Frequency of discussions on CAADP at international and continental level fora (Number, Custom) Value According to statistics tracked internally, the coverage of CAADP internally through NEPAD efforts and networks is on average 17 per month. The average for the African continent in print media is about 12 every month based on Google analytics. 3.3 Level and quality of support to CAADP processes provided by non-agric sectors and actors. (Number, Custom) Value The value for this indicator is not yet available. A team of one international consultant and seven local consultants were supposed to be hired to undertake data collection and analysis on this indicator. However, this process was not finalized and data were not collected to finalize this indicator. 12/28/2015 Page 10 of 14

11 4.1 Level of future funding sources identified and brokered for CAADP (Text, Custom) Value N/A -- Efforts to expand the funding base of CAADP implementation have been successful in securing a one-year extension to cover 2016 work plan for all CTF recipients. 5 additional non-traditional funders The implementation of the Malabo Declaration will require a large volume of agriculture financing and investments. Discussions are currently underway to establish a Malabo Facility or any other mechanism to replace the MDTF in its current form and shape, catering for both implementation support and country-level projects and programmes preparation. 4.2 Increase in levels of private sector investments into African agriculture (Percentage, Custom) Value PHIRIIND_COMMENT 4.3 Level of alignment of partner support to CAADP principles (Percentage, Custom) Value PHIRIIND_COMMENT 12/28/2015 Page 11 of 14

12 4.4 Effective CAADP governance through greater CTF co-ordination and collaboration (Number, Custom) Value In 2015, joint meetings with AUC, NPCA and the RECs have been held to facilitate greater CTF co-ordination and collaboration in light of the Malabo Declaration. These meetings have resulted in the elaboration of the Program of Work and the finalization of the CAADP delivery guidelines. The meetings are listed below: 16. Program of Work meeting (February 2015) 17. CAADP Business Meeting on the margins of the CAADP 11th Partnership Platform (March 2015) CAADP Guidelines Review Workshops (August and December) target was 2 joint planning & review sessions, actual achieved was 5, which is a cumulative value. This value was adjusted to take into account the 2013 baseline. 4.5 Partnership events efficiently and effectively delivered (Number, Custom) Value PHIRIIND_COMMENT 1.2 Countries with at least 85% of NAIP financed (Percentage, Custom) Value Date 01-Jan Dec Dec-2015 An analysis of the budgets of a sample of 16 NAIPs reveals that the funding gap at the time of the business meeting stood at 52%. It is noteworthy that a number of countries have received more funding from other sources such as the Global Agriculture Food Security Program (GAFSP), and hence the funding gap is now certainly reduced. To this end, it is estimated that 65% of countries that are at postbusiness meeting stage have at least 85% of their NAIP-budgets funded target was 75%, actual achieved was 64%. This indicator was not measurable prior to this ISR. See overall comments below. 12/28/2015 Page 12 of 14

13 Overall An online questionnaire using Survey Monkey was shared with AUC and the RECs to collect actual values for However, data collection has been a significant issue. Only COMESA and ECCAS were able to collect baseline data and actual data for Regarding the collection of 2015 actual data, ECCAS organized two training sessions with its member states. SADC and COMESA also collected actual data to complete their PDO indicators. NPCA has thus been able to complete its PDO indicators, using data collected by the RECs through the Survey Monkey (aggregate values from three RECs). ECOWAS did not participate in this exercise. Plans had been made to launch a consultancy (one international and seven national consultants) for PDO level indicator data collection. However, this process was not finalized and has been postponed to During the last mission, the NEPAD Agency had agreed to hire an M&E intern or P1 consultant to help with M&E issues but this was not finalized. The lack of a dedicated M&E specialist remains a significant challenge for NPCA. NPCA has collected actual values for its intermediate indicators. However, NPCA was not able to utilize existing monitoring systems to track intermediate indicators. Actual data for two intermediate indicators (support provided by non-agricultural sectors and actors to CAADP processes and the levels of private sector investments into Africa agriculture) were not collected and NPCA has not been able to complete these two indicators. Besides, there is no systematic analysis regarding the level of financing of NAIPs. At the REC level, besides the online questionnaire data collection, there is no evidence of systematic use of the M&E tools and procedures that were designed and agreed by all REC M&E staff. The lack of longitudinal monitoring data across the RECs will likely prevent CTF stakeholders from making greater use of the learning that is emerging from the program implementation. Unlike previous ISRs, there is no provision in this one to provide a rating for M&E. The above indicator results should be reviewed together with the Annex 2 of the aide memoire attached for more detail and to understand the discrepancies between previous entries and the final ones provided herein. Data on Financial Performance Disbursements (by loan) Project Loan/Credit/TF Status Currency Original Revised Cancelled Disbursed Undisbursed Disbursed P TF Effective USD % Key Dates (by loan) Project Loan/Credit/TF Status Approval Date Signing Date Effectiveness Date Orig. Closing Date Rev. Closing Date P TF Effective 30-Mar Apr Apr Dec Dec-2015 Cumulative Disbursements 12/28/2015 Page 13 of 14

14 Restructuring History There has been no restructuring to date. Related Project(s) There are no related projects. 12/28/2015 Page 14 of 14