Day 2, Session 3 of the Nigeria Strategy Support Program's 2012 Research Conference

1. Capacity assessment for achieving
agricultural transformation agenda in
Nigeria
Suresh Babu, Kwabena Gyimah-Brempong,
Manson Nwafor, Hyacinth Edeh
IFPRI/ IITA
NSSP National Conference 2012:
“Informing Nigeria’s Agricultural Transformation
Agenda with Policy Analysis and Research
Evidence”
Abuja, Nigeria – November 13-14, 2012

2. Outline of the Presentation
• Introduction and background
• ATA context
• Capacity assessment methods
• Results -policy process, organizational, and individual
capacity
• Federal – State – LGA Linkages
• Public- Private – CSO Partnerships
• Value- Chain Development
• Strategy for Capacity Development
• Plan for Action
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3. Introduction and Background
• Agriculture transformation
• Human capital and institutional requirement
• Capacity transformation
• How to increase efficiency of the human
capacity?
• How to increase organizational effectiveness?
• How to improve the policy process?
• Not just about Skills – necessary but not sufficient
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

4. Capacity Strengthening for Agricultural
Transformation
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

5. Capacity Transformation
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

6. ATA Context
• African Agricultural Transformation - Nigeria,
Kenya, Ethiopia
• Setting targets to achieve for commodities
• Facilitating investments
• Derived from National Transformation Agenda
• Mobilizing States through policy process
• Increasing the role of private sector
• Value Chain approach
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

7. Mixed Methods
• 4 types of questionnaire ( experts, organizations,
individual, policy process)
• Individual interviews
• Group interviews
• Groups discussions with private sectors, CSOs,
actors of policy process
• 3 States and 3 LGAs
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

8. Policy Process capacity
• Parliamentary Committees
• NCA – Sub committees
• CSOs
• Private sector
• FMARD
• Increase accountability, inclusiveness,
participation, ownership
• Meaningful and effective
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

9. Stages of Policy Process
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

10. Organizational Performanace
• PRS, ARCN, ADP
• Horizontal and vertical integration
• Work flow processes
• Translation of ATA into work plans, budgets,
targets
• Monitoring and evaluation systems
• Management information systems
• Policy analysis and research
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

11. Organizational Capacity
• Technical expertise vs Administrative challenges
• How to connect with States and LGAs
• How to work with Value-chain teams?
• How to manage and coordinate the targets?
• Leadership and management skills
• Bringing FPRS and SPRS together to set goals
and follow up.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

12. Individual Skills
Analytical skills for:
Strategy development
Investment planning
Monitoring and evaluation
Knowledge management
Policy analysis
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

13. Federal- State- LGA Linkages
• How to strengthen the working relationship?
• Formalized communications mechanisms and
accountability
• Integrating States and LGAs them in national
strategies?
• Reviving the organizational effectiveness
• How research and extension linkages effectively
be integrated at LGAs under Value chain
approach?
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

14. How to effectively engage with 774 LGAs?
Federal State level State – LGA
Strategies plans integration
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

15. Organizational and capacity interventions
• Revive State Agricultural Councils
• Make it responsible for monitoring the target set
by national strategies
• Have technical sub-committees to responsible
for oversight and reporting to NCA
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

16. Organizational and capacity interventions
• Integrate LGAs, State field
functionaries, and ADP extension
workers (GES)
• Clear allocation of responsibilities
and cross monitoring.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

17. Public-Private- CSOs
• States service delivery – effectiveness?
• Do we have alternative paths?
• Role of Private sector?
• Role of CSOs?
• GES is an example – First year of
implementation but good learning for
involvement of private sector and strengthening
them.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

18. Consultations with the CSO Leaders
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

19. PPC partnerships
• Development of private sector through rural
entrepreneurs.
• Small scale agro- dealers and private traders
• Agro-processors
• Vocational training in agribusiness
• Vocational training in Farm mechanization
• Emphasis on rural youth for Agribusiness – ICT-
practical training- business orientation
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

20. Capacity for Value Chain Development
Input ,
credit
market
Final
Farm level
market /
production
retailing
Processing
Output
and value
markets
addition
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

21. Broad set of capacity needs
• Value chain teams need orientation
• Integrate them horizontally with Agencies and
departments
• With state and LGA levels – organizational
capacity
• Mainstreaming and capacity translation
• Analytical capacity for value chain analysis
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

22. Elements of a Capacity Strengthening
Strategy
• ATA should include a capacity development
strategy
• Any structural transformation requires
corresponding organizational and capacity
transformation
• Responding to Food Crisis is an example
• Comprehensive capacity development program
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

23. Mapping organizational linkages in FMARD
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

24. Mapping of Organizations and Stakeholders in Implementation of
ATA
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

26. Conclusions
• Capacity for designing and implementation of
strategies is grossly lacking.
• Some technical skills and capacity exists at all
levels.
• Capacity needs in policy process, organizational
effectiveness, and human skills
• Investment is needed to strengthen and
integrate capacities
• Plan of action for implementation in the next 3
years
• Discussions welcome
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

27. Mission Progress &
Forward-Looking Strategy
Eric Eboh, President, APRNet
@ IFPRI Research Conference, 13-14 November 2012

28. Outline of Presentation on APRNet
• How and why we came into being?
• What we seek to achieve?
• Where we are now?
• What we aim to become?
• Our Challenges and Opportunities
• An Appeal for Collaboration,
Cooperation and Support

29. Important Take-off Dates
• 22nd April 2009 • 24th November 2009
– APRNet was – Adoption of
conceived Constitution and
Election of Pioneer
Exco

30. Major Problematic
Retrospect 22nd April 2009
• Dissatisfaction with the very low interaction,
collaboration and teamwork among policy
researchers
• Concerns that:
– research is not making sufficient impact on
policymaking and private enterprise
– interaction, cooperation and collaboration
between researchers and policymakers have been
merely ad hoc, episodic and mostly unorganised

31. APRNet was therefore intended to:
• Change the status quo characterized by isolation, poor
interaction and lack of organized communication across the
stakeholder aisles in agricultural and rural development policy
landscape
• Foster interaction, connections, cooperation, collaboration,
complementation, communication and information sharing
among the Stakeholder Quartet in agricultural, food security
and rural development policy
– Researchers
– Government MDAs in Agric., Rural Devt. Water Res. & Evnt
– Agric. Sector CSOs & NGOs
– Agric. Entrepreneurs & Managers

32. Quartet of APRNet Stakeholders
Enterprise Policymakers &
Community – Government
Farmers, Managers, Technocrats in
Investors, Entrprnrs. MDAs
APRNet
Practitioner Research
Community – Community -
CSOs, NGOs (NARIs, Univs. T-Tanks)

33. APRNet Exco. reflects Stakeholder Quartet
• Research Community
• Policymakers – FMARD, NPC, FMWR
• Enterprise Community –
Representatives of Farmer
Groups/Organisations, e.g. ALFAN,
• Development Practice Community –
NGOs, CSOs, PSOs, e.g. NESG

34. 14th JUNE 2011 - INCORPORATION

35. Take-off Secretariat Support
• Computer
• Printer
• UPS
• Modem

36. VISION
• The VISION of APRNet is to
become an authoritative and
independent forum for
promoting research for evidence-
based agricultural and rural
development policies in Nigeria.

37. MISSION
• The MISSION of APRNet is to
facilitate the conduct of research
as well as the communication
and utilization of research results
in the agriculture and rural
development policy process in
Nigeria.

38. OBJECTIVES - I
• Promote the exchange of existing
research information (methods, data,
publications)
• Mobilize a pool of financial resources
for independent policy research
• Encourage mentoring of upcoming
policy researchers

39. OBJECTIVES - II
• Provide peer review for researchers
• Create channels for linking research
with policy process
• Encourage the use of research results
in the policy process

40. METHODOLOGY
• Research and information sharing;
• Training/capacity building;
• Policy linkages and feedback; and
• Dissemination and public
enlightenment

41. KEY FUNCTIONS - I
• Facilitator of policy research and policy
analysis – provide conducive working
platforms and arrangements for the conduct
of good-quality research
• Policy advocate – promoting and projecting
research-based evidence and policy
recommendations through sensitisation,
enlightenment and public appearances

42. KEY FUNCTIONS - I
• Network loop – connecting and linking
researchers, policymakers and practitioners to
increase collaboration and shared
understanding, build mutual confidence and
promote better interface of research, policy
and practice
• Agent of information and learning –
transmitting and diffusing research and
evidence-based information for broader public
consumption

43. KEY FUNCTIONS - II
• Services provider – providing client-oriented
expert and technical services for capacity
enhancement of policy formulation,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation in
support of Nigeria’s agricultural development
policies, institutions and programmes

44. PROGRESS DASHBOARD
• Membership growth – from 28 at registration
to more than 80 presently
90
80
70
60
50
40 Membership
30
20
10
0
2009 2012

45. PROGRESS DASHBOARD
• Training and capacity building
– Mendeley Web-based research writing resources 10th
February 2010, Sheraton Hotel, Abuja

46. PROGRESS DASHBOARD
• Training and capacity building
– Research Writing and Policy Communications
workshop 31 August – 1 September 2010, Enugu

47. PROGRESS DASHBOARD
• Training and capacity building
– Training workshop on methodologies and tools for
agricultural policy analysis from 20-23 March 2012 at
Enugu

48. Policy Dialogue and
Stakeholder Engagement
• National Policy Symposium on “Making Research
Work for End-Users”, held on 24th May 2011 at
Abuja – in collaboration with NARIs and ARCN

49. APRNet Launched its Secretariat
• Office Accommodation and Resumption of
Program Officer- 1st June 2012

50. APRNet website launched
www.arprnetworkng.org
• On 6th May 2012

51. Publications
• ANNUAL REPORTS – 2010 & 2011 uploaded in
the website
• APRNet Information Brochure
• APRNet: Mission Progress and Forward-
Looking Strategy – an upcoming Flyer

52. FINANCES
• Membership Subscription
• IFPRI grants for Secretariat support
• Donations from members and stakeholders (time, intellect
and materials)
• Exploring new Funding and Resources – Development
Partners, Research Networks, Government Partners, project-based
sources
• In line with good corporate governance, AUDIT REPORTS
accomplished for 2010 and 2011.

53. Communication and Advocacy
• Newsletters

54. Communication and Advocacy
• Media Interviews and Press Releases (6 July 2012)

55. FORWARD-LOOKING STRATEGY
2012-2016

56. Concept Paper presented by the President
at the 2011 Congress Meeting
23rd November 2011, Enugu

57. Strategy Development Process
Strategy Workshop – EXCO Ratification of
15th March 2012 Strategy – 6th July 2012

58. President
SECRETARIAT
[Program Coordinator, Research
Coordinator, Advocacy Coordinator
Program/Admin Officer, Mobilisation
Officer, Zonal Liaison Officers
(6nos.), Website Manager]
Vice Presidents
(2nos.)
Treasurer Secretary
Organogram of APRNet

59. Policy Research & Policy Analysis
• In support of evidence-based policymaking
and programme/project planning
– Budget Analysis and Reviews
– State of Nigeria Agriculture Series (SONAS)

60. Research Communications &
Policy Dialogue/Advocacy
• National Policy Dialogue Series on “Making Research Work
for End-Users”
– Examine, disseminate and promote best practices and innovative
models for research delivery by the National Agricultural
Research Institutes and by individual policy researchers
• Research Monographs, Research Summaries/Abstracts, Policy
Briefs, Policy Primers, Policy Papers & Policy Memos to
Government MDAs and Legislative Committees.
• Evidence-based Annual Reviews/Dialogue on “State of Nigeria
Agriculture”
– Quarterly Series - Reviews/Publications/Releases
– Annual Series - Reviews/Publications/Releases

61. CAPACITY BUILDING for LINKING
RESEARCH, POLICYMAKING & ENTERPRISE
• Training and Technical Assistance on Policy Analysis
(working with ARCN)
• Training Policymakers and Technocrats on
finding/accessing and using Research Findings in
Policymaking
• Training of Researchers on Research
Dissemination, Communications and
Methods/Practices for Linking/Engaging in the
Policy process

62. Methodology/Approach
• Program-based Resource
mobilisation
(human, material, logistics, financial)

63. Methodology /Approach
• Collaboration, Cooperation and
Joint Programming

64. Critical Challenges and Opportunities –
Creating Value for Policymakers
• Providing real-time research, analysis and
evidence feedback and knowledge needs for
topical ATA Initiatives such as
– Fertilizer Vouchers & Input Subsidies
– Commodity Value Chains
– Agricultural Credit Schemes
– Staple Crop Processing Zones
– Growth Enhancement Scheme
• Engaging with State Governments on topical
policy questions such as
– agric. budgets, fertilizer markets, agric. extension and
capacity building of agric. ministry and officials

65. Critical Challenges and Opportunities –
Creating Value for Members - I
• Creating benefits and value to
members to elicit greater individual
interest, teamwork and participation
• Creating novel researcher-esteeming
channels for beneficial interaction
with policymakers, development
partners, research-funding
institutions

66. Critical Challenges and Opportunities –
Creating Value for Members- II
• Providing greater access to training, professional
growth, career building and research funding
opportunities – e.g. building a critical mass of
well-tooled policy researchers within
APRNet, need help from IFPRI
• Giving corporate “impersonal” voice to policy
advocacy and research dissemination that will
otherwise be risky with individual researcher
approaches – providing researchers a “special
window” to the outside world

67. Looking Forward -
OUR VISION IS CLEAR
To Become the Foremost
Research-based Change
Agent in Nigeria’s Drive for
Agricultural Transformation

68. Challenges
But, as a budding organisation, our
are Daunting, with Implicit Opportunities
waiting to be tapped for us to Grow………
So, we need your
Experiences, Advice and
Suggestions!
THANK YOU!

69. Capacity building for Community
driven development.
Evidence from Mid Term Impact
Evaluation of the National Fadama
development (Fadama3) Project
Kato,E. (IFPRI), and E. Nkonya. (IFPRI)
D, Phillip, B. Ahmed, A. G. Daramola, A. Gana
Shetima, S., Ingawa, I. Luby, E.A. Lufadeju, M.
Madukwe, and Peter Ajibaiye
Abuja, Nigeria, November 13-14, 2012

70. Nigeria’s economic growth – an express train which
by-passes the poor
• Nigeria’s GDP grew by 6.4% in 2001-
10, a growth which was among the
highest in SSA
• However, 64% of the population lives
below the international poverty line
• Majority of the poor (70%) are in rural
areas
• People living below US$1/day
increased from 52% in 2004 to 61% in
2010 (NBS 2010)
• Does this mean that Nigeria’s fast
economic growth is by-passing poor
farmers?
• What can be done to put the rural poor
onboard Nigeria’s express train
economic growth? Is Fadama III the

71. Fadama3 implementation design:
 Coverage: 36 states
 Time span: 2009-2013. Possible extension.
 Project Budget: 250 million dollars from WB
and 200 m from Nigeria Govt.
 Organisation of Beneficiaries:
 individuals had to form Fadama User
groups(FUGs) based on EIG. 20 members
per FUG.
 several FUGs encouraged to form an
FCA (Fadama Community Association).


72. Fadama3 implementation design
 Types of beneficiary groups: crop farmers,
livestock producers, fisher folks, agro
processors, vulnerable persons etc.
 Project support: capacity building, community
owned infrastructure, productive asset
acquisition, advisory services, input support
 .

74. Capacity building in FADAMA3
 Project Component 1. Capacity Building,
Local Government, and Communications
and Information Support--US$87.5m. This
component included :
 (a)Capacity building support for community
organizations;
 (b) Capacity building support to local
governments; and
 (c) Communications and information support.

75. FADAMA – Capacity Value Chain
FED.
FCAs EIGs
FADAMA
State FCA
CDDs
FADAMA Facilitators
LGA Federation Welfare of
FADAMA of FCAs beneficiaries

76. What Capacities were Needed?
 Forming EIGs (FUGs)
 Mobilizing FCAs
 Federating FCAs
 Designing Business Plans and budgets
 Implementation capacity
 Monitoring and Evaluation
 Impact Assessment
 Redesigning of business plans and CDDs

77. Focus on M&E capacity
 M&E is critical for program redesign.
 Is needed for monitoring expenditures
 Is useful for re-allocation of resources within
activities
 Useful for creating database for eventual
impact evaluation.
 However capacity of M and E is usually weak
 M and E is crucial for achieving project goals
and objectives.
 Because of this situation, IFPRI focused on
strengthening M and E capacity within
fadama3 project.

78. Capacity Building activities for Local
Collaborators.
 -IFPRI worked with 36 State consultants, 4
Zonal consultants, 1 National Consultant
drawn mainly for Local State Universities.
 -IFPRI also worked with National Fadama
office strengthening Monitoring and
Evaluation staff skills.
 Trained all state consultants, State Level M
and E staff, and National Fadama M and E
staff (about 120 persons).
 Skills Imparted: -Design of Baseline studies
with a counterfactual approach (selection of
Controls).

79. More skills Imparted
 -Design of follow-up surveys ( Midline
survey).
 Data management, data quality and data
integrity processes.
 Rigorous Analytical approaches for Impact
evaluation.
 -Counterfactual analysis: Matching
methods with single difference , double
difference and Triple difference
 -Non Counterfactual analysis.
 -FIML, LIML, etc.

80. Did the CDD
approach used by Fadama3
Improve Rural Household
Welfare in Nigeria?

81. Analytical Approach ( Identification
Strategy)
 Counterfactual Analysis:
 -Quasi-Experimental Estimates:
Matching combined with difference-in-
difference estimator.
 -Matching Methods: Kernel matching
and Nearest Neighbor (Propensity Score
matching),
 -Robustness Checks: Covariate Matching
and Coersened Exact Matching.
 -Matching quality checks: balancing
tests, Common support , Trimming and CIA
assumption checks

82. National Impacts of Fadama3
Livestock Crop Non Farm Agricultural Household
Income income Income Income income
44%** 32% 415%** 23%** 19%**

83. Impacts by Gender
Crop Livestock Non- Household
Income Income Farm Income
Income
Male 19%** 49%** 152%*** 16%**
Female 157%*** No impact 4284%*** 48%**

84. Impacts by Wealth Status
Asset Terciles Agricultural Non Farm Household
Income Income Income
Tercile1(Poor) 30%** 1830%*** 36%***
Tercile2 (medium) 18%* No Impact No Impact
Tercile3 (Rich) 12% No Impact No Impact

85. Impacts by Age
Age Crop Livestock Non Farm
Terciles Income Income Income
Youth No No Impact 245%***
beneficiaries Impact
Medium age No No Impact No Impact
tercile Impact
Older 52%*** 159%*** No Impact
beneficiaries

86. Impact on household income (ΔATT)
Fadama III had greatest impact on hhd income
of women and the poorest  effective targeting

87. Impacts on Job creation
(Proxy: Agricultural Labour Demand)
 Fadama increased demand for hired labor in
agricultural production by 5 persons/ hhd.
With With With State
Village Geopolitic Fixed
Fixed al Fixed effects
effects effects
Fadama3 5.311*** 5.421*** 3.345***
Other Controls
Yes Yes Yes

88. Impacts on Poverty Reduction.
 About 8% of Fadama III beneficiaries
escaped from poverty.
Poverty line Poverty line Poverty line
=$1.25 per day =$2 per day =$1 per day
Fadama 3 8.4% *** 8.8% *** 8.3% ***

89. Impacts on Income Inequality
 Fadama III reduced income inequality by
16% while income inequality in the
communities without Fadama III project
decreased by only 3%.

90. Additional Impacts
 Elite Capture: Statistically Tested and found
no Evidence of Elite capture.
 Political capture: We did not test for this.

91. Implications of Fadama III
 Both Fadama II and Fadama III CDD
approach has shown effective targeting of the
poor
 Fadama III reached only 3.5% of the
households in Nigeria.

92. How could the remaining 96%
households benefit from the favorable
impacts of Fadama III?
• Commercialization of rural services offered
by Fadama III ( inputs support)
• Mainstream FCAs (e.g. Federation of FCAs)
• Mainstream other services & approaches in
rural poverty reduction programs (e.g. ATA,
ADP, rural infrastructure, etc)
• Greater harmonization and coordination of
rural poverty programs. One of the key
reasons for Fadama III success is provision
of several synergistic rural services
 Yes, Fadama III CDD approach could put
Nigeria’s poor farmers onboard the express
train economic growth

93. Implications For ATA ?
 ATA implementation is based on Value Chain
Approach
 ATA Value chains could be considered as
CDDs of FADAMA
 Development of Value chains will need
capacity along the value chains
 Identifying these capacities and
strengthening them will enhance the
implementation of ATA
 A careful development of a capacity strategy
and implementing them will make ATA
successful

94. Implications for ATA contd
 Attention to M &E Quality data collection on
all ATA outcomes for Rigorous Assessment
of ATA impacts for both short term and long
term impacts
 M&E data collection be disaggregated by
social-economic and socio-demographic
characteristics e.g gender, wealth status.