Evaluation Team

Evaluation team
Overall responsibility
Colin Kirk, Director, Operations Evaluation Department (AfDB)
Luciano Lavizzari, Director, Office of Evaluation (IFAD)

Lead evaluators and evaluation coordinators
Ashwani Muthoo, Senior Evaluation Officer (IFAD)
Detlev Puetz, Principal Evaluation Officer (AfDB)
Andrew Brubaker, Evaluation Officer (IFAD)
Joint evaluation secretariat
Linda Danielsson, Administrative Assistant (IFAD)
Akua Arthur-Kissi, Research Assistant (AfDB)
Senior independent advisers
Robert Picciotto
Per Pinstrup-Andersen
Seydou Traoré

Objective

The joint evaluation had four objectives: (i) determine the relevance of IFAD and AfDB policies and operations in ARD in Africa in the light of current and emerging issues affecting ARD in the continent; (ii) assess the performance and impact of AfDB and IFAD policies and operations in ARD in Africa; (iii) evaluate the strategic partnerships between IFAD and AfDB, and between them and other prominent ARD actors in the continent; and (iv) understand the proximate causes of AfDB and IFAD relevance and performance in ARD, and  develop  recommendations to enhance their development effectiveness, including partnership between them and other actors. The joint evaluation included an assessment of past and current relevance and performance, but was also forward-looking in seeking to provide recommendations as to ways in which the two organizations can respond to a changing environment in line with their strategic objectives and comparative advantages. Unlike the independent external evaluations undertaken in the two organizations in the first part of the decade of the new millenium, this joint evaluation focuses on IFAD operations in Africa and on AfDB activities in the agriculture sector5 only. The joint evaluation included an initial analysis of selected business processes that had not been in place at the time of the independent external evaluations, for example direct supervision and implementation support, country presence by IFAD6 and the accelerated decentralization and reorganization of the knowledge management function in AfDB.

Main Findings

The evaluation draws attention to the many challenges confronting agriculture and rural development in Africa. But it also highlights the wealth of Africa’s natural resources endowment and emphasizes agriculture’s great potential to support economic growth and reduce poverty and hunger across the continent. The report highlights the importance of African leadership in developing clear sector policies and strong institutions in the sector. It concludes that AfDB and IFAD have distinct but complementary roles, and are, separately and together, highly relevant to Africa’s current and future needs in the field of agriculture and rural development. 

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

Main Recommendations

Recommendation(s) to the Bank the Co-financier:

• At the regional and sub-regional levels, step up support to CAADP in implementing its mandate. Provide a joint statement of support for CAADP. CAADP provides a clear and comprehensive ‘Africa-led, Africa-owned’ policy framework for ARD in Africa. IFAD and AfDB should issue a joint statement of firm support for CAADP, and ensure that their policies and operations are clearly aligned with CAADP’s policy pillars. 

• At country level, support government and other stakeholders to develop sound, national results-based ARD policies. These should be relevant to national needs and conditions, based on thorough sector analyses, and aligned with the CAADP policy framework, including the commitment towards allocating 10 per cent of national budgets towards agriculture and achieving 6 per cent agricultural growth, in line with the Maputo Declaration. Recognizing that the opportunities and challenges are different from country to country, IFAD and AfDB should, working with others, contribute towards strengthening the country-specific knowledge base underpinning national sector policies and in promoting policy reform where sound policies are not already in place.

• At country-level, support-sector coordination and harmonization and align AfDB and IFAD strategies and programmes with national policy frameworks wherever possible. A country-led approach requires AfDB and IFAD to align their strategies and programmes with national priorities, where these are appropriate, and, where possible, to support the development of sectoral joint assistance strategies led by government. This should help to strengthen the relevance of country strategies, which the evaluation found to be a point of weakness. AfDB and IFAD will need to be selective, focusing on sub-sectors and themes in line with their respective areas of comparative advantage and specialization. The evaluation findings indicate that the two institutions need to give greater attention to investment in non-lending activities including policy dialogue, building partnerships and knowledge management, and to disseminating and scaling up successful innovations. Both institutions should use their influence to bring civil society and private-sector players to the policy table. 

• At the level of global policy, develop knowledge and capacity to engage in international advocacy on trade issues affecting African producers. The evaluation noted that the prevailing international trade regime undercuts agriculture in Africa. Although the two institutions have limited experience in this area, it is of critical importance to the sector. Accordingly, the two agencies need to develop their respective policy positions on the issue, and support borrowing countries to strengthen their capacity to negotiate on trade issues in international for a. Moreover, there is room for the two agencies - in particular the Bank – to engage in policy dialogue with individual African countries regarding export taxation for agriculture. 

•  Develop increased skills, knowledge and capacity in the areas of policy, analytical work, knowledge and partnership management, with a view to sharpening the relevance and effectiveness of strategies and operations. To deliver on the policy and performance recommendations listed above, there will be a need for skills and knowledge beyond the existing project management skill set. Skills in gender analysis and gender planning are required across many of these areas. AfDB and IFAD should develop knowledge and expertise in selected subsectors and themes, and establish ‘knowledge partnerships’ with other institutions, including FAO and the World Bank, to acquire knowledge in wider fields. All of this carries implications for staff development, deployment and recruitment. 

• Provide increased support to ARD in fragile states, giving careful attention to choice and sequencing of aid modalities. AfDB and IFAD are both committed to increasing support for fragile states, where agricultural growth and support for rural livelihoods can play a key role. Coordinating their actions with others, IFAD and AfDB need to ensure that assistance to fragile states is provided using approaches which are flexible and responsive to changing local needs, making effective use of a range of aid instruments. 

• Strengthen country presence. Assisting a country-led approach to ARD will require an effective country presence, with delegated authority, resources and out-posting of staff with the required seniority to engage in policy dialogue at various levels of governance. Among other advantages, improved country presence will support better diagnostic and analytical work, including better understanding of context and risk management, and contribute to better results on the ground both in investment and non-lending activities. To strengthen collaboration at the field level, pooling of resources and sharing of office accommodation should be piloted at the country level 

• Finance simpler, more tightly focused projects and programmes, undertaken within the framework of coordinated, results-oriented sector plans. Rural populations often face an array of tough challenges and multiple forms of disadvantage, and development agencies have often responded with multi-component projects to address the spectrum of needs. But such projects often prove complex and difficult to implement and tend not to perform well. In cooperation with partner governments, AfDB and IFAD have recently begun to prepare and undertake projects of simpler, more clearly focused design, each intended to be complemented by other interventions within a coordinated framework, reflecting a division of labour based on comparative advantage. AfDB and IFAD should continue to develop this approach, taking care to integrate careful risk analysis. Priority attention needs to be devoted to ensuring the efficiency of operations funded by the two agencies and the sustainability of benefits 

• Support governments to undertake capacity needs assessments in the ARD sector, including diagnostic assessments of institutional arrangements, and provide substantial support for capacity building and institutional development. The evaluation identified shortfalls in the capacity of Government to implement projects and programmes effectively and to ensure that benefits are sustainable following project completion. Given the wide array of rural stakeholders and institutions, it is often the case that other players in the sector also have limited capacity. Training alone is rarely enough to address capacity gaps. In many cases, institutional development is required, linked to wider public sector reforms. The focus needs to be not only on programme management, including monitoring and evaluation, but also on policy formulation and implementation. 

• Specifically, support governments to address capacity issues relating to political and administrative decentralization. Where decentralization of governance is being introduced, available capacity is often fragmented in allocating staff and resources to the local levels. This has a critical bearing on the success of rural development efforts. AfDB and especially IFAD need to support governments to manage the process effectively and build capacity where it is needed. 

• Gender equality was a significant area of weakness in borrower performance. In this regard, IFAD and the Bank should initiate efforts in selected countries to work closely with governments and other stakeholders to undertake joint diagnostic analyses of the causes, characteristics and consequences of gender inequalities in ARD, and assist in developing practical policies and measures to address the issues identified. If this approach is successful, it could be extended to a wider range of countries over time 

• Support deeper investment in research and development to improve agricultural productivity and innovation geared towards promoting inclusive growth and poverty reduction. 

• Maintain and deepen their current bilateral partnership, based on the MoU of 2008, setting a limited number of clear, strategic regional priorities, backed by a clear Action Plan and adequate resources. The MoU of 2008 sets out a broad agenda for action. Successful implementation will depend upon selecting strategic regional priorities, and translating these into a judicious selection of activities for implementation. Sufficient resources are required not only to deliver specific activities, but to ensure effective liaison, monitoring and oversight. Success will depend on compliance with a realistic, well-defined, adequately resourced Action Plan setting out clear objectives and deliverables, with clear accountabilities, monitorable timelines and transparent budget commitments. 

• Focus their partnership on their respective areas of comparative advantage, specialization and complementarity, and strengthening the focus on results. These include: a) AfDB’s competence in macroeconomic and infrastructure issues and IFAD’s focus on the social, micro-economic and community-based aspects of ARD; b) AfDB’s support for (large scale) privatesector operations, including agri-business, and IFAD’s support for small producers and their organizations, including rural credit schemes and small enterprises; and c) IFAD’s role in pioneering pro-poor innovations and AfDB’s capacity to scale these up in areas where it has the necessary competence. 

• At the regional level, take forward their partnership within the wider partnership around CAADP, and in support of CAADP. IFAD and AfDB should play a role among donors and development organizations in rallying and coordinating global support for ARD in Africa. In line with the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda, the two institutions must work with major players such as FAO, the World Bank, the European Union as well as bilateral donors (notably USAID)48 and policy and research institutes such as IFPRI. 

Recommendation(s) to the Bank:

• To AfDB: Remain directly engaged in ARD, but develop a more selective strategy, closely linked to the Bank’s medium term priorities, and aligned with CAADP. In view of the importance of the sector and its contribution to growth and poverty reduction, AfDB should maintain its support for ARD, particularly in the aftermath of the successive food, fuel and financial crises. But the Bank should not try to work across the entire region on all ARD issues, or with all partners. A revised strategy should be highly selective, building on the Bank’s areas of comparative advantage and linking activities in ARD more closely with the areas of operational focus set out in the Medium Term Strategy, including support for private-sector operations. The medium-term strategic priorities set out in the Bank’s paper responding to the food crisis are therefore appropriate and should be refined as the basis for a selective, medium-term sector strategy. 

• To AfDB: Following approval of a revised strategy, AfDB should mount a major communication campaign to inform African leaders and other sector donors of the Bank’s strategic objectives in the sector. Changes in the Bank’s stance on agriculture have sent mixed signals to decision makers within the region and in other development institutions. A major corporate effort will be required to publicise the Bank’s renewed commitment and the change of focus. Preparation of a revised strategy for the Bank, and its eventual implementation, should include those departments within the Bank that are directly or indirectly supporting agriculture and rural development, beyond OSAN; 

• To AfDB: Expand support to regional and subregional development. Regional and sub-regional infrastructure, markets and institutions are crucial for agriculture development. The Bank should pay particular attention towards assisting countries in expanding regional investments and coordination through better utilization of existing bank lending instruments and developing regional allocation mechanisms 

• To AfDB: Ensure that sufficient human and financial resources are allocated for effective implementation of the revised strategy while seeking to leverage further funding from the private sector, private donors, Arab States and emerging donors including Brazil, China, Korea and India. Steps should also be taken to ensure provision of adequate resources to regional member countries and operational departments to take forward important analytical work and sector studies.

Recommendation(s) to the Co-financier:

• To IFAD: Engage more strategically in analytic work. This is critical for the formulation of country strategies and project design. In addition to developing in-house capacities for this purpose, strategic partnerships with other institutions that have existing capabilities need to be explored. This calls for allocation of additional resources, both in financial terms as well as in building staff capabilities;

• To IFAD: Differentiate allocation levels of administrative resources. Given the prevailing weak policy and institutional environments in fragile states and countries with low CPIA scores, they should receive greater administrative resources for the analytical work required for country strategy formulation and project design, as well as supervision and implementation support. This would enable close involvement and support by IFAD in programme activities in countries that have weaker overall capacities and more challenging contexts; 

• To IFAD: Plan selected joint activities between the divisions covering Africa (Western and Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, and Near East and North Africa). One option is the development of a knowledge programme to share lessons learned, good practices and experiences across the three regional divisions. A proactive policy for exchanging staff and consultants across the three divisions should be developed. Joint activities could also entail the development of regional grants programmes, for example in agricultural research addressing cross-regional challenges.