Transcript Slide 1

Partnership to Cut Hunger
and Poverty in Africa
Research-Based Advocacy for African Agricultural Development
US Agricultural
Development Assistance to
Sub-Saharan Africa
Julie Howard
Executive Director & CEO
Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa
Presentation to the
Brussels Rural Development Briefings
Briefing n° 20
Beyond Aid: Financing Agriculture in ACP countries
Wednesday 15th September 2010 – 8h30 – 13h00
European Commission, Building Borschette, - Rue Froissart, 36- Brussels
Outline

About the Partnership

Reports on US Agricultural Development Assistance

Scope & Methods

Findings: Trends in US Assistance

Key Issues in Monitoring Agricultural Development Assistance

Evolution of US Assistance Toward a Demand-Driven Approach

Challenges in Implementing Demand-Driven Programs and
Priorities for Action

Conclusions
About the Partnership
 Independent US-African coalition founded in 2001 by
African Presidents, US statesmen, university and NGO
leaders
 Research-based advocacy to increase US investment
in African ag & rural development and improve
effectiveness of US policies and programs
 Focus: food security and ag development policy;
agricultural markets and trade; infrastructure; capacity
building; food aid reform
 Conducts focused research, synthesizes existing studies to inform policy, e.g.,
annual report on levels of US Assistance to African Agriculture
 Convenes US and African experts to identify practical ways to address
problems and opportunities in rural Africa
 Advocates for these ideas to be implemented by US and global decisionmakers, works to align donor and African national and regional policies
and practices
Reports on US Agricultural
Development Assistance
 The Partnership has released two reports that examine levels
and trends of U.S. agricultural development assistance to SubSaharan Africa.
 First Report with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation -“Investing in Africa’s Future: US Agricultural Development
Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa” reported on U.S. agricultural
development assistance from 2000 to 2004 and was released in
September 2005.
 Second Report with funding from the Gates Foundation -“Supporting Africa’s Strategy for Reducing Rural Poverty” reported
on US agricultural development assistance from 2005 to 2008 and
was released in October 2009.
 Follow-up Report on US agricultural development assistance in
2009 will be released in October 2010.
Scope & Methods

Aims to capture in a simple, concise, and repeatable manner the
agricultural development assistance conveyed by the US government and
categorize each institution’s assistance according to the following
categories:




On-Farm Productivity Enhancements,
Agriculture-related Physical Infrastructure, and
Agriculture-related Policy and Market Infrastructure
Emphasis is on institutions that contribute more than an incidental level of
concessional or grant financing for agricultural development in SubSaharan Africa.
Bilateral Institutions
United States’ Agency for International
Development (USAID)
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
United States’ Department of Agriculture (USDA)
United States African Development Foundation
(USADF)
Multilateral Institutions
World Bank’s International Development
Association (IDA)
African Development Bank’s African
Development Fund (ADF)
International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
World Food Programme (WFP)
Scope & Methods
1.
Reviewing each institution’s publicly available documents,
interviewing personnel
2.
Estimating each institution’s contribution to U.S. agricultural
development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa.
»
Straightforward for bilaterals but for multilaterals requires 2 steps:


Deriving proportion of Institution’s contribution to agricultural
development in Sub-Saharan Africa
Utilizing that proportion to determine the share of US
contributions to the institution going to agricultural development
in Sub-Saharan Africa
3.
Categorizing agricultural development assistance
»
Two approaches used depending on data availability:


4.
An examination of individual or a representative sample of projects and
compacts – MCC, USADF, and USDA’s Food for Progress.
A correlation of the institution’s reporting at the element level with our
individual categories – USAID, FAO and the World Bank’s IDA.
Soliciting feedback from each institution on estimates
Key Issues in Monitoring
1. Lack of a robust, consistently utilized operational definition
of agricultural development assistance across the board
2. Ongoing revisions of reporting methods by the different
agencies studied
3. Heavy reliance on numbers provided by each agency (i.e.
data collection systems)
4. Complicated and time-consuming US budget process
5. Mixed reporting cycles: Some agencies report by fiscal
year, others by calendar year
6. Meshing of pooled funding and targeted bilateral funding in
multilateral organizations; and accounting for increase in
inter-funding of programs among multilateral agencies.
Key Findings:
Trends in US Assistance to
African Agriculture
 2000-2004: US assistance for African agriculture flat ($460$514 million)
 2005-2007: significant increase due to Millennium Challenge
Corporation and African requests for agricultural
infrastructure ($677-$840 million)
 2008: Global Food Price Crisis motivates increase to $1.1
billion
 2009: At L’Aquila G8 Summit, historic global commitments
of $22b over three years, including $3.5b from USG
Evolution of US Assistance:
Moving Toward a “DemandDriven” Approach…
Adoption of Rome Principles (World Food
Summit 2009)
(1) invest in country-owned plans
(2) foster strategic coordination at national, regional,
and global levels
(3) strive for a twin-track, comprehensive approach to
meet immediate needs as well as foster long-term
development
(4) ensure a strong role for the multilateral system
(5) ensure sustained and substantial commitment by
all partners to investments in agriculture, food
security and nutrition
Feed the Future
We will elevate coordination within the U.S government to align our diverse
resources and effectively partner with other stakeholders to leverage and
harmonize our investments for the greatest collective impact. We see our role and
that of other donors as catalyzing pro-poor economic growth through providing
diplomatic, economic, and development assistance. We envision a world where
private investment drives sustainable growth, and where country and market-led
development supplants foreign assistance.
www.feedthefuture.gov
 Guided by Rome Principles
 address root causes of hunger and under-nutrition
 encourage lasting food security through country-owned
processes and multi-stakeholder partnerships
 make sustained and accountable commitments
 Address needs of small farmers and agribusiness by
 harnessing the power of women
 building on US comparative advantage in research, innovation
and private sector-led growth
 increasing investment in nutrition, ag development while
maintaining support for humanitarian food assistance
Feed the Future Progress
 Feed the Future Guide (strategic plan)
released May 2010
 Phase I investments: foundational
investments/capacity building
 Phase II investments: country investment plan
implementation
 Multi-year implementation plans will
strategically target investments in focus
countries
 20 initial plans for US investment issued
FY2010:
 Africa:
 3 regions: East, West and Southern Africa
 13 countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Kenya,
Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Senegal, Tanzania Uganda, Zambia
 Asia: 2 countries
 Latin America: 2 countries

Joint USDA/USAID Norman Borlaug
Commemorative Research Initiative
launched
Global Agriculture and Food
Security Program (GAFSP)
 Multi-donor trust fund hosted at the World Bank
 Intended to assist in implementation of G-8
commitments through “the immediate targeting and
delivery of additional funding to public and private
entities to support national and regional strategic plans
for agriculture and food security in poor countries”
 Provides near-immediate funding to meet demand, in contrast
to slow bilateral and multilateral mechanisms
 Reduces transaction costs and better aligns donor responses
 Investments may target: agricultural productivity,
market linkages for farmers, risk mitigation, non-farm
rural livelihoods, institution/capacity building
GAFSP Progress
 Donor contributions to date total $900m over three years
(US, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation)
 First allocations, totaling $224m, were made in June to:
Bangladesh ($50m), Haiti ($35m), Rwanda ($50m), Sierra
Leone ($50m) and Togo ($39m)
 For the October 2010 Steering Committee decision meeting,
$120m is available to >25 applicants
 New financial commitments are expected through 2013, with
implementation through 2019
Challenges in Implementing a
“Demand-Driven” Approach
and Priorities for Action
 The Partnership’s February 2010 US-Africa
Forum gathered > 200 members of the US and
African development community to:
 take stock of progress over the past year
 discuss the main challenges affecting the ability
of the US to respond to country-determined food
security priorities and the “Rome principles”
 identify options for addressing these challenges
Fostering New Ways of
Working Together
 Fostering new ways of working together on strategic
problems—with private business, civil society and
academia in the host country and US; across USG
agencies; and with the multilateral system
 What incentives are in place to motivate improved
coordination among national government agencies?
Among bilateral donors?
 What does demand-driven mean? Whose demand?
How are private sector and civil society, including int’l
and domestic NGOs, involved in developing and
implementing CAADP-like plans? Do non-government
entities feel ownership and responsibility for these
priorities and plans?
Meeting the Challenge of
Capacity Building
 Meeting the challenge of capacity building, i.e.,
focusing external technical assistance in the near term
on the longer term strategic goal of building the
expertise and institutions to plan, manage and drive
agricultural development agendas in-country
 What capacity-building investments –in individuals and
institutions -- will be necessary to create the next generation of
African scientists, civil society leaders, businessmen/women
and government managers of the future? What training
institutions will deliver continuously updated information about
agriculture, nutrition, health and business development
strategies to communities?
Increasing Private Sector
Investment at National and
Regional Levels

Food security will not be achieved without substantially
increased private sector investment in production, processing,
storage, marketing, and trade of food and agricultural
commodities.




What – very specifically – must be done to Improve enabling
environments for agribusiness, e.g., what are the highest priority
national and regional infrastructure investments; how are land
administration and ownership issues being addressed?
How to improve the flow of information about opportunities to
potential investors within Africa and globally?
Farmer associations and cooperatives are core private sector
businesses with the potential to attract and manage greatlyexpanded investments. What specific skills are needed and how
will these be delivered?
How can African- based business development services (BDS) be
nurtured to support food and agricultural system development
(production, processing, marketing, storage, export)?
Improving Metrics and
Accountability

A shared commitment to expanded monitoring, analysis,
evaluation and learning (M&E +) is essential to facilitate
transparency, accountability, and trust among partners and to
ensure that implementing organizations become “learning”
organizations. Priorities include…





Going beyond government and donor entities with M&E+. How will civil
society and private sector organizations be engaged in planning, reporting
and learning from agricultural program implementation in a cost-effective
way, and in a way that strengthens their ownership of programs?
Developing common metrics shared by national, regional and donor
partners to achieve cost- and other efficiencies in data-collection, capacitystrengthening, and messaging
Investing more in statistics and data collection, especially strengthening the
capacity of African organizations to conduct surveys and analyze results
Building M&E + “learning” activities into contracts and grants so that
implementing partners have incentives to use and share knowledge
Conducting retrospective evaluations to understand key issues and
interventions more thoroughly
Conclusions
 We are witnessing historic changes
 A significant increase in funding and
political support for agriculture and
food security
 New commitment from the US and
other donors to country-driven
development and other Rome
Principles
Conclusions


But this is only the first step. What will
be needed to assure successful
implementation of “demand-driven” food
security programs?
Challenges include:




Fostering new ways of working together
Meeting the challenge of capacity building
Increasing private sector investment at
national and regional levels
Improving metrics and accountability
hank you