Analysis of Donor Support to CAADP Pillar 4

1. Analysis of Donor Support to CAADP Pillar 4 Commissioned by EIARD July 2011

2. CAADP4 Study ObjectivesIdentify the knowledge and processes required to better coordinate and harmonise support to CAADP Pillar 4, between EIARD members and with other donors • ToR recognised ‘investment tracking’ as a prerequisite for increasing aid effectiveness • ‘Ownership’, ‘Alignment’, ‘Harmonisation’, ‘Managing for results’, ‘Mutual accountability • Limits to CAADP4 study – scope, resources, timing • Study findings imbedded in this workshop’s concept note • Presentation structured against this workshop’s interest

3. 1. Key findings • CGIAR is default donor support mode to ARD • Donor by centre funding known, but not project funding • Has ‘reform process’ done enough to justify this mode? • Difficult to assess whether projects were ‘CAADP compliant’ • Importance of hidden funding lines – e.g. capacity building • Role of emerging donors and channels (e.g. BMGF/AGRA) • National capacity to manage CAADP process weak • ReSAKSS aspirations not achieved, esp. at country level • Contrast in funding ARD as a public good at International / Regional levels vs National levels

4. Donor support to SSA ARD (of 470) US$ Million per annum – 2009 CAADP P4 FARA+SROs $ 46 M CAADP P1-3 $ 19 M CAADP P4 aligned $ 46 M CGIAR $304 M CAADP P4 alignable $37 M Other: IARCS, CB/PPs $ 16 M

5. 2. Challenges • ARD (AR&D vs AR4D) has morphed/ rebranded – e.g. into or component of Livelihoods, Climate Change, Food Security • Official databases incomplete / variably structured • Data variably fractured into <?60-80% compatible data bases • Distinguishing ARD from Ag Dev and Res/Ext interface • Indentifying ARD component as often a secondary purpose • Complexity/ layering of funding channels – e.g. MDTFs/ CGS • Impossible to obtain reliable integrated picture of funding and support for ARD as routine • Problems not technical/ financial but in system design / political commitment to reporting ARD investments

6. 3. Opportunities/ Threats Opportunities • Pressure on donors to demonstrate – but to demonstrate what? • just Funding for ARD? or also Effectiveness and Accountability? • Internet based systems and infrastructure • Data actually and potentially available • Considerable improvements possible at moderate cost Threats • Risk of getting lost – lack of clarity of purpose and limits • Lack of incentives to provide data – carrots and/or sticks? • Variability in political will and commitment to transparency • Governance – donor- and practitioner-, not beneficiary-, based • Proliferation of separate tracking initiatives – purposes and formats

7. 4. Improvements/ Partnering • Need good clarity of purpose/ boundaries/ method • Data quantity/ quality – balance accuracy vs precision • Tracking data model – use AidData model • Data harvesting of minimum data set – ideally electronically • Ability/ capacity to recode/ add coding for extra dimensions • Include range (private, corporate and public) of funding sources and channels • Capacity for targeted analysis and interpretation of data • Contracted-out (independent) periodic ‘ARD support effectiveness’ review

8. Thank You