Technical Committee (STC) responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development, Water and Environment (ARDWE) of 16 December 2021, to assess the NAIPs and RAIPs for Malabo compliance.
RAIP had undergone ITR (ECOWAS member states, Cameroon, Chad, Uganda, Malawi, Gabon, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Sudan) and the ECOWAS RAIP. • 2 countries did not have NAIPs. • A total of 19 NAIPs and six RAIPs (COMESA, EAC, ECOWAS, ECCAS, IGAD, and SADC). • Insufficient information for 10 MS and 1 REC.
ECCAS 2015-2020 ECOWAS ends 2023 IGAD 2016-2020 SADC 2017-2022 UMA 2020 - 2030 NAIPs Status • All MSs have 5 yr plans except UMA MSs with 10 yr plans. • The NAIPs of 32 Member States are already expired. • COMESA – 2 of 3; • EAC – 1 of 6; • ECCAS – 7 of 8; • ECOWAS – 5 of 15; • IGAD – 4 of 4; • SADC – 10 of 12; and • UMA – 1 of 5. Update on validity of NAIPs and RAIPs documents
Malabo goals to some degree – assessed by the ITR criteria. •For some countries, they seemed to have had the template / roadmap to make the NAIP, a good NAIP document •For others, it appears they just arbitrarily used key words so the information seemed scattered within the document •Other factors that are crucial for the implementation of the NAIP, are not mentioned in the NAIPs document e.g. infrastructure, leadership, political will. ITR Findings: General observations
are well written and the content is well articulated – as seen in the commitment 1 results of the BR process •But... the implementation appears far from what is in the documents, as evidenced by the Biennial Review (BR) results in Commitments 2 – 7. • Where is the problem? What is Observed
2063 support. • Information exchange and status and lessons in the implementation of RAIPs and NAIPs. • Identify important priorities to inform next CAADP cycle.
• 22 country interventions. • All countries implementing NAIP 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation NAIPs or Agric. plans that are consistent with the CAADP agenda and framework. • Thematic components include food systems, knowledge systems, stakeholder engagement, resilience, human capital, incentives creation, CAADP instruments. • National Implementation Experiences - generally NAIPs well articulated – WHAT?, WHY? and WHO? • Missing - precision and clarity on HOW to make implementation happen. • Lack of instruments needed for implementation, in many cases.
What has worked at national level… a. aligning NAIPs‘ support to financing and budget cycles - positive agriculture growth and impacts; b. institutionalisation of CAADP process - strengthened national planning systems for agric. transformation; c. the centrality of the farmers (legal status, professionalization, land tenure) is recognized as a key success factor; d. developing systematic approaches towards mobilizing effective instruments would improve implementation and fix a conundrum that CAADP has been sitting on for many years;
What are the constraints? a. Technical capacity constraints: - policy and economic analysis; mainstream biodiversity issues into CAADP; develop bankable projects that attract private sector; skills and tools for reporting and evaluating the NAIPs. b. Resource mobilisation: insufficient capacity for resource mobilisation skills and other financing models, global development funds (e.g. Green Climate Fund); Insufficient private sector mobilisation. c. Capacity of Agri business skills: especially for extension workers and the youth. d. Others: Capacity for M&E, harmonisation of policy; Low dissemination of research; Lack of proper coordination for the multi-sectoral approach.
• Regional Implementation experiences: what needs to be done? • With respect to resource mobilization and bi /- multi-lateral support: i) clarify the financial mechanisms and the different possible resource management channels; ii) establish a resource pooling mechanism; iii) identify channels for intervention in general and financial resources, based on comparative advantages and capabilities; iv) define a unified reporting mechanism across institutions for RAIP implementation; v) enhance coordination both internal - within regional institution and external - among RECs for alignment of agenda and cross fertilization.
experiences – (i) decentralized implementation with human resource allocation at the centre has helped strengthen NAIPs (ii) although capacity in developing and implementing NAIPs in some countries, challenges still remain: - low extension capacity, low dissemination of research, insufficient funding capacity, lack of adequate expertise. • Most importantly - incentives to develop bankable projects and attract investments is key. Planning Execution and Evaluation: • The hinderances on this - associated with lack of coordination, limited available information about indicators, human capacity constraints, financial resources available for implementation, weak M&E systems. • Consensus - CAADP is an important driver for planning, execution and evaluation of NAIPs - BR has helped countries to identify their weaknesses and improve on their implementation performance. Institutional skills for NAIPs implementation
and delivery • Need for engaging in consultations on how initiatives implemented in the different countries and related regions could be linked more strongly to contribute to strengthening countries’ and regions’ efforts. • Best practices that could augment implementation include: - financing – adequate resourcing - governance – public incentives for accountability in resource allocations, stakeholder engagement • Donor coordination - avoid situations in which the NAIP is not implemented because donors prefer other frameworks • Research- agricultural research and evidence-based studies to illustrate practical solutions.
• More investment in R&D of appropriate technologies and innovation for agriculture development and transformation. • Develop policies that can help lower the cost of inputs. • Create incentives for private sector investment in new technologies and innovation that can help improve agriculture production and productivity. • Promote technologies that enable African agriculture adapt to climate change. • Manage better our natural resources, designing physical infrastructure, building human capital, developing agricultural entrepreneurial activities and governing adaptation as a process of innovation. Looking Forward Post Malabo
the next CAADP cycle: • Creation of new institutions and governance mechanisms in support to agriculture transformation • Investing in competitive value chains and link farmers, producers to local, regional and global value chains • Supporting smallholder farmer participation in post-production value chain stages • Supporting market development for processed goods • Gender-Sensitive Value Chain Framework • “Africa is not in the capital cities” and the rural space is very active hence implement the “Kinshasa Declaration on Decentralized Rural Transformation Planning through Experience Capitalization”.
looking ahead towards post Malabo. • AUDA-NEPAD and AUC and RECs to: - Facilitate MS, RECs and stakeholders to align Food system commitments to NAIPs/RAIPs and NDPs. - to support the active participation of all actors in the design of post Malabo Plans. - Support farmer organisations’ participation in defining post Malabo priorities. • Support the active participation of all actors in the design of post Malabo Plans. • Conduct the technical preparation (reviews, studies).
akademiya2063
keithpitt
tammyeverts
marcelosomers
jnunemaker
reverentgeek
deanohume
marktimemedia
geoffreycrofte
keathley
trishagee
michaelherold
