79794 Workshop Proceedings Agriculture Public Expenditure Analysis WHITE SANDS CONFERENCE CENTER DAR ES SALAAM Country Experience Sharing Workshop TANZANIA J UNE 13-14, 2013 NPCA FAO SPONSORED BY : WORLD BANK BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION CAADP MULTI-DONOR TRUST FUND Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Participation .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Program................................................................................................................................................. 4 Session 1. Welcome Remarks .............................................................................................................. 5 Session 2. Methods and Process .......................................................................................................... 6 Session 3. Preliminary Synthesis Results............................................................................................ 17 Session 4. Discussion Summary ......................................................................................................... 35 Session 5. Country Presentation: Togo, by Mr. Treku........................................................................ 37 Session 5. Country Presentation: Ghana, by Mr. Ohemeng-Boateng ................................................ 46 Session 5. Country Presentation: Burkina Faso, by Mr. Taondyande ................................................ 60 Session 6. Discussion of Country Presentations ................................................................................ 71 Session 7. Specialized Analysis: Case of Tanzania voucher program NAIVS, by Mr. Mink ................ 73 Session 7. Discussion of Specialized Analysis ..................................................................................... 76 Session 8. Panel: Process ................................................................................................................... 76 Session 9. Panel: Analytical Results ................................................................................................... 77 Session 10. Panel: Achieving Impact .................................................................................................. 79 Sessions 14 and 15. Synthesis and Closing Remarks.......................................................................... 81 Annex 1: Workshop Participants List ................................................................................................. 84 Annex 2: Breakout Groups for Discussion of Process, Analytical Results, and Achieving Impact ...... 87 1 Overview The NEPAD Agency jointly with the World Bank and FAO, with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund, organized a two-day workshop on Agriculture Public Expenditure Reviews undertaken recently in sub-Saharan countries. The workshop took place on June 13-14, 2013 at the White Sands Conference Center outside of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The country-based studies of agricultural public expenditure were undertaken with support from the FAO’s Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies (MAFAP) Program or the World Bank’s Strengthening National Comprehensive Agricultural Public Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa (AgPE) program, with both of these programs provided amongst the instruments of support from the NPCA to countries participating in CAADP. In all, seventeen countries participated in the workshop. Many of these have recently completed a public expenditure analysis of their agricultural sectors, with the resulting reports publically available, while other countries were in the midst completing analysis, while a handful of countries were at the initial stages of preparing TOR and mobilizing consulting teams. This workshop built on earlier work- shops sponsored by either the FAO or WB that focused on methods and process for countries just initiat- ing public expenditure analysis with support from the programs. The two day workshop opened with an overview of objectives, then a review of the methods and processes deployed in undertaking the MAFAP and AgPE programs. Next, a synthesis of results across the country studies was presented that drew on those that were completed by the time of the work- shop. This was followed by country representatives from Togo, Ghana and Burkina Faso presenting their country experiences with and results from the public expenditure studies undertaken under these two programs. After a lively discussion of issues raised by workshop participants, the final session of the first day turned to two types of more specialized public expenditure analysis – impact assessment and medi- um-term expenditure (MTEF) planning – with the former illustrated with preliminary results from a case study of the Tanzania input subsidy voucher program (NAIVS). The second day mobilized three panels to focus on three aspects of carrying out agricultural public expenditure analysis – process, analytical results (findings and implications) and achieving impact with study results. Each panel was asked to address a number of prepared questions, and then fielded ques- tions from other participants. After the mid-day break, break-out groups provided an opportunity for workshop participants to have smaller group discussions on each of the same three topics, with group discussions reported back to the plenary. The workshop then provided a session in which each country delegation was provided the time to discuss workshop implications for their specific country contexts, and to begin preparation of any summary report they needed to prepare on return home. The work- shop then concluded with summary remarks from the FAO and World Bank before being closed by the NPCA. 2 Objectives The purpose of the workshop was to enable participants to learn from each other through sharing their country experiences in undertaking agricultural sector public expenditure analyses over the past several years. This was intended to focus both on experiences in carrying out public expenditure analy- sis and also on the substantive analytical results and emerging recommendations. The workshop was also expected to begin pulling together implications of, and ideas from, the expe- riences in conducting these studies, to help inform the design of possible next phases of support to countries to strengthen agricultural public expenditure analysis as an input to more effective planning and implementation of such expenditure in the sector. Participation The workshop was targeted at technical persons from the countries which have participated in one or both of the FAO’s MAFAP and World Bank’s AgPE Analysis programs. The NEPAD Agency invited Gov- ernments to invite up to three persons to take part in the workshop, preferably members of the tech- nical team or coordinating committee that Ministries of Agriculture had established to facilitate the re- cent collaborative work on agricultural public expenditure work. Participants also included representa- tives from other ministries that played a core role in guiding the public expenditure analyses, such as ministries of finance and of planning. In all, seventeen countries were represented at the workshop. Apart from government participants nominated by their ministries, other participants included consult- ant experts that undertook the country studies, and representatives from organizations such as the Re- gional Economic Commissions, FAO, World Bank, IFPRI and ReSAKSS. Participants are listed in annex. 3 Program Agriculture Public Expenditure Analysis Country Experience Sharing Workshop Time Session Presenter/Moderator Wednesday Check-In and 7:00p – 8:00p Early Registration Thursday June 13, 2013 8:00-8:30a Registration 1. 8:30-9:15a Welcome, Overview, Objectives NPCA, MAFAP, WB 2. 9:15-10:15a Methods and Process MAFAP & WB 10:15-10:30a Break 3. 10:30-11:30a Preliminary Results: Cross-Country Synthesis MAFAP & WB 4. 11:30-12:45 Discussion MAFAP 12:45-2:00p Lunch 5. 2:00-3:15 Country Presentations : Togo, Ghana, Burki- Country Teams – Togo, Gha- na Faso na, Burkina Faso 3:15-3:30 Break 6. 3:30-4:30 Country Presentations Discussion WB 7. 4:30-5:30 Specialized Analysis – MTEF, Impact Assess- WB, Consultants ment 7:00p Cocktail Friday June 14, 2013 8. 8:30-9:30a Process – Data gathering; participation; Moderator: WB timeframe; costs… Panel: Country Reps, Con- sultants 9. 9:30-10:30a Analytical Results – Findings, Implications Moderator: MAFAP Panel: Country Reps, Con- sultants 10:30-11:00a Break 10. 11:00-12:00 Achieving Impact Moderator: NPCA Panel: Country Reps, Con- sultants 12:00-1:30p Lunch 11. 1:30-2:45p Experiences and Implications: Break-out ses- Intro: MAFAP/WB sion 1 (2 groups per topic) Facilitators in each group  Process  Analytical Results  Achieving Impact 12. 2:45-3:30p Country Teams break-out session 2: individ- ual country teams draw lessons, plan next steps 3:30-4:00p Break 13. 4:00-5:30p Plenary: Groups’ Report Back WB/MAFAP 14. 5:30-6:00 Synthesis Remarks WB/MAFAP 15. 6:00-6:30p Closing NPCA Saturday June 15 Check-out 4 Session 1. Welcome Remarks The management of the NEPAD Agency appreciates the efforts made by countries and RECs in pro- moting the CAADP agenda; the progress realized over the last 10 years is evidently a result of collective action and responsibility. NPCA commits to continued brokering technical and financial support to foster agriculture-led efforts in countries and RECs – especially in light of the new focus on transformation of the agriculture sector and in line with “Sustaining CAADP Momentum”. We strongly maintain that the 10% budget allocation and the 6% agriculture growth-rate targets are important but: a) we need to ensure that public expenditures bring about the desired growth and de- velopment and trigger private sector investments; and b) link between impacts / results and value for money. In this regard, NPCA places importance on strengthening the evidence base, and accordingly promotes the application of instruments such as joint sector reviews and agriculture public expenditure studies. The NEPAD Agency registers thanks to the various partners that have been part of strengthening the evidence-base specifically in the agriculture public expenditure landscape. Gratitude goes out to the World Bank (a special mention of Stephen Mink for his personal efforts and drive) for partnering with NPCA on the AgPE Programme for Sub-Saharan Countries. Appreciation also goes to the Gates Founda- tion for providing the financial resources that have been used in undertaking AgPE studies in 19 coun- tries. The support provided by FAO to 10 Sub-Saharan countries to undertake agriculture public expendi- ture studies on the “Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies” (MAFAP) Project. The NEPAD Agency will continue delivering on its mandate on delivering on the CAADP agenda – in- cluding inter alia translating policy and political decisions into technical frameworks and guidelines; bro- kering technical and financial support & partnerships; and facilitating information / knowledge genera- tion and sharing. This cross-country learning event on agriculture public expenditure studies is one of such events in which information sharing and peer learning among countries is promoted. I encourage you to learn from one another and leave you with an inspiration drawn from a West African saying thus: “the left hand washes the right hand, and similarly the right hand washes the left hand”. 5 Session 2. Methods and Process 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Session 3. Preliminary Synthesis Results 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Session 4. Discussion Summary Central and Southern Africa countries participants observed that their countries were not adequate- ly represented in the first batch of studies. It was explained that this was due to their late completion of the CAADP process and that they would catch up in the subsequent phase that aims to include Botswa- na Cameroon, Chad, Lesotho and South-Africa. An AgPER was planned to be carried out in Central Africa Republic but had to be postponed for security reasons. The difficulty to collect comprehensive data in countries such as Nigeria where a substantial share of agricultural public expenditure is provided by numerous State budgets (36 States in Nigeria) was under- lined. Existing studies (IFPRI in Nigeria), innovative methods (sample analysis) and sub-national expendi- ture tracking systems already used in Asian countries where similar decentralized expenditure structure prevails (Indonesia, Vietnam) will have to be used. The necessity to provide an inter-sectoral picture to show how agricultural budgets compare with other sectors budgets was stressed. The low execution rates observed by most country studies on externally funded capital (or devel- opment or investment depending on countries) budgets were judged surprising given the engagements taken years ago under Paris and Accra agreements on the efficiency of aid. Partly, these low execution rates are due to the inadequate capture by national expenditure tracking systems of both the planned budgets (often overestimated) and actual expenditures (often underestimated) of donor funded activi- ties. However, even in the case national external expenditure tracking systems would improve in the future (countries like Burkina Faso are engaging reforms in that direction), execution rates on externally funded activities are expected to remain lower than those on internally funded expenditures due to the difficulty of national authorities to master multiple and complex donor procedures and insufficient communication and training issues. These results, troubling but consistent across countries, highlight the need for donors to make a greater use of national execution and reporting procedures, to move whenever possible from project to budget support and for countries to increase their reliance on locally generated resources. The danger of generalizing the use of “blind” ratios was emphasized on several occasions during the workshop (for example recurrent over capital expenditure, public goods over private goods, share of expenditure in favor of a subsector compared to its share in the AgGDP, etc.). Participants agreed that it should be kept in mind that there is no optimum ratio across countries and subsectors, the optimum may vary greatly from a country to the other and from a subsector to the other, and, within a country or a subsector, according to its level of development (for example an expenditure funded by the State may be taken over by the private sector at a more advanced stage, rightly reducing the level of Government expenditure in that subsector). It should also be kept in mind that one type of expenditure is not superi- or to the other (for example investment over recurrent), this also depends on situations and develop- ment stages. However, the use of ratios is still recommended as they are useful to prompt questions when apparently overly unbalanced situations are detected (for example, when a subsector that repre- sents a high share of the rural economy receives negligible support). The issue of the link between expenditure and sectoral outcomes was discussed. This was a difficult and sensitive part of the AgPER work in most countries. Clarifications were requested on the figure pre- senting stagnating (or increasing) rural poverty incidence despite increasing agricultural expenditures in 35 Burkina Faso, Malawi and Senegal. This observation highlights the urgent need for improving the quality of agricultural spending to obtain agricultural growth rates high enough to reduce rural poverty. It was suggested that off-budget expenditure should not be taken into account when calculating the Maputo rate because it is not always aligned with Government priorities. However, as these resources are being brought into the countries by CAADP signatories and are the object of an agreement with the Government, they must be recognized as being part of Government options to finance the sector and thus included in the Maputo rate. Their share in the agricultural total expenditure, relatively substantial in most countries, must be emphasized and their progressive inclusion in Government procedures and accounts recommended. Finally, the need for improving the consistency between the various AgPER studies being produced and updating NEPAD guidelines and COFOG definition was stressed. A harmonization between the FAO/MAFAP and the World Bank/AgPER approaches was also suggested. 36 Session 5. Country Presentation: Togo, by Mr. Treku 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Session 5. Country Presentation: Ghana, by Mr. Ohemeng-Boateng 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Session 5. Country Presentation: Burkina Faso, by Mr. Taondyande 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Session 6. Discussion of Country Presentations The Togo team made clear that the new national agricultural policy (PNDA) that was elaborated fol- lowing the AgPER was consistent with the already existing sector investment plan (PNIASA). A new poli- cy had to be elaborated given that the period covered by the previous Note de Politique Agricole was coming to an end. Some methodological points were also clarified by the Togo team. Concerning superior education institutes involved in agriculture/agronomy training, the budget of the institute in charge of training the technicians who then work directly in the agricultural sector was included in the AgPER while higher lev- el institutions (university) were not included, in accordance with NEPAD guidelines. Expenditures to support the agro-processing subsector were included as it is directly linked to and essential for agricul- tural development. The inclusion of debt service in agricultural COFOG Plus expenditure in Ghana, along with feeder roads, was noted as being exceptional and a response to a special request by Ghana’s Government. It was observed that this could be double accounting as the expenditure that the loans financed were al- ready taken into account. Still in Ghana, it was observed that the subsidy on fertilizers purchased by cocoa producers should not have been taken into account in the agricultural public expenditure as it is part of an arrangement between cocoa producers and the cocoa authority and comes in compensation for lower than market cocoa purchasing prices. This illustrates the difficulty encountered by some of the AgPER teams in the treatment of state enterprises operations. In the case of Burkina Faso that has benefited of both an AgPER and a MAFAP study, the necessity to highlight consistent results and recommendations was emphasized. Still in Burkina Faso, the high level of ownership of the AgPER by the Government, including the Min- istry of Finance, was given as the main reason explaining why the Government is already engaging in implementing some of the study recommendations. High level of ownership was obtained through the formation of a committee that gave orientations to the AgPER team so that the study would respond to Government needs. In particular, the fact that the team positively responded to the committee’s re- quest to have past agricultural expenditure organized along current agricultural strategy (PNSR) budget categories was greatly appreciated, as it provides policy makers with a reference situation against which PNSR implementation can be measured. The substantial effort put on regional disaggregation was also very much appreciated as it produced completely new data. The importance of associating Parliament and development partners was also emphasized. The Parliament reacted by writing to the Government to ensure that some recommendations would be implemented (inclusion of off-budget expenditure in national accounts). It was noted that the studies cannot come up with an optimum intra-sectoral and functional compo- sition for agricultural expenditures but can provide policy makers with evidence on how the past and current composition compare to what was planned in strategy documents. Again, comparing the share of expenditure in favor of a subsector to that subsector’s share in the AgGDP was judged possibly over- simplistic as the contribution of a subsector to the economy may go beyond its share in the AgGDP (con- tribution to food security, to poverty reduction, to foreign exchange earnings, etc.). A subsector may 71 also need greater support because of its greater development potential. The need for better indicators for agricultural development (including not only output growth but also food security, poverty reduc- tion, level of investment, etc.) was underlined. 72 Session 7. Specialized Analysis: Case of Tanzania voucher program NAIVS, by Mr. Mink 73 74 75 Session 7. Discussion of Specialized Analysis Regarding Togo’s agriculture sector MTEF, the team explained that the country medium-term budg- etary framework they used was provided by the Ministry of Finance. Regarding the NAIVS impact evaluation study, it was noted that although its cost could seem high at first sight (approximately USD 250,000, jointly financed by a Government, World-Bank financed project and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), it only represented 0.2% of the total expenditure over the first three years of the input subsidy program, which is a minor addition to monitoring and evaluation costs. Precisions were given on the sampling methodology (2,000 households belonging to the three categories: participants, eligible not participating and not eligible) and on the project objectives (explicit- ly food production increase, hence targeting productive rather than subsistence smallholders). Session 8. Panel: Process Panelists: Nancy Laibuni (KIPPRA Research Institute, Kenya), Ousman Tall (Ministry of Agriculture, Libe- ria), Daniel Ohemeng-Boateng (Ministry of Agriculture, Ghana). Facilitator: Stephen Mink (World Bank). The Facilitator drew on the questions below to request responses from the panelists drawing on the experience of the country study with which they were involved. Question 1: What were the most difficult and time consuming aspects of the basic data collection? The main points reported by the panelists are:  Disaggregated data is scattered in many institutions. Solution to overcome this is to bring on board, from the beginning of the study, all relevant Ministries and data holders. If possible, this could be done through a working committee with representatives of each institution, to identify and fill the gaps more easily (example of Ghana).  Socio-political turmoil affecting the quality of data from previous years. Question 2: Are the technical teams sufficiently involved to be able to replicate/update the analysis in subsequent rounds? In order to replicate the study, the panelists put forward the need to build a team of trained techni- cians that are able to carry out the analysis independently through the years (Ghana example). The team needs to be set in an institution of which it is the mandate (statistics or other) so that is accountable. NEPAD could make public expenditure monitoring/review part of the CAADP compacts to ensure the States internalizes this function. CABRI is also a new network on PE analysis – building a network of prac- titioners in Africa may reduce dependency on technical assistance from Rome or Washington. Question 3: Did coordinating mechanisms adequately encompass the institutions covered in the scope of analysis? No note. Question 4: Did the analysis become available in a timely way in relation to the annual budget pro- cess? 76 In Ghana, the results are embedded in the policy process of METASIP through the METASIP steering committee, and once endorsed will be used for budget preparation. Question 5: Was involvement of sector stakeholders adequate through workshops (launch, validation) and meetings by the studies’ teams? There are two aspects to take into consideration to involve other stakeholders On one hand, high- level representatives from the Ministries and other institutions need to be brought on board, for in- stance through the National Policy Framework steering committee/agency (Ghana or Burkina example). On the other hand, it is good to present sectoral results to raise interest, for instance results for a specif- ic value chain or a policy (input subsidies). Kenya organized a successful national consultative workshop on tea/coffee/sugar. The balance between committed technicians and policy-makers is crucial, and this should be thought of from the onset of the study. Session 9. Panel: Analytical Results Panelists: Naman Keita (Rural Economics Institute, Mali), Isaac Shinyekwa (Research Institute, Uganda), Kofi Treku (Togo), Yapo Dagou (Ministry of Agriculture, Côte d’Ivoire). Facilitator: Jesus Barreiro-Hurlé (FAO, MAFAP) The Facilitator drew on the questions below to request responses from the panelists drawing on the experience of the country study with which they were involved. Question 1: Are sector strategies sufficiently detailed so as to allow you to identify whether the public expenditure is aligned with these priorities? Globally, the panelists made the point that policy strategies were sufficiently well defined to assess policy coherence between public expenditure and national objectives. This makes it all the more inter- esting to analyze public expenditure. However, policy priorities can shift due to a troubled socio-political context (Ivory Coast for instance) and public expenditure should also be analyzed in the light of these “emergency” policy objectives. Question 2: How convincing were the results based on the data you had obtained to guide policy pro- cesses? The panelists did not question the fact that results were convincing and it seems their validity was recognized. Therefore, they triggered debate on three main points:  Share of expenditure going to certain commodities compared to their weight in the agricultural pro- duction or importance for food security triggered intensive debate and lobbying from NGOS, FOs… (Ivory Cost, Uganda, Mali)  Geographical and level of government allocation of expenditure was surprising and triggered debate (Ivory Coast, Togo)  How the State did with regards to the Maputo target. So, “it is not just how much you spend but also what and where” 77 Question 3: What results in the analysis appeared to raise the most interest amongst other stakehold- ers? All the panelists mentioned the same result: the Maputo target. Policy makers and stakeholders de- bated on the methodology used to obtain the Maputo target result:  Close or far to Maputo target and why? Some surprising result (very low in Ivory Coast… quite high in Mali)  Scope of expenditure going to agriculture taken into account in the calculation: rural development (or COFOG +) or not? The Ministry of Agriculture prefers not to: if the country is below Maputo tar- get, it makes for easier advocacy to obtain funds from the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Fi- nance prefers the opposite.  Inclusion of recurrent versus investment and donor versus national. Certain people argue that donor expenditure should not be taken into account, (i.e. Mali were a large amount of donor money was pulled out after 2010) or that recurrent should not be taken into account. Question 4: Do you feel your findings can lead you to formulate strong recommendations? All panelists formulated strong recommendations: Process  Increasing funding to Ministry of Agriculture (Ivory Coast)  Better financial system: data collection, budget planning, coordination between Ministries (Ivory Coast);  Increasing releases (actual versus) budget (Uganda)  More capacity for staff in Ministry of Agriculture and more staff (Togo) Composition  Better targeting to commodities with relation to their importance in the economy and with more coherence with price policies (Mali, Uganda)  Re-balance the sub-sectoral composition: mechanization, input subsidies…(Togo) Open questions from the room (main points) 1. Regional equality of expenditure in Togo and Ivory Coast : inequality is normal, every region have their own importance in the country’s economy Answer from panelists: This is true, but in Ivory Coast the surprise came from the fact that the non- governmental zone (rebel) received the biggest share of money from the government. In Togo, the dis- parity was that the funds were mainly going to the region where the State central services are , and that more decentralization, not just deconcentration of offices, is needed. 2. Should one focus on actual or budget expenditure? Answer from panelists: actuals were always used. It also allows assessing efficiency. 78 3. The study needs to involve from the onset the Planning and Finance Ministry. This is needed to have the best data. Answer from panelists: They were included in most countries. Session 10. Panel: Achieving Impact Panelists: Kofi Nouvé (Burkina Faso – World Bank consultant), Diop (Sénégal), Ourou-Bodi Tchassanti (Togo). Note: several non-panelists were asked to contribute by the facilitator. Facilitator: Simon Kisira (NEPAD NPCA) The Facilitator drew on the questions below to request responses from the panelists drawing on the experience of the country study with which they were involved. Other country representatives were also engaged in the questions. Question 1: Which of the recommendations from the Togo study have policy-makers put in place?  Recognition of the importance of agriculture in the economy.  More resources to the Ministry of Agriculture.  Consideration on increasing funding to research.  Consideration of increased decentralization of funds. Question 2: In South Africa, how were the results of the study taken into account at central and pro- vincial level?  Realization from policy makers involved that institutional arrangement for decentralized budget are too complex.  Greater will that the expenditure at provincial level matches with the policy objectives at na- tional level. Question 3: In Burkina Faso, what decisions policy makers took based on the results, and what is the process to implement them?  Debate in the Ministry on how to take off-budget expenditure into account.  Thinking on having a better balance of resources to sectors based on their importance in the economy (i.e. livestock).  Quality of public expenditure.  Process: Implication of the Parliament, so the Ministry is now accountable to the Parliament on recommendations taken. Question 5: In Chad, how can recommendations be implemented and used by policy makers? Policy-makers have their own agenda. They may or may not accept recommendations. Not given for granted: political economy is also important. Question 6: In Senegal, how to ensure that the policy makers take the recommendations into ac- count?  Report recently finalized. Validation workshop needed. 79  The process is to go through the planning units, which have been involved in the study and will take recommendations into account.  But the study gives the same results as a previous study (GASFP), so some recommendations (i.e. input subsidies) already taken into account. Question 7: In Ghana, how were various stakeholders involved to ensure buy-in of recommendations? Project steering committee involving MPs, Finance Ministry, many stakeholders… Getting final comments on the report from them and then will disseminate results with their endorsement. Question 8: In Togo, how were results made accessible intellectually and physical for all stakeholders, from to level to grassroots?  Working group with several Ministries, meetings with Parliament to share results.  Workshop to present results with the producers’ organizations invited. “Lobbying” to have them taken into account in the budget 2014.  Launch a MTEF in MinAg since the study was made generates interests from other Ministries now. Question 9: “In Lesotho, what foras work to disseminate results?” Farmer organizations, district-level associations: avenue to disseminate results at grassroots level. Umbrella NGOs too. Question 10: In Senegal, what is the role of civil society in the process in your country? The National Investment Plan for Agriculture (PNIA) has put in place a good structure to disseminate results:  Planning units  PNIA committee (civil society, academia, ministries…)  Pilot committee (technical advisors from ministerial cabinets) Question 11: In Burkina Faso, to what extent has the Ministry of Burkina Faso taken the lead in policy dialogue based on the results?  Too many ministries (4) need of a coordination agency for agricultural policies.  The Permanent Secretary to coordinate sectoral policies (SP/CPSA) acts in that sense and dis- seminates results to all Ministries involved in agricultural policies.  But the worry is that the dissemination may stop at persons in the various committees of SP/CPSA but does not go deeply in their institution. Need follow-up. Question 12: In Kenya, how have recommendations made through the Agricultural sector Coordinat- ing Unit go beyond the people involved in this policy arena? A structure called ASCU coordinates the issues on agriculture from all Ministries and deal with them. Question 13: In Nigeria, how was the Ministry of Agriculture put in the lead of the process?  Minister of Agriculture that is on the driving seat, committed  Agriculture seen as a commercial activity. 80  Need to ensure this energy is sustained institutionally after the Minister leaves. Question 14: “If the public expenditure review is done again, what should be done differently to en- sure that it is very well used?”  Monitor and evaluate how recommendations of the 1st study have been addressed before doing the 2nd study.  Need of a pilot committee and orientation committee involving relevant stakeholders from the beginning. Need policy makers involved from the onset of the study. Question 15: How does COMESA, as a REC, see itself supporting the countries to do this? Acting as a platform to bringing practitioners and policy makers together, mobilize technical re- sources and build peer learning and lessons sharing. Question 16: Togo, how can key decisions be taken into account in the budgeting?  Forum put in place, for farmers to share their concerns with policy leaders.  Creation of a Technical Pilot Committee of the PNISA for endorsement of results, then sent to a Strategic Pilot Committee bringing together Ministers.  Use of an orientation review every year to define new budgetary orientations. Results from the study will be used for this orientation. Sessions 14 and 15. Synthesis and Closing Remarks In his closing remarks, Mr. Stephen Mink, the World Bank Task Team Leader of the AgPE program, reminded participants that one of the key objectives of the workshop was to “keep the ball rolling”. Against this metric and judging by the interest and enthusiasm generated throughout the two-day work- shop, the overall assessment was that the workshop reached its stated objectives. To name a few re- sults, the meeting the meeting was successful in getting the discussions going (i) among countries teams and consultants, (ii) on the AgPE tools, and (iii) on experience sharing between countries. Mr. Mink’s remarks underscored ten (10) key messages that have emerged from the workshop, and which are summarized below: 1. There was a clear agreement among meeting participants that there is a need for a lighter model for the basic AgPE study, which can be routinely and independently conducted by coun- try teams. The methodology for this type of model needs to be tested and worked out in col- laboration with countries; 2. There was a commonly perceived need for creating a community of practitioners, so as to con- tinue the process of learning and exchanging between countries; 3. The rich set of experience available among countries participating in the AgPE studies creates an opportunity to use exchange visits to facilitate cross learning; 4. Sustainability of the AgPE work is critical, and there was a general agreement that there is a need to (i) put in place a pool of technical expertise; (ii) bring this expertise to a cutting-edge professional level through targeted capacity reinforcement, and (iii) facilitate countries’ access to this pool of expertise; 81 5. Building partnerships—with IFPRI, ReSAKSS and other institutions—and continuing partnership with MAFAP will be critical in carrying this program forward and in continuing to make it rele- vant for countries’ needs. 6. Two encouraging trends have emerged from workshop discussions: first, there was a vibrant stakeholders’ participation in the planning and validation of AgPE studies, facilitated through active effort by the study teams in engaging these stakeholders in the AgPE process; second, there are emerging evidence that the AgPE process is having initial impacts, and some the studies’ conclusions and recommendations has echoed favorably in policy decision-making cir- cles in some countries. 7. Despite these initial impacts, however, it was made clear from discussions that the debates among participants disproportionately focused on “quantity”, i.e. the type, level and composi- tion of public expenditures in agriculture. To a large extent, discussions have been missing on expenditures “quality”, i.e. their process and cost efficiencies. Consequently, it was agreed that the quality agenda needs to receive greater attention. 8. Discussions on the various AgPE analytical tools and concepts indicate that some of the tools need to be further clarified, improved, or simply dropped. For example, one could question the relevance of the comparison between subsectors’ AgGDP share and their AgPE shares. The fun- damental question for the work ahead is how best to linked expenditures to outcomes? 9. Moving ahead, additional work may be useful in articulating the rich complementarities be- tween the AgPE approach used by the World Bank on the one hand, and the MAFAP approach supported by the FAO on the other hand. In essence, the scope of the MAFAP appears to be larger than AgPE scope, the latter being defined by COFOG classification. The inquiry could focus on questions such as: (i) Is the scope of AgPE under COFOG adequate? (ii) How can some of the powerful presentations or analyses using the MAFAP approach be mainstreamed in the AgPE approach? Overall, it is important for countries to understand that both tools are not competing but rather complementary; therefore countries should pick the right tool given the needs. 10. Finally, irrespective to the tool used, all participants emphasized the need for quality data. In that vein, capturing off-budget expenditures is a critical challenge that needs to be addressed as countries work toward institutionalizing AgPE activities. The representative from FAO, Mr. Christian Derlagen, on behalf of the MAFAP team reinforced the ten key messages shared by Mr. Mink. In particular, he reiterated the following six messages: 1. Compared to MAFAP’s price analysis work, which appears to have generated greater interest from stakeholders over the past two years, one is tempted to question the relevance the huge amount of work that has gone into the AgPE studies. The success of the workshop has squarely demonstrated that this doubt is unfounded, and the emerging impacts of the AgPE process clearly show that the relevance of the AgPE programs is unquestionable; 2. The MAFAP program is at the end of its first phase, and the workshop is very timely with respect to the preparation of the second phase, which could scale up what has worked, and revise what have not, and add what have been missed during the first phase; 3. The collective experience from countries shows that access to data is difficult. Looking ahead, it would be useful to focus some of the activities on how to make data access more flexible, par- ticularly in regards to specific data disaggregation. There is a need to move toward a common data handling methodology, so as to allow comparability over time (in the same country) and across space (between countries); 4. Involving all stakeholders in the AgPE process is critical to ownership and follow-up impacts. Data is nothing without interpretation, and interactions with stakeholders help put more mean- ing into the data; 82 5. Capacity building at all levels must be ensured for ownership and sustainability. 6. For greater impact, link of the AgPE process with the CAADP process must build on existing Steering Committees and M&E systems. In addition to the concluding remarks by the World Bank and FAO, and before the closing remarks by NEPAD, two countries representatives have shared their thoughts on the workshop, and more broad- ly on the two AgPE programs. Representing Francophone countries, the representative from Togo, Mr. Nasser Tchassanti, thanked meeting organizers and participants, the World Bank, FAO and NEPAD as well as AgPE consultants and the B&M Gates Foundation for their technical and financial supports. He emphasized that on behalf of his colleagues, the main takeaway message was a call for actions. These actions should focus on continuing learning through regular exchanges among countries and on imme- diate implementation of recommendations from studies through the preparation and close monitoring of agreed follow-up actions. Speaking on behalf of Anglophone countries, the representative from South Africa, Mr. Jacob Hlatshwayo, also expressed deep recognition for meetings organizers and participants, as well to sup- porting institutions and AgPE experts, for making the event such as success, and for their various sup- port to countries. He emphasized the importance of knowledge and experience sharing among coun- tries: drawing on the wisdom of an Africa proverb, he concluded by saying that “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go with others”. The final closing remarks were made by the representative of NEPAD, Mr. Simon Kisira. After thank- ing all participants, Mr. Kisira drew the meeting to closing while re-emphasizing the following six key messages, which are also an invitation for actions: 1. Continue providing opportunities for learning exchanges; 2. Establish a community of practitioners; 3. Focus on quantity is good; but focus of quality is even better (in reference to the types, level and composition of AgPE on the one hand, and to the cost/process efficiency of AgPE on the other); 4. Provide improved guidelines for AgPE through technical assistance and financial support; 5. Political economy matters; if AgPE studies are to lead to durable impacts on processes and out- comes; 6. Ensure greater coordination by institutionalizing and mainstreaming AgPE studies into joint sector reviews, joint accountability reviews and other joint, multiple stakeholders, dialogue plat- forms. Mr. Kisira concluded by renewing NEPAD’s readiness to support incoming countries as they engage themselves into the process of preparing AgPE studies. 83 Annex 1: Workshop Participants List AgPE WORKSHOP - PARTICIPANTS LIST LAST NAME FIRST NAME(S) ORGANISATION TITLE COUNTRY EMAIL TELEPHONE AMPADU Richard Ameyaw STEPRI/CSIR MAFAP Team Leader Ghana r.ampadu@yahoo.com 233 545 664 007 ASSIONGBON Ekoue World Bank Consultant Togo ekassiongbon85@yahoo.fr 221 901 06176 BAY Fatima Ministry of Agriculture Policy Analyst Mozambique fatimabibibay@yahoo.com 258 828 493280 BELACHEW Zewdu Ministry of Finance & Economic Devel- Expert Ethiopia zwede_fel@yahoo.com 251 911 459 399 opment BELLO Afusat Fed. Ministry of Agriculture Nigeria jokybello@gmail.com 234 803 918 6333 BENIN Samuel IFPRI Research Fellow s.benin@cgiar.org 1 530 400 3756 BOATENG-SIRIBOE Adelaide World Bank Consultant Ghana absiriboe@yahoo.co.uk 233 244 380 037 BONGELI Botikala Ministry Budget DRC CAADP Country Team DRC bongelibo@yahoo.fr 081 907 2945 CUMBE Celia Ministry of Agriculture Director Mozambique cumbeceliaema@yahoo.com.br 258 82 52 23564 DAGOU Yapo Ministry of Animal Resource Director Cote d'Ivoire dagouyapo@yahoo.fr 225 075 49803 DERLAGEN Christian FAO Policy Analyst christian.derlagen@fao.org 39 06 570 53608 DIARRA Daba Minister of Finance Mali Inspector Finance Mali daba.diarra@yahoo.fr 76 27 24 72 DIENYA Tom Ministry of Agriculture Food Security Officer Kenya tm.dienya@gmail.com 254 720 873 855 DIOP Sokhna Mbaye Ministry of Agriculture/DAPS CAADP Focal Point Senegal soxou19@gmail.com 221 77 651 2043 DOTHI William COMESA Secretariat CAADP M&E Expert wdothi@comesa.int 260 974 068 230 EFFA Dorothy MOFA, Ghana SAO Ghana daeffa@gmail.com 233 277 016 062 FRANCIS LEKU Azenaku MINADER Cameroon Director Cameroon francislekuazenaku@ymail.com 237 776 06713 GHARTEY James World Bank Consultant Ghana profghartey@yahoo.com 233 24 324 591 GICHERU Samuel Ministry of Agriculture Economist Kenya samuel_gicheru@yahoo.com 254 722 632 610 GITUNDU Samuel Ministry of Agriculture Agriculturist Kenya muhiugitundu@gmail.com 254 727 890 431 GNAMETCHO Kojou Ministry of Finance Division Chief Togo gnamnes@yahoo.fr 228 9001 0602 HAILEGIORGIS Dawit Ministry of Agriculture Planning, M&E Expert Ethiopia dawitsetegny@yahoo.com 251 910 495 664 HLATSHWAYO Jacob DAFF CFO South Africa jacobH@daff.gov.za 27 12 319 6638 HOURTICQ Joël World Bank Consultant Togo joel.hourticq@gmail.com 84 KAMA Berte World Bank Consultant Cote d'Ivoire bertekama@yahoo.fr 225 077 711 99 KATIKO Fikiri Ministry of Agriculture Economist Tanzania fmkatiko@gmail.com 0713 865 052 KEGORILOE Cordelia NEPAD Agency Personal Assistant cordeliak@nepad.oeg 27 11 256 3618 KEITA Naman Institut d'Economie Rurale Mali namankeita@yahoo.fr 223 76 16 82 53 KHADIDJA Abdelkader Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation CAADP Focal Point Chad khadidjaabdelkader@yahoo.fr 235 662 93269 KINGONZI Nkambwa Ministry of Agriculture DRC CAADP Country Team DRC kingonziking2000@yahoo.fr 243 815 087 142 KISIRA Simon NEPAD Agency M&E Officer simonk2@nepad.org 27 11 256 3600 KIZWALO Evangeline Ministry of Agriculture Principal Economist Tanzania ekizwalo@yahoo.co.uk 255 754 471 302 KOUASSI Adjoua Jeannine Ministry of Agriculture Planning Officer Cote d'Ivoire Kajeachrist@yahoo.fr 255 076 35 168 KOUASSI Mofoué Sonia Ministry of Agriculture Planning Officer Cote d'Ivoire mofouesonia@yahoo.fr 225 0572 3838 LAIBUNI Nancy Kenya Institute Public Policy, Research Policy Analyst Kenya nlaibuni@kippra.or.ke 254 249 36261 and Analysis LEGESSE Ermias Ministry of Agriculture Planning Expert Ethiopia ermias_legass@yahoo.com 0911 174 732 MABJAIA Emilio Ministry of Agriculture Technician Mozambique emathelane@yahoo.com.br 258 84 57 12331 MAKABANYANE Itumeleng DAFF S. Africa Director South Africa winstom@daff.gov.za 27 72 755 6331 MAS APARISI Alban FAO Policy Analyst alban.masaparisi@fao.org 39 33 121 614 47 MASHINDANO Oswald Department of Economics, UDSM Lecturer & Researcher Tanzania omashindano@esvf.or.tz 255 717 090 067 MINK Stephen World Bank Lead Economist smink@worldbank.org 202 458 5458 MODO Lesedi Ministry of Agriculture Principal Economist Botswana ldmodoe@gov.bw; ldmo- 267 713 882 59 doe@yahoo.com MOHALE Mathapelo Ministry of Agriculture Ass. Economic Planner Lesotho mletsepe@yahoo.com 266 6302 3143 MOKITIMI None Ministry of Agriculture Consultant Lesotho nonemokitimi@yahoo.com 266 588 83315 MOREL Niels World Bank Consultant Togo nielsmorel@gmail.com 1 301 275 9478 MOTLHAKO Mokwadi Ministry of Agriculture Economist Botswana mmotlhako@gov.bw 368 9027 MWENECHANYA Mbosonge COMESA Secretariat CAADP Facilitator mbosonge@hotmail.com 260 974 192 764 SAREVA Mwinjuma Ministry of Agriculture Economist Tanzania sarevamm2004@yahoo.co.uk 0754 865 087 NANGTOURBAYE Tonmadjal Ministry of Finance Director Budget Chad nongtour@yahoo.fr 235 6631 0780 NDOBENI Unathi Department of Agriculture Chief Director, Financial South Africa unathin@daff.gov.za 27 12 319 7061 Management NOUBADOUMADJI Emery Ministry of Economy and Planning Economist Chad noubemery@yahoo.fr 235 66 41 89 41 NOUVE Kofi World Bank Ag Economist knouve@worldbank.org 226 5049 630 NWAFOR Manson IITA RESAKSS Policy Analyst m.nwafor@cgiar.org 234 80 68 07 2401 85 NWOKO Chinedum World Bank/Policy Associates Consultant Nigeria chinedumnwoko@gmail.com 234 803 963 9210 OHEMENG-BOATENG Daniel Ministry of Agriculture Deputy Director Ghana ohemengboateng@yahoo.com 244 211 007 ORLOWSKI Dieter Consultant Liberia do@ximungo.net 49 171 369 6440 OUEDRAOGO Ismael World Bank Consultant Cote d'Ivoire jsouedraogo@yahoo.com OWUSU-SEKYERE Joshua University of Cape Coast Ghana Vice Dean Ghana jaydosus@yahoo.com 233 246 630 513 PASCAL Happy SABI Serge Ministry of Agriculture DRC Point Focal CAADP DRC sabiserge@yahoo.fr 243 998 947 195 SADE Patrice World Bank Program Assistant psade@worldbank.org 1 202 458 0718 SALA SALA Theodore MINADER Cameroon Director Cameroon salasalatheodore@yahoo.fr 237 773 03113 SECK Alassane Ministry of Agriculture Analyst Senegal alassaneseck2000@yahoo.fr 221 775 782 517 SEFEFO Khoabane Ministry of Agriculture Economist Lesotho khoabanesefefo@ymail.com 266 763 594 559 SENTALA Thokozani Ministry of Agriculture, Malawi Economist Malawi thokozanisentala@yahoo.com 0999 382431 SHINYEKWA Isaac Economic Policy Research Research Fellow Uganda ishinyekwa@eprc.or.ug 256 772 640 415 SOW Papa Amadou Ministry of Fisheries, Senegal Monitoring Officer Senegal pamadou72@yahoo.fr 774 588 211 TALL Ousman Ministry of Agriculture Assistant Minister Liberia ostall@yahoo.com 231 886 517 202 TAONDYANDE Maurice World Bank Consultant Burkina Faso taond@yahoo.fr 226 7066 7884 TARR Byron World Bank/Development Consultants Consultant Liberia byrontarr@hotmail.com 231 886 536 531 TCHASSANTI Ouro-Bodi Ministry of Agriculture Director, Finance Togo nassertchassanti@yahoo.fr 228 9005 8037 TEOUABA Felix MINADER Cameroon CAADP Secretary Cameroon fteouaba@yahoo.com 237 9404 0513 TREKU Koffi Ministry of Agriculture Chief Division Togo pstreku@yahoo.fr 228 9011 1123 VAN-SEGBEFIA Allan Ministry of Finance, Ghana Economic Officer Ghana asegbefia@mofep.gov.gh 233 542 123 687 WILTSHIRE Wendy World Bank Consultant wiltshire.wendy@gmail.com WONYENE Harry Ministry of Agriculture Director Liberia harrystays@yahoo.com 231 886 573 318 ZACCHAEUS Akerejola Ministry of Agriculture Nigeria Nigeria zakerejola@rocketmail.com 234 805 715 9663 ZORYA Sergyi World Bank Senior Economist szorya@wb.org 86 Annex 2: Breakout Groups for Discussion of Process, Analytical Results, and Achieving Impact 1.A Groupe processus - Francophone 1.B Process group - Anglophone SALA SALA MODO KHADIJA HAILEGORGIS DAGOU OWUSU-SEKYERE SABI SEFEFO SOW GITUNDU TCHASSANTI WONYENE DIARRA SENTALA MINK, Facilitator BELLO MAKABANYANE KATIKO LAIBUNI VAN SEGBEFIA AMPADU DOTHI NWAFOR DERLAGEN, Facilitator 2.A Groupe résultats et analyse - Francophone 2.B Analysis and results group - Anglophone TEOUABA BELACHEW NOUBADOUMADJI EFFA KOUASSI Sonia GICHERU KINGONZI MOKITIMI DIOP MABJAIA TCHEDRE CHINADUM KEITA NDOBENI KAMA MWINJUMA MAS APARISI, Facilitator SHINYEKWA GHARTEY TAONDYANDE OUEDRAOGO ORLOWSKI BENIN BARREIRO-HURLÉ, Facilitator 3.A Groupe impact - Francophone 3.B Impact group - Anglophone LEKU MOLTHAKO NANGTOURBAYE LEGESSE KOUASSI Jeanine OHEMENG-BOATENG BONGELI DIENYA TREKU MOHALE SECK TALL MOREL CUMBE ASSIONGBON ZACCHAEUS NOUVÉ HLATSHWAYO HOURTICQ, Facilitator KIZWALO BOATENG-SIRIBOE TARR MASHINDANO MWENECHANYA ZORYA, Facilitator 87