ReSAKSS Africa Lead Project Strengthening Capacity for Strategic Agricultural Policy and Investment Planning and Implementation in Africa Final Report Prepared by Samuel Benin, ReSAKSS-AW Coordinator, IFPRI 27 August 2012
Introduction To help speed up and safeguard the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) implementation progress, development partners are partnering with country governments to establish country Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (SAKSS) in order to strengthen agricultural policy analysis and investment planning and implementation. In response, the Africa Lead project committed $200,000 in partnership with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), via the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS), to support regional-level workshops on sensitization of countries on CAADP monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and SAKSS. Out of the total commitment, $145,432 was given to IFPRI through a purchase order to pay for local travel and lodging of the participants and workshop facilities (including training materials, lunches, coffee, etc.), while the remaining was used directly by Africa Lead to pay for the international travel of the workshop participants. ReSAKSS, including the Africa-wide and three regional nodes, covered the labor costs of the trainers and facilitators. This is a summary report of the five regional-level training workshops that were organized in April and June 2012. 1 Approach to the trainings Because the establishment of a SAKSS depends strongly on the readiness of a country, determined by the stage of the country in the CADDP process (a SAKSS is expected be implemented as part of a country s national agricultural investment plan (NAIP)) in addition to having funds allocated for the operations of the SAKSS, which is different from providing technical assistance, we chose three levels of capacity strengthening activities, with each targeting a different group of countries: 1. SAKSS-ready for those countries that have a functional SAKSS or have a NAIP and there is potential funding to cover or expand the operations of the SAKSS (15 countries); 2. SAKSS-sensitized for those countries that have advanced in the CAADP process (have a NAIP or signed a compact) but need further knowledge on CAADP M&E, SAKSS concepts, and strategic analysis/ator as well as need fundraising to support SAKSS operations (14 countries); and 3. SAKSS-beginning for countries where the CAADP process is in the pre-compact stages or is yet to be launched (21 countries). All the 15 countries from the SAKSS-ready category, 10 from the SAKSS-sensitized category, and 13 from the SAKSS-beginning category were selected for the training. Three people from each of SAKSS-ready countries and two people from each the other two categories of countries were invited to attend the workshops. Names of the people to be invited were identified in consultation with the Ministry of 1 Detail reports, including agendas, list and signatures of participants, description of presentations and slides, group photos and survey results, for each of the five workshops have been reported to Africa Lead. Because these details are bulky, they are not included here. Links to the website where they are have also been provided to Africa Lead. 1
Agriculture and CAADP country teams in the respective countries. The people were those expected to be closely affiliated with the establishment of the SAKSS. For the SAKSS-ready countries, one of the participants was a consultant to assist with carrying out a capacity needs assessment based on which a strategy for establishing the SAKSS will be development and implemented. To ensure consistency of the workshops with the regional and continental objectives, participants from the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA), Africa Union Commission (AUC), and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) were invited. How the trainings were conducted Table 1 shows details of the five workshops, including number and list of countries, number of participants, venues, and dates. Altogether, 92 people (including 19 females) from 37 countries participated in the five training workshops. Kimberly Smith noted that several of the participants happened to have also benefitted from previous trainings by Africa Lead and made the following comment: It is actually a great list of participants, many of whom are well known to us as Champions! (Kimberly Smith in an email communication). Because of the linguistic diversity of the countries, two of the training workshops were conducted in French for 27 of the participants covering 11 countries (see Table 1). The remaining three workshops were organized in English. The trainings were organized in plenary sessions where trainers and facilitators presented and discussed topics interactively with the participants. These were interspersed with break-out sessions by countries to allow deeper discussion and application within each country s context. These took place over three days for the SAKSS-ready countries and two days for the other categories of countries. Trainers and topics covered The main objective of workshops was to strengthen country level capacity for strategic agricultural policy and investment planning and implementation. The trainings focused on: strategic agricultural policy analysis (topics included key issues in agricultural development and policy formulation, approaches/techniques in policy analysis, and tools policy analysis matrix (PAM), social accounting matrices (SAMs), economy-wide modeling, etc.); monitoring and evaluation (M&E frameworks, SMART indicators, CAADP M&E process, counterfactuals experimental, quasi-experimental and nonexperimental designs, and tools); communications (knowledge management and products (publications, data, tools, etc.); research methods (proposal writing, data collection and management, data analysis and tools, report writing); and project management (project formulation, design, appraisal, project preparation and appraisal techniques and tools logical frameworks, benefit-cost analysis, etc.). The workshops, particularly those organized for the SAKSS-ready countries, were also used to launch the capacity needs assessment work, and so participants were introduced to capacity assessment methods related to data and M&E systems, and human, organizational, and policy process capacities. Results of the capacity needs assessment, which are currently underway in the SAKSS-ready countries, will be used to develop a strategy for establishing and operating a country SAKSS. 2
Table 1: Workshop details: countries, number of participants, and venues and dates of workshops SAKSS-ready SAKSS-sensitized SAKSS-beginning All countries Benin, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda (15 in total) Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central Africa Republic, Côte d Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia (14 in total) Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tunisia, Zimbabwe (21 in total) Type ReSAKSS-ECA (English) ReSAKSS-WA (French) 1 ReSAKSS-ECA (English) ReSAKSS-WA (French) 2 ReSAKSS-SA (English) Selected countries (Total=37) Number of participants (Total=92; 73 males and 19 females) 3 Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda 26 (22 males and 4 females) Benin, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo 17 (16 males and 1 female) Congo Brazzaville, Djibouti, Seychelles, South Sudan, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d Ivoire, Guinea, and Mauritania 9 (6 males and 3 females) 10 (8 males and 2 females) Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe 30 (21 males and 9 females) Venue and dates Nairobi; 11-13 April 2012 Dakar; 17-19 April 2012 Nairobi; 25-26 June 2012 Dakar; 20-21 June 2012 Johannesburg; 20-22 June 2012 Notes: 1 DRC was also selected but the participants got stranded at the airport in Nairobi and so they could not attend. 2 DRC and Cameroon were selected but there was a conflict with another regional meeting in east and central Africa and could not send any participants. 3 These numbers exclude the trainers and facilitators but include participants from NPCA/AUC/RECs. 3
IFPRI provided the overall curriculum and training materials, while the ReSAKSS regional nodes provided the trainers who were drawn from IFPRI, ILRI, IWMI, IITA, and local universities. Africa Lead project staff members were also part of the trainers in the two Nairobi workshops, focused on transformational leadership (including topics on strengthening networks, skills to become change agents and create transformation, and introduction to rapid results approach). Evaluation of the trainings by participants At the end of the workshop, participants completed an evaluation form to provide feedback on various aspects of the workshop including: i) logistics; ii) goals and objectives and how the workshop was organized; iii) individual presentations, supporting materials and discussions; and iv) new information and skills learned and how they will be utilized in their day to day activities. The results are summarized below. Logistics As Figure 1 shows, majority of the participants strongly agreed (68 77 percent) or mildly agreed (19-20 percent) that workshop logistics (including travel arrangements, accommodation, conference facilities, meals, etc.) were adequate or up to their expectations. Figure 1: Rating of workshop logistics (% of total participants) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% strongly agree mildly agree don't know mildly disagree 0% strongly disagree The conference facilities (room, seating, lighting, sound, etc.) were adequate The meals, coffee breaks, and social gatherings were up to my expectations The accommodations and related services were up to my expectations The travel arrangements were adequate Source: Workshop evaluations How the workshop was organized Participants felt that the workshop was well organized. Ninety-six percent of them agreed (82 percent strongly agreed and 14 percent mildly agreed) that the goals and objectives of the workshop were clear (see Figure 2). The same proportion of participants also agreed that: the presentations made helped to achieve the workshop goals and objectives; the ensuing were added value to the achievement of 4
workshop objectives; and that the supporting materials provided were sufficient. Only a couple of people disagreed on these matters, mostly that the supporting material were not sufficient. Figure 2: Rating of how the workshop was organized (% of total participants) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% The goals and objectives of the workshop were clear The presentations helped to achieve the goals and objectives of the workshop The ensuing discussions were relevant and added value to achieving the goals The supporting materials were sufficient strongly agree mildly agree don't know mildly disagree strongly disagree Source: Workshop evaluations Individual presentations and related discussions and materials Regarding the individual presentations and related materials and discussions, 50 70 percent rated them as good while 25 45 percent rated them as excellent (see figure 3). Here too, only few of the participants disagreed, which was attributed to insufficient time for the trainers to cover the topics in greater detail. Figure 3: Rating of presentations and accompanying materials and discussions (% of total participants) 100% 80% 60% excellent good 40% 20% 0% average poor Opening and welcoming remarks Background, goal and objectives of workshop Overview of the CAADP agenda Overview of ReSAKSS activities Strategic analysis Monitoring and evaluation Communications Capacity needs assessment Source: Workshop evaluations 5
New information and skills and their utility The evaluations also allowed open-ended questions for participants to state potential constraints to using the new knowledge and skills they had acquired and what changes they themselves can make, visà-vis changes that their institutions can make, to effectively use the new knowledge and skills to increase their performance. Major findings are summarized below. 1. What are major constraints that you face to use the knowledge and skills gained to increase your performance Inadequate capacity to fully utilize new methods Implementation of related activities is done at a different level Financial constraints i.e. lack of both government and external funding Difficulty in convincing superiors of the importance of the workshop outcomes, including lack of assistance to hold awareness sessions/campaigns 2. What changes do you have to make personally to effectively use the knowledge and skills gained to increase your performance Relook at NAIP to ensure M&E is adequately included Include relevant stakeholders on the CAADP country teams and ensure that the CADDP programme gets enough attention Continuous training of staff to better meet expectations in different fields 3. How can others (your own institution, REC/AUC/ NPCA, ReSAKSS, others) facilitate you to effectively use the knowledge and skills gained to increase your performance a) Own institution Full participation in the CAADP approach at all levels, get all local actors on board Allow time, funds and facilitation for creating awareness b) REC/AUC/NPCA Provide technical support to enhance the capacity of CAADP team members Roles to be identified and disseminated to partners c) ReSAKSS managers and networks Assistance to establish SAKSS nodes in respective countries Provide technical assistance and critique for development of NAIP Conclusions Overall, the workshops, which provided trainings on the CAADP agenda, SAKSS concepts, monitoring and evaluation, agricultural policy analysis and knowledge management tools, were successful in the sense that the objectives were achieved. The participants also noted that the workshops provided a forum for discussing and sharing experiences that enhanced ideas on how country SAKSS can be designed in the different countries. Through the group discussions, participants identified country needs as far as SAKSS is concerned. This has already helped to improve the methodology and instruments used for undertaking the country SAKSS capacity needs assessments that were recently launched. The results of the assessments, hopefully, will help governments and stakeholders identify capacities, analytical tools, and information to generate credible, timely and high quality knowledge products to inform and 6
guide agricultural sector policies and planning and review processes. We are expecting to complete the assessments for 15 countries by the end of September 2012, and then work with governments and stakeholders to implement the recommendations. 7