Where Did our Money go? The Mismanagement of …

Where Did our Money go? The Mismanagement of Agricultural Budget

Allocations Towards the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme in Kenya and Zambia

Bachelor Thesis

BSc Political Science: International Relations and Organisations

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science

Author: Leianne Wijnhoud

Student Number: s1994107

Thesis Seminar: International Cooperation and the Design of Global Economic Institutions

Supervisor: Dr. M.D. Sampson

Date: June 2nd 2020

Word Count: 7820

BACHELOR THESIS | LEIANNE WIJNHOUD

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 7

a. Agricultural Expenditure and Investment 7

b. CAADP and the Malabo Declaration 9

c. Allocation of Budget and Issues of Expenditure 12

3. Methodology and Analysis 16

a. Research Design 16

b. Methodology 17

c. Analysis 20

d. Findings 22

4. Conclusion 27

5. References 30

6. Appendix 34

a. Appendix A 34

b. Appendix B 35


3

1. Introduction

After a long history of negligence towards one of the key sectors of African economies, the

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), has brought

agriculture back to the center of attention. CAADP has been termed Africa’s most ambitious

continental development yet, due to its international character, active position in its aim to

tackle key problematic areas that fall within the scope of agriculture, and far beyond, but most

importantly the overall goals of “accelerating agricultural growth and transformation to ensure

shared prosperity and improved livelihoods”(African Union, 2018) by 2025 (Brüntrup, 2011,

p. 79). Despite this new-found attention, and thereby also an increase in expenditure in the

agricultural sector, these two crucial elements have not translated into continent-wide

improvements in the outcomes of the sector. The most recent CAADP biennial review

presented the members with a rather bleak view of the current situation, in which the continent

as a whole is not on track in meeting the CAADP goals, and still remains primarily focused on

further increasing financial capacities without first taking a step back to assess why this has

not led to the improvement in outcomes over the past years.1 On closer inspection, it is apparent

that in more than half the cases in which targets are not being met, the levels of investment are

in fact higher than in the countries where targets are being met e.g. Kenya is on track in

achieving the CAADP (Malabo) goals with only 3.5 percent budget allocation towards

agriculture, and the same goes for countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Burundi, Uganda

etc. (African Union, 2018). Therefore, a puzzle present in which whilst investments have been

increasing, objectives are all the while not being met, begging the question: Where did our

money go?

CAADP, formulated in 2003 in the city of Maputo, officially took off in 2009 and is

1 Inaugural biennial review report commissioned by the African Union on the status of implementation of the

goals set out in the Malabo Declaration (African Union, 2018).


4

in essence a policy framework for Africa’s agricultural sector, and is part of the New

Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), an economic development program part of

the African Union’s (AU) economic development vision. The overarching principles such as

African ownership, evidence-based policy making, and of primary importance to this thesis,

the coordination of private and public investment in agriculture, have been smoothly translated

from NEPAD into the CAADP framework, thereby having enabled the recognition of key areas

of policy weakness in the sector to which attention must be drawn (Brüntrup, 2011, p. 82).

Currently 43 countries are signatory to CAADP and have thereby committed to the two

main agreements, first established in the 2003 Maputo declaration, which are dedicating 10

percent of the national public budget towards the allocation of agriculture, and achieving 6

percent agricultural growth (Brüntrup, 2011, p. 84). In regard to these expenditures, the most

common distinction made is between public and private investment in agriculture, whereby

around half is derived from national governments (55 percent), partly stemming from private

actors (15 percent) and the remaining part stems from international sources (Brüntrup, 2011,

p. 83).2 This 10 percent target in relation to the level of investment needed for the achievement

of the objectives, is also used as an indicator to track overall progress, as the logical cause and

effect mechanism driving this perception is that meeting the 10 percent would inevitably mean

better performance. All the while, only five countries meet this target, and of these five, only

two countries outperform Kenya in terms of CAADP achievements, whilst as mentioned

earlier, is far from reaching the 10 percent target (NPCA, 2010, p. 11).

The allocation of agricultural budget is centered around the four pillars of CAADP,

introduced in 2009: (1) “Extending the area under sustainable land management; (2) Improving

rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access; (3) Increasing food supply

and reducing hunger; (4) Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption”

2 This includes foreign direct investments that accounts for roughly 10 percent.


5

(Oruko et al., 2011, p. 3). Therefore, on the one hand the target of 10 percent has been viewed

as a clear cut target that countries can work towards, as a type of minimum standard all

countries should seek to achieve in order to commit to the CAADP objectives. Contrarily, the

10 percent indicator can in itself be viewed as flawed, most importantly due to the lack of

concrete evidence of the efficiency of these expenditures, which has been reflected by the lack

of institutional and human capacity for allocation, the fact that the target is not country specific

in relation to the diverse national economies, all the while countries are given domestic

freedom for the implementation of policies to achieve the overall objectives, and the pressure

put on countries to meet this target draws away attention from the measures needed to improve

the allocation efficiency of the budget, which is the main issue that will be addressed in this

thesis (Brüntrup, 2011; NPCA, 2010, p. xv).

As displayed above, so far literature has reviewed the CAADP in its entirety as well as

at the country level of analysis, thereby identifying the program’s contributions (Brüntrup,

2011), the lack of progress (NPCA, 2010), the lack of investment in some cases and abundance

of investment in others (S. Benin et al., 2008). What is however still missing, and perhaps the

main ‘gaps’ in the literature, is the lack of concrete evidence of the impacts of investment

spending in the agricultural sector paired with the effectiveness of agricultural expenditure and

the overall underlying causes of uneven development in regard to the CAADP objectives (S.

Benin et al., 2008, p. vi; Headey et al., 2009, p. 6; Jayne & Ameyaw, 2016). This points towards

a major policy misalignment, whereby although investments have increased, CAADP

achievement remains low, and therefore having these investments in agriculture positively

influencing development and economic growth is no longer dependent on just that, but in

essence resolving this realignment. Therefore, this thesis will shed light on the irregularity

present (high expenditure, low achievement; Low expenditure, high achievement) by

answering the following research question: How does the allocation of agricultural


6

expenditures impact the achievement of the CAADP objectives? This question will be

specifically applied to two cases: Kenya and Zambia. Kenya is one of the countries that is

currently on track to meeting the CAADP objectives by 2025, even though at the bottom of

this list in terms of countries meeting the 10 percent target. Zambia on the other hand displays

mixed results, as it is not on track in achieving the objectives, however joins the countries at

the top of the list in regard to the 10 percent target. By answering the posed research question,

this thesis will primarily focus on resolving the gap in knowledge pertaining to the

effectiveness of investment spending in agriculture, by examining how agricultural budgets are

allocation towards the Malabo objectives (part of CAADP) for each country, thereby applying

a more specific application to the specific elements that need attention in order to achieve these

objectives and overall goals, instead of taking all-round and general approach to looking at

each country’s respective agriculture sector. The findings, and answer to the posed research

question are therefore crucial to understanding what is going wrong in the allocation of

budgets, and more specifically the relation to agricultural policy formation. Without such

information, there is a risk that even if investments continue to increase in many countries, the

CAADP goals will fail to be met, meaning the continent’s development vision will suffer.

This thesis will proceed by firstly reviewing existing literature on the effectiveness of

CAADP as well as investment in agriculture, setting up for the theoretical framework in which

key elements of influence to the achievement of the objectives will be identified. Next the

methodology will be introduced, where after a small-n qualitative comparative analysis will be

carried out, in which the objectives that are being met and those that are not, alongside county

specific investment plans created for CAADP, will be analyzed and findings will be drawn to

lastly end with the conclusion as well as the policy implications of this thesis, drawing attention

to deeper issues that need to be tackled by governments prior to simply allocation a percentage

of national budget, that is then mal-invested.


7

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

CAADP’s primary aims, improving food security, nutrition security and overall poverty

reduction, fall under the continent’s sustainable development vision, pointing towards

agriculture’s indispensable role in achieving such goals (NPCA, 2010). The recognition of the

importance of agriculture for African economies and societies is what spurred the continent-

wide initiative to once again strengthen the sector, thereby tackling areas of policy weakness

and transforming the development sector as a whole, with CAADP taking the lead in providing

the sector with a new form of guidance. The biggest issue, disregard for the sector, is a major

stumbling block, reflected by the overwhelming amount of economics and development

literature recognizing economic growth, poverty reduction and nutrition security, in essence

the continent’s main goals mentioned prior, cannot be achieved without explicit attention and

investment towards agriculture (Lowder et al., 2012, p. 4).

This following section of the thesis seeks to further elaborate on existing literature,

discussing the role and importance of agricultural productivity and public investment in

agriculture as a catalyst for economic growth and overall sustainable development.

Furthermore, agricultural expenditure and investment will be further explained and

conceptualized, as well as the CAADP goals and Malabo declaration.

Agricultural Expenditure and Investment

Although total public expenditure in agriculture has drastically increased over the past decades,

having risen from 128.55 million dollars between the years of 1995-2003, to 186.4 million

dollars in 2003-2008 and 219.62 million dollars in 2008-2014, the share of public expenditure

has remained below 4 percent for each of these years, thereby being nowhere near the 10

percent target for the continent as a whole (Badiane et al., 2016, p. 31). Furthermore, in the

most recent review of NEPAD, only five countries were able to reach the 10 percent public


8

budget allocation target, whereas this was previously 10 countries, worryingly showing a drop

in national expenditures vis-à-vis agricultural budgets (NPCA, 2010, p. 11).

In regards to these expenditures, In the agricultural sector (and others as well), a

distinction can firstly be made between investments and expenditure, which is generally

dependent on the time for returns to be generated e.g. expenditure in research and design

(R&D) is non-tangible and generates intellectual capital, crucial in many areas especially

productivity, but in the long run can therefore be categorized as investment (Lowder et al.,

2012, p. 5). Secondly, a distinction can be made on the basis of whether investment is in

agriculture or for agriculture, the former pertaining to direct investments that directly enhance

agricultural productivity, and the latter pertaining to investments made in sectors such as

transport or health, which indirectly have a positive impact on the agricultural sector in terms

of productivity, production farm incomes etc. (Lowder et al., 2012, p. 6). Lastly, a distinction

can be made between public vs. private investment in agriculture, that can be from a domestic

source or sourced from foreign partners. Pubic investments are primarily sourced through

national government (domestic), and development partners (foreign). Private investments

primarily stem from farmers and businesses (domestic), as well as corporations (foreign)

(Lowder et al., 2012, p. 5).

In relation to this thesis, expenditure and investment are used interchangeably as both

short term and long term goals can be achieved with the allocation of budget in the sector’s

discussed in regard to CAADP. Furthermore, the investment related to CAADP can be viewed

as investment in agriculture, as investments are directly related to enhanced productivity as

well as the effects of this enhanced productivity, such as improved nutrition security. Finally,

in relation to the budget, this stems from public expenditure, therefore private sources of

finance fall out of the scope of this specific research, and the 10 percent budget target can


9

specifically be conceptualized as the share of public expenditure set towards agriculture

(Badiane et al., 2016, p. 43).

In the CAADP, investments center around four main pillars, which were introduced in

2009, and were later on incorporated into the Malabo protocol: (1) “Extending the area under

sustainable land management; (2) Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities

for market access; (3) Increasing food supply and reducing hunger; (4) Agricultural research,

technology dissemination and adoption” (Oruko et al., 2011, p. 3). To facilitate the assessment

of investment into each of these pillars, as well as furthering the compacts of the program,

national agricultural policies and strategies are the determinants of not only the quantity of the

investments into agriculture, but also the quality of these investments i.e. whether or not

sufficient and adequate enough to meet the CAADP targets (Brüntrup, 2011, p. 85). This led

to the assistance of CAADP to aiding national governments with the creation of National

Agricultural investment Programs (NAIP), which will be further discussed in the following

sections, and ultimately used as the main source of data for the analysis of this research.

CAADP and the Malabo Declaration

CAADP was officially introduced in Maputo in 2003, where the Maputo declaration was

established and adopted by the AU, and whereby heads of state and government established

the two main targets of which the first was the allocation of 10 percent of the national budget

towards the agricultural sector, and the second target being reaching a national growth rate of

6 percent in agricultural growth (African Union Commission, 2003). In 2014, the AU members

recommited to CAADP by signing the Malabo declaration, whereby seven main objectives

were formulated that would ensure the continued steps and meaures that needed to be taken to

reach the overarching goals of CAADP. These seven goals can be summed up as followed: (1)

CAADP processes; (2) Continued investment finance; (3) Ending hunger by 2025; (4) Halving


10

poverty by 2025; (5) Advancing intra-African agricultural commodity and service trade; (6)

Build up climate variability resilience; (7) Mutual accountability for actions and results

(Makombe et al., 2019, p. 191). These goals were carefully formulated in line with the CAADP

objectives that can broadly be divided into three levels of achievement. The first relates to the

‘why’ question of the sector and concentrates on the impact results to which agriculture will

be contributing. This rests heavily on higher-level socio-economic transformation, and broader

development growth that includes the following areas: the creation of wealth; food and

nutrition security; economic opportunity; poverty alleviation and shared prosperity; and

sustainability and resilience (AU-NEPAD, 2015, p. 4). The second level is concerned with the

question of ‘what’, thereby focusing on the outputs from interventions needed to transform the

sector, and centers around: agricultural performance, specifically productivity and production;

competitiveness and intra-African trade, effectiveness and efficiency; inclusiveness of women

and youth; increased resilience of livelihoods and risk management; management of natural

resources to increase sustainability of agriculture (Makombe et al., 2019, p. 191).

The assessment of level one and two targets in the respective NAIPs will be the main

focus of this thesis, as these are the main pillars for agriculture-led growth and development,

but also the overall achievement of these targets, the progress in these areas, the importance in

terms of socio-economic development, and finally the main ways to benchmark the national

level goals and targets, displayed in the achievement of the Malabo objectives (AU-NEPAD,

2015, p. 4).

The third level is geared towards the ‘how’ question, and is based on the inputs needed

to achieve level one and two goals i.e. creating the appropriate environment for agricultural

transformation through effective and inclusive policy processes; effective and accountable

institutions; improved capacity for evidence-based planning and review; strengthened

multisectoral coordination and mutual accountability; increased public and private


11

investments; increased capacity surrounding data analysis, information processing and

innovation (Makombe et al., 2019, p. 191). This level is highly dependent on key institutional

and capacity outcomes and is especially important for the policies and programs created at the

national level, by which it constitutes the support for the implementation of CAADP (AU-

NEPAD, 2015, p. 4). In this sense, the NAIPs plays a major part in this, as it represents the

translation of policy initiatives and formation in accordance with the required budgetary

attention for the targets that need to be met. An issue with this third level, as Mogues (2015)

has outlined, is the quantifiability of the institutional and capacity outcomes, as a majority of

these factors are specific to inherent political and economic structures, for example dependent

on a country’s regime type and actors of influence such as politicians, donors, agribusiness

etc.(ActionAid, 2009, p. 2). These institutions and accompanying actors carry certain motives

and goals that often are not necessarily in line with level one and two outcomes, making it

difficult, even with the required amount of investment, to adequately align policy with

allocation, leading to a mismatch in NAIPs vis-à-vis the desired outcomes (Mogues, 2015, p.

454).

Finally, in 2006 the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System

(ReSAKSS), facilitated by the International Food and Policy Research Institute (IFRPRI), was

established to facilitate the tracking and review of the CAADP targets. The main findings for

the 2017 biennial review report on the implementation of the Malabo protocol shows how

currently out of all the members that have signed the Malabo protocol, only 20 are on-track,

scoring a 3.9 out of 10 (2017 benchmark) or higher, in achieving the seven Malabo goals,

bringing the continent’s average to a 3.6 out of 10, which shows how the continent as a whole

is not on track (African Union, 2018). Although, some literature such as Brüntrup (2011),

remain fairly positive about the CAADP in its approach to support general agricultural

productivity essential to development, it remains a worrying phenomenon that thus far progress


12

has been made, but much too little (Badiane & Makombe, 2014, p. 14). The bottom line as to

the main concerns surrounding the CAADP have been identified by scholars such as Fan et al.

(2009), whereby explicitly is highlighted that raising expenditures and furthering investment,

whilst the inadequacy of these expenditures is present, was and still is a main constraint in

realizing growth and productivity within this sector and far beyond (p. 5). Furthermore, the

heavy reliance of the CAADP on sector strategies and NAIPs, which for this thesis is beneficial

in forming a link between expenditure and objectives, but in reality is a major critique as

Poulton et al. (2014) have identified, in the sense that in African agriculture, formal strategies

and investment plans are often in itself not implemented properly, or at all (pp. 9-10). Benin et

al. (2010) identifies the many issue for the weak NAIP’s as being a lack of prioritization due

to lack to a lack in human or financial capital often resulting in non-transparent decisions on

which activities will be priorities and which will be left out, and even when acted upon, done

with little effort resulting in little impact. Such issues with NAIPs and budget allocation in

general will be discussed in the following section.

Budget Allocation and Issues of Expenditure

Alongside issues surrounding agricultural investments mentioned in prior section of this thesis,

one of the main problems is the over spending in some areas, and under spending in others (i.e.

the misallocation of agricultural budgets), which has led to the underdevelopment of key areas

such as R&D and the overdevelopment in areas such as subsidies for agricultural inputs

(Mogues et al., 2015, p. 453). Extensive research including that of Evenson (2000) and Alston

et al. (2000), has shown the significant economic returns of investment in R&D, however the

CAADP provision to spend at least 1 per cent of agricultural GDP on agricultural R&D has not

been met in the majority of countries (Samuel Benin & Yu, 2013). Badiane et al. (2016) have

identified that the key areas to which budget must be allocated are: “R&D, capacity building,


13

private sector development, agricultural diversification and value chain development” (p. 30),

whereby just as previously mentioned, R&D has been identified as the key driver (Mogues et

al., 2015). Therefore, due to the generation of the highest returns R&D would be the main area

of importance when prioritizing budget allocation in NAIPs. This shows how literature has

identified the key areas of attention in developing NAIPs but has failed to link this to the

CAADP objectives, and how the lack of prioritization of key factors fails to generate the

desired returns to achieve the CAADP goals and objectives (Samuel Benin, 2016). It is simple

to assume that lack of R&D funding leads to lower scores, but is this in fact the case? Why is

this lacking? This leads to the first hypothesis, in which the expectation rests on, if and when

a certain target is prioritized, this will in turn receive the required investments leading to desired

outcomes:

H1: The prioritization of R&D in NAIPs, and thereby targeted budget allocation in his

area, leads to improved agricultural transformation and sustained inclusive agricultural

growth.3

Contrarily, Shetty (1990) has quantitively demonstrated how public sector investment, wages,

salaries, and upholding expenditures, have greatly drawn away from the actual resources

needed for the formation of capital, especially in the area of irrigation, stressing this as a main

priority area (p. 393). A report by Action Aid has also identified how for example in the case

of Kenya, investment in irrigation led to the biggest reduction of rural poverty, but thereafter

R&D was mentioned as well (ActionAid, 2009, p. 19). This leads to the second hypothesis,

3 The underlying assumption fort his hypothesis is that an above benchmark CAADP score is equal to improved

agricultural transformation and sustained inclusive agricultural growth.


14

also based on Mogues et al. (2015) research on overdevelopment in areas generating low

returns mentioned previously:

H2: The prioritization of subsidies in agricultural inputs as well as irrigation in NAIPs,

and thereby targeted budget allocation in his area, leads to diminished agricultural

transformation and less inclusive agricultural growth.4

Other factors of influence in relation to the low country scores have been identified in a report

by Action Aid (2009) with factors ranging from lack of political will and biases towards

political elites and private actors, to historical legacies and general disregard for the agricultural

sector (p. 1). Badiane et al. (2016), have identified key obstacles to implementation of CAADP

objectives that are in relation to the lack of technical analysis and evaluation, alignment of

budget allocation priorities, lack of inter-ministerial coordination and finally participation and

inclusiveness of agricultural sector actors (e.g. smallholders and women) (pp. 29-30). Diao et

al. (2012) have likewise stressed the importance of promoting smallholder agriculture due to

the related positive poverty impact. Furthermore, Badiane et al. (2016), have reviewed how in

a majority of cases prioritization of certain components of the agricultural sector as being more

in need, or less, of increased expenditures, primarily due to the vast disparity in research on the

topic of agricultural returns, the wide variety of methodologies, agricultural inputs, regional

circumstances, makes this a difficult task.

Other than issues directly related to the investments itself, the 10 percent target has also

spurred debate. A report by Action Aid (2009), mentions how the 10 percent is not country

specific and therefore not representative of the investment needs of the different economies

4 The underlying assumption of this hypothesis is that a below benchmark CAADP score is equal to worse

agricultural transformation and worse inclusive agricultural growth.


15

and country structures pertaining to them. The main issue in this regard is once again the lack

of empirical evidence on efficient expenditure in agriculture making it difficult to priorities

certain factors and therefore difficult to assess exactly how much investment is needed for what

(NPCA, 2010, p. xv). This in turn leads to a lack of emphasis on the actual issues, and more

focus on the target itself, which in any case, even though literature has pointed to its

shortcomings, it is in the least a common and set target that can be worked towards as a

minimum standard (NPCA, 2010, p. 5). What is worrying however, is the fact that Pauw and

Thurlow (2015) find that the 10 percent target in public agricultural expenditure is in itself is

insufficient to meet the 6 per cent annual agricultural growth target, without the optimal

prioritization of investment funds as well as the efficiency thereof, once again stressing the

necessity of further analysis required.

This theoretical framework has discussed the existing information on agriculture and

development, the CAADP objectives and Malabo protocol and finally issues surrounding the

allocation of agricultural budgets as well as the 10 percent target. What is still missing, and

will be tackled in the following part of this thesis, is how prioritization of certain elements, and

not others, leads to better or worse CAADP outcomes: the gap in literature.


16

3. Methodology and Analysis

Research Design

The research design most suitable to answer the research question is a small-n comparison,

more specifically the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD). MSSD entails that the cases

chosen are very similar in areas that could potentially generate variating outcomes, but still

differ on the outcome, the dependent variable (DV). Therefore the hypothesized independent

variable (IV) can be viewed as, budget allocation, as this what is presumed to be what is

causing the disparities in the CAADP scores of the different cases. This design is useful for

this research as it ensures the outcomes of the cases, with all other factors of interest, can be

held constant whilst examining how the IV might impact the outcomes. With that said, the

two cases that will be analyzed are Kenya and Zambia.

In relation to the IV of which the influence is hypothesized, Kenya has a relatively

low level of budget allocation towards agriculture in percentage of GDP, in which the

allocation is around 3.5 percent, far below the Malabo target of 10 percent. Zambia however

has a much higher budget allocation percentage, reaching 8.6 percent, which is still below the

target level, but significantly higher than Kenya, and most other CAADP signatories (African

Union, 2018).

Turning to the DV, Kenya despite its lower levels of investment, scores a 4.8 out of

10 (on-track), which is significantly higher than the benchmark target as well as significantly

higher than many other countries with higher levels of agricultural investment, such as

Zambia. This score is based on the different targets of the Malabo objectives, in which for

each biennial review, the countries’ progress is reviewed for each target of the pertaining

objective, whereby some countries are ‘on-track’ for the objective, and others are ‘not on-

track’, according to the established assessment criteria. Zambia scores a 3.6, not on-track,

which is not only below the benchmark, but also puts its amongst the countries at the bottom


17

of the list of CAADP target scores, despites in relative terms to its agricultural sector, large

budgetary contribution (African Union, 2018). In this sense there is variation in both

variables, but the focus of this thesis is to identify how prioritization of certain agricultural

areas, and its hypothesized budget allocation, leads to such disparities, especially when the

previously discussed literature would technically assume the opposite DV outcomes, if the

logical cause-effect scheme of investment and development in literature is taken into account

i.e. Zambia should outperform Kenya. Undoubtedly, there are many factors that could be of

influence to the outcome such as: CAADP period of signatory and implementation, regime

type, political structures, country income levels, geographical factors and the respective

agricultural sector in general, as for example crop types differ in different countries and

regions. For both cases, the most prominent IVs, apart from budget allocation, have been

accounted for and have been identified to be similar enough, that even if these factors were to

influence the dependent variable, the influence would be similar, and therefore not the

primary cause for varying outcomes in the DV. Since the factors mentioned prior are similar,

except for the IV, but result in contrasting outcomes, it is possible to isolate the IV and

identify whether the hypothesized influence, is in fact the driving cause, and fits the purpose

and benefits of the MSSD.

Methodology

The data that was analyzed stems from the NAIPs of each case. These plans have been created

by the respective ministries of the national governments in accordance with the Malabo

objectives and are meant to lay out concrete plans as to which parts of the agricultural sector

need the most attention (i.e. prioritization), and thereby to which areas resources will be

allocated in relation to the areas lined out in the Malabo declaration. NAIPs have been

identified as being capable of capturing the extent to which expenditures are being allocated,


18

therefore displaying the priorities of the respective country’s agricultural policies fairly

accurately (Brüntrup, 2011, p. 85). Therefore this research does not focus on quantifiable

sources of investment, as this research regards the content of these plans, in which the

prioritization of certain areas has been laid out, to be in the least an accurate indication of where

budgets are allocated towards, as confirmed by Badiane et al. (2016). Therefore the NAIPs can

be viewed as being the setting stones of how investments in numerical terms are translated and

allocated towards key agricultural areas meant to ensure sustainable development and poverty

reduction. For the DV, this analysis focuses specifically on the goals set out in Malabo, as these

are the goals that countries are scored on for the biennial review score charts, and are in essence

the baseline for achieving CAADP objectives (see table 1).

Table 1. Malabo Commitments Score Chart

Malabo Commitments Objectives Kenya Zambia

1 CAAP process and values 1 Completing national CAADP

processes

On

track

On track

2 Investment finance in

agriculture

1 10 percent target Not on

track

Not on

track

2 Enhancing access to finance On

track

Not on

track

3 Ending Hunger by 2025 1 Access to agriculture inputs and

technologies

Not on

track

On track

2 Doubling agricultural

productivity

Not on

track

Not on

track

3 Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss Not on

track

Not on

track

4 Strengthening social protection Not on

track

Not on

track

5 Improving food security and

nutrition

On

track

Not on

track

4 Halving Poverty by 2025 1 Sustaining Agricultural GDP for

poverty reduction

Not on

track

Not on

track


19

2 Establishing inclusive PPPs for

commodity value chains

On

track

Not on

track

3 Creating youth employment in

agriculture value chains

Not on

track

Not on

track

4 Increased participation (e.g.

women and smallholders)

Not on

track

Not on

track

5 Boosting intra-African

trade in agri-commodities

and services

1 Tripling intra-African trade for

agri-commodities and services

Not on

track

Not on

track

2 Establishing intra-African trade

policies and institutional

conditions

On

track

On track

6 Enhancing resilience to

climate variability

1 Ensuring resilience to climate

related risks

Not on

track

Not on

track

2 Investment in resilience building Not on

track

Not on

track

7 Mutual accountability 1 Increasing country capacity for

evidence based planning,

implementation and M&E

On

track

Not on

track

2 Fostering peer review and mutual

accountability

On

track

On track

3 Conducting a Biennial

agricultural review process

Not on

track

Not on

track

Source: Based on the findings of Inaugural Biennial Review Report of the African Union

Commission on the Implementation of the Malabo Declaration (African Union, 2018).

The method used to examine the data was the qualitative content analysis method,

applied to the respective NAIPs. The way in which the data was analyzed was through firstly

the creation of a table that displays the Malabo objectives, the specific targets and the indicators

of importance.5 Then a distinction was made in which only the objectives that varied in the two

cases were taken into account as the point is to answer the ‘how’ and ‘why’ question in relation

to the difference in outcomes, which is based on these specific differences in being on-track,

5 Full list of indicators for each objective and target can be found in the full table in Appendix A and B.


20

or not, and with that the need to identify what could be causing, or not causing that specific

difference.

Analysis

The way in which the analysis was conducted was firstly by categorizing the different

objectives in accordance with the indicators and descriptions of these indicators i.e. in what

ways or through which means (indicators) these targets could be identified in the NAIPs.

Therefore, for each target the indicators of relevance were identified in the text and the content

and context was examined (see table 3). 6 The cases where there were clear and specific

mentions of these objectives, concrete formulations and development of specific plans, as well

as mentions of how exactly this would be funded, were labelled as ‘Good’. Where certain

targets were simply mentioned a couple of times, or of which the importance was highlighted

but no further steps were taken in NAIP were given the label ‘sufficient’. Lastly if there were

no mentions at all, even not context-wise, these indicators was labelled ‘not applicable (N/A)’.

In regards to the cases, Kenya, as shown in the table 1, is still lacking in many areas

whereby it is not on track for plenty of the commitments, whereby the main areas of attention

would appear to be undernourishment of the population, response to resilience building

initiatives, low fertilizer consumption rate and the response to social protection and vulnerable

groups is still very low (African Union, 2018). In the case of Zambia, the country is only on

track for commitment 7, therefore severely behind in meeting the objectives of CAADP. The

main areas of concern is undernourishment of the population, prevalence of stunting and the

access of financial services to men and women in the sector (African Union, 2018). Therefore

when analyzing the data, specific attention will be geared towards the areas in which the

6 The full list of indicators and method exact method used, and indicators for each objective and target can be

found in the full table in Appendix B.


21

greatest disparity between the cases can be found, as this is where one of the country is on track

and the other is not, and the question is why is this the case? As shown in table 1, this includes

the following: access to agriculture inputs and technologies, improving food security and

nutrition, establishing inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains, and increasing country

capcity for evidence based planning, impl. And M&E (African Union, 2018). These are the

areas in which one case in on track and the other is not.

The main strengths of the way the research was conducted and set up firstly relates to the

selection of cases, in which cases were carefully selected on the basis of the IV, to make sure

that the key IVs of influence to the DV were accounted for, whilst the difference in budget

allocation is present and what is hypothesized as the IV of influence, therefore omitting

selection bias. Furthermore, in relation to confirmatory bias, whilst analyzing the data, this was

not done in a manner similar to a treasure hunt i.e. not explicitly trying to find contextual

evidence in the NAIPs in relation to a target that was labelled as on-track, and contrarily turning

a blind eye in the case of a target not being on-track. In fact, the NAIPs were thoroughly

analyzed to find as many mentions, examples, contexts in which the targets appeared and only

once this was done, the criteria was applied to identify whether these were ‘Good’ or

‘Sufficient’. As well as this the MSSD ensures that a more specific and in-depth knowledge is

acquired in the ‘how’s and ‘whys’ in relation to budget allocation through NAIP.


22

Findings

After completion of an in depth analysis on the 4 different sub-objectives of Malabo, the

findings main findings have been summarized in table 2, and the key indicators that were

examined can be found in table 3.7

Table 2

Malabo Objectives

Objective Score

Kenya Zambia

3.1 Access to agricultural inputs

and technology

Good (3)

Sufficient (3)

N/A (3)

Good (5)

Sufficient (2)

N/A (1)

3.5 Improving food security and

nutrition

Good (3)

Sufficient (3)

N/A (2)

Good (1)

Sufficient (3)

N/A (4)

4.2 Establishing inclusive PPPs

for commodity value chains

Good (4)

Sufficient (3)

N/A (3)

Good (0)

Sufficient (3)

N/A (7)

7.1 Increasing country capacity

for evidence based planning,

implementation and M&E

Good (5)

Sufficient (2)

N/A (1)

Good (2)

Sufficient (0)

N/A (6)

Source: Objectives stemming from the Inaugural Biennial Review Report of the African Union Commission on

the Implementation of the Malabo Declaration (African Union, 2018).

7 The specific context of each NAIP in relation to each indicator, target and objective can be found in Appendix

B.


23

Table 3

Malabo Objectives and Indicators

Malabo Objective Indicator Kenya Zambia

3.1 access to agriculture

inputs and technologies

Agriculture inputs Good Good

Technologies Sufficient Sufficient

Agricultural subsidies Sufficient Good

Growth rates of yield of national

commodities

Good Good

Land Rights N/A Good

Research spending (R&D) (<1%) Good Sufficient

Smart protection to smallholder

agriculture

N/A N/A

Mechanisation N/A Good

Energy supplies Sufficient Sufficient

3.5 Improving food security

and nutrition

Food security Good Good

Nutrition Good Sufficient

Stunting (10%) Sufficient Sufficient

Underweight (5%) Sufficient N/A

Risk reduction and management Sufficient N/A

Resilience to hazards Good N/A

Recovery programs N/A N/A

Social Safety nets N/A Sufficient


24

4.2 Establishing inclusive

PPPs for commodity value

chains

Public Private Partnership Good N/A

Priority agricultural value chains N/A N/A

Smallholder agriculture link Sufficient N/A

Explicit mention of the partners N/A N/A

Regulations and other supportive

infrastructure

Good N/A

Clear principles and guidelines

for the development of good

PPPs

Good N/A

Land tenure Sufficient Sufficient

Contract farming Sufficient Sufficient

Market distortions Good N/A

Intellectual property regulations N/A Sufficient

7.1 Increasing country

capacity for evidence based

planning, implementation

and M&E

Mutual accountability Good N/A

Alignment harmonisation and

coordination among multi-

institutional platform

N/A N/A

Peer review Sufficient N/A

Mutual learning Sufficient N/A

Inclusive institutional

mechanisms

Good N/A

Knowledge and data generation Good Good

Management that supports

evidence based planning,

implementation and evaluation

Good N/A

Monitoring and evaluation

(M&E)

Good Good

Source: Objectives stemming from the Inaugural Biennial Review Report of the African Union Commission on

the Implementation of the Malabo Declaration (African Union, 2018).Indicators also stem from the literature

used in the theoretical framework.


25

Firstly in regard to objective 3.1, Zambia has an overall better score than Kenya. The key

differences rest on agricultural subsidies, in which Kenya’s NAIP although touching upon the

need to design new subsidy schemes, to increase the affordability of inputs for farmers, does

not bring forward what should be included in such schemes, and how the budget can be

allocated towards its improvement (Ministry of Agriculture, 2019). Meanwhile, Zambia’s

NAIP does explicitly brings to light the current shortcomings and demonstrates the various

options of implementation geared towards furthering not only the availability of such subsidies

but also innovation through for example the creation of E-vouchers, which has been stated to

hugely benefit farmers (Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, 2013). Furthermore, Kenya has

not included any protection measures to smallholder agriculture, no mention of land rights and

lastly no specific reference to improved or existing mechanization. Contrarily Zambia does in

fact clearly outline mechanization improvements, land right provisions but equally fails to

address smallholder protections.

The second indicator 3.5, that focuses on improving food security and nutrition, has

been better achieved by Kenya. Kenya’s NAIP has been well developed around the crucial

areas of nutrition as well as resilience to hazards, but still fails to address explicit recovery

programs and social safety nets. Zambia fails to do so as well and furthermore fails to

adequately pay attention towards the targets stunting and underweight, which are not only a

crucial part of the score chart, but also of Zambia’s domestic situation . Therefore if these

elements are not even mentioned in the NAIP, it would seem difficult to prioritize such crucial

targets.

The third indicator 4.2, that is geared towards PPPs specifically in relation to

commodity value chains, has also been better incorporated into Kenya’s NAIP than that of

Zambia. In fact Zambia does not score even one “Good” for any of the targets such as

regulations and supportive infrastructure for PPPs, clear principles and guidelines and


26

prevention and absorption of market distortions. On the other hand, even though Kenya is

lacking in terms of adequately recognizing priority agricultural value chains, explicitly

mentioning the various partners and in terms of intellectual property rights, Zambia is all the

while lacking in these respective areas, whilst also lacking in the above mentioned areas where

Kenya scores extremely well having managed to informatively and clearly show the ways in

which this can be prioritized as well as how budgets can be allocated.

The last indicator 7.1, based on evidence based planning and M&E, has been

implemented well in Kenya’s NAIP, addressing mutual accountability, inclusive institutional

mechanisms and M&E. Zambia however fails to do so in all areas apart from knowledge and

data generation as well as M&E, which has been clearly lined out in the NAIP. When

contrasting the main finding with the countries’ track records, the results clearly match up. On

indicator 3.1, Zambia’s NAIP scored better, but for all others, Kenya scored better while on

the first indicator Kenya is not on track, whilst Zambia is, and for the remaining 3 indicators,

it is the other way around. This points towards a sub-conclusion in which insufficient attention,

thereby prioritization, of certain targets and objectives in the NAIP, result in the weak track

record of the Malabo commitment, which explains the difference between the outcomes of the

two cases.

In relation to the hypotheses, the findings would suggest that in regard to H1, the

prioritization of R&D alone is not sufficient to attribute this to improved agricultural

transformation and sustained inclusive agricultural growth. In regard to H2, Zambia has

prioritized subsidies in agricultural inputs to a much larger extent than Kenya, scoring better

than Kenya in that specific respect, but fails to do so in all other areas, and matches up with the

lack of prioritization elsewhere.


27

4. Conclusion

This thesis has brought back the same attention CAADP has brought back to the agricultural

sector on the African continent, but takes it a step further. Simply calling and urging countries

to increase their budget allocations to meet an already problematic target of 10 percent, without

the actual evidence of the effectiveness of these investments, is problematic for national

development plans and Africa’s development vision as a whole. Therefore, this thesis has

attempted to solve the puzzle of why investments are increasing, but outcomes have in most

cases not matched up. This thesis has done so by first discussing existing literature that was

then used to form the theoretical framework of the hypothesized relationship between the IV,

budget allocation, and the DV, achievement of the CAADP objectives. After conducting the

analysis the findings have led to the following conclusions; first of all in relation to the

importance of R&D, H1 cannot simply be accepted or rejected as the qualitative findings do

not provide enough support for either. On the one hand the findings of this research do show

prioritization of R&D in NAIP can lead to a positive outcome in the DV, however, the findings

are not strong enough to single out prioritization of R&D as the ‘main’ impactor of positive

outcomes. In relation to subsidies in agricultural inputs the findings provide more confidence

for the acceptance of H2, in the sense that Zambia’s NAIP has clearly prioritized subsidies,

which in the sphere of this research and the set out theoretical framework would be a factor

why other targets are receiving less attention, and in turn less investment, leading to diminished

agricultural transformation and less inclusive growth which is highlighted by its overall bad

CAADP score. Now drawing back to the initial question: How does the allocation of

agricultural expenditures impact the achievement of the CAADP objectives? In light of the

acceptance of H2 and the findings that do support H1, but not fully, the main conclusion and

answer to this question is that the prioritization of specific areas, in NAIPs, in relation to

positive agricultural returns positively impacts the achievement of CAADP objectives, as the


28

prioritization and context of certain targets in the NAIP will most likely receive more budgetary

attention than, targets or topics not mentioned. The main limitations are however that firstly,

only R&D and subsidies were hypothesized, in relation to the focus of existing literature

however, the findings clearly show that there are many other areas wherein the two cases vary

in outcomes, but due to lack of attention for these areas in existing literature this was not taken

into account prior to the analysis. This does however point towards need for further research

on these other objectives. Furthermore, what this thesis has also clearly demonstrated is how

close the link is between the NAIPs and the CAADP objectives, in the sense that in almost all

cases, indicators of the targets that where not sufficiently emphasized turn out to be the same

targets for which the case was not on-track, and the same goes for more prioritization and

emphasis matched up with on-track scores. Therefore this would go hand in hand with the

policy implications of this thesis by which clearly has been identified how important it is for

national governments to identify the areas of the agricultural sector in which returns are

highest, and subsequently create clear and well-structured plans to be incorporated in the

NAIPs, which gives the large sums of investment a clear destination. A key point to note is

however that firstly, even when NAIPs have succeeded in accurate prioritization of national

agricultural sector needs, NAIPs are often still poorly funded due to e.g. corruption,

institutional incapacity, but in some cases, as correctly urged by CAADP officials, investments

are just too little to fund the plans (Badiane et al., 2016).

With that said the main weaknesses of this thesis rest upon factors that fall outside the

scope of this research, but potentially do have an impact on the findings, such as certain

differences in political bureaucracy, corruption levels, agricultural trading countries, weather

conditions that impact agricultural productivity etc. Although a very conscious choice, on the

basis of existing literature on the effect of the IV on the DV, was made, for future research

there could be cases more similar than Kenya and Zambia, in regards to the factors mentioned


29

prior. As well, future research could use the findings of this thesis as a starting point for

quantitative analysis, through the creation of a data set that comprises of the actual numerical

level of investment for each target, to test for example the correlation and causation of different

objectives, and how increased investment in one area might positively or negatively affect a

different area.

Finally, this thesis urges governments, policy makers, international organizations and

all other actors involved in the creation and execution of agricultural policy, specifically in

relation to Africa’s biggest continental achievement in the field of development, to take a step

back from the continuous calls for increased investments, and prioritize the expansion of

evidence on the effectiveness of these investments, so that it becomes clear where our money

went, and where our money should go.


30

5. References

ActionAid. (2009). Five out of ten? Assessing progress towards the AU’s 10% budget target

for agriculture. In ActionAid (Issue June).

https://actionaid.org/sites/default/files/assessing_progress_towards_the_aus_10percent_

budget_target_for_agriculture_june_2010.pdf

African Union. (2018). Inaugural Biennial Review Report of the African Union Commission

on the Implementation of the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth

and Transformation for Shared prosperity and Improved Livelihoods. Assembly

Decision (Assembly/AU/2(XXIII)). June 2017. www.au.int

Alston, J. M., Marra, M. C., Pardey, P. G., & Wyatt, T. J. (2000). Research returns redux: A

meta-analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and

Resource Economics, 44(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00107

AU-NEPAD. (2015). The CAADP Results Framework 2015-2025.

Badiane, O., Benin, S., & Makombe, T. (2016). Strenghthening the Continental Agricultural

Agenda and Accountability Framework: The Road from Maputo to Malabo.

Badiane, O., & Makombe, T. (2014). The theory and practice of agriculture, growth, and

development in Africa (No. 2014/061; WIDER Working Paper).

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2014/782-0 This

Benin, S., Nin-Pratt, A., Fan, S., Breisinger, C., Mogues, T., Thurlow, J., & Diao, X. (2008).

Growth and Poverty Reduction Impacts of Public Investments in Agriculture and Rural

Areas: Assessment Techniques, Tools and Guide for Practitioners. 7, 75.

http://www.resakss.org/index.php?pdf=39398

Benin, Samuel. (2016). Impacts of CAADP on Africa’s agricultural-led development. August.

http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/130647

Benin, Samuel, Kennedy, A., Lambert, M., & McBride, L. (2010). Monitoring African


31

agricultural development processes and performance : A comparative analysis (Issue

ReSAKSS Annual Trend and Outlook Report 2010).

https://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/resakss_aw_ator_2010_web.pdf

Benin, Samuel, & Yu, B. (2013). Trends in Public Agricultural Expenditures in Africa (Issue

No.22). https://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/IB22 - ATOR 2012.pdf

Brüntrup, M. (2011). The comprehensive Africa agriculture development programme

(CAADP) - An assessment of a Pan-African attempt to revitalise agriculture -. Quarterly

Journal of International Agriculture, 50(1), 79–106.

Diao, X., Thurlow, J., Benin, S., & Fan, S. (2012). Strategies and Priorities for African

Agriculture: Economywide perspectives from country studies (X. Diao, J. Thurlow, S.

Benin, & S. Fan (Eds.); 2012th ed.). International Food Policy Research Institute

(IFPRI). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896291959

Evenson, R. E. (2000). Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research and Extension. In

Handbook of Agricultural Economics (pp. 2–84). Elsevier Science.

http://oreilly.com/catalog/errata.csp?isbn=9781449340377

Fan, S., Babatunde, O., & Lambert, M. (2009). Public Spending for Agriculture in Africa:

Trends and Composition (ReSAKKS Working Paper No.28; Issue January).

Headey, D. D., Benson, T., Kolavalli, S., & Fan, S. (2009). Why African governments under-

invest in agriculture : Results from an expert survey. 1–16.

Jayne, T. S., & Ameyaw, D. (2016). Africa’s Emerging Agricultural Transformation:

Evidence, Opportunities and Challenges.

Lowder, S. K., Carisma, B., & Skoet, J. (2012). Who invests in agriculture and how much?

An empirical review of the relative size of various investments in agriculture in low- and

middle-income countries. ESA Working Paper 12-09, 12.

https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.288992


32

Makombe, T., Tefera, W., & Ulimwengu, J. (2019). Tracking Key CAADP Indicators and

Implementation Processes. In 2019 Annual trends and outlook report: Gender equality

in rural Africa: From commitments to outcomes (pp. 190–206). International Food

Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293649_13

Ministry of Agriculture. (2019). Investing in Kenya’s Agricultural Sector Transformation

(NAIP). http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NATIONAL-

AGRICULTURE-INVESTMENT-PLAN-NAIP.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. (2013). Zambia National Agriculture Investment Plan

(NAIP) 2014-2018 - Final Draft (Issue May 2013).

Mogues, T. (2015). Political Economy Determinants of Public Spending Allocations: A

Review of Theories, and Implications for Agricultural Public Investment. European

Journal of Development Research, 27(3), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.35

Mogues, T., Fan, S., & Benin, S. (2015). Public Investments in and for Agriculture.

European Journal of Development Research, 27(3), 337–352.

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.40

NPCA. (2010). Renewing the commitment to African agriculture (Issue March).

http://www.e-

alliance.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/Publications/Food/CAADP_Review_-

_March_20101.pdf

Oruko, L., Randall, I., Bwalya, M., Kisira, S., & Wanzala, M. (2011). Mutual Accountability

Framework for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme.

March.

Pauw, K., & Thurlow, J. (2015). Prioritizing Rural Investments in Africa: A Hybrid

Evaluation Approach Applied to Uganda. European Journal of Development Research,


33

27(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.24

Poulton, C., Berhanu, K., Chinsinga, B., Cooksey, B., Golooba-Mutebi, F., & Loada, A.

(2014). The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme ( CAADP ):

Political Incentives , Value Added and Ways Forward. February, 18.

Shetty, S. L. (1990). Investment in Agriculture Brief Review of Recent Trends. Economic

and Political Weekly, 25(7), 389–398.


34

6. Appendix

Appendix A

Sources: (Ministry of Agriculture, 2019; Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, 2013) +

(African Union, 2018)

MalaboThemes Kenya Zambia Rwanda

1 CAAPprocessandvalues Thiswhattheresearchiscontrollingfor Ontrack Ontrack Ontrack

2

Investmentfinancein

agriculture thisistheindepdentvariable NotontrackNotontrackNotontrack

1 Enhancingaccesstofinance Publicanprivatefinance ontrack notontracknotontrack

Description/keywords?

3 EndingHungerby2025 1

accesstoagricultureinputsand

technologies

growthratesofyieldofnationalcommodities,research

spenindig(<1%),'smartprotectiontosmallholder

agricultutre',mechanisationandenergysupplies notontrackontrack ontrack

2 Doublingagriculturalproductivity

Researchandextension(R&E),irrigationandwater

management notontracknotontracknotontrack

3 ReductionofPost-HarvestLoss

Handlingsystems,marketingsystems,verticalintegration

horticulturecrops notontracknotontrackontrack

4 Strengtheningsocialprotection

vulnerablesocialgroups,stratgicfoodandcashreserves,

earlywarningsystems,prioritygeographicareasand

communitygroups,schoolfeedingprograms(throughlocal

farmingcommunity),socialinsurance,labourmarket

protection notontracknotontracknotontrack

5 Improvingfoodsecurityandnutrition

Bringingdownstuntingto10%,bringnigdownunderweight

to5%-->improvedriskreductionandmanagement,building

resilliencetohazards,recoveryprograms,socialsafetynet ontrack notontrackontrack

4 HalvingPovertyby2025 1

SustainingAgriculturalGDPforpoverty

reduction joboppurtunities,youthengagement,6%annualgrowth notontrackNotontracknotontrack

2

EstablishinginclusivePPPsforcommodity

valuechains

atleast5priorityagriculturalcommodityvaluechainswith

stronglinkstosmallholderagriculture,landtenure,contract

farming,marketdistortions,intellectualpropertyregulations ontrack Notontrackontrack

3

Creatingyouthemploymentin

agriculturevaluechains atleast30%ofyouth,youthengagement,youthemploymentnotontrackNotontrackontrack

4

Increasedparticipationofwomen(and

smallholders?) preferentialentryandparticipationforwomenandyouth notontrackNotontrackontrack

5

Boostingintra-Africantradein

agri-commoditiesandservices 1

Triplingintra-africantradeforagri-

commoditiesandservices tradeenvironment,tradefacilitationIndex(TFI) notontrackNotontracknotontrack

2

Establishingintra-africantradepolicies

andinstitutionalconditions

tradeinagriculturalcommoditiesandservices,enhance

policiesandinstitutionalconditionsandsupportsystems,

simplifyandformalisecurrenttradepractices,fasttrack

ContinentalFreeTradeArea(CFTA)establishment,

continentalCommonExternalTariffCETscheme,trade

infrastructure,platformsformulti-actorsinteractions,

strenghtenAfricancommonpositioninnegotiationsand

partnerships ontrack Ontrack ontrack

6

Enhancingrecelienceto

climatevariability 1

Ensuringresilliencetoclimaterelated

risks

Resilliencebuilding,disasterprepardness,socialsafetynets,

indexinsurance notontrackNotontrack ontrack

2 Investmentinresilliencebuilding

resilliencebuildinginitatives,socialsecurityforruralworkers

andothervulnerablegroupsandvulnerableecosystems notontrackNotontrack ontrack

7 Mutualaccountability 1

Increasingcountrycapcityforevidence

basedplanning,impl.AndM&E

mutualaccountability,alignmentharmonisationand

coordinationamongmultiinstitutionalplatform,peerreview,

mutuallearning,inclusiveinsitutionalmechanisms,

knowledgeanddatageneration,managementthatsupports

evidencebasedplanning,implementation,monitoringand

evaluation ontrack Notontrackontrack

2

Fosteringpeerreviewandmutual

accountability

alignment,harmonisationandcoordinationamongmulti-

sectoralefoortsandmulti-institutionalplatformsforpeer

review,mutuallearningandmutualaccountability ontrack ontrack ontrack

3

ConductingaBiennialagriculturalreview

process

BiennialAgriculturalReviewProcess-->tracking,monitoring

andreportingonprogress notontracknotontracknotontrack


35

Appendix B

Sources: (Ministry of Agriculture, 2019; Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, 2013) +

(African Union, 2018)


36

Documents

Where Did our Money go? The Mismanagement of …