IFPRI-ReSAKSS Presentation on CNA Studies at APEL in Dakar

Findings of Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA)
Studies (Rwanda, Tanzania, Mozambique and
Godfrey Bahiigwa- IFPRI/ReSAKSS
Samson Jemaneh- IFPRI-ESARO
Presented at Agriculture Policy Exchange and Learning Event
Dakar, Senegal
May 13-16, 2013
Objectives of the studies
Research questions
Policy process and linkages
Capacity Assessment results
Options for Country SAKSS
Capacity Issues to be addressed
Next steps
2. Objectives of CNA Studies
The main objective of the study is to identify
areas for capacity building to improve the
quality and utility of agricultural policy
analysis, strategy formulation, investment
planning, implementation, and monitoring and
evaluation at country level.
The findings of the study will be used in
designing and establishing new country SAKSS
or in strengthening existing ones.
3. Research Questions
The CNA studies attempted to answer the following
1. Who are the key players in the policy process and
what are the linkages among the players?
2. What individual and organizational capacities are
needed for strategic agricultural policy analysis
and investment planning, M&E and Knowledge
management in the short, medium and long terms
to satisfy those needs?
3. How can these capacities be harnessed through
their effective use in the organizations involved in
the CAADP process particularly for strategic policy
analysis, program implementation, review and
4. Methodology
Identification of key players (Government
ministries, think-tanks, civil society
organizations and non-state actors) was done in
an inception workshop held in the countries
facilitated by ReSAKSS nodes.
Formal and informal interviews were conducted
at three levels (i)individual level (ii)
organizational level (iii) Policy process level
Desk reviews of existing literature on food and
agricultural policies and strategies in the
Identification of major actors and their linkages,
and networks
6.1. Capacity Assessment Results
Individual level capacities
Lack of skill diversification in different domains
Small amount of time devoted to food and agricultural policy
Limited use of analytical softwares even if computers are available
(particularly Stata, Eviews and GIS tools)
Lack of capacity to analyze data using econometric tools (in both
MINAGRI and its implementing agencies (RAB and NAEB)
Lack of high level (PhD) food policy researchers in the ASLMs Policy
and Planning Divisions
Insufficient female professional in the food policy research
Most PhD researchers are in the age 51-60
Only 2 PhD level researchers form total of 45 food policy researchers
in DE and DSPA Directorates
Nearly 60% of employees are young scientists below 40 who lack
experience and institutional memory
Very small share of time spend on M&E (5% in the case of Ministry of
Planning and development)
Around 25 persons exist at national level capable of informed
agricultural policy discussion
About 10 persons within MOFA have skills in agricultural policy
analysis. In other related ministries , a maximum of 1 person exists in
6.2. Capacity Assessment Results (ctd)
Organization level capacities
Limited budget reported as cross-cutting problem affecting organ. Capacity
fast internet speed reported in most of the institutions
Lack of capacity for data collection and analysis reported in many of the institutions
Lack of coordination capacities among the different institutions involved in different stages of
policy formulation
Policy analysis affected by limited staff skill in different institutions
Low salary scale in Ministries and universities make staff to focus on external
projects/consultancy jobs.
Sectoral institutions affected by decreasing budget allocations since 2010/11 (below CAADP
targets), ASLMs spend 14% share of expenditure on agricultural research.
GVT provides limited support for food policy research. Most of the budget comes from
bilateral and multi-lateral donors.
Lack of computers, limited telephone connectivity, low internet speed (for ASLMs and
Use of outdated software for data analysis
Allocation of funds by government does not match with agricultural calendar.
Lack of effective coordination among sectors on Knowledge management and sharing system
Lack of inter-ministerial interaction on plans and implementation process
Poor incentive packages in organizations (E.g DAF) resulting in high staff turn-over
DE is well endowed with equipment and soft wares such as SPSS, STATA, Excel, ARCGIS.
However the directorate of Studies and Policy Analysis in MPD declared need for more
computers and analytical soft wares.
MOFA has elaborate M&E system that has been incorporated to the METASIP. However , the
system is ineffective due to highly limited M&E training to the wider MOFA staff.
M&E information even if it iexists , it does not significantly influence strategic planning and
modification of policies and programs (due to staff attrition as a result of inadequate funding
for the M&E)
6.3 Capacity Assessment Results (ctd)
Policy Level Capacities (Policy dialogue, communication etc.)
Round table discussion, newsletter, presentation to officials used as major
communication strategy with policy makers
Policy reports and policy briefs identified as very important outlets
Institutions get regular requests from government to provide agri. Information,
institutions see themselves as valuable sources of information
Lack of coordination capacities among the different institutions involved in different
stages of policy formulation
Occasional request on food and agriculture information from government
Think-tanks were identified as better positioned in policy advocacy as compared to
other organizations
Personal contact, small round table discussions, media, sending out newsletter and
policy briefs, and conduction of presentations are the tools used to communicate
research results to government.
DE engages in public consultations on food and agricultural policy issues whereas the
DNEAP does not engage in these kinds of activities
Policy Reports and Policy Briefs were reported as the most widely used
communication tools by DE and MPD
In Ghana the sector is benefiting from annual Joint Sector Review which receive
reports of activities in the different components of the sector.
Several commissioned studies and consultancy works also provide information for the
The Human resources of MOFA have been reported to be overstretched to delivery on
work plans.
METASIP committee have virtually no evidence base information to work with.
7.1 Options for Country SAKSS
The Node is a single person (coordinator) without any significant
research and program assistance
The process of establishing the SAKSS network of partners and
launching specific activities, particularly strategic and monitoring
analysis has been slow.
The architecture of the SAKSS, particularly the role of different actors
within MINAGRI has not been clear.
How to go about setting up a governance structure that enables key
stakeholders to inform the direction of the work program on strategic
analysis , M&E and knowledge system, remains key question to be
Even if the Country SAKSS is well integrated in the organization chart
of the Ministry, since the Country SAKSS does not utilize the financial
resources of MINAGRI, it is somewhat seen as other internal project
funded by Development Partners.
7.2. Options for Country SAKSS
2. Tanzania
In Tanzania, M&E in agriculture sector is done by the ASDP M&E
Thematic Working Group (M&E TWG) since 2006 for the ASDP.
Most of its members are from ASLMs officials and some from NBS
and Development partners (DPs). However, the study noted that
outcome of its activities and functions have some challenges:
» The composition of the existing group is very limited in terms of
representatives. The report indicates that this has negative impact on
its performance(on time data availability, effectiveness of ASDP and its
outcome on stakeholders all can be attributed to limited network of
the group)
» The CNA study recommends that since the functions of the existing
group address the agriculture sector and all ASLMs are well involved, it
is plausible to use the structure of the existing group with minor
modifications to have SAKSS node with extensive network and more
potential members.
7.3 Options identified for country SAKSS
3. Mozambique
 For Mozambique, the CNA study recommends that MozSAKSS be established within
DE and have close collaboration with other relevant MINAG institutions such as
The study also recommends that a steering committee should be created comprised
of the various institutions to implement the agreed annual work plan or any eventual
immediate demands approved by MINAG for DE to make sure all planned activities
are prioritized by respective departments.
The steering committee would also provide for wide representation in the agricultural
sector in determining the capacity needs and the agricultural policy research agenda
that MozSAKSS should address.
Given the lack of skills in certain areas, the team should receive technical
backstopping from ReSAKSS-SA and other partners.
The organizational set up should include building of capacity at provincial level with
counterpart institutions as most activities are implemented at provincial level.
7.4. Options for Country SAKSS
4. Ghana
The study recommends that the node be located in a research and an academic
environment that has reasonably good human and material resources to provide
leadership and direction and to coordinate SAKSS activities.
At the moment, SAKSS is located in MOFA
The proposal is that the SAKSS node be located at the Institute of Statistical, Social and
Economic Research (ISSER) of the University of Ghana instead of within MOFA but with a
deputy coordinator from the PPMED of MOFA. This is not to imply that SAKSS will be
“owned” by the University. It will be a MOFA (agriculture sector) project but located in an
institution that can easily harness expertise within the University, other universities and
research institutions within and outside the country as well as the Ministries, NGOs etc. to
undertake the required activities
The location of SAKSS outside MOFA will strengthen the collective “ownership” of
METASIP by all agriculture sector partners. In addition it can relate more effectively with
the SAKSS of other African countries and the ReSAKSS nodes which are located in research
institutions across the continent.
The study validation workshop in the last 2 weeks did not uphold this recommendation
and as such the Ghana SAKSS will be in MOFA
8. Capacity Issues to be addressed
The case studies identified areas for improving the quality and utility of
agricultural policy analysis and investment planning, M&E, and
knowledge management
 The studies suggest a lot of improvement is still needed for different
institutions and stakeholders to fully and actively contribute in the
agricultural policy formulation process.
 The areas for improvement include;
» Strengthening evidence based analysis to improve priority setting
» Incentive packages for technical staff to improve performance
» Agricultural M&E systems to track sector performance
» Staff training related to data processing, analysis, reporting
» Physical facilities (computers, car, office space, softwares)
» Adequate financing particularly for policy research and advocacy.
» IT and data analysis skills
» Knowledge management and information sharing mechanisms
» Building capacity of regional and district personnel in agricultural
policy discussions and dialogue.
» Building capacity of farmer based organizations and associations in
good governance.
9. Next Steps
Complete the studies in the 15 countries
2. Validation of studies by stakeholders
3. Develop SAKSS work plan
4. Set up SAKSS management team
5. Sign MOU between ReSAKSS and
6. Hire SAKSS country manager and team
7. Launch SAKSS node
8. Train SAKSS/CAADP team
9. Set up/strengthen M&E System
Thank You!

similar documents