Discussion on Discussion on The Bangladesh Country Investment Plan:

A Roadmap toward investment in Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition

(2010-2015)

byThe Food Policy Monitoring Unit Team

12 February 2015

Table of Content

0. CIP and FPMU role1. Institutional capacity and give motivation to officers in partners ministries2. Progress, issues, bottleneck, and successful strategies3. Capacity development within financing, human resources, knowledge, processes needed to deliver the discussed products and services 4. Methodology of setting investment portfolio framework5. CIP related products and services

The Bangladesh Country Investment Plan:

A Roadmap toward investment in Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition

(2010-2015)-

The role of FPMU

0.

Objectives:•Plan and invest resources in a coordinated way•Increase convergence of GoB and DPs funding•Mobilize additional resources from GoB and DPs•Monitor and evaluate investment, prioritization and financing gap

Aligned with policy/institutional framework, CIP is a strategic and coherent set of 12 priority investment programs to improve food

security and nutrition in an integrated way, through a participatory consultation process

CIP

CIP

Institutional setting for monitoring CIP - FPMU role

Food Planning Monitoring Committee

(FPMC)

National Committee

(NC)

Food Policy Working Group

(FPWG)

Thematic Teams (TTs, 4)

Ensures high level guidance & links with the Cabinet level, FPMC, including representatives from Civil Society & DPs

Coordinates the monitoring process through the TTs, involving all relevant GoB Agencies

Provides strategic orientation on food security; establishes high level commitment to inter-sectoral collaboration among 8 Ministries

Provides support to FPMC, NC, FPWG & TTs

Carry out the monitoring process

• What type of Institutional capacity needed to develop and implement a CIP?

• FS-CIP team’s Lessons learnt on how to motivate staff and other ministries/agencies (e.g. TT members) to actively engage them in the CIP preparation/ implementation/ monitoring practices?

1.

Institutional capacity to develop/implement CIP

Capacity strengthening to formulate food policies• GoB Implementation/coordination monitoring

functions• GoB Design, management and operation of CIP• Civil society contribution to the CIP development Data management Integrate the work on CIP and its outputs in the

business-as-usual tasks

FPMU lessons learnt in motivating TT members to actively engage them in CIP

STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES

• Professional linkages within TT members developed

• TT mechanism already tested and functioning

• Actively contribution of GoB partners in organizing the‘Food Security Investment Forum’and in preparing technical papers on six thematic areas

• Initial TT’s capacity to collect data lower than expected

• Alignment with GoB data availability• Changes in non-FPMU TT members • TT members often time constrained

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

• Improved linkages with TT members• Established TT mechanism improved

ownership by TT members• Involvement of key TT members to

broaden participation among others

• Newly non-FPMU TT members not fully briefed on Monitoring Reports

Capacities in terms of financing, human resources, knowledge, processes, etc. needed to deliver the

above products and services

2.

GoalGoalOutcomeOutcome

OutputOutputInputInput

ObjectivePurposeResult

Activity

Results based framework

ActivitiesActivities (e.g. Projects) to reach ResultsResults (e.g. Output) for a certain PurposePurpose (e.g. Outcome) & contribute to an overall ObjectiveObjective (e.g. Goal)

Log-frameLog-frame CIPCIP

TheoryTheory PracticePractice

Monitoring…Monitoring…

Indicators

CIP Database

Data collection Output

tablesPrimary

Database

Data collectionFormat

Screening, find missing

data, logical check

Compile and merge with

previous dataCollection

from TTValidation,

Logical checking

Final validation with ADP

book

CIP Financial Data: Process Update

Collection Processing Analysis

Some key words: Budget, financed budget, financing gap, delivery rate, cumulative delivery, ADP vs non-ADP projects, DP vs. GoB financial reporting, etc.

Result Indicators: Goal(s) – Structure

Table 2: NFP goals & SFYP indicators food security

(MR 2014MR 2014)

2007/08PoA

baseline

2009/10CIP/SFYP baseline

2011/12 2012/13 Target 2013

Target 2015 Source

NFP & CIP GoalNFP & CIP GoalUndernourishment (3-year average)

15.4% 15.5% 15.7%(R) 16.3% na 17%

(MDG -1) FAO SOFI

Underweight (0 to 59 months)

41.0%BDHS na 36.4%

BDHS35.1%UESD na 33%

(MDG -1) BDHS & UESD

Stunting (0 to 59 months)

43.2%BDHS na 41.3%

BDHS38.7%UESD na 38% BDHS & UESD

Sixth Five Year PlanSixth Five Year PlanAgri GDP growth rate (constant prices)

3.00% 5.22% 2.99% 2.17% 4.4% 4.3%BBS Yearbook

of Agri StatGoB spending on social protection (% of GDP)

na 2.42% 2.40% 2.23% 2.18% 3.0%Finance

Division, MoFPoverty headcount index (CBN upper poverty line)

40.1%(2005)

31.5%(2010) na na na 29%

(MDG-1)BBS, HIES

Report

Change in Rice wages (3y moving average)

-8.11% 5.71% 4.27% 5.84% 5.07%≥ real GDP

/cap growth+ 0.5

BBS Statistical Yearbook (wages) &

DAM (prices)What…What… Where…Where… from…from…

Problems, issues and bottlenecks encountered in the CIP process and successful strategies utilised

3.

Problems, issues and bottlenecks encountered in the CIP process and successful strategies utilised

STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES

• Consultation process involving 13 ministries, academia, farmers’ organizations, NGOs and DPs

• Regular inter-ministerial consultations improved ownership and responsibility

• Consolidated previous experience and know-how

• Time constrained to work on CIP and CIP related products/activities

• Staff rotation and selection• Taking responsibility/risks• Involvement of Private sector/civil

society

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

• Involvement of other GoB partners create an institutional memory

• Involvement ‘champions’ to broaden participation among others

• Potential for scope economies between CIP related activities and business as usual (e.g. in data collection/management)

• Staff rotations• Sustainability issues

Methodology of setting investment portfolio framework

4.

Methodology of setting investment portfolio framework

Inter-Ministerial and Multi-sectoral Coordination Mechanism

6 background papers prepared for the CIP Within the 3 NFP objectives, 12 Investment programs

derived from the 26 area of action in NFP PoA, by aggregating and prioritizing those requiring investment

High level Bangladesh Investment Forum organized to present the draft CIP

CIP 2010CIP 2010

Methodology of setting investment portfolio framework

CIP guiding principles• CIP as a living document (GoB)• Enhanced partnership (private sector/NGOs)• Scaling up nutrition and access (GoB/DPs)• Institutional and technical Innovation in

implementing the CIP (Private sector/NGOs/DPs) Policy Issues (IFPRI)• Access to and tenure of Water Resources• Lack of access to credit and other financial resources• Integrating private sector involvement Key Broad programmatic issues• Stable good quality of agricultural inputs• Farmers’ organizations• Water resource management and irrigation• Nutrition • Extension services

Revision of CIP through a

participatory consultation

process:3 outcomes

Revision of CIP through a

participatory consultation

process:3 outcomes

REVISED CIP 2011REVISED CIP 2011

What are the products and services (e.g., preparation of main CIP document, monitoring

reports, data sharing agreements with other agencies, coordination services, etc.) that

MoEf/SEFOCS needs to consider

5.

CIP (2011-15)CIP background papers Monitoring Reports (2010, 2012, 2013, 2014,

2015 –ongoing)Roadmap for producing the MR (2013, 2014,

2015)CIP financial database (access)Data sharing with other initiatives, e.g. SUN,

to provide nutrition specific/sensitive financial data

CIP related products and services

THANK YOU !