Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa

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 15 th September 2010 – 8 h 30 – 13 h 00 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 Sub. Saharan 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 Sub. Saharan Africa.

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 G 8 Summit, historic global commitments of $22 b over three years, including $3. 5 b from USG

Evolution of US Assistance: Moving Toward a “Demand. Driven” 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 FY 2010: § 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 $900 m over three years (US, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) § First allocations, totaling $224 m, were made in June to: Bangladesh ($50 m), Haiti ($35 m), Rwanda ($50 m), Sierra Leone ($50 m) and Togo ($39 m) § For the October 2010 Steering Committee decision meeting, $120 m 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