AGRICULTURE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR KENYA · 2018-02-28 · Kenya Joint Sector Review...

1

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

Ministry of agriculture Livestock and Fisheries

AGRICULTURE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR KENYA

Advancing Mutual Accountability through Comprehensive, Inclusive, and Technically Robust Review and Dialogue

November, 2017

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and FisheriesKilimo House P.O Box 30028 – 00100Nairobi

i

REPUBLIC OF KENYA




November, 2017

iii

FOREWORDThe agriculture sector plays a very important role in the Kenyan economy. In 2015, the sector directly contributed 27 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 27% indirectly and accounts for 65% of Kenya’s total exports. It provides more than 18% of formal employment with more than 60% of informal employment in the rural areas where 70% of the population resides, thus making agriculture the predominant source of employment. (KNBS 2015)

The Kenya vision 2030 envisages Kenya as a middle income country by the year 2030 with the sector expected to grow at 7% per annum. Interventions for this growth are expounded in the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (2010-2020). In formulating this strategy, regional and international initiatives such as the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), which recognizes agriculture’s contribution to accelerated economic growth in African countries, are taken into account.

Kenya is committed to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), which is a continental framework for agricultural transformation, food and nutrition security, wealth creation, and economic growth. One of the commitments under CAADP is to promote evidence-based agricultural policy planning and implementation processes through peer review, dialogue, benchmarking, and the adoption of best practices. CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework sets out principles for mutual review and to guide the identification of priority areas and the definition of performance indicators for tracking targets.

The CAADP Result Framework is implemented through Agriculture Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs). The JSRs are an integral part of the transition to evidence-based policy planning and implementation. In particular, JSRs provide a platform to collectively review the effectiveness of policies and institutions in the agricultural sector as well as assess the extent to which intended results and outcomes in the sector are being realized. They allow state and non-state stakeholders to hold each other accountable with respect to fulfilling pledges and commitments stipulated in the CAADP compacts, National Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plans (NAFSIPs), and other related cooperation agreements. By allowing a broad spectrum of stakeholders to get insights into and influence overall policies and priorities of the sector, JSRs serve as a management and policy support tool for inclusive stakeholder planning, programming, budget preparation and execution, monitoring and

iv

evaluation, and overall development of the agricultural sector.

In October 2015, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF), in implementing one of the AU resolutions on mutual accountability and supported by the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for East and Central Africa (ReSAKSS-ECA), undertook an assessment of the Kenya Joint Sector Review (JSR) process, as outlined in CAADP Framework and Malabo Declaration. The overall objective of the assessment was to examine the progress made toward achieving key targets, and assess the adequacy of existing processes to effectively carry out such review in the future. This report presents findings on the existing processes to effectively carry out such reviews in future and actions to remedy identified weaknesses. The country is fully committed to the continental aspirations, and I therefore call upon all stakeholders in the sector to collaborate and apply the findings of the JSR initiative.

Willy Bett, EGHCabinet SecretaryMinistry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThis report contains the findings of the JSR processes within the agriculture sector in Kenya in light of best practice as set out NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA) guidelines. The report was undertaken in consultation with and support of many stakeholders with the coordination of the Ministry’s CAADP team.

I wish to recognize the Cabinet Secretary Mr Willy Bett, EGH, and my fellow Principal Secretaries Dr Andrew Tuimur, CBS, and Prof. Micheni Ntiba, CBS for their leadership, support and guidance in the development of this document.

I appreciate the support and contribution of individuals and institutions that provided expertise and time in the preparation of this report. I thank all National Government institutions including other sector ministries, state corporations, commissions, universities, research institutions and the Non-State Actors (NSAs) for their commitment to the Joint Sector Review for the agricultural sector in Kenya.

I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the County Governments and the affiliate institutions for working hand in hand with national government in the JSR assessment process. I recognize the contribution of the County Exeutive Committee members in charge of Departments of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries from the 47 counties for the valuable information given during consultations, officers from council governors and CECs who provided useful information during validation of this report.

I gratefully appreciate the development partners particularly USAID for the support through the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for East and Central Africa (ReSAKSS-ECA) and Africa Lead for the financial support and sharing of global best practices for domestication and sharing of lessons learnt.

Finally, I acknowledge and commend the Ministry’s CAADP Coordinating team and staff from Agricultural Policy Research and Regulations Directorate for the final validation of this report.

I trust that all stakeholders will find the report useful and endeavour to implement its recommendations.

Dr. Richard L. Lesiyampe (PhD), CBSPrincipal Secretary, State Department of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAfDB African Development BankAFA Agriculture Fisheries and Food AuthorityAgGDP Agricultural Gross Domestic ProductASAL Arid and Semi-Arid LandASCU Agricultural Sector Coordination UnitASDS Agricultural Sector Development StrategyAU African UnionAUC African Union CommissionCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development ProgrammeCOMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern AfricaDE-CPP Drought Emergencies Country Programming PaperEAC East African CommunityERA Economic Review of AgricultureEU European UnionFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentGDP Gross Domestic ProductHIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency

SyndromeIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIMS Inter-Ministerial SecretariatJSR Joint Sector ReviewKES Kenyan shillingLoI Letter of IntentM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMoALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and FisheriesMoA Ministry of AgricultureMTP Medium Term Plan (of Kenya’s Vision 2030)MTIP Medium Term Investment PlanNAFSIP National Agriculture and Food Security Investment PlanNAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan (for Kenya it is MTIP)

viii

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNFNSP National Food and Nutrition Security PolicyODA Official Development AssistancePPP Purchasing Power ParityReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support SystemSAKSS Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support SystemSC Steering CommitteeSRA Strategy for Revitalizing AgricultureTI Transformation InitiativeTORs Terms of ReferenceUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSD United States (of America) dollars

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD .................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ......................................................................................v

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ..................................................................................... xiii

Structure of the Report .............................................................................. xvi

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................1

1.1.Background and Context ..................................................................................1

1.2. Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................3

1.3. Methodology ...................................................................................................3

2. Status and Quality of the JSR Process(or JSR-Like Processes) in Kenya ....4

2.1.JSR Processes ..................................................................................................4

2.2 Areas Covered ................................................................................................6

2.3 Actors Involved ...............................................................................................7

2.4 Action Plan to Bridge the Gaps and Achieve JSR Best Practices ...........9

3. Policy Review............................................................................................10

4. Institutional Review .................................................................................15

5. REVIEW OF KEY FINANCIAL AND NONFINANCIAL COMMITMENTS, 2009 TO 2014 ........................................................................................................27

5.1. Trends in Aggregate Public Spending on Agriculture ....................................27

5.2. Non-state Actors: Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments to Agriculture ....................................................................................................................................29

5.3. Development Partners ..................................................................................34

5.4. Agroecological Priorities in MTIP ..................................................................37

6. Agriculture Sector Performance ..............................................................44

6.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................44

6.2. Input-Level Indicators, 2009 to 2014 .............................................................44

6.3. Output-Level Indicators: Agriculture Sector Performance (2009–2014) .....46

x

6.4. Outcome-Level Indicators: Agriculture Growth Performance (2009-2014) .48

6.5. Impact-Level Indicators (2009–2014) ............................................................49

6.6. Indicators of the Enabling Environment (2009–2014) ..................................51

7. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ...........................................................54

7.1. Status and Quality of JSR Processes ..............................................................54

7.2. The Policy and Institutional Environment......................................................54

7.3. Review of Key Financial and Non-Financial Committments ..........................55

7.7. Agriculture Sector Performance: 2009 to 2014 ............................................57

REFERENCES ................................................................................................58

APPENDICES ................................................................................................58

Appendix A: Agriculture Sector Ministries that Endorsed ASDS in 2010 .............62

Appendix B: A JSR Best Practices Plan ..................................................................63

Appendix C: Terms of Reference for Short-Term Consultancy for the JSR Assessment in 2010 ..............................................................................................64

Appendix D: Strengthening Mutual Accountability through the Agriculture Joint Sector Review Process at the Country Level (Compare the 2010 JSR of SRA with Best Practices) .......................................................................................................67

AppendixE: Kenya’s AgricultureSector Policies and Strategies ............................73

Appendix F: Excerpts of Statements from Kenya’s National Food and Nutrition Security Policy .......................................................................................................76

Appendix G: An Overview of Selected Development Partner Involvement in the Agriculture Sector .................................................................................................78

Appendix H: Terms of Reference for the JSR Assessment Study ..........................81

Appendix I: Persons Present During the JSR Consultation Workshops ................86

Appendix J: Persons Present During the JSR Consultation Workshops ................95

xi

LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE JSR AND JSR-LIKE ACTIVITIES IN KENYA ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE PRINCIPLES ................................................8

Table 3.1: Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output completed since 2010 or in process .................................................................................................10

Table 3.2: Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output of Thematic Areas ...12

Table 4.1: Qualitative Assessment of the Progress on Institutional, Financial, and Policy and Program Factors ..................................................................17

Table 5.1: Trends in Investment Projects in the Agriculture Sector (2013–2016) ............................................................................................................30

Table 5.2: Status of Letters of Intent (LoI) Signed in 2012 ..........................31

Table 5.3: Planned Project Financing IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR by Type of Foreign Facility .........................................................................................35

Table 5.4: Composition of Disbursement Methods ....................................36

Table 5.5: Development Partners’ Commitments to Kenya’s CAADP Process ........................................................................................................................36

Table 5.6: ASDS’ Agro-ecological Priorities ..................................................38

Table 5.7: Estimated ASDS-MTIP Costs by Investment Pillar and Year .......39

Table 5.8: Breakdown of MTIP budget across agro-ecological zones .........40

Table 5.9: Financing gaps by pillar and financial year .................................41

Table 5.10: Degree of alignment of funding based on agro-ecological zones ..42

Table 5.11: A summary of projects and estimated level of financing .........42

Table 6.1: Investments in Agriculture: Agriculture Expenditures and Official Development Assistance (2009–2014) ........................................................44

Table 6.2: Output Indicators: Agriculture Sector Performance (2009–2014) ...46

Table 6.3: Outcome-Level Indicators (2009–2014) .....................................48

Table 6.4: Impact Indicators: Economic Growth, Poverty, Hunger, and Food and Nutrition (2009–2014) ..........................................................................50

xii

Table 6.5: Kenya’s Enabling Environment: Macroeconomic Performance (2009–2014) ................................................................................................52

Table 6.6: Ease of Doing Business in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda ...........53

LIST OF FIGURESFigure 5.1: Agriculture Expenditure as a Share of GDP, Total Government Expenditure, and Agricultural GDP (2009–2014) ........................................28

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYKenya is one of the countries that endorsed the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa (AU 2003) in 2003. In effect it confirmed its commitment to implementing the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Preparations through various strategies and programmes commenced and in July 2010, Kenya signed the CAADP Compact. This coincided with the launching of the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010–2020(ASDS) (GoK 2010a), the blue-print for the country’s CAADP.

The ASDS aims to ensure food and nutritional security for all Kenyans and generate higher incomes and employment, especially in the rural areas. It intends to champion the sector-led 10 percent annual economic growth rate envisaged under the economic pillar of Kenya’s Vision 2030 (GoK 2007), and recognizes the complementary roles of both the public and the private sectors in facing the outstanding challenges in the sector. The overall development and growth of the sector, according to ASDS, is anchored in two strategic thrusts of increasing productivity, commercialization and competitiveness of agricultural commodities and enterprises, and developing and managing key factors of production. These are entrenched in the Medium Term Investment Plan (ASDS MTIP) (GoK 2010b) as the following six pillars: (1) Increasing productivity, commercialization, and competitiveness; (2) Promoting private-sector participation; (3) Promoting sustainable land and natural resources management; (4) Reforming delivery of agricultural services; (5) Increasing market access and trade; and (6) Ensuring effective coordination and implementation.

Mutual accountability is one of the guiding principles of CAADP. Agriculture joint sector reviews (JSRs) are a key instrument for supporting mutual accountability and implementing the CAADP Result Framework. This joint sector review (JSR) assessment exercise was undertaken from September to November 2015, to evaluate the progress in the implementation of the ASDS. The objective of the assessment was threefold: (1) to evaluate the policy and institutional environment of the implementation of the ASDS and its Medium Term Investment Plan for 2010-2015, the country’s national agricultural investment plan (NAIP); (2) to examine the progress made toward achieving their key target outcomes; and (3) to assess the adequacy of the existing processes to effectively carry out such review in the future and identify actions to remedy identified weaknesses.

The methodology used for the assessment involved first engaging various national and county stakeholders in an inception workshop, to create

xiv

awareness. The stakeholders were drawn from various agricultural sector institutions, development partner groups, the civil society organizations, research institutions, financial institutions and organizations, the private sector and the academia. After that the process included desk reviews of the ASDS and documents from ReSAKSS and other public domain, and interviewing and getting feedback from key informants and stakeholders.

The findings were that the country has achieved a lot with the implementation of ASDS. Kenya has a long history of agriculture and food security policy reforms with relatively well developed institutional arrangements. Several policies, strategies and legislation have been prepared and implemented. However, there are major challenges that require redress to improve further the policy reform process in the agricultural sector. These include:

• Inadequate coordination capacity at the national and county levels of government; the devolution was effected before all counties took stock of what was available and what was needed in terms of physical, financial and human resources;

• No clearly defined framework for policy reform process;

• Lack of quality data for policy making and policy monitoring; the much awaited Kenya Country SAKSS should be handy if established;

• Non-inclusion of analysis in the policy development process;

• Limited effective participation of the private sector and civil society organizations in policy reform, and

• Insufficient and poor management of resources

All these could be addressed by building a strong coordination platform for the implementation of the National Agricultural Investment Plan (NAIP), and a complementing knowledge support system.

On the progress made toward achieving key target outcomes, the arena is mixed:

• Input-level indicators have generally been on a downward trend

• Output-level indicators (agriculture sector performance) along with land and labour productivities , in general increased

• Outcome-level indicators (agriculture growth performance) generally showed an upward trend.

• Impact level indicators looked promising, indicating improved welfare and reduced food insecurity and hunger levels in the population.

xv

However, without quantitative assessment, attribution is a fallacy.

• Indicators of the enabling environment showed mixed trends. The share of government revenues as a percentage of GDP showed an increasing trend, while operating a business in Kenya is still a major challenge for investors.

Kenya needs to improve on evidence based decision making, first and foremost investing in data and information management, and using the data for both planning and evaluation. Furthermore, with devolved government, the counties need to be on the forefront in the generation and use of the data.

Finally, on the adequacy of the existing processes to effectively carry out such review in the future, we observe there have been two JSRs in Kenya, the first in 2006 (DA 2006) and the second in 2010 (Lundgren 2011); there have been none since signing of the CAADP Compact in 2010. It is noted that both were after the Maputo declaration, when the country had already embarked on preparations for the CAADP Compact. The JSRs did not observe all the elements of Best Practices. There have also been several JSR-like processes. Except for 2014, the government has published the Economic Review of Agriculture (ERA) every year since 2006 (GoK 2015). The ERA is an acknowledged reference point for time series data on agriculture, but is not strictly about ASDS. The quality of data in this has been criticized by some quarters. Some other JSR-like processes include An Assessment of the Absorptive Capacity for Development Funds in Agricultural Sector Ministries (GoK 2012a); and Assessment Report on the alignment of Agricultural Sector programmes and projects to ASDS and MTIP (GoK 2012b). The JSR-like processes that were about ASDS tended to adopt the principles of mutual accountability, which embrace inclusivity, transparency and evidence based decisions. However, we note challenges in data and information management, and recommend a hastened establishment of Kenyan SAKSS node. Furthermore, Kenya’s situation with respect to CAADP coordination is unique; the CAADP focal point in place now is new and will need to be strengthened, and sector coordination mechanisms resuscitated. In any case, a number of issues in the ASDS require revision; these include issues of agriculture in a devolved government.

xvi

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Section 1 of this report presents the introduction and background, objectives and methodology of the assessment.

Section 2 discusses the status and quality of the JSR process, or JSR-like process (es) in the country.

Section 3, the policy review, highlights the key existing and emerging policies inside and outside of agriculture that affect the implementation of the NAFSIPs, positively or negatively. The section further outlines what gaps exist, and what adjustments or alignments are needed.

Section 4, the institutional review, presents an institutional architecture assessment, with a focus on mapping for policy reform and assessing multi-sector capacity to drive and participate in policy reform. Section 5 reviews key financial and nonfinancial commitments by various categories of stakeholders, while section 6 presents agriculture sector performance baselines.

The final section presents a conclusion and lessons learned.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background and ContextSince the turn of the millennium, vast efforts have been undertaken worldwide to improve livelihoods. At the global level, Millennium Development Goal One (MDG1) focused on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. It was envisaged the goal would be met by transforming the agriculture sectors of many nations of the world, especially the developing and least developed countries. At the continental level, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) launched the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) in 2003 through the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa (AU 2003). The CAADP Pillar III: Framework for African Food Security set out a plan of action for achieving MDG1 in Africa through agriculture-led growth (AU/NEPAD 2009). The most cited goal of the CAADP agenda is that the agricultural sector should achieve an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent and that at least 10 percent of the annual national public budget is directed towards agriculture.

In 2014, African heads of state solidified their commitment to transforming African agriculture with the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods (AU 2014). They recommitted to the agricultural growth and budget allocation targets, and agreed to additional commitment areas, including ending hunger and halving poverty, tripling intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services by 2025, enhancing resilience in livelihoods, and strengthening mutual accountability for actions and results. Inherent in mutual accountability is the commitment to promoting evidence-based agricultural policy planning and implementation processes through peer review, dialogue, benchmarking, and adoption of best practices. A core principle of CAADP, mutual accountability is a process by which two or more parties hold one another accountable for the commitments they have voluntarily made to one another. The next frontier of the CAADP agenda is the improvement of country policy processes to ensure successful implementation of National Agricultural and Food Security Investment Plans (NAFSIPs). The participants in Kenya’s policy process who need to be mutually accountable include state and non-state actors. State actors comprise the sector ministries (Appendix A), county governments, state agencies, while non-state actors comprise civil society organizations, the private sector, and development partners. Kenya signed her CAADP Compact in 2010, and the country’s blue print for this is the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS [GoK 2010a]).

The Kenya constitution 2010, ushered in the devolved system of governance and this has necessitated the review and modification of the institutional landscape

2

in the implementation of the ASDS. The Second Medium Term Plan of Kenya Vision 2030 (GoK 2013b) has however addressed devolution and emphasized some of the pressing issues in the sector which include overdependence on rain-fed agriculture. Other concerns include the need to mechanize agriculture, revive cooperatives and farmers’ unions, subsidize farm inputs, and enhance value addition in the agricultural production and supply chain.

The main commitment Kenya made in the ASDS is a food-secure and prosperous nation, with an average growth rate of 7 percent per year until 2015. It aimed to achieve this commitment through commercially-oriented agriculture that focused on both increasing the productivity and competitiveness of commodities and enterprises, and developing and managing key factors of production. The key targets were reducing poverty and food insecurity, increasing the contribution of agriculture to Kenya’s gross domestic product (GDP), divesting nonstrategic state corporations, enhancing private-sector participation in agricultural development, reforming and streamlining agricultural service institutions. It is evident that the players in the ASDS are diverse and must be held accountable for the planned processes.

Agriculture JSRs are a key instrument for supporting mutual accountability and implementing the CAADP Results Framework 2015-2025 (AU/NEPAD 2015). They are an integral part of the transition to evidence-based policy planning and implementation. In particular, JSRs provide a platform to collectively review the effectiveness of policies and institutions in the agriculture sector, as well as to assess the extent to which intended results and outcomes in the sector are being realized. They allow state and non-state stakeholders to hold each other accountable with respect to fulfilling pledges and commitments stipulated in the CAADP compacts, NAFSIPs, and any related cooperation agreements. By allowing a broad spectrum of stakeholders to obtain insights into and influence overall policies and priorities of the sector, JSRs serve as a management and policy support tool for inclusive stakeholder planning, programming, budget preparation and execution, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and overall development of the agriculture sector.

Due to African countries’ commitment to CAADP under the Maputo Declaration and their recommitment under the Malabo Declaration, it has become necessary to support efforts to introduce JSR practices where they do not exist and improve their quality where they do. Whereas two pre-Compact JSRs were completed for Kenya, no post-Compact JSR has taken place. The past JSRs, however, are relevant, as they were conducted after the Maputo Declaration, and already the country was working toward signing the CAADP Compact. Upon the request of the AUC and NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency, the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) has extended its JSR support

3

efforts to Kenya, among 11 countries and hence this JSR assessment.

1.2. Objectives of the StudyThe overall objective of this study is to undertake an assessment of JSR in Kenya.

The specific objectives of this study were to:

i. Assess the status and quality of JSR processes in the country;

ii. Evaluate the policy and institutional environment of the implementation of the ASDS and its MTIP 2011-2015; and

iii. Examine the progress made toward achieving key sector target

outcomes and, thus, create baselines for future reviews.

1.3. MethodologyThe methodology used for the assessment first involved engaging with various national and county stakeholders in an inception workshop, to create awareness. The stakeholders were drawn from various agriculture sector institutions, development partner groups, civil society organizations, research institutions, financial institutions and organizations, the private sector, and academia.

The next step entailed desk reviews of documents from sector ministries and other public domain organizations, and interviewing and getting feedback from key informants and stakeholders.

Finally, a validation workshop was done before finalization of the report. An important expected outcome of this activity is that the documents and results serve to facilitate inclusive, transparent, and evidence-based stakeholder policy dialogue by showing stakeholders where and how they can engage to greatest effect.

4

II. FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT2. STATUS AND QUALITY OF THE JSR PROCESS (OR JSR-LIKE PROCESSES) IN KENYA

2.1 JSR ProcessesA mutual accountability framework for CAADP was developed by the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency in 2011 to guide mutual accountability processes at continental, regional, and country levels. Elements of an effective mutual accountability process include an evidence basis for technical credibility, ownership by all stakeholders, open and transparent discussions, and subsequent behaviour change toward better performance (Matchaya 2014). Agriculture JSRs are a key instrument for supporting mutual accountability and implementing the CAADP Results Framework at the country level (AU/NEPAD 2015). Principles of a JSR include national ownership and leadership, relevance to National Agricultural Investment Plans or cooperation agreements, inclusive participation, commitment to results by all participants, impartiality and evidence-based decisions, enhancement of national planning, sensitivity to gender, and shared learning experiences (Matchaya 2014). 10

Kenya adopted a sector wide approach to the implementation of its national agricultural strategies and included JSRs in their plans. The first JSR was conducted in 2006 (DA 2006), and the second JSR in 2010 (Lundgren 2011) and reports were presented for both. However, No JSR has been conducted since Kenya signed the CAADP Compact in 2010; in effect there has been no JSR for ASDS, but there have been JSR-like processes.

The status and quality of the JSR process in the country could be observed from the JSR of 2010(Lundgren 2011), as it seems to mark the baseline of the post-Kenyan CAADP Compact. The timing of the JSR was to inform the sector stakeholders who would immediately start implementing the ASDS. Appendix D tabulates Kenya’s 2010 JSR process against best practices. A steering committee was formed, which consisted of directors of the sector ministries and other stakeholder representatives. The steering committee’s main function was to create ownership for the JSR within the agencies of its members, and to provide political backing and technical support to the JSR consultants. The steering committee made available staff from four key sector ministries only as strategic informants; staff

10 JSR best practices are presented in Appendix B.

5

members from the other relatively peripheral ministries were not available for the face-to-face interviews. The JSR’s work mainly comprised interviewing and getting feedback from key informants and stakeholders; perusing documents and reports; attending meetings of stakeholders, committees, and working groups; and visiting institutions and sites of interest (Lundgren 2011). There is no indication of how far the rest of the 11 best practices steps were met. It is not known whether or how steps 8 to 12 of the JSR best practices (as tabulated in Appendix D) were followed.

Other than the JSRs, the main state departments under the agriculture sector have been reviewing the sector’s performance since 2006 in the Economic Review of Agriculture (ERA) (GoK 2015) every year, except for 2014 when no edition was prepared. The omission was reportedly the result of transition challenges occasioned by implementation of the Constitution of Kenya, whereby Schedule 4 devolved agriculture extension to the counties (CPPMU 2015). The ERA depends on individuals, institutions, and stakeholders under the sector state departments and the semi-autonomous governmental agencies to collect, validate, and analyse data. The reporting takes more or less a trend analysis approach, as opposed to the audit approach, where the actual is compared with the planned, as taken by the less regular JSRs. The JSR of the SRA (Lundgren 2011) criticizes some of the data presented in the ERA and other country documents as being inconsistent and, therefore, not very useful.

Considering that the ASDS was a strategy for 10 years and that the implementation framework was divided into two equal periods, in early 2015, NEPAD asked Kenya to prepare for a JSR. However, a number of JSR-like processes had earlier been accomplished, at least two of which merit consideration: (1) An Assessment of the Absorptive Capacity for Development Funds in Agricultural Sector Ministries (GoK 2012a); and (2) Assessment Report on the alignment of Agricultural Sector programmes and projects to ASDS and MTIP (GoK 2012b). For the first one, after launching the ASDS, one of the issues that emerged was the need to address the absorptive capacity across the Agricultural Sector Ministries. The study process involved desk reviews of various documents, and discussions held with sector ministries and Treasury, development partners and project coordinators. The second JSR- like process (GoK 2012b), entailed collecting and analyzing large volume of documents. The methodology involved forming a task force of members drawn from sector ministries to undertake the task. The task force reviewed several documents and held interviews and consultations with key stakeholders. The task force also made visits to counties and sub-counties to ascertain the extent to which project complemented each other or otherwise, or whether they had effect on beneficiaries. In each of the cases listed, transparency and evidence based planning were key in the processes. However, mutual accountability seemed to be lacking. It is recommended that future processes specifically address this.

6

Outside ASDS, various Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs) merit a mention; KEPCO and CGD (2010) and World Bank (2014), to name a few. These were reviews of sources and uses of public funds, and the respective results. They were initiatives of development partners and civil society organizations. Transparency and evidence base were evident. However, the mutual accountability element was not evident.

2.2 Areas CoveredEach of the JSR and JSR-like processes mentioned had their own agenda, but similar in that all addressed one or other issue of the country’s agricultural development path. The overall objective of the 2010 JSR was to analyze the achievement of outputs and outcomes of the agriculture sector, as expressed in the SRA, and to make recommendations for future planning (Lundgren 2011). The specific objectives were to collect and analyze information (studies, progress reports, analyses, etc.) related to achievements in six thematic areas. The report covered the following:

Performance — Progress and achievements against strategic areas and fast-track interventions:

Operations— how supporting and coordinating mechanisms and functions worked

Impact — Whether there had been any impact on production and productivity, poverty and income, or environment, among other variables (Lundgren 2011).

The ERA covers six areas which include the following:

1. Overviews on economic performance;

2. Trends in budget allocation to agriculture;

3. Key recent reforms in agriculture and livestock

4. World commodity and fertilizer situation; and

5. Production achievements in the crops and livestock sub-sectors

The study on absorptive capacity (GoK 2012a) was carried out with the following objectives:

• Analyze the historical absorptive rates of various Ministries, singling out good examples;

• Interrogate reasons behind the absorptive rates;

• Come up with workable solutions to increase the Absorptive Capacity of specific Sector Ministries, and;

7

• Propose mechanisms that may help improve the Absorptive Capacity.

It considered the following factors:

(1) The budgetary processes, specifically the relative importance given to sector ministries’ programs, activities and projects in the budget process;

(2) Quality of institutions and policies;

(3) Compliance to technical standards in procurement and contracts;

(4) Technical and administrative capacity; and

(5) Specific donor practices

Finally, the purpose of the study on the alignment of Agricultural Sector programmes and projects to ASDS and MTIP (GoK 2012b) was to:

• Assess all existing sector programmes/ projects for their alignment to the ASDS and MTIP;

• Identify possible action or scenarios for amending or modifying programs and projects that do not meet an acceptable level of alignment, and

• Establish a common oversight and reporting process that all programs or projects of an investment area will be part of.

2.3 Actors InvolvedIn each of the JSR or JSR-like processes mentioned, there were various levels of inclusivity. In the JSR process of 2010 (Lundgren 2011) one consultant was engaged, who held discussions with an array of stakeholders from sector ministries, development partners, civil society, the private sector, research institutions , and academia. The consultant started by asking the sector ministries to develop a self-evaluation of what they had achieved, or had started to address, against the stated strategic areas, interventions and outputs in the log-frame analysis of the SRA. Although often, not all sector ministries were available, the four “key” ministries—Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fisheries Development, and Cooperative Development & Marketing—provided self-evaluations.

From the processes, the areas covered and the actors involved, three major issues of mutual accountability which include inclusivity, transparency and evidence-basis, are all observed, with different levels of responsiveness to the principles. Table 2.1 presents a view of how far the JSR and JSR-like activities in the country have adhered to the principles as articulated in Matchaya (2014).

8

Table 2.1: The Extent to Which the JSR and JSR-Like Activities in Kenya are Responsive to the Principles

Principle JSR 2010 (Lundgren 2011)

ERA (GoK 2015)

Assessment of absorptive capacity (GoK 2012a)

Assessment of alignment to ASDS and MTIP (GoK 2012b)

National ownership and leadership

Relevance to National Agricultural Investment Plans or cooperation agreements

Inclusive participation

Commitment to results by all participants

Impartiality and evidence-based decisions

Enhancement of national planning

Sensitivity to gender

Shared learning experience

Key:Red colour - Non responsiveGreen colour - very responsiveAmber - moderate

JSR-like processes under ASDS tend to observe the mutual accountability principles (green and amber for the assessment of absorptive capacity, and for assessment of alignment studies).

Data and information collection was a key challenge experienced in most cases. In some cases information was not available, with various sources giving different figures on one subject. A knowledge and information support system is recommended.

9

2.4 Action Plan to Bridge the Gaps and Achieve JSR Best PracticesKenya’s situation with respect to the CAADP process is unique; the CAADP process was to be implemented through the ASDS, with ASCU as the secretariat. However, ASCU was disbanded together with the respective committees and some of the initial ten sector ministries were either merged or restructured. Furthermore, no formal coordination platform for the sector was put in place until mid-2015. There is need for a realignment of the relevant state departments that are relevant to the CAADP agenda.

A new CAADP focal point was established in May 2015 to steer coordination, and Kenya is now preparing a work plan and budget as consultations are also in place. Besides coordination issues, one other major task of the new focal point is to establish a country Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) node. If established, the SAKSS node will itself be an asset for the JSR process, to handle information and data challenges.

The suggested action plan to bridge the gaps and achieve JSR Best practices is as follows:

1. Formally establish new agriculture sector coordination mechanisms and revise the ASDS to address devolution issues.

2. Identify and engage all the relevant state departments from the initial ten ministries of the agricultural sector, and the major constituents of non-state actors and engage them in data gathering process.

3. Establish a country Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) node. This may be a long term activity, but because Kenya’s JSR is getting overdue, and because data and information has been a challenge in the past, it may be necessary to identify and bring together all the possible sources or generators of data and information

4. Draw the Terms of reference for the JSR, specifically highlighting the steps in the Best Practices (as outlined in Appendix A)

5. Conduct a JSR, following the AU-NEPAD Guidelines on Best Practices.

10

3. POLICY REVIEWSince 2004, the official commencement of Kenya’s CAADP process, several policies and strategies in the agriculture sector have emerged, with some for the agriculture sector as a whole and others more targeted to various subsectors. Appendix E lists all the policies and strategies that have emerged since 2003 (GoK 2013a).

The agriculture sector in general—and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF) in particular—have recently undertaken various policy, institutional, and regulatory reforms toward improving service delivery, in recognition of the ASDS, CAADP, Vision 2030, and the national constitution.

The ERA 2015 (GoK 2015) lists the main policies and strategies that have been reviewed or developed from 2010 to date. Also listed in the publication are other policies and strategies still in various stages of development. Finally, the ERA 2015 specifies the legislative acts whose requisite regulations have been developed. All of these are listed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output Completed Since 2010 or in Process

Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output

Main policies and strategies that have been reviewed or developed from 2010 to date

• National Agricultural Research Systems Policy, 2012

• National Aquaculture Communication Strategy, 2011

• Prawn Fishery Management Plan, 2010

• National Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012

• National Seed Policy, 2011• National Agriculture Sector

Extension Policy, 2012• National Agribusiness Strategy,

2012

• Gender Mainstreaming Strategy, 2010

• National Horticulture Policy, 2012

• National Rice Development Strategy, 2008–2013

• National Land-Use Policy, 2012

• National Tuna Fisheries Management and Development Strategy, 2013

• National Aquaculture Policy, 2011

11

Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output

Policies and strategies still in various stages of development

• Livestock Breeding Policy• Animal Feeds Policy• Veterinary Policy• National Sugar Strategy• National Dairy Development

Policy• National Poultry Policy• Beekeeping Policy• Camel Policy• National Marine Fisheries

Strategy• Fisheries Monitoring, Control,

and Surveillance Strategy• Management Plans for Lobster,

Ring Net, and Small and Medium Pelagic Fisheries

• Fleet Development• National Aquaculture Residue

Monitoring• Manual of Standard Operating

Procedures• Fisheries Management and

Development Bill, 2014

• National Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Policy

• National Emerging Crops Policy

• National Agriculture Policy• Livestock Insurance Policy• National Emerging Livestock

Strategy• Agrochemical Policy• National Organic

Agricultural Policy• Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Workplace Policy and Strategy

• HIV/AIDs Policy• National Tea Industry

Development Policy• National Cotton Policy• National Cereals Policy• National Oil and Nut Crops

Policy• National Irrigation Policy• Gender Policy

Acts whose requisite regulations have been developed

• Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Authority (AFFA) Act, 2013• Crops Act, 2013• Pyrethrum Act, 2013• Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization Act, 2013.

Source: GoK, 2015.

All of the policy, institutional, and regulatory reforms are expected to have some positive impact on the country’s implementation of the MTIP. Thus far, the process of developing these reforms has been consultative; therefore, the contents have been acceptable. However, a number of issues merit consideration. As observed by Lundgren (2011), there is a high level of policy reform-related activities in the agriculture sector—policies, plans, strategies, capacity building, special studies, and normal government programs—while

12

the capacity to handle these reforms and new and existing programs is not apparent.

For instance, the Crops Act, 2013, became operational before the repeal of some of the Acts it was intended to replace, such as the Sugar Act. There is need to study each of the acts and develop the requisite regulations, while also understanding the broader environment in which they operate. All stakeholders need to be involved. The AFFA Act, 2013, a major piece of legislation in the sector, does not cover livestock issues. Many of the gaps or exceptions in the reforms may owe their situations to the fragility of coordinating an enormous outfit like the sector wide approach, where all players would like to occupy the apex.

The ASDS, through each of the thematic areas, promised the explicit or implicit production of at least one core policy, institutional, or regulatory output, as shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output of Thematic Areas

Thematic Area Policy, Institutional, or Regulatory Output

Food and nutrition security National Food and Nutrition Security Policy, 2012

Extension and research National Agriculture Sector Extension Policy, 2012 National Agricultural Research Systems Policy, 2012

Agribusiness, market access, and value addition

National Agribusiness Strategy, 2012

Agricultural inputs and financial services

National Seed Policy, 2011

Review and harmonization of the legal, regulatory, and institutional framework

Ministry semiautonomous government agencies Intergovernmental secretariat Transformation secretariat Policy development and review Agricultural project coordination unit

Environment, sustainable land, and natural resource management

National Land-Use Policy, 2012 National Tuna Fisheries Management and Development Strategy, 2013 National Aquaculture Policy, 2011

Source: GoK, 2015

13

Kenya’s National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (NFNSP) is directly responsive to the ASDS’s MTIP, which is Kenya’s NAFSIP within its domestic CAADP framework. The policy has several statements (Appendix F), which the government is variously implementing. What is obviously and unfortunately missing is the much-expected effective M&E system, whose absence jeopardizes objective reporting.

Taking the NFNSP as a case study, it is observed that policy planning and execution still have room for improvement. The policies have baselines to benchmark future progress, but they do not explicitly define measurable and trackable targets. An evaluation system has been recommended in almost all planning and evaluation efforts, yet the much-anticipated formal review process is not in place. As a result, none of the new policies reportedly has been reviewed, and it is not possible to identify those that may be contradictory or those that have consistency gaps. There still seem to be too many policies, strategies and legislation coming up, instead of replacing with an overarching platform. Furthermore, attempts have been made at drafting legislation without referring to any existing policy. There is a big gap in the capacity to distinguish policy from law and to use policy to draft laws and strategies. A major challenge that implementation of policies has faced is the hastened devolution of the sector. Whereas devolution was provided for in the constitution, the process was too fast and did not give room for identification of the needs of each county. Some counties are still on their integrated plans while some have had own legislation of various aspects in the sector.

Public participation in the policy process is gaining momentum but is not yet adequate. According to Lundgren (2011), a web-based data bank had been created and the ERA had been revived. However, several discrepancies have been noted on data quality. Key strategic functions of agriculture sector ministries are broadly classified as policy formulation, regulation, or service delivery (GoK 2012a). It was observed that these functions are spread across many actors, while in some cases they are provided by one actor—a phenomenon that sets the scene for conflicts and lack of accountability. Moreover, the challenge of coordination of a large number of players slows the pace of rolling out and adopting policies.

The policies that are needed and are not yet in place are those already drafted and at various stages of being endorsed; however, the precise position in the channel, of such policies seems a preserve of the relevant ministries. Fast tracking on the political side is required. In a discussion with some groups of stakeholders during the inception workshop, a number of issues of concern about policy processes and implementation emerged:

• There is no policy document guiding the involvement of counties in policy processes.

• There are several competing policy, institutional, legislative,

14

regulatory, or other official frameworks to govern the operations of the public sector in agriculture, including the ASDS, National Agricultural Policy, and AFFA Act.

• The time given for stakeholder involvement is limited, and the true representation of stakeholders is also sometimes questionable.

• Often those who formulate and draft policies get distracted whenever there is change in leadership.

• The creation (and sustainability) of coordination frameworks is long overdue.

• To address these gaps or challenges, there is need for an overarching policy or strategy or plan that is consistent with the new constitution. Whatever tool that is adopted should provide for detailed implementation plan.

15

4. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWInstitutional arrangements for policy and program implementation are key aspects highlighted in the country’s CAADP Compact, implemented through the ASDS and its MTIP of 2011-2015. The ASDS’ MTIP adopted a sector wide approach in which sector ministries (state actors), the private sector (non-state actors), and development partners each had roles to play in the formulation and implementation of their respective plans.

The CAADP Compact was to be implemented through the ASDS, and its activities were to be coordinated by ASCU. The establishment of ASCU was well articulated in the SRA, but it took time to be implemented and accepted by the sector ministries (GoK 2010). The unit became fully established and staffed in 2006, although recruitment of key staff continued into 2008. ASCU served as a one-stop shop for the entire agriculture sector (GoK 2010) and played a key role in coordinating issues that cut across ministries. However, in January 2014, ASCU’s functions were suspended, without a structured replacement.

The ASDS has defined the broad strategic vision and implementation framework for agriculture development. Until the devolution in 2013, the inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee (ICC) supported by sector working groups, provided the leadership for agriculture policy and strategy development, implementation and monitoring.

After devolution, the implementation of ASDS and sector policies faced challenges of coordination at both levels of government. However at the national level, the Ministerial coordinating Committee (MCC) is under the leadership of Cabinet Secretary (CS) and the three Principle Secretaries (PSs). To improve coordination of strategy implementation between the national and county governments, a Joint Agriculture Sector Consultation and Cooperation Mechanism (JASCCM) has been established with equal representation from national and county governments in accordance with the Intergovernmental Relations Act. Technical working groups are formed to analyze pertinent issues requiring joint decisions by the two levels of Government.

Each of the 47 county governments has their coordination mechanisms for implementation of ASDS and agriculture policies. Some have established ministerial coordinating committees but majority have not fully developed mechanisms for coordination of implementation. It is also observed that some counties have more than one ministry responsible for agriculture as reflected at the national level. The counties with such formations may require different

16

composition for coordinating structures. Implementation also takes place at the sub-county and ward levels and each county has its structures in place to undertake implementation. However, County Executive Committees (CECs) for agriculture have the responsibility for coordinating implementation of ASDS and sector regulations at the county government level. The CECs from the 47 Counties have established a CEC Caucus for Agriculture to coordinate county issues in agriculture

The respective state departments have continued to champion their activities as articulated in the ASDS. In May 2015, the three main state departments of the agriculture sector established a team to be the CAADP focal point. Earlier in the year, NEPAD asked MoALF to set up a JSR process, a call that this team has responded to. However, the team is still in its formative stages, trying to bring all relevant stakeholders on board.

Over the 11 years that Kenya has steered agriculture to lead the path to the country’s growth, several issues on institutions and governance have changed. In 2007, Kenya launched Vision 2030 covering the period 2008–2030. This development program has been implemented in successive five-year medium-term plans. However, during Vision 2030’s first medium-term plan period, Kenya promulgated a new constitution, just one month after endorsing the CAADP Compact and releasing the ASDS. Central to the Constitution is devolved government. This evolution and the dynamic nature of many development processes have necessitated an investigation into Kenya’s Institutional Architecture for Agriculture and Food security change (CAADP Unit – MOALF 2015).

The institutional review requires an in-depth study, given the unique situation where agriculture sector functions are devolved and the ever-changing development landscape.

An in-depth JSR assessment assignment (CAADP Unit – MOALF 2015) has explored the following:

1. The guiding policy framework (the institutional landscape of Kenya’s ASDS MTIP);

2. Coordination within government institutions;

3. Participation by non-state actors in policy and program implementation;

4. Evidence based policy analysis (the institutional alignment (and gaps) with NAFSIP);

5. The capacity for implementing the ASDS; and

17

6. Mutual accountability, including coordination among development partners.

Table 4.1 presents a summary of qualitative assessment of the progress on institutional, financial, and policy and program factors. The Table is attributed to CAADP Unit – MoALF (2015)

Table 4. 1: Qualitative Assessment of the Progress on Institutional, Financial, and Policy and Program Factors

• Red: Requires significant attention to ensure the component is achieved.

• Yellow: Progress is mixed. The conditions required to achieve the component are partially achieved, but additional attention is required.

• Green: The component is realized to a sufficient degree, and additional attention to this area may or may not be required.

CAPACITY OF POLICY CHANGE INDICATORSStatus

Policy Element 1: Predictability of the Guiding Policy Framework -

Clearly Defined and Consistent Policy Framework: The policy framework impacting food security policy-making is clearly defined, and consistently applied and enforced from year to year.

Predictability and Transparency of the Policy-Making Process: The policy development process is transparent in accordance with the rules contained within the country’s constitution, basic law, and elsewhere in the formal legal framework.

18


Clear and Functional Legislative System: There is a legislative capacity to deal with food security policy change, and the legislative requirements are clearly defined and predictable.

Appropriate Dispute Resolution Process/Judicial Framework: The judicial system is perceived as fair and effective, and there is an appropriate system for dispute resolution where conflicts arise relating to food security policy.

Clearly Defined Institutional Responsibilities: Institutional responsibilities are clearly defined, consistently applied, and predictable from year to year.

Policy Element 2: Policy Development & Coordination -

Approved Food Security Strategy/Investment Plan: There is an approved/official multi-sectoral, multi-year food security plan developed, which specifies priorities and objectives, and addresses the roles of various contributors, including across government, the private sector, and CSOs. The vision and strategy to improve food security is clear.

Predictable Policy Agenda and Priorities Developed: The policy items required to achieve the national food strategy have been identified and documented, i.e., specific policy objectives exist.

Work Plans: There is an annual work plan that identifies objectives and activities regarding policy development.

19


Functioning Coordination Process: There is an entity, such as a coordination unit or task force that has defined membership and meets regularly to discuss, develop, and coordinate food security policy development (and oversee cross-sector coordination).

Secretariat/Administrative Support Function: There is an adequate staff capability to perform required support processes, including coordination, meeting management, communication, and document management. This may be a stand-alone secretariat, or a responsibility within an existing entity.

Technical Capacity: There are work groups, or technical committees, that have the authority and capacity to perform the following functions: identify policy and technical challenges/issues; develop sector- or project-specific policies/strategies; consult within the sector; and draft funding proposals. There should be active participation by the private sector and CSOs on the technical work groups (as appropriate).

Political Support and Approval: There is a line of authority/participation by high-level decision-makers above the ministerial level so as to enable efficient political support for the passage and development of new policies, e.g. involvement of Deputy President’s (especially for policies that cut across sectors, e.g. trade and agriculture).

Engagement of Parliament/Legislative Body: There is engagement from the country’s legislative entity to debate and engage on food security issues, and to sponsor and advocate for the required legal/policy changes.

20


Policy Element 3: Inclusivity and Stakeholder Consultation-

Inclusive Participation within the Policy Coordination Management Entity: The main coordination entity has: a) clear goals and participation from key government ministries (beyond just Ministry of Agriculture) and; b) some representation from non-government entities, particularly from donors.

Outreach and Communications: There is a process for interacting with stakeholders and sharing information. This could include regular public “forums,” a website of key information, and other mechanisms.

Private Sector Participation – Opportunity/Space: The private sector is provided meaningful opportunity to participate in policy formulation and strategy discussions. This could be through participation in the management/steering committee, in technical work groups and/or through other forums. Communications and interactions should be two-way, and access to key information should be readily available.

Private Sector Participation – Capacity to Participate: Some organizations representing the private sector have the capacity to participate in government-led discussions on food security policy. This is to say they are able to represent their members, they are able to articulate and communicate policy positions, and they are able to provide some level of evidence-based analysis to support their viewpoints.

21


Participation of CSOs – Opportunity/Space: The CSO sector, including representation from women’s associations and farmers associations, is provided meaningful opportunity to participate in policy formulation and strategy discussions. This could be through participation in the management/steering committee, in technical work groups and/or through other forums. Communications and interactions should be two-way, and access to key information should be readily available.

Participation of CSOs – Capacity to Participate: Some organizations representing civil society, including representation from women’s associations and farmers associations, have the capacity to participate in government-led discussions on food security policy. This is to say they are able to represent their members, they are able to articulate and communicate policy positions, and they are able to provide some level of evidence-based analysis to support their viewpoints.

Policy Element 4: Evidence-based Analysis-

Economic and Financial Analysis Completed as a Component of Planning: National food security priority policy initiatives/investment plans are based on economic and financial analysis, including independent policy analysis. The analysis is available for public review.

Performance Monitoring Measures and Targets Developed: The national food security policies/plans include specific objectives, performance indicators, and targets exist to monitor the accomplishment of the objectives.

22


Quality Data Exists for Policy Monitoring: There is a database of quality statistics that is used to routinely report and analyze progress in achieving objectives. (Analysis to be conducted by USDA – and not as part of this assessment framework.)

Quality Data is Available for Policy-Making: Data on the performance of the agriculture sector and the food security are publically available and shared in a timely manner. This information is available for others to use and analyze.

Inclusion of Analysis in the Policy Development Process: Evidence-based analysis is considered and used to develop policy priorities/policy proposals.

Annual Performance Measurement Report Produced and Reviewed: Evidence-based analysis is produced to review policy effectiveness (for implemented policies). A formal review session is held, and includes key development partners (including principal donors and multilateral partners, such as FAO and IFPRI). Recommendations are developed as a result of the review and incorporated into subsequent plans.

Independent Analysis Capacity Exists: There exists an independent capacity to analyze food security data and use the analysis to make policy recommendations and engage in policy discussion and advocacy. Such an analysis could be conducted by a research institute, university or similar non-governmental/objective organization. This capacity should be engaged in the government’s policy development and review process as, for example, through papers, forums, or participation introduced in official policy review and discussion meetings.

23


Policy Element 5: Policy Implementation -

Implementation Plans Developed: The overall food security strategy has been translated into programs and projects that have: a) a sufficient level of detail to permit implementation; b) have been “packaged” into priority projects that can be managed by ministerial units; and 3) “packaged” priorities can be translated into funding proposals to gain support for projects/programs from development partners (to address financing gaps).

System in Place to Analyze Implementation Capacity Constraints: An analysis of institutional, workforce, system and financial constraints is conducted. Critical implementation constraints are identified; a work plan is developed to address constraints; and implementation actions are moved forward (and periodically reviewed).

Food Security Policy Priorities Aligned with Work Plans of Line Ministries: The priority policy and associated objectives of the national food security strategy are developed into specific programs and projects (with a sufficient level of detail) so that line ministries can implement policy actions. The plans of individual ministries, and units within ministries, align with overall national strategy and its policy objectives.

Policy Implementation Budget Committed by Host Country: Resources are committed by the host country to implement the identified policy agenda. Over time, the country’s budget is adjusted to provide adequate financing for the implementation of actions required to implement policy priorities. Budget documents, including budget proposals, are released fully and in a timely manner.

24


Supplemental Implementation Funds Secured: Proposals can be submitted, and funds secured, to address financing gaps. Funds may come from multilateral funds (such as GAFSP), regional organizations, bilateral donors and the private sector.

Administrative and Technical Capacity of Staff to Implement Policy Change: Administrative and technical capacity exists within the government to effectively manage the implementation process. There is a system to coordinate implementation across departments.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Capacity exists within the public sector, private sector, or civil society to review the effectiveness and impact of policy changes. Sector reviews are performed and other research evidence is collected. There is a system to share, store, and access the findings from these reviews.

Policy Element 6: Mutual Accountability-

A Forum Exists for Regularly Scheduled Donor-Government Meetings: These meetings discuss policy and programs and set priorities. Meetings may include, for example, Joint Sector Reviews, sector working groups, or other similar arrangements.

Joint Policy Priorities Developed: A document exists that articulates the shared policy objectives between the government and the donor community.

Monitoring System Exists: Performance measures exist (for the performance commitments of the government and for the performance commitments of the donors). There is a schedule for reviewing and documenting progress – at least on an annual basis.

25


Donor Coordination – Alignment and Harmonization: There is a process for donor participation in the food security policy process and for aligning government and donor objectives and priorities. Donor programs should contribute directly to host country strategies, plans, and objectives. This may include the signing of cooperation frameworks that indicate a joint commitment to specific policy change goals.

Private Sector Accountability: The government provides feedback to the private sector on the performance of the food security program (including the private sector’s role) and provides an opportunity for dialogue on the program and its performance.

CSO Sector Accountability: The government provides feedback to the CSO sector on the performance of the food security program (including the role of CSOs) and provides an opportunity for dialogue on the program and its performance.

Kenya’s technical capacity for facilitating logical linkages between policy goals and implementation plans through a bottom-up process for stakeholder participation is well developed. There are structures and mechanisms for engagement with development partners. The establishment of the coordinating mechanism, the Transformation Initiative, the Inter-governmental Secretariat) (TI/IGS) by MoALF and the Council of Governors to respond to structural changes in the sector is evidence of positive development to improve sector coordination.

Despite some well-structured institutional arrangements in place, the following major challenges require action to further improve the policy reform process in the agriculture sector.

• Inadequate coordination of capacity at the national and county levels of government; the devolution was hastened before all counties took stock of what was available and what was needed in terms of physical, financial and human resources

26

• No clearly defined framework for the policy reform process,

• Lack of quality data for policy making and policy monitoring; the much awaited Kenya country SAKSS should be handy if established Non-inclusion of analysis in the policy development process;

• Limited effective participation of the private sector and civil society organizations in policy reform, and Insufficient and poor management of resources.

All these could be addressed by building a strong agricultural sector coordination platform and a complementing knowledge support system that involves both state and non-state actors.

27

5. REVIEW OF KEY FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS, 2009 TO 2014Although the Kenyan government has declared its commitment to agricultural spending in line with the CAADP target of allocating 10 percent of national budget to the agriculture sector, its performance is still low (AU 2003). As compared to recurrent expenditure, development expenditure absorption rate has either stagnated or remained low over the years (GoK 2012a). The Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) estimates that the government has progressed at one-third only toward achieving its CAADP target.

5.1. Trends in Aggregate Public Spending on AgriculturePublic investment in agriculture improves agricultural productivity, which is a necessary condition for poverty alleviation. During the period 2009 to 2014, government increased its spending on agriculture to an average of KES 35,774 million, or 3.5 percent of its total annual expenditure (Figure 5.1). Results indicate that the level of expenditure on agriculture as a share of agricultural GDP (Ag, GDP) declined by 2.2 percent between 2009 and 2014. However, agriculture expenditure as a proportion of total government spending increased from 2009 to 2011, followed by a decrease in 2012 and 2013. The level of agriculture spending as a share of GDP remained around one percent on average for the 2009�2014 periods.

28

Figure 5.1: Agriculture Expenditure as a Share ff GDP, Total Government Expenditure, and Agricultural GDP (2009–2014)

Source: ReSAKSS (2015).

In general, the government’s agriculture spending as a share of total annual expenditure averaged 3.5 percent over this period, compared with the CAADP recommendation of 10 percent. This is similar to the 2008 estimates of about 4 percent budgetary allocation. This low investment is a key limitation to increasing agricultural productivity and growth rates. A similar trend of noncompliance with achieving CAADP targets is evident in many African countries, especially among those that limited their initial spending for agriculture prior to CAADP’s launch in June 2003. Therefore, according to Diao et al (2013), achieving CAADP targets will require increasing both spending and efficiency in spending available funds. In this regard, it is expected that a more inclusive, evidence-based policy planning and implementation process should lead to better development outcomes, policy, and efficiency in investment. On average, between 2009 and 2014, Kenya’s annual budget for agriculture represented about 3.8 percent of Ag, GDP (Figure 5.1). This low level of spending on agriculture may pose a challenge, because of the strong relationship between poverty and agriculture. The inability to increase agriculture spending levels negatively affects Kenya’s ability to meet food security and poverty

29

alleviation targets. Therefore, for African nations to halve the number of people living in poverty in all dimensions by 2030, agricultural investments need to be increased by at least 20 percent (USDUSD13.6 billion in 2007 dollars) annually from 2008 to 2015(Fan et al. 2008, 2009).

5.2. Non-state Actors: Financial and Nonfinancial Commitments to AgricultureAgricultural non-state actors in Kenya include private-sector organizations, civil society organizations, faith-based organizations, farmers’ organizations, and individual smallholder farmers involved in the sector. Both direct and indirect contributions of these actors have been significant, which clearly shows the important contribution of the sector to the economy. However, it is not possible to gather data from many of the non-state actors as they are relatively informal with respect to the ASDS processes. The civil society and farmer organizations are acknowledged contributors to the agricultural development process in any country, yet they are not adequately coordinated to provide data for planning and for evaluation.

Despite the diversity of non-state actors in Kenya, Grow Africa, the multi-stakeholder platform with the goal of accelerating private sector investment in 12 CAADP partner countries (Kenya is a member), did not support the country with promotional efforts aimed at generating Letter of Intent (LoI)10 commitments from companies. As a result, very few companies share their data for mutual accountability purposes. Also, private-sector organizations lack motivation to provide such data. Table 5.1, which provides an overview of companies that have shared their statistics with Grow Africa, indicates that the number of LoIs signed in Kenya increased between 2013 and 2014, along with investment commitments. These increases are possibly the result of more tracking and reporting by private-sector members.

10 Letters of Intent (LoI) are documents setting out terms of the agreement between parties during negotiation and prior to reaching a final definitive agreement to signal an intention concerning the matter.

30

Table 5.1: Trends in Investment Projects in the Agriculture Sector (2013–2014)

Coun

try

Sign

ed L

oIs

Ownership Estimated Value (USD, million)

Jobs

Cre

ated

(A

chie

ved)

Smal

lhol

der

Reac

hed

(mill

ion)

(A

chie

ved)

Dom

estic

Inte

rnati

onal

Inve

stm

ent

Com

mitm

ent

Inve

stm

ent

Mad

e

2013Kenya 5

0 5 1.2* 2.7**77 (37%

female)***1.064 (84% female)***

Africa 178— — 7.2 billion 976

35,000 (40% female)

2.9 (21% female)

2014Kenya 9 4 5 32Africa 299

165 134 10 billion1.8

billion 58,0008.6 (40% female)

Sources: Grow Africa (2014 a, b,) Notes: *Data provided by 1 of 5 companies; **data from 3 of 5 companies; ***data from 2 of 5 companies, of which 50 percent were gender disaggregated.

Table 5.1 provides a comparison of trends in the investment projects in the agricultural sector in Kenya and among Grow Africa members in general. Result indicates that in 2013, Africa more than 178 LOIs valued at USD 7.2 billion were signed. However, only 2.8 percent or 5 LoIs valued at USD 1.2 million were destined to Kenya. Out of the 5 LOIs, 50 percent were experiencing implementation challenges two years after signing. This situation improved in 2014 as 9 LOIs (4 domestic) valued at USDUSD 32 million were signed by corporations. This represented a 0.2 percent increase in the number of LOIs signed in Kenya. One of the major challenges is the limited data sources. Most of the corporations are unwilling to share their information on the number and value of investments made in the agricultural sector. It is reported that in 2013 only one company provided its data on LOIs signed. Out of the 9 LoIs signed in 2014, 50 percent were either compete or are performing well. However, 15 percent of the LOIs were cancelled.

31

This means that although the number of LoIs signed increased, the rate of cancellation also increased. As of 2016, the data available shows some improvement, with local organizations on board. Two LoIs reported were Meru Potato Processing Cooperative (potato-self-sufficiency) and Western Fresh Industries (virgin sunflower oil and sunflower seed cake in Suba).

Tables 5.2 presents additional information provided by Grow Africa, on status

Table 5.2: Status of Letters of Intent (LoI) Signed in 2012

Company Goals Achievements as at 2014 (End year two)

Implementation status: 2012-2014

AGCO •To contribute towards capacity building and knowledge transfer concerning agronomic systems, agricultural intensification and farm mechanization

• Organization of several field trips.

•Establishment of a demonstration farm and training centre

•Provision of infrastructure and technical support for smallholder, emerging and large scale farmers

•Provision of credit services and development of tractor leasing services

•Exploration of a potato project concept phase.

Swiss Re • To advance micro-insurance schemes for protecting smallholders against agricultural risks.

• Partnership for agricultural risk transfer market advancement forged with businesses, donors and governments

•Organization of local training and sensitization workshops.

•At pan-African level, 300,000 smallholders reached

32

Company Goals Achievements as at 2014 (End year two)

Implementation status: 2012-2014

Syngenta • To increase investment in smallholder farmers including youths and women

• Rolling of Uwezo program covering 1 million smallholders through affordable inputs packs and lead farmer model

•More than 800 retailers reached through Retail Engagement and Advancement Programme

•Seven horticultural centers of excellence set up to train smallholders on market access and production.

•19,000 farmers reached; 850 hectares cultivated using modern tools.

Vodafone • To contribute towards increasing smallholders productivity, income and resilience

• 7,863 smallholders reached through connected farmer alliance

• Initial market research and field visits completed.

• Needs assessments and stakeholder meetings conducted for 7 supply-chain clients.

•Supply-chain supply management with 2 clients piloted.

• Improved access to payments through agriculture-focused mobile financial services like M-Shawari and Kilimo Salama among smallholders.

Jain Irrigation

• To contribute to the development of irrigation and enabling infrastructures

• Integrated agricultural sector developed in suitable areas

•Adoption of modern irrigation technologies, agronomic practices, produce processing, harvesting and supply chain management

Source: Grow Africa (2014b); Red colour- No progress; Green colour- good or performing well

33

It is noted the Grow Africa reports on only a few of the relatively large initiatives, since the smaller players are probably too small to be reached or are reluctant to share data. Although considerable progress has been recorded on large-scale public- and private-sector initiatives, the pace of progress is still very slow as evidenced by few companies providing data on their LOIs. As noted in the Grow Africa (2014b) report, the Government should improve its level of cooperation and working relationship with non-state actors to enhance reports sharing which might in turn accelerate the pace of agricultural investment. Accelerating the impact of multi-stakeholder initiatives will require improving collaboration among government agencies, building strong coalitions in initial stages of development, better using public investment to attract private-sector capital, and establishing independent coordination agencies for public–private partnerships. As most smallholders operate independently in Kenya, they need support to enable their inclusion in global value chains to improve their income levels. This is possible through cooperative unions, which assist smallholders in negotiating better contracts with large processors and exporters, and planning their agricultural cycles around known demand, thereby reducing waste and the cost of finance for members. Also, there is lack of affordable and accessible finance for Kenya’s agribusinesses and smallholders; this remains the commonest constraint in Africa. To reduce the cost of finance, Kenya needs agricultural experts with the ability to assess the risk of loan default, develop working capital financing facilities, or blend financial instruments using donor funding to lower the cost of commercial bank lending. Also, Kenya needs to scale up the use of crop produce and crop insurance schemes as collateral for commercial bank loans.

Access to market information enables smallholders to negotiate the best prices for their produce, reduce food loss, and obtain information on improving production. Therefore, governments and the private sector need to develop a more extensive mobile communications infrastructure to enable more farmers to access services, improve coordination, and increase the availability of agricultural applications for regulating weather data. Also, training of smallholders should be aggregated to reduce cost, ensure crops meet supplier standards and certification guidelines; provide easier access to and use of technology and to build business and financial management skills. Finally, government needs to explore public–private models for creating incentives for extension workers. Also, private-sector companies should provide a variety of training to smallholders and extension workers covering a variety of skills, such as those needed to increase crop yield and access finance (Grow Africa, 2014b).

34

5.3. Development PartnersKenya’s agriculture sector is large and complex, with many public, state corporations, non-governmental, and private actors and development partners. Key multilateral players in the sector include the World Bank (WBG), African Development Bank (ADB), European Union (EU), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Food Programme (WFP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Key bilateral players include Germany (German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation -GIZ), Sweden (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency -SIDA), Denmark (Danish International Development Agency-DANIDA), United States of America (United States Agency for International Development -USAID), Finland (Finnish International Development Agency -FIDA), Japan (Japan International Cooperation Agency -JICA), and Italy (Italian Agency for Development Cooperation- IACS). These development partners have aligned their support with the priorities and programs defined in the ASDS, in line with the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness11. Some partners contribute to the joint donor basket fund12, some to projects, and some to both.

Several development partners committed to supporting Kenya’s CAADP process for the initial medium term plan period. The magnitudes and types of commitments (ASDS MTIP 2010 -2015) are presented in Table 5.3.

11 In a meeting in Paris in 2005, over 100 developed and developing countries agreed to change the way they do business. They formulated and adopted five pillars or rules, which include ownership, alignment, harmonization, managing for results, and mutual accountability.12 A pooled funding mechanism whereby a number of donors jointly fund an agreed set of activities

35

Table 5.3: Planned Project Financing in the Agriculture Sector by Type of Foreign Facility

Foreign Facility ProjectsGrants

Soft Loans Loans

Total

(KES Million)(KES, million)German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation/KfW Development Bank

4 461 — 2,480 2,941

International Development Association/World Bank

11 — 30,684 133 30,817

European Development Fund/European Union

13 1,545 - 10,976 12,521

Finnish International Development Agency

4 4,849 — — 4,849

United States Agency for International Development

10 8,108 — — 8,108

African Development Bank

12 — — 26,546 2,6546

International Fund for Agricultural Development

6 881 — 2,554 3,435

Danish International Development Agency

4 1,201 — — 1,201

Japan International Cooperation Agency

4 — 17 2,042 2,059

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

3 8,137 — — 8,137

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

25 1,470 — — 1,470

Others — 2,176 — — 2,175Total — 28,830 30,701 44,731 104,262

Source: GoK, 2012b.The hyphens indicate that there were no funding in the respective slots

36

The main disbursement method for these commitments was through the government’s budget. The composition of the disbursement methods is summarized in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Composition of Disbursement Methods

Disbursement MethodAmount Disbursed (KES million) Share (%)

National budget 90,557 86.9Direct/private sector 9,685 9.3State Corporations 1,489 1.4Nongovernmental organizations 2,530 2.4Total 104,261 100.0

Source: GoK, 2012b.

As an illustration of some of the gaps in data management, presenting a different source of information on the same issue of development partner support would be informative. Table 5.5 gives an account of donor commitment, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for East Africa. The data in Tables 5.3 and 5.5 are not similar, yet they are representing the same issue. This exhibits one of the gaps a JSR process is likely to face—discrepancies in data. Challenges in development partner coordination is also apparent.

Table 5.5: Development Partners’ Commitments to Kenya’s CAADP Process

Country/Organization Committed Budget (USD, 000)

Committed Budget (KES, 000)9

German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation/KfW Development Bank

10,300 1,030,000


27,190 2,719,000


22,740 2,274,000

9 For ease of comparison with Table 5.4 the column is presented in KES at 2015 average exchange rate of KES 100 = $1

37

Country/Organization Committed Budget (USD, 000)

Committed Budget (KES, 000)9

Multiple donors 437,051 43,705,100Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

30,665 3,066,500

United Nations Development Programme

1,200 120,000

United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security

500 50,000

United States Agency for International Development

742,058 74,205,800

World Bank 462,300 46,230,000Australian Agency for International Development

32,190 3,219,000

Department for International Development

298,659 29,865,900


11,100 1,110,000

Echo International 7,800 780,000European Union 388,956 38,895,600Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

3,042 304,200

Source: UNOCHA-EA website (2015).

Development partners seem to be making good strides toward financing development opportunities in Kenya. The highest donor support was received from USAID, EU, the World Bank, and the Department for International Development. These donors mainly targeted sustainable livelihoods, health, and nutrition projects. Appendix G gives an account of development partner involvement in Kenya’s agricultural sector.

5.4. Agroecological Priorities in MTIP (2010-2015)Because of Kenya’s sharply divergent agro-ecological conditions and associated growth potential, zone distinct investment strategies were planned (GoK 2010b). The planned agro-ecological priorities are summarized in Table 5.6

38

Table 5.6: ASDS Agro-ecological Priorities

Agro-ecological conditions

Focus Priority commodities

High Rainfall Areas (HRA)Cover 11% of the country land area

Market driven intensification of farming systems, largely based on •expanded use of existing

technologies, •improved crop and livestock

husbandry,•improved marketing, and•natural resource

management

Fruits, vegetables, dairy, tea, coffee, cut-flowers, maize, fisheries, and roots and tubers

Semi-arid lands

Cover 21% of the country

•livestock development•natural resource

management for cropping•market development and

value addition, and•improved drought cycle

management

Livestock products, pulses and oil seeds, roots and tubers, sorghum and millet

Arid lands

Cover 68% of the country

•Livestock development•Land and natural resource

management•Drought cycle management

Livestock products

Source: GoK 2010b

The overall development and growth of the agricultural sector, with respect to the named foci and relevant priorities, were anchored in five strategic objectives, which formed the first five investment pillars. The provision for effective coordination and implementation of the MTIP portfolio gave rise to the sixth investment pillar. The development budget was estimated at KES 247 billion over the five year planning horizon to 2015, and associated recurrent costs estimated at KES 145.59 billion. Table 5.7 presents a breakdown of MTIP costs by investment pillar and year.

39

Table 5.7: Estimated ASDS-MTIP Costs by Investment Pillar and YearInvestment pillar Yr 1

2010-2011

Yr 22011-2012

Yr 32012-2013

Yr 42013-2014

Yr 52014-2015

Total Share

Productivity, commercialization and competitiveness

13.20 16.72 17.75 19.58 21.67 88.92 36.0%

Private sector participation

4.78 6.13 6.4 6.65 6.92 30.88 12.5

Sustainable land and Natural resource management

18.55 19.73 20.78 21.81 22.87 103.74 42.0%

Delivery of agricultural services

0.46 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 2.47 1.0%

Market access and trade

0.44 2.86 2.16 5.94 8.34 19.75 8.0%

Coordination and implementation

0.19 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.30 1.24 0.5%

TOTAL 37.05 46.93 46.93 54.34 61.76 247.00

Share 15% 19% 19% 22 25% 100%

Source: GoK 2010b

The planned distribution of expenditures across the agro-ecological zones is

shown in Table 5.8

40

Table 5.8: Breakdown of MTIP budget across agro-ecological zones

Agro-ecological zone

AllocationKES. billion

Share % Proportion of Kenya’s land area %

High rainfall areas 104 42 11Semi-Arid Lands 106 43 21Arid lands 37 15 68

Source: GoK 2010b

A review earlier in the plan period (GoK 2012b) highlighted the progress made in the implementation of both national and international commitments for the development of the agricultural sector. It also revisited the design, formulation and implementation of agricultural and rural development sector programmes and projects by the national and county governments, under the sector-wide approach.

The study had set out to do the following, among others:

• Assess all existing sector programmes/projects for their alignment to the ASDS and MTIP;

• Assess the funding gaps by each MTIP priority investment area;

• Analyze programs by funding mechanism i.e. grant, loan, via budget or not, and technical assistance; and

• Analyze programs by region.

Some of the observations or results from the review include the following:

1. Out of the 358 projects reviewed, 329 projects with projected investment of KES 198.0 billion were fully compliant. The recommendation was that the non-compliant projects were to be allowed to expire, and policy to guide future projects and maximize alignment to MTIP be put in place. The recommendation meant there was need to strengthen the coordination structures to enable effective overseeing of the development of the program based approach.

2. Funding gaps were numerous. The overall MTIP funding gap was estimated at KES. 49.62 billion mainly in pillars 3 and 1. All the other

41

pillars seemed overfunded. Table 5.9 shows the details of the financing gaps by pillar and financial year.

Table 5.9: Financing gaps by pillar and financial yearPillar MTIP

budget KES Million

Project investments KES Million

GapsTotal 2010

/112011 /12

2012 /13

2013/14

2014 /15

1 89,739 55,396 34,343 -1040 815 7390 10884 16294

2 32,916 40,174 -7,258 -5256 -5112 -828 629 3308

3 104,891 50,775 54,116 5574 5232 11368 13919 18023

4 871 9,230 -8360 -2256 -2500 -1574 -1293 -736

5 19,191 37,570 -18,380 -9436 -8143 -5091 -186 4476

6 1 4,838 -4837 -1258 -1403 -919 -774 -484

Total 247,608 197,984 49,624 -13672 -11111 10346 23179 40882

Source: GoK 2012b

The source gave two reasons that may explain the big difference between the MTIP expectations, and the documented information obtained from the respondents. First, there is a general weakness in the ability to forecast future financial flows beyond one year budgetary cycle. Secondly, aid inflows are beset with uncertainties due to conditionality that affect absorption rates. In any case, the ASDS’ MTIP did not take cognizance of devolution, which the second medium term plan of Kenya’s Vision 2030 has addressed

3. There was also considerable mismatch between projected investments and MTIP budget for the agro-ecological zones. The HRA zone was overfunded by KES. 2.02 billion, while the semi-arid zone was underfunded by about KES. 43.64 billion, and the arid zone underfunded by KES. 8.10 billion. Table 5.10 shows the details of the funding mismatch.

42

Table 5.10: Degree of alignment of funding based on agro-ecological zonesAgroecological zone

Number of projects

Project distribution

Estimate of planned investment

MTIP Budget allocation KES. billion

Alignment surplus / deficit

HRA 1344 53.5 105.92 103.9 2.02

Semi-Arid 798 31.7 62.76 106.4 -43.64

Arid 371 14.8 29.30 37.4 -8.10

total 2516 100% 197.98 247.7 -49.72

Source: GoK 2012b

A recommendation was that deliberate effort be made to increase investments in ASALs to enable them achieve the objectives of the MTIP and Vision 2030.

4. On funding mechanisms, there were some critical deficiencies including: low level of transparency in projects documentation and administration; high level of fragmentation of aid as evidenced by preponderance of small projects - about 58% of all projects contribute less than 7% of the planned investments in the sector; and there seemed to be many donors with projects in the sector, more than the target of six set in the KJAS Mutual Accountability Framework (GoK 2012b).

Table 5.11 gives a summary of projects and estimated level of financing

Table 5.11: A summary of projects and estimated level of financingActor Number of

projects**Total projected investmentsKES. billion

Government 110 177.3

Development partner / GoK 100 103.3

State Corporations 90 1.4

NGOs 58 2.5

Total 358 284.5Source: GoK 2012b

43

From the four results presented above, a lot should have been put in place to correct the non-alignments. However, it is not known what improvements were made subsequently. The coordination mechanism was halted, and a new one is just getting established.

Because of the significance attached to the contribution of each of the agro-ecological zones, a study was commissioned (Mabiso et al 2012) to analyze growth and investment options across the three zones. Past public expenditures in each AEZ were analyzed together with planned regional investments, as delineated in the MTIP. This was to indicate potential outcomes that may arise from the proposed regionalized investments. The results of the study indicate that the dedication of more funding to the semi-arid areas, particularly for irrigation and roads infrastructure as well as value chain developments, is invaluable, and have actually been captured in the second MTP of Vision 2030 (GoK 2013). Ensuring adequate investments in maize and root crops in the semi-arid and high rainfall areas would be important, the study concludes. It is further suggested that increasing investments in traditional exports in the high rainfall areas would be critical for agricultural growth though having less effect at reducing national poverty due to weaker economy-wide linkages (multiplier effects). Investments in the arid areas are also recommended, particularly in terms of livestock and enhancing resilience to drought. Indeed the study confirmed what was already in the MTIP; data on subsequent respective activities, however, is not readily available.

44

6. AGRICULTURE SECTOR PERFORMANCE

6.1. IntroductionThis section aims to establish baselines on what indicators to monitor in future JSRs of Kenya’s agriculture sector. It presents Kenya’s progress toward achieving the CAADP indicators and the national goals for agriculture. The variables reported are based on five criteria for the 2009–2014 period where data exist, which the same as the five indicator categories are proposed for the CAADP M&E framework: inputs, investment, trade, outcomes, and production. Country-specific indicators reported under Kenya’s NAFSIP are consulted, which help track the commitments made in the NAFSIP. Data are sourced from the World Bank database, ReSAKSS website, and Kenya’s National Bureau of Statistics. Where the available data from national sources were insufficient, we referred to international sources, such as data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

6.2. Input-Level Indicators, 2009 to 2014Input-level indicators are sets of inputs related to the agriculture sector. They represent efforts invested in promoting growth in the agriculture sector. In Kenya, aspects monitored included agriculture expenditure growth rates, inflows of Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), government agriculture expenditure, and agricultural official development assistance (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Investments in Agriculture: Agriculture Expenditures and Official Development Assistance (2009–2014)

Input Indicators 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ave-rageGovernment agriculture expenditure growth rate, %

27.4 34.3 14.6 –8.08 –4.3 –8.5 9.2

Government agriculture expenditure (% of agriculture value-added)

3.6 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.8 3.7

Government agriculture expenditure (USD millions, constant 2005)

184.0 247.2 283.3 260.4 249.2 227.9 242.0

45

Input Indicators 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ave-rageAgriculture Official Development Assistance (ODA), gross disbursement (% of total sector allocable to ODA)

6.8 8.6 7.5 6.5 7.4

Total ODA per capita, gross disbursement (constant 2005 USD)

35.60 33.20 45.50 46.20 40.10

Agriculture ODA, gross disbursement (% of total ODA)

4.6 7.1 5.1 4.7 5.4

Emergency food aid, share in total ODA (%)

12.4 7.7 9.4 4.8 8.6

Foreign direct investment (FDI), net inflows (balance of payments, current USD, millions)

116.3 178.0 139.9 163.4 371.8 944.3 318.9

FDI, inflows (USD millions)

139.9 184.3 618.8 254.6 506.5 340.8

Government expenditure as a share of agricultural GDP (%)

5.1 4.3 4.3 2.6 3.5 2.9 3.8

Agriculture expenditure as a share of GDP (%)

1.2 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9

Agriculture expenditure as a share of total expenditure (%)

3.7 4.1 4.3 2.8 3.4 2.7 3.5

Sources: World Bank (2014a, b); ReSAKSS (2014);

In general, there is a downward trend in most of the input indicators. Notable decreases were recorded in the government agriculture expenditure growth rate, which decreased to –8.5 in 2014 from 34.3 percent in 2010. However, an increase was realized under FDI inflows from USD 140 million to USD 507 million between 2009 and 2013, respectively. Also, a slight improvement was noted in government agriculture expenditure, which increased from USD 184million in 2009 to USD 227.9 million in 2014 (in constant 2005 dollars).

The share of agricultural official development assistance (ODA), gross disbursement

46

as a percentage of total sectors allocable, remained low, averaging 7.4 percent. Also, the ODA share declined from 8.6 percent in 2010 to 6.5 percent in 2013. The total ODA per capita, gross disbursement (constant 2005 USD), averaged USD 40.10 for Kenya, with the highest per capital annual average level registered in 2012. There was also an increasing trend in the level of total ODA per capita, gross disbursement, from 2010 to 2012. However, this average of USD 40.10 for Kenya is about 18 percent lower than the East African Community’s (EAC’s) 2003–2012 annual average level of USD 48.80.

The average share of emergency food aid in total ODA has been on a downward trend, moving from 12.4 percent in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2014. However, on average, it was 8.6 percent for the 2009–2014 period.

6.3 Output-Level Indicators: Agriculture Sector Performance (2009–2014)Output-level indicators track the outcomes of various investment interventions in the agriculture sector. In short, they measure the level of service provision and use of these services. Outcomes of different areas of investment intervention here include cereal production, fertilizer use, land and labour productivity, and post-harvest loss-reduction options. Kenya’s agriculture sector growth, in general, increased during 2009–2014. For instance, agriculture value-added as a share of total GDP recorded a marginal improvement from 27.2 percent in 2009 to 29.9 percent in 2012 (Table 6.2). This increasing trend indicates the faster growth of the agriculture sector compared with manufacturing and other service sectors.

Table 6.2: Output Indicators: Agriculture Sector Performance (2009–2014)

Output Indicators

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2009–2014

Cereals yields (kilograms per hectare (kg/ha))

1,242.7 1,710.1 1,514.6 1,656.5 1,727.1 — 1,570.2

Cereal production (million metric tons)

2.9 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.3 — 4.0

Total fertilizer consumption (kg/ha of arable land)

31.9 30.4 45.1 44.3 — — 37.9

47

Output Indicators

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2009–2014

Labor productivity (agriculture value-added per agricultural worker (constant 2005 USD))

393.9 445.1 490.3 498.9 522.9 556.6 484.6

Land productivity (agriculture value-added per hectare of arable land (constant 2005 USD))

937.5 1,080.2 1,192.7 1,225.6 1,295.9 1,395.3 1,187.9

Agriculture value-added (% of GDP)

27.2 25.1 28.5 29.9 — — 27.7

Sources: World Bank (2014a, b); ReSAKSS (2014).

In general, land and labour productivities also increased during 2009–2014. Land productivity increased from an average of USD 938 per hectare (2009) to USD 1,395 per hectare in 2014, while labour productivity rose from an average of USD 394 per worker in 2009 to USD 557 per worker in 2014. In Africa, annual growth in labour and land productivities was estimated at 2.5 percent (from 2003 to 2012), and 3.6 percent (from 2003 to 2011), respectively. However, Kenya’s land and labour productivity growth rates averaged 8.0 percent and 7.2 percent during 2009–2014, respectively. Cereal yields also showed a mixed trend, increasing from 1,243 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) in 2009 to 1,710 kg/ha in 2010, and decreasing to 1,656 kg/ha in 2012. This means that Kenya still has huge potential to double its cereal yields and more.

The trend in fertilizer use also is not consistent in Kenya. On average, only 37.9 kg of fertilizer is used per ha of arable land. This level is well below the minimum level set at the 2006 Africa Fertilizer Summit in Abuja, Nigeria, of 50kg/ha by 2015—an indication of huge yield potential to be attained if correct amounts of fertilizer are applied.

48

6.4. Outcome-Level Indicators: Agriculture Growth Performance (2009-2014)Outcome-level indicators relate to the likely or achieved short- and medium-term effects of an intervention’s output, which is to stimulate the growth and performance of the agriculture sector. This sectoral performance can be measured by analyzing the productivity of factors (land, inputs, labour, and capital); commodity growth; returns on different investments; sector and subsector growth; and contribution to GDP and Ag GDP. Table 6.3 presents the results of some outcome-level indicators for Kenya covering 2009–2014 where data are available.

Table 6.3: Outcome-Level Indicators (2009–2014)

Outcome Indicators

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2009–2014

Agricultural growth rate (%), crops and horticulture at constant 2009–2014 prices

–5.0 7.5 –0.1 5.2 3.6 — 2.2

Agricultural growth rate (%), forestry and logging at constant 2009–2014 prices

1.1 1.1 1.3 3.9 7.5 — 2.9

Agricultural growth rate (%), agriculture and animal husbandry at constant 2009–2014 prices

0.9 –1.1 0.5 0.8 3.4 — 0.9

49

Outcome Indicators

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2009–2014

Agricultural growth rate (%), farming animals at constant 2009–2014 prices

3.1 4.7 5.4 2.1 6.3 — 4.3

Agricultural land (% of land area)

48.2 48.0 48.2 48.2 — — 48.2

Agricultural value-added (% of GDP)

26.1 27.8 29.3 29.1 29.4 30.3 28.7

Imports of goods and services (% of GDP)

30.8 33.6 38.8 35.4 33.4 33.9 34.3

Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)

20.0 20.7 21.6 19.8 17.9 16.4 19.4

Merchandise trade (% of GDP)

39.6 43.2 49.0 44.5 40.4 40.1 42.8

AgGDP (annual USD millions) at current prices

555,288 767,797 957,088 1,084,958 1,216,768 1,423,923 —

Sources: World Bank (2014a, b); ReSAKSS (2014)

6.5. Impact-Level Indicators (2009–2014)These indicators cover both positive and negative long-term effects produced by a development intervention directly or indirectly, regardless of whether they were intended. For instance, with the attainment of agricultural growth, a better performance in impact indicators is expected in Kenya, resulting in improved welfare and reduced food insecurity and hunger levels among the population.

50

Table 6.4 provides a summary of these indicators covering the 2009–2014 period.

Table 6.4: Impact Indicators: Economic Growth, Poverty, Hunger, and Food and Nutrition (2009–2014)

Impact indicators 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Average 2009–2014

GDP per capita, purchasing power parity (PPP, constant 2011 international USD)

2,371 2,502 2,585 2,630 2,706 2,776 2,595

GDP per capita annual growth (%)

3.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.5

Poverty headcount ratio at USD1.25 a day (PPP, % of population)

42.7 42.9 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.3 43.0

Child malnutrition (weight for age, % of children under 5 years)

16.4 16.1 16.3 16.7 17.3 17.9 16.9

Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population)

16.4 16.1 16.3 16.7 17.3 17.9 16.9

Mortality rate of children under 5 (per 1,000 live births)

82.5 79.0 75.5 72.9 — — 77.5

Global Hunger Index 19.4 18.9 18.76 18.61 18.0 — 18.7Prevalence of stunting, height for age (% of children under 5)

35.2 33.8 34.3 35.1 36.1 37.4 35.3

Prevalence of wasting (% of children under 5)

7.0 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.8 7.3

Sources: World Bank (2014a, b); ReSAKSS (2014).

As Table 6.4 depicts, the average GDP per capita annual growth rate for Kenya was 5.5 percent during 2009–2014. This means that Kenya’s GDP growth is above the continent’s average of 5.2 percent for 2003–2012. The average GDP growth rates were higher than the average population growth rates, signifying a rising per capita GDP growth rate for Kenya.

51

However, the poverty headcount ratio at USD1.25 a day purchasing power parity (PPP) as a percentage of the population remained constant at about 43 percent over 2009–2014. This figure is above Africa’s average of 41 percent for 2003–2012. This means that poverty levels remain quite high in Kenya, reflecting minimal progress toward achieving the MDG of halving the 1990 poverty level (estimated at 46.7percent) by 2015. The Global Hunger Index, calculated by the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicates consistent improvement from a high of 19.4 in 2009 to a low of 18.0 in 2013. The 2013 index of 18 is reflective of Africa’s 2003–2012 average of 18, but is lower that the EAC average of 19.49 (2003–2012).

Kenya made significant progress in lowering the mortality rate of children under five, per 1,000 live births. From 2009 to 2012, Kenya reduced the under-five mortality rate from 82.5 to 72.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with EAC’s 85.5 and Africa’s 100.43. This means that Kenya has surpassed its MDG of reducing child mortality. However, measures of malnutrition and hunger show an increasing trend. For instance, the prevalence of child malnutrition (weight for age, percentage of the population) showed an increasing trend from 16.4 percent (2009) to 17.9 percent (2014), averaging 16.9 percent. This may partly be the result of less favourable agricultural conditions witnessed in Kenya. However, the prevalence of undernourishment (16.9 percent), wasting (35.3percent), and stunting (7.3 percent) showed a similar increasing trend during 2009–2014.

6.6. Indicators of the Enabling Environment (2009–2014)The main issues affecting the enabling environment are governance and economic management in the agriculture sector, policies for private-sector development, and donor harmonization. Preferred enabling environment indicators for CAADP include the frequency of undertaking strategic exercises (i.e., priority setting, reform) within agricultural institutions, universities, ministries, departments, and agencies; the composition of their governing bodies in terms of membership (gender, farmers, civil society organizations); and the frequency of meetings. Table 6.5 summarizes the results of political and economic governance, an important area under an enabling environment.

52

Table 6.5: Kenya’s Enabling Environment: Macroeconomic Performance (2009–2014)

Political and Economic Governance

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average 2009–2014

Government revenue as a share of GDP (%)

22.7 24.6 24.9 26.2 26.2 — 24.9

Government debt as a share of GDP (%)

47.5 49.9 48.5 47.2 45.2 — 47.7

Inflation, consumer prices (annual %)

9.2 4.0 14.0 9.4 5.7 6.8 7.9

Inflation, GDP deflator (annual %)

12.0 2.0 12.1 11.0 9.0 5.0 8.4

Sources: World Bank (2014a); ReSAKSS (2014)

The average annual level of inflation, GDP deflator, for Kenya was 8.4 percent during 2009–2014. Compared with EAC’s 11.1 percent and the continental average of 9.8 percent for 2003–2012, Kenya has the lowest level of inflation. Government debt as a share of GDP has registered consistent declines in debt shares, from a high of 49.9 percent in 2010 to a low of 45.2 percent in 2013. However, the annual average decrease during 2009–2013 was about 47.7 percent, compared with Africa’s decrease of 2.7 percentage points annually during 2003–2012.

For Kenya, the share of government revenues as a percentage of GDP has recorded a steady increase, from 22.7 percent in 2009 to 26.2 percent in 2013. The increasing trend is consistent with a reduction in debt-to-GDP ratios reported across the African continent. This is because most African nations are increasing their revenue collection, and with sustained economic growth they can rely less on foreign borrowing to finance their budget items.

The ease of doing business is measured by the World wide Governance Indicators project to assess a country’s performance in creating an enabling environment for a sector’s development (World Bank 2015).

53

Table 6.6: Ease of Doing Business in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda

Ranking Indicators Kenya Uganda TanzaniaDocuments to import (number) 9 10 11Time required to register property (days) 72 56 70Time required to start a business (days) 32 30 28Startup procedures to register a business (number) 11 16 10Average time to clear exports through customs (days) 11 10 12Time required to get electricity (days) 158 128 155Ease of doing business index (1 = most business-friendly regulations) 137 151 131Bribery incidence (% of firms experiencing at least one bribe payment request) 27 22 21Time required to obtain an operating license (days) 14 10 19

Sources: World Bank (2014b, 2015); ReSAKSS (2014)

Compared with the selected East African nations, Kenya ranks first in only one of the indices of ease of doing business.

This measure depicts the ease or difficulty for an individual to open and run a small business when complying with all of a country’s relevant regulations. The aggregate ranking in Table 6.6 tracks changes in the regulations affecting different segments of a business, based on the table’s list of indicators.

Although many reforms are being or have been implemented, operating a business in Kenya is still a major challenge to investors. For instance, in the ease of doing business index, Kenya is ranked second after Tanzania. However, Kenya leads in bribery incidence, time required to get connected to electricity, time required to start a business, and time required to register a property. This means that Kenya is worse off compared with its neighbours in terms of business registration, operation, and management, and that more effort will be needed to improve its of ease of doing business.

54

7. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED Kenya had two JSRs before signing the CAADP Compact in 2010, but no JSR has been conducted post-Compact. The first JSR was to set a baseline for the SRA, while the second audited the SRA and set a baseline for the ASDS. The second JSR analyzed the agriculture sector and its coordination and progress from 2004 to 2010. Otherwise, there have been at least three JSR-like processes in the agricultural sector: (1) the Economic Review of Agriculture (ERA), an annual publication since 2006; (2) an assessment of the absorptive capacity for Development Funds in Agricultural Sector Ministries; and (3) Assessment Report on the alignment of Agricultural Sector programmes and projects to ASDS and MTIP.

7.1. Status and Quality of JSR ProcessesThe assessment found that seven of the 12 best practices recommended in the 2010 JSR seem to have been adopted in conducting that JSR (Appendix D). Some of the steps in Best practices were not followed; there is no evidence that the stakeholders discussed and owned the report. On the JSR-like processes, some of the factors required in mutual accountability which entail inclusivity, transparency and evidence based decisions are upheld at various levels. However, one common challenge in all the processes is the quality and availability of data for both planning and evaluation.

Recommended actions:

(1) Formalize and strengthen the CAADP focal point and coordination processes

(2) Prepare a second MTIP

(3) Establish a Kenya country SAKSS

(4) Prepare ToRs for a JSR, taking into account the Best Practices, and taking note of the recommendations from the last JSR

(5) Conduct a JSR, observing the Best Practices

7.2. The Policy and Institutional EnvironmentKenya has a long history of agriculture and food security policy reforms with well-developed institutional arrangements. Various policies have been developed and implemented while some are still in the process. However, the following gaps or

55

challenges were found.

(1) Unavailability of quality data for policy making

(2) Inadequate data for policy monitoring

(3) Weak monitoring and evaluation System

(5) Inadequate accountability by the private sector and civil society organizations

Recommended Action:

The first three would possibly be handled with the establishment of the Kenya Country SAKSS, while the last one could benefit from improved coordination of the sector activities and actors.

7.3. Review of Key Financial and Non-Financial CommittmentsWhereas state actors or specifically the government issues may be straightforward, the participation of non-state actors especially the private sector is characterized with diverse issues:

(1) The Kenyan government has declared its commitment to agricultural spending in line with the CAADP target of allocating 10 percent of the national budget to the agriculture sector. However, the performance has remained low, at about 3.5 percent, over the years. The scenario could be attributed to availability of resources, low absorptive capacity of many sub-sectors, and the devolution process.

(2) Kenya’s non-state actors are diverse, and include development partners, the private sector and civil society organizations. Each has specified roles in the agriculture development path. For the private sector participation, it is noted that very few companies share their data for mutual accountability. The companies even lack motivation to provide such data.

(3) Many smallholders operate independently and at relatively low levels of income

(4) Lack of affordable and accessible finance for Kenya’s agribusinesses and smallholders, due to the risky nature of their business.

(5) Access to market information to smallholders is still a challenge

(6) Development partners seem to be making good strides toward financing development opportunities in Kenya, mainly on sustainable livelihoods,

56

health and nutrition projects. These development partners have variously aligned their support with the priorities and programs defined in the ASDS, in line with the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Some partners contribute to the joint donor basket fund, some to projects, and some to both. However, documentation and access to the information could be improved. With devolution, some development partners are now dealing directly with the county governments.

Recommended Actions:• More inclusive evidence based policy planning and implementation

process instituted

• The government should improve the level of cooperation and working relationships with non-state actors, for instance through public-private partnerships

• Smallholders need support to enable their inclusion in global value chains. This may be possible through formation or strengthening of producer groups with larger bargaining power, especially in processing and export activities.

• Grow expertise to assess the risk of default, develop working capital financing facilities, and lower the cost of commercial bank lending

• Enhance the use of crop produce and crop insurance schemes as collateral for commercial bank loans

• The government and the private sector need to develop more extensive mobile communications infrastructure to enable more to access services, and improve coordination

• Training of smallholders should be aggregated to reduce costs and meet market standards and certification guidelines

• The CAADP focal point should activate the coordination mechanisms where knowledge and information is shared. The long awaited Kenyan SAKSS node may be useful here.

• There should be a deliberate effort to identify and bring on board all the relevant state and non-state actors, under formal sector

coordination for policy and development agenda.

57

7.4. Agriculture Sector Performance: 2009 to 2014Kenya’s agriculture sector performance has exhibited diversity in its various indicators. Some of the lessons learnt include the following:

• Input-level indicators: Such indicators as agriculture expenditure growth rates, inflows of foreign direct investments, government agriculture expenditure, and agricultural official development assistance have generally been on a downward trajectory.

• Output-level indicators (agriculture sector performance): The growth of Kenya’s agriculture sector, in general, increased, along with land and labour productivities.

• Outcome-level indicators (agriculture growth performance): These indicators generally showed an upward trend.

• Impact-level indicators: With the attainment of agricultural growth, a better performance in impact-level indicators is expected in Kenya, resulting in improved welfare and reduced food insecurity and hunger levels among the population.

• Indicators of the enabling environment: The main issues of the enabling environment are governance and economic management in the agriculture sector, policies for private-sector development, and donor harmonization. These issues had mixed trends. The share of government revenues as a percentage of GDP showed an increasing trend, while operating a business in Kenya is still a major challenge

for investors.

On the overall performance of the agriculture sector, all the documents used as references in this assessment indicated inadequate information, occasioned by weak M&E systems for the sector. It is observed that most data available are estimates, yet data needed for analysis of progress and impact should be measured, covering primary production, productivity, and poverty, at a minimum.

Recommended Action: There is need to improve data management, coordination mechanisms, and effective M&E systems.

58

8. REFERENCESAU (African Union). 2003. Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security. Declarations. Assembly/AU/Decl.4-11 (II). Assembly of the African Union, Second Ordinary Session, July 10–12. Maputo, Mozambique.

2014. Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods. Decisions, Declarations and Resolution. Assembly/AU/Decl. 1–4(XXIII). Assembly of the African Union, Twenty-Third Ordinary Session, June 26–27, Malabo, Equatorial Guinea

AU/NEPAD (African Union/New Partnership for Africa’s Development). 2009. CAADP Pillar III: Framework for African Food Security. Midland, South Africa. http://www.caadp.net/sites/default/files/documents/Resources/CAADP-guides-and- technical/CAADP %20 Pillar %20 III% 20 Framework %20 for % 20 African % 20 Food % 20 Security_2009.pdf.

CAADP Results Framework 2015–2025. Midland, South Africa: NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency.

Institutional Architecture for Agriculture and Food Security Policy Change in Kenya. Draft report. October 2015. Produced with support from USAID – AFRICA LEAD – Feed the Future Programme, Nairobi.

CPPMU (Central Planning and Project Monitoring Unit). 2015. Economic Review of Agriculture 2015. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.

DA (Development Associates A/S). 2006. Strategy for Revitalization of Agriculture, The Way Forward. Findings of the Joint Review. Final Report. Nairobi, Kenya.

Diao, X., A. Kennedy, A. Mabiso, and A. Pradesha. 2013. Economywide Impact Of Maize Export Bans On Agricultural Growth And Household Welfare In Tanzania: A Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Model Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01287. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute

Fan, Shenggen, Michael Johnson, Anuja Saurkar and Tsitsi Makombe. February 2008. Investing in Agriculture To Halve Poverty By 2015. Discission Paper

59

00751. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute

Fan, S., T. Mogues, and S. Benin. 2009. Setting Priorities For Public Spending for Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa. IFPRI Policy Brief 12. IFPRI,Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute

Grow Africa. 2014a. Accelerating agricultural transformation in Africa: grow Africa progress and priorities. Retrieved from www.growafrica.com

Grow Africa 2014b. Agricultural partnerships take root across Africa. Grow Africa secretariat 2nd annual report on private sector investment in support of country led transformations in African agriculture, May 2014. Retrieved from www.growafrica.com

2015. Accelerating Agricultural Transformation in Africa: Grow Africa Progress and Priorities. https://www.growafrica.com/resources/publication/accelerating-agricultural-transformation-africa-grow-africa-progress-and-priorities.

2010.“Budget2010/11:MoreSpending—Better Controls?” http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

2011. “Budget 2011/2012: Great Intentions but Bumpy Road Ahead.”http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

2012. “Budget 2012/13: Laying the Foundation for Devolved System of Government: Marathon or a Sprint? http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

2013. “Budget 2013/14: The Onset of the Devolved Government and the Hurdles Ahead.”http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

2013b. MTEF 2013/14-2015/16 Report for the Agriculture and Rural Development Sector

2014. “Budget 2014/2015: Balancing Financing Concerns while Responding to Spending Inefficiencies.”http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

2015.“Budget Highlights

60

2015/2016.”http://www.ieakenya.or.ke/publications/cat_view/1-publications/3-bulletins-briefs/13-budget-guide.

KEPCO and CGD. 2010. Resource Allocation and Utilization in Kenya’s Agricultural Sector: a Public Expenditure Review. Kenya Producers’ Coalition (KEPCO) and Centre for Governance and Development (CGD), Nairobi

Laibuni, Nancy. 2014. Public Expenditure Review – Kenya. KIPPRA Working Paper

Lundgren, Bjorn. 2011. Joint Agricultural Sector Review, Final Report. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture.

Mabiso, A., Pauw, K. and Benin, S. 2012. Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Kenya: Technical Analysis for the Agricultural Sectoral Development Strategy (ASDS)—Medium Term Investment Plan (MTIP). ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 35, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Matchaya, Greenwell. 2014. “The Joint Sector Review Experience and Scaling Up in Southern Africa.”2014 ReSAKSS Annual Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 8eren

OECD. 2005. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Five Principles for Smart Aid. www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness

GoK (Republic of Kenya). 2003. Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003–2007 (ERS).Nairobi, Kenya

2004. Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture 2004–2014. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development.

2007. Kenya Vision 2030: A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya.

2010a. Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010–2020. Nairobi, Kenya: http://www.kecosce.org/downloads/AGRICULTURE_SECTOR_DEVELOMENT_STRATEGY_2009_2025.pdf.

2010b. ASDS Medium Term Investment Plan 2010–2015. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture.

61

2010c.The Kenya CAADP Compact, Implemented through the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy. Nairobi, Kenya.

2012a. An Assessment of the Absorptive Capacity for Development Funds in Agricultural Sector Ministries. Nairobi, Kenya: Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit, Kilimo House.

2012b. Assessment Report on the Alignment of Agricultural Sector Programmes and Projects to ASDS and MTIP. Nairobi, Kenya: Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit, Kilimo House.

2013a. Agricultural Sector Policies and Strategies at a Glance. Nairobi, Kenya: Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit.

2013b. Kenya Vision 2030 Second Medium Term Plan (2013 – 2017), the Presidency, Ministry of Devolution and Planning, Nairobi

2015. Economic Review of Agriculture 2015. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.

ReSAKSS (Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System). 2015. A Comparative Assessment of Agriculture Joint Sector Reviews: Annotated Report Outline. Nairobi, Kenya.2014. http://www.resakss.org/

UNOCHA-EA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for East Africa). 2015. “Kenya Resilience Investments Tracker. ”http://kenya.droughtresilience.info/World Bank

World Bank. 2014. Decision time: spend more or spend smart? Public Expenditure Review (PER), Washington DC, World Bank Group

2014a.“GDP per Capita, PPP (current international USD).” http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD.

2014b. “World Development Indicators. ”http://data.worldbank.org/country.

2015. “World Governance Indicators.” http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators.

62

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Agriculture Sector Ministries that Endorsed ASDS in 2010Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Livestock Development

Ministry of Fisheries Development

Ministry of Regional Development Authorities

Ministry of the Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Areas

Ministry of Lands

Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources

Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation

Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife

Ministry of Cooperative Development

In 2013, a new government and governance structures saw reorganization in a number of the ministries, key among them being converting the first three to state departments under one key Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.

63

Appendix B: A JSR Best Practices Plan• Set up a JSR Steering Committee (SC), chaired by the Ministry of

Agriculture.

• Establish a JSR Secretariat.

• Develop terms of reference for the JSR.

• Mobilize resources.

• Have SC/Secretariat invite a broad and inclusive group of state and non-state actors/stakeholders to participate in the JSR, with clear objectives, expected outcomes, and roles of different actors.

• Assess any existing agricultural policy dialogue and review processes, data quality and analytical capacities

• Commission JSR studies.

• Establish a JSR Review Team.

• Prepare a JSR report.

• Conduct a JSR meeting.

• Follow up on JSR meeting actions.

• Share the JSR experience with other countries.

Source: ReSAKSS (2015).

64

Appendix C: Terms of Reference for Short-Term Consultancy for the JSR Assessment in 2010

C.1. BackgroundThe agriculture sector ministries have been implementing the Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture (SRA) since early 2005 (GoK 2004). The strategy provides a framework for joint priority setting and coordination within the agriculture sector (See Annex 1 on the SRA, its implementation framework, and support from development partners.)

To assess achievements, challenges, and opportunities regarding the implementation of the SRA, the sector stakeholders have agreed to conduct a joint agricultural sector review (JSR) in 2009. The review will cover the period July 2005 to June 2009 (i.e., the four subsequent financial years 2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 2008/2009).

C.2. ObjectiveThe overall objective of the review is to analyze the achievement of outputs and outcomes of the agriculture sector, as expressed in the SRA, and to make recommendations for future planning.

The specific objective of the review, which will consist of desk study and interviews with key informants, is to collect and analyze information (studies, progress reports, analysis, etc.) related to achievement of the six thematic areas listed below. The review will also involve an in-depth analysis and further verification of information in specific areas where this may be necessary. Verification may include strategic field visits.

C.3. Support StructureA Steering Committee (SC) for the joint sector review (JSR), consisting of directors of the sector ministries and other stakeholder representatives, has been setup. The main function of the SC is to create ownership for the JSR within their agencies, to provide political backing and technical support to the consultants.

For the in-depth analysis, the SC will also ensure that adequate staff from the sector ministries and other stakeholders of the agriculture sector in Kenya will work with the consultant (e.g., staff from ministries’ monitoring and evaluation (M&E) units).

65

C.4. Scope of Work

C.4.1.ActivitiesIn carrying out his or her work, the consultant will:

1. Assess sector progress reports, (sub-) sector reports, project and program evaluation reports, and other documents relevant to achieving the sector goals, as stated in the SRA.

2. Conduct interviews with strategic informants for the respective areas of analysis.

3. Structure the analysis according to the following six strategic areas of the SRA:10

o Streamlining agricultural policy framework;

o Creating an enabling environment for private-sector investment;

o Improving delivery of support services;

o Promoting marketing, agro processing, and trade;

o Mainstreaming agricultural development issues in other sectors; and

o Strengthening the institutional implementation framework, which will include an evaluation of the coordination role of the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit(ASCU) within the framework of the Agricultural Sector Support Programme

4. Carry out an in-depth analysis and further verification in specific areas where this may be necessary.

5. Present to the SC the findings of the Joint Sector Evaluation.

6. Compile a final report of the findings and recommendations to the sector ministries.

C.4.2.OutputThe principal output of the work should be a report on the progress (achievements, shortcomings, challenges, and lessons learned) towards the implementation of the objectives of the SRA, as well as in the coordination role of ASCU. This report should be structured according to the six aspects stated in 3.1.

10 As outlined in the Log-Frame of the SRA (long version, pages 83 and the following) (GoK 2004).

66

In terms of reporting the consultant will develop

• An inception report one week after signing the contract;

• A draft report, which will include findings of the review of documents and interviews, summaries of achievements and constraints according to the structure laid out above, and preliminary recommendations for the future ASCU strategy; and

• A final report that includes comments made during the presentation of the draft report to the SC and final recommendations that should inform future strategy.

C.4.3.InputsThe consultant will be expected to provide all logistical support services in order to conduct the assignment. ASCU and the JSR SC will assist in providing the relevant documents for the consultant to carry out the assignment.

C.5. The ConsultantC.5.1.TimingTo inform the sector stakeholders who start implementing the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy, the consultant is expected to start work immediately. The assignment should be completed within six weeks (30 working days).In case the consultant cannot meet these deadlines, alternative dates must be stated in his or her proposal.

C.5.2.Consultant’s ProfileThe consultant should have expertise in agriculture and rural development, M&E, public finance, and macroeconomics. In all cases the consultant must demonstrate a strong record from working with reform processes and evaluations, preferably from working with the agriculture sector in Africa.

Source: Lundgren 2011

67

Appe

ndix

D: S

tren

gthe

ning

Mut

ual A

ccou

ntab

ility

thro

ugh

the

Agric

ultu

re

Join

t Sec

tor R

evie

w P

roce

ss a

t the

Cou

ntry

Lev

el (C

ompa

re th

e 20

10 JS

R of

SR

A w

ith B

est P

racti

ces)

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

1. Se

t Up a

JSR

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee (S

C).

SC pr

ovide

s stra

tegic

dire

ction

for t

he

estab

lishm

ent a

nd op

erati

on of

the

JSR. It

is us

ually

chair

ed by

the M

inistr

y of

Agric

ultur

e (M

oA) a

nd in

clude

s as

mem

bers

leadin

g don

ors a

nd 3–

4 oth

er

repr

esen

tative

s of k

ey st

akeh

older

grou

ps.

For t

he 20

10 JS

R, th

e SC

cons

isted

of di

recto

rs of

the

secto

r mini

stries

and o

ther

sta

keho

lders.

The m

ain

func

tion o

f the

SC w

as to

cre

ate ow

nersh

ip fo

r the

JSR

with

in th

e mini

stries

, pr

ovide

politi

cal b

ackin

g an

d tec

hnica

l sup

port

to

the c

onsu

ltant

, and

requ

est

staff

input

whe

n nec

essa

ry.

Ther

e is n

o ind

icatio

n of

who

actu

ally

parti

cipate

d on t

he

SC. T

he ro

les ne

ed

to be

spec

ified,

not ju

st lum

ped a

s sta

keho

lders.

1. Es

tablis

h a fo

rmal

CAAD

P foc

al po

int,

with

repr

esen

tation

fro

m th

e orig

inal 1

0 se

ctor m

inistr

ies, w

hich

may

now

be st

ate

depa

rtmen

ts.2.

Set u

p the

JSR S

C.3.

The S

C may

ha

ve to

adop

t the

re

com

men

datio

ns of

the

2010

JSR fi

rst, a

nd th

en

analy

ze w

hat h

as an

d has

no

t bee

n ach

ieved

.

68

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

2. Es

tablis

h a JS

R Se

cretar

iat.

The S

ecre

tariat

coor

dinate

s acti

vities

and

oper

ation

s of t

he JS

R and

JSR S

C. It c

an be

m

ade u

p of c

ore s

taff fr

om M

oA Pl

annin

g &

M&E

Unit

.

Ther

e did

not s

eem

to be

a S

ecre

tariat

for t

he JS

R, alt

houg

h the

SC m

ade

avail

able

the r

equir

ed

mini

stry p

erso

nnel

to as

sist

the c

onsu

ltant

.

The r

equir

ed

Secre

tariat

is no

t yet

in

place

The T

rans

form

ation

Ini

tiativ

e, th

e Int

er-

Gove

rnm

ental

Se

cretar

iat, a

nd th

e ne

w CA

ADP f

ocal

point

sh

ould

estab

lish t

he JS

R Se

cretar

iat.

3. De

velop

term

s of

refer

ence

(TO

Rs) fo

r the

JSR.

TORs

shou

ld lay

out J

SR ob

jectiv

es, s

tate

and n

on-st

ate st

akeh

older

s and

their

roles

, ro

les of

the S

C and

Secre

tariat

, ope

rating

pr

incipl

es, s

tructu

re an

d fre

quen

cy

of JS

R mee

tings

, and

follo

w-up

and

imple

men

tation

of ac

tions

, etc.

TORs

may

als

o nee

d to b

e dev

elope

d for

cons

ultan

ts hir

ed to

cond

uct J

SR st

udies

.

TORs

wer

e dev

elope

d and

pr

esen

ted t

o the

cons

ultan

t (A

ppen

dix C)

.

The T

ORs w

ere

deve

loped

for 2

009,

and t

he JS

R too

k pla

ce in

2010

. In

the i

nter

im, s

ever

al ac

tivitie

s and

issu

es

aros

e.

Revis

e TOR

s whe

neve

r th

ere i

s a de

lay in

star

ting

the a

ssign

men

t. The

new

CAAD

P foc

al po

int sh

ould

start

worki

ng on

the T

ORs

as pa

rt of

the p

repa

ration

fo

r the

JSR w

hich t

he

Mini

stry a

gree

d to

emba

rk on

4. M

obiliz

e re

sour

ces.

Hum

an an

d fina

ncial

reso

urce

s sho

uld be

m

obiliz

ed to

supp

ort J

SR op

erati

ons.

Reso

urce

s wer

e mob

ilized

.Th

ere i

s no

infor

mati

on on

wha

t re

sour

ces w

ere

avail

able.

State

prec

isely

the

reso

urce

s req

uired

or

to be

prov

ided.

The S

C on

ce es

tablis

hed,

need

s to

iden

tify t

he hu

man

, ph

ysica

l and

finan

cial

reso

urce

s req

uired

69

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

5. Ha

ve SC

/Se

cretar

iat in

vite

a bro

ad an

d inc

lusive

grou

p of

state

and

non-

state

acto

rs/sta

keho

lders

to

parti

cipate

in

the J

SR (w

ith

clear

objec

tives

, ex

pecte

d ou

tcom

es, a

nd

roles

of di

ffere

nt

acto

rs).

A key

aspe

ct of

the J

SR is

that

it allo

ws

a bro

ad gr

oup o

f stat

e and

non-

state

sta

keho

lders

to in

fluen

ce ov

erall

polic

ies

and p

rioriti

es of

the s

ecto

r by a

ssessi

ng

how

well t

hey h

ave i

mple

men

ted t

heir

com

mitm

ents

stipu

lated

in th

e CAA

DP

Com

pact,

Nati

onal

Agric

ultur

e and

Food

Se

curit

y Inv

estm

ent P

lan (N

AFSIP

), and

re

lated

coop

erati

on ag

reem

ents,

such

as

unde

r the

New

Allia

nce f

or Fo

od Se

curit

y an

d Nut

rition

.

This

is no

t rep

orte

d ex

clusiv

ely fo

r the

JSR–

SRA o

f 201

0. Ho

weve

r, fo

r the

futu

re JS

R, th

e ke

y agr

icultu

re se

ctor

depa

rtmen

ts ha

ve in

volve

d br

oad a

nd in

clusiv

e gro

ups.

Ther

e is n

o cur

rent

pr

actic

e yet

. Ho

weve

r, the

MoA

LF

has a

ssign

ed so

me

perso

nnel

to st

eer

the p

roce

ss

6. As

sess

any e

xistin

g ag

ricult

ural

polic

y dial

ogue

an

d rev

iew

proc

esse

s, alo

ng

with

data

quali

ty an

d ana

lytica

l ca

paciti

es.

An as

sessm

ent o

f any

existi

ng ag

ricult

ural

polic

y dial

ogue

and r

eview

proc

esse

s, da

ta

quali

ty, an

d ana

lytica

l cap

acitie

s and

tools

an

d net

works

and a

ny ex

isting

know

ledge

sy

stem

s is k

ey to

iden

tifyin

g any

gaps

and

deve

loping

way

s to fi

ll gap

s and

enha

nce

capa

cities

, tools

, and

proc

esse

s thr

ough

the

JSR.

Now

ongo

ing co

nsult

ation

s to

estab

lish a

coun

try

SAKS

S nod

e

70

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

7. Co

mm

ission

JSR

studie

s.Co

nsult

ants

may

need

to be

hire

d and

su

perv

ised b

y the

SC to

cond

uct J

SR st

udies

. Co

nsult

ants

may

com

e fro

m th

ink ta

nks,

unive

rsitie

s, or

priva

te co

mpa

nies a

nd

shou

ld wo

rk clo

sely

with

staff

from

the

mini

stries

’ Plan

ning U

nits,

and t

he JS

R SC

and S

ecre

tariat

.

The 2

010 J

SR–S

RA w

as

com

miss

ioned

, but

is no

t ye

t in pl

ace f

or 20

15 JS

R.

8. Es

tablis

h a JS

R Re

view

Team

A tea

m m

ade u

p of a

multi

-stak

ehold

er

grou

p (sta

te an

d non

-state

acto

rs) w

ith

tech

nical

expe

rtise

shou

ld re

view

and

com

men

t on v

ariou

s JSR

stud

ies an

d re

ports

and e

nsur

e out

puts

of re

views

are

imple

men

ted.

Ther

e is n

o evid

ence

that

th

ere w

as a

revie

w te

am

for t

he 20

10 JS

R–SR

A.

No ev

idenc

e of a

re

view

team

.Es

tablis

h a JS

R Rev

iew

Team

9. Pr

epar

e a JS

R re

port.

Evide

nce s

hould

be ba

sed o

n rele

vant

hig

h-qu

ality

studie

s and

repo

rts on

the J

SR

cont

ent a

reas

. To b

e an e

ffecti

ve m

utua

l ac

coun

tabilit

y pro

cess,

the J

SR re

port

will

need

to be

grou

nded

in hi

gh-q

uality

data

an

d ana

lysis,

as w

ell as

tran

spar

ency

and

inclus

ive st

akeh

older

parti

cipati

on.

No ev

idenc

e for

the 2

010

case

.

71

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

10. C

ondu

ct a J

SR

mee

ting.

A 1- t

o 3-d

ay m

eetin

g, us

ing va

rious

form

ats

(plen

ary,

small

grou

ps, fi

eld vi

sit, e

tc.)

shou

ld be

orga

nized

to al

low st

akeh

older

s dis

cuss

and v

erify

the e

viden

ce an

d re

com

men

datio

ns pr

esen

ted i

n the

JSR

repo

rt. Th

is m

eetin

g can

be he

ld at

differ

ent

levels

(nati

onal

and s

ubna

tiona

l). Th

e pr

oces

s sho

uld as

sist in

iden

tifyin

g sec

tor

prior

ities a

nd po

licies

and s

pecifi

c acti

ons

for t

he di

ffere

nt st

akeh

older

s to p

ut in

plac

e. Th

ese a

ction

s wou

ld be

capt

ured

in a

JSR

Aide M

emoir

.

No ev

idenc

e for

the 2

010

case

.

11. F

ollow

up

on JS

R mee

ting

actio

ns.

The i

mple

men

tation

of re

com

men

datio

ns

and d

ecisi

ons o

f the

JSR m

eetin

g (em

bodie

d in

the J

SR Ai

de M

emoir

) sho

uld be

clos

ely

mon

itore

d and

ensu

red.

Grou

ps th

at m

eet

mor

e reg

ularly

, suc

h as t

he Ag

ricult

ure

Secto

r Wor

king G

roup

, can

help

with

follo

w-up

and m

onito

ring.

The m

onito

ring f

orm

s th

e bas

is of

the n

ext J

SR cy

cle.

No ev

idenc

e for

the 2

010

case

.

72

JSR

Build

ing

Bloc

ksPu

rpos

e/Ta

sks:

Bes

t Pra

ctice

sW

hat i

s the

cur

rent

pr

actic

e in

the

coun

try

(JSR

of t

he

SRA)

?

How

doe

s the

cu

rren

t pra

ctice

di

ffer f

rom

bes

t pr

actic

e?a

Wha

t acti

ons a

re

need

ed to

ach

ieve

be

st p

racti

ce?

b

12. S

hare

the J

SR

expe

rienc

e with

ot

her c

ount

ries.

As m

any c

ount

ries a

re sti

ll setti

ng up

JSR,

it is e

ssenti

al to

shar

e les

sons

lear

ned,

best

prac

tices

, and

expe

rienc

es to

furth

er

stren

gthen

coun

try JS

Rs. S

uch f

orum

s as t

he

CAAD

P Par

tner

ship

Prog

ram

and R

eSAK

SS

annu

al co

nfere

nce p

rovid

e an o

ppor

tunit

y to

ward

this

end.

No ev

idenc

e for

the 2

010

case

.

a Ther

e is

no c

urre

nt p

racti

ce y

et: t

he la

st JS

R w

as in

201

0, a

nd th

e co

untr

y is

now

pla

nnin

g fo

r one

. The

pla

ns a

re sti

ll in

fo

rmati

ve st

ages

b The

actio

ns th

at a

re n

eede

d ar

e ba

sical

ly ad

optin

g al

l sta

ges o

f the

bes

t pra

ctice

s

73

AppendixE: Kenya’s AgricultureSector Policies and Strategies

Sector Policies and Strategies

Subsector Policies and Strategies

Upcoming Policies and Strategies

Cross-cutting Policies

1. Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2010–2020

2. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2012 on National Food and Nutritional Security Policy

3. National Agricultural Sector Extension Policy

4. National Agricultural Research System Policy

5. National Agribusiness

1. National Horticulture Policy

2. National Seed Policy3. National Rice

Development Strategy4. Sessional Paper

No.2 of 2008 on the National Livestock Policy

5. National Dairy Development Policy

6. National Poultry Policy7. National Rabbit

Development Strategy and Implementation Framework 2013–17

8. National Beekeeping Policy

9. Avian Influenza Plan and Communication Strategy

10. Dairy Goat Value Chain Map and Strategy

11. National Oceans and Fisheries Policy

12. Aquaculture Policy, 2011

13. National Aquaculture Strategy and Development Plan, 2010

14. Cooperative Development Policy, 2011

1. National Cereal Crops Policy

2. National Agro-chemical Policy

3. Root and Tuber Crops Policy

4. National Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture and Livestock Policy

5. National Emerging Crops Policy

6. Tea Development Policy

7. National Wheat Development Strategy

8. National Banana Development Strategy

9. Cotton Development Strategy

10. Cassava Development Strategy

11. g Policy12. Fertilizer Strategy 13. Tea Climate Smart

Strategy14. Veterinary Policy 15. Livestock Feeds

Policy 16. Animal Breedin

1. HIV and AIDS2. Gender concerns3. Alcohol, drugs,

and substance abuse

4. Disability mainstreaming

5. Absence and inadequate parenting

6. Basic hygiene 7. Balanced

nutrition 8. Family cohesion 9. Domestic

violence 10. Child labor and

child abuse 11. Counseling 12. Disaster

and conflict management

74





15. Governance and Anti-Corruption Policy for Cooperative Societies, 2012

16. Investment Policy Guidelines for the Cooperative Sector

17. Strategy Paper on Revitalization of Dormant Cooperative Societies

18. Cooperative Marketing Strategy

19. Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on National Land Policy

20. National Policy on Irrigation and Drainage Development

21. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1999 on National Policy on Water Resources Management and Development

17. National Pig Development Strategy

18. Animal Welfare Policy

19. Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia Plan

20. Foot and Mouth Strategy

21. Livestock Identification and Traceability

22. Cooperative Development Fund Strategy

23. Cooperative Member Recruitment Strategy

24. National Coastal and Marine Fisheries Policy

25. National Tuna Management Strategy

22. National Water Services Strategy, 2007–2015

23. National Water Resources Management Strategy

24. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2007 on Forest Policy

25. Regional Development Policy

26. National Cage Culture Strategy

27. National Agricultural Insurance Policy

28. Agricultural Sector Gender Policy

29. Agricultural Sector Youth Policy

30. National Land Use Policy

75





26. National Climate Change Response Strategy

27. Sustainability Strategy for Regional Development Authorities, 2010

31. Kenya National Spatial Data Infrastructure Policy

Source: GoK (2013a).

76

Appendix F: Excerpts of Statements from Kenya’s National Food and Nutrition Security Policy

F.1. Food Availability and Access Subject to availability of requisite resources, the Government will ensure that every Kenyan is free from hunger, has adequate supply of food of acceptable quality, and has an uninterrupted supply of clean and safe water in adequate quantities, at all times.

F.2. Domestic ProductionThe Government will continue to advance appropriate measures to increase quality food production to meet the needs of the citizens at all times.

F.3. Storage and AgroprocessingThe Government will initiate appropriate measures, including research, aimed at addressing post-harvest losses, food quality, and safety, including aflatoxin infestation.

F.4. Food Safety, Standards, and Quality Control The Government will ensure that safe and high-quality food is available to all Kenyans, at all times, by creating public awareness on relevant issues, and by setting, promoting, and enforcing appropriate guidelines, codes of practice, standards, and a regulatory framework.

F.5. Nutrition Improvement and Nutrition Security The Government will ensure achievement of adequate nutrition for optimum health of all Kenyans. Enhancing food access, supporting all Kenyans to adopt effective nutrition interventions, creating awareness to ensure all Kenyans have equitable access to nutritious diets, and

77

promoting healthy lifestyles throughout the life cycle are among major Government objectives.

F.6. School Nutrition and Nutrition Awareness The Government will ensure that all Kenyans are well informed about proper basic nutrition required to live a healthy and active life.

F.7. Food and Nutrition Security Information The Government will build capacity and ensure the availability of quality and timely food security and nutrition data, information, and analysis for better formulation and management of integrated food security and nutrition policies, programmes, and action.

F.8. Early Warning and Emergency Management The Government will protect vulnerable populations and address food insecurity concerns in developing capacity for purposes of early warning and emergency management using innovative and cost-effective safety nets and emergency relief programmes linked to long-term development.

F.9. Institutional and Legal Framework and Financing The Government will ensure that efficient and effective institutional and legal frameworks are established for the implementation of the FNSP [Food and Nutrition Security Policy].

Source: GoK (2011b).

78

Appendix G: An Overview of Selected Development Partner Involvement in the Agriculture Sector

Development Partner Area of FocusAfrican Development Bank (AfDB)

AfDB’s Country Strategy Paper (2008–2012) is aligned with the Medium-Term Investment Plan. It focuses on economic growth and employment creation as the basis for poverty reduction and shared prosperity. AfDB investments in Kenya are largely devoted to infrastructure projects, which account for 67.8 percent, followed by the agriculture sector at 17.6 percent.


Denmark phased out support to the agriculture sector in 2010 and to the water sector in 2009. Activities related to the management of these two sectors are now included in their Denmark’s National Resource Management Programme.

Department for International Development (DFID)

DFID is currently supporting a technical assistance program for the Ministry of State for Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands. DFID will prepare a proposal for its management, which is expected to lead to a scaled-up program of GBP 15 million in support to commence in 2011.

European Union (EU)

The EU is implementing a wide range of projects in the agriculture sector to promote sector coordination, agricultural productivity and commercialization, the development of arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), and the livestock subsector. It is also helping to develop responses to food price volatility and support to the development of sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ)

The Promotion to Private Sector Development Programme (PSDA) has worked with the value-chain approach since 2004/2005 in Kenya. Following substantial methodological development suited to the Kenyan context, the approach has been applied to eight value chains since 2007. Starting 2011, PSDA plans to scale up the use of the value-chain approach. It has established a value-chain development facility to open it up to as many potential parties as possible.

79

Development Partner Area of FocusInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

IFAD investments are directed toward the delivery of services to rural communities; increasing their access to appropriate technologies, rural infrastructure, and financial services; and helping to improve, diversify, and market agricultural and livestock products. IFAD works in areas with medium-to-high productive potential as well as the ASALs. Currently, IFAD is developing an Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resources Management Project for financing.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

In the agriculture sector, JICA promotes market-oriented agricultural development. Its chief programs and projects include: -Community empowerment programs for rural areas, such as the Community Agricultural Development Project in Semi-Arid Lands from October 2005 to October 2010.-Smallholder empowerment programs for income generation. Projects include (1) Sustainable Smallholder Irrigation Development and Management in Central and Southern Kenya, December 2005–December 2010, and (2) the Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment Project, November 2006–November 2009.-The “One Village One Product” concept was piloted in Nyeri, Laikipia, Yatta, Kisii, Nandi Hills, and Bomet West; thereafter Phase 2 started in November 2011 for three years period.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland

The Programme for Agriculture and Livelihoods in Western Communities (PALWECO) 2010–2016 aims to improve food security and incomes in rural populations by improving their livelihoods. Activities include developing agricultural production and other income-generating activities. An important element of PALWECO is to develop value chains and associated local infrastructure, such as rural roads, which is also included in the program. The Ministry of State for Planning and of National Development and Vision 2030 is responsible for the implementation of the PALWECO, whose budget is Euros 30.5 million.

80

Development Partner Area of FocusNetherlands The Netherlands support to Kenya’s agriculture sector is

channeled through SNV Kenya. Its goal is poverty alleviation through interventions aimed at (1) increasing production, income, and employment, and (2) increasing access to basic services in the following sectors: water, sanitation and hygiene, education, health, and renewable energy. SNV Kenya uses a value-chain development approach to foster increases in productivity, to facilitate access to markets, and to identify and enhance trade opportunities in domestic, regional, and international markets.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

U.S.government support to Kenya is visible in virtually all sectors of the economy. Support to the agriculture sector, channeled through USAID, targets mainly small-scale horticulture, grains, and dairy farming by helping farmers increase productivity, get credit, farm sustainably, and sell their produce.

World Bank The World Bank-supported Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project is in its second phase and is one of the main agricultural programs in Kenya. Its development objective is to increase agricultural productivity and incomes of participating smallholder farmers in the project area. Project activities contribute to these objectives by transforming and improving the performance of agricultural technology systems, empowering stakeholders, and promoting the development of agribusiness in the project area.

Source: GoK (2011a)

81

Appendix H: Terms of Reference for the JSR Assessment Study

Terms of Reference for a Consultancy to Contribute to Preparation of a Report on Comparative Assessment of Agriculture Joint Sector Review in Kenya

1. Background and Motivation

Achieving an annual agricultural growth rate of six percent and a sector budget share of 10 percent are the most cited goals of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) agenda. African Heads of States and Government solidified their commitment to transforming African agriculture with the Malabo Declaration by improving upon the 2003 Maputo Declaration, under which they recommitted to the agricultural growth and budget allocation targets. The Malabo Declaration, coming out of the 23rd Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in Equatorial Guinea, commits member states to undertake a number of crucial policy reforms toward ending hunger and reducing poverty in Africa. To meet these goals, African leaders have recommitted themselves to achieving the CAADP growth and spending targets and have agreed to additional commitment areas including ending hunger and halving poverty by 2025, tripling intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services by 2025, enhancing resilience in livelihoods, and strengthening mutual accountability to actions and results.

Linked to the Malabo targets and equally important is the commitment to promoting evidence-based agricultural policy planning and implementation processes through peer review, dialogue, benchmarking, and the adoption of best practices. With the signing of more than 40 CAADP compacts and the adoption of close to 30 national agriculture and food security investment plans (NAFSIPs), some of the prerequisites to working toward the growth and budgetary targets have been met in a critical number of countries. The African Union Commission (AUC), NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA), regional economic communities (RECs), country stakeholders and development partners now see the improvement of country policy processes to ensure successful implementation of NAFSIPs, as the next frontier of the CAADP agenda. AUC and NPCA have adopted a CAADP Mutual Accountability Framework setting out principles for mutual review and have developed a

82

CAADP Results Framework to guide the identification of priority areas and the definition of performance indicators for tracking targets in the Malabo Declaration. The priorities are contained in the post-Malabo implementation strategy and roadmap that was adopted by the Heads of State and Government at their summit in January 2015 in Addis Ababa.

Agriculture joint sector reviews (JSRs) are a key instrument for supporting mutual accountability and implementing the CAADP Result Framework. The JSRs are an integral part of the transition to evidence-based policy planning and implementation. In particular, JSRs provide a platform to collectively review the effectiveness of policies and institutions in the agricultural sector as well as assess the extent to which intended results and outcomes in the sector are being realized. They allow state and non-state stakeholders to hold each other accountable with respect to fulfilling pledges and commitments stipulated in the CAADP compacts, NAFSIPs, and related cooperation agreements such as those under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (New Alliance). By allowing a broad spectrum of stakeholders to get insights into and influence overall policies and priorities of the sector, JSRs serve as a management and policy support tool for inclusive stakeholder planning, programming, budget preparation and execution, monitoring and evaluation, and overall development of the agricultural sector.

The Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS), as the main CAADP platform for review, learning, and benchmarking has been designated by AUC and NPCA to support efforts to introduce JSR practices where they do not exist and improve their quality where they do. An initial group of seven counties were targeted in 2014. They included countries that are part of the New Alliance, that is: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania. Because most countries already carry out some type of sector review, the emphasis of ReSAKSS’ support is on value addition, building and improving on existing country practices. In particular, in collaboration with national teams, ReSAKSS conducted assessments of JSRs in the seven target countries by reviewing the status and quality of the JSRs or related processes where “proper” JSRs do not yet exist. The assessments also included reviewing the institutional and policy landscapes in each country; collecting and analyzing data on key outcome indicators to help create baselines for use in future JSRs; and reviewing progress toward meeting key commitments. Following the assessments, countries developed action plans laying out ways in which to strengthen their JSR processes.

83

On the request of the AUC and NPCA, in 2015 ReSAKSS will expand its JSR support efforts to 11 new countries and provide follow up support to the seven pilot countries. The 11 countries are: Benin, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Mali, Niger, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. ReSAKSS and its partners are gearing up to a) conduct JSR assessments in the new 11 countries and b) monitor progress in implementing JSR assessment recommendations in the seven pilot countries.

2. The AssignmentThe consultant will be involved in the process of undertaking an assessment for the JSR assessment in Kenya. This task will involve: i) stakeholder consultations; ii) Collation and synthesis of relevant literature; collation and analysis of data, report writing, presentations of the report in a stakeholder validation workshop. Specifically the task will involve two set of activities: i) Technical review and Assessment and ii) Consultation and Collaboration. These are elaborated below.

A. Technical review and assessment activitiesThe ultimate objective of this activity is threefold. The first is to evaluate the policy and institutional environment of the implementation of ASDP. The second is to examine the progress made toward achieving their key target outcomes and thus create baselines for future reviews. The third and final objective is to assess the adequacy of existing processes to effectively carry out such review in the future and identify actions to remedy identified weaknesses.

i) Status and quality of JSR processes

The benefit from the JSR processes is determined by the adequacy of its coverage, the quality of its assessment tools, and the degree of its inclusivity. Gaps and weaknesses in these areas as well as appropriate measures to address them will be identified under this task. Annex Table 1 provides some

guidelines for the review of quality of JSR.

ii) Policy and institutional review

This part of the evaluation focuses on coherence, consistency, and adequacy of the policy mix and institutional architecture in ensuring successful

84

implementation of the ASDS and other national commitments related to the agriculture sector in Kenya. The tracking of policy commitments will be carried out by examining whether commitments are being met and whether all the required policies and institutions are in place and if they are, whether policies are being implemented adequately and whether institutions are operating effectively.

The consultant will review of the ASDA and other program/strategy documents and collect the relevant data as outlined in the Annotated Report Outline to be provided to him.

iii) Progress towards sector results and outcomes

The focus here is on measuring progress toward targeted results and declared commitments. This includes key agricultural sector targets such as growth, productivity, and other major results that are defined in the ASDS and other policy and program documents. Also included are budgetary, investments, financial support, capacity building, and organizational commitments that are made by governments, donors, and non-state actor groups.

The consultant will gather preliminary information about the status and quality of the JSR process from a review of past sector review reports, consultations with key informants, and the ReSAKSS capacity needs assessment reports. Validation of the gathered information and additional information will come from a two-day national stakeholder workshop to be organized. The workshop will use the JSR building blocks/best practices matrix in the Annex of the Annotated Report Outline as a working document. The consultant will identify participants to the national stakeholder workshop.

B. Consultation and collaboration activitiesWhile IFPRI and ReSAKSS are expected to provide technical support, national stakeholders and experts have to be at the center of the assessment activities listed above. This is to be achieved through adequate consultation with teams that are in charge of CAADP and collaboration with national experts. The consultant will take the lead in organizing national stakeholders and experts to be at the center of this assessment in Kenya and also fostering collaboration with national experts. The draft report prepared based on data assembled from the activities above will be discussed and validated in the national stakeholder workshop.

85

3. Expected Outputs The consultant is expected to deliver the following outputs:

1. A substantive reviewed and edited JSR assessment report prepared according to the outline to be provided to the consultant by ReSAKSS

2. An action plan to address the gaps and weaknesses in terms of technical and institutional capacity and promote best practices in terms of sector review processes).

3. The consultant will provide, in electronic format, all literature and data used for preparing the report

4. Completed JSR assessment templates to be provided to the

consultant prior to commencing the task

86

Appendix I: Annotated Report Outline for the JSR Assessment Study

1. Introduction and Background

• Brief description of report context and objectives

• Brief description of methodology used for the assessment (e.g. desk reviews, stakeholder consultations, and any key informant interviews)

• Brief description of report structure

• Short description of the country CAADP national agriculture and food security investment plan (NAFSIP)

• What are the main commitments the country has made in CAADP compact, NAFSIP, cooperation agreements, etc. that need to be monitored regularly? Who are the signatories to the various agreements? A summary matrix should be produced as an annex to the report showing the commitments with implementation timelines. (Fill in table in Excel File, Introduction worksheet)

Most of the information for this section will come from reviewing relevant documents for the respective countries (CAADP compacts, NAFSIPs, New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NA) agreements, etc.)

2. Status and quality of the JSR process in the country or JSR-like process(es) in the country (Use and fill out tables in Excel File, Attachment )

• Describe the JSR process or JSR-like process(es) followed by the country, including who is involved (government, farmers and farmers’ organizations, private sector, civil society, development partners, etc.), and their roles in the process. Is the JSR process or JSR-like process(es) consultative?

• What are the key questions, areas, and sectors covered by the reviews?

• What are the key decisions and commitments that came out of the last JSR process or JSR-like process(es) and who are the responsible actors?

87

o Provide a summary of the activities needed to implement the decisions, responsible implementers, and timelines for implementation

• What are the main gaps in the JSR process or JSR-like process(es) and what needs to be done to improve the process? Fill in column five of Matrix in Annex 1 by comparing JSR process or JSR-like process(es) to JSR best practices in Annex 1.

• Develop an action plan to bridge the gaps and achieve JSR best practices in implementing the JSR process or JSR-like process(es) . Fill in last column of Matrix in Annex 1 by comparing JSR process or JSR-like process(es) to JSR best practices in Annex 1.

Where appropriate assign rating using traffic light scoring suggested in JSR concept note. Much of this information for this section will come from the national stakeholder workshops organized in-country with support from Africa Lead. Workshops will use JSR building blocks/best practices matrix in the Annex as a working document.

3. Policy Review –

What are the key existing and emerging policies in and outside of agriculture that affect the implementation of the NAFSIPs, positively or negatively; what gaps exist, what adjustments or alignment are needed? The review should focus on the post-CAADP Compact period of the country. Where appropriate, assign rating using traffic light scoring suggested in JSR concept note.

a) Inventory of existing and emerging policies

o What policies are explicitly or implicitly contained in key policy and strategy documents?

o What new policies have been introduced explicitly or implicitly through the NAFSIP?

o What new policies have been stated explicitly or implicitly as commitments in various Cooperation Agreements, including NA Cooperation Frameworks?

b) Quality of policy planning and execution

o Do policies define measurable and trackable targets?

o Do policies have a baseline to benchmark future progress?

88

o Do policies have an evaluation system in place to measure progress?

o Do policies have a review process in place?

▪ Is it independent?

▪ Is it inclusive?

▪ Is it evidence-based?

c) Consistency of policy mix

o Do all policies above complement or contradict each other in terms of desired development objectives, actions, expected outcomes, legal and regulatory instruments, etc.? Example: A policy that discourages the importation of high yielding varieties contradicts a policy to subsidize fertilizer, given the former reduces the returns to the latter and may hamper its success.

o If not, what changes are needed to make policies consistent?

Identify the policy consistency gap

o How many or what proportion of the policies that are conflicting / inconsistent are still in need of revision?

d) Alignment of policies with the NAFSIP

o Are ALL existing policies supportive of a successful implementation of the NAFSIP or not? Example: A policy that prohibits cross-border exports contradicts a NAFSIP target that seeks to raise producer incomes.

o If not, what changes are needed to align policies with the requirements of the NAFSIP?

Identify the policy alignment gap

o How many or what proportion of the policies that are not aligned with the NAFSIP are still in need of revision?

e) Policy implementation status

o Are current policies being adequately implemented? For example: Policies require several legal, regulatory, and operational steps by cabinet, parliament, line ministries, technical agencies, etc. to be implemented. If one of these steps is missing, implementation cannot proceed. NA

89

policies should be covered in 3f, below. (. (Fill out table in Excel File, Policy Implementation worksheet) )

o If no, why not?

o What actions are needed to fully implement these policies (use Excel File template)?

f) Meeting policy commitment under NA Cooperation Framework (if country has an NA Cooperation Framework). (Fill out table in Excel File, Policy Implementation worksheet)

o Have policies committed to in the NA Cooperation Framework been implemented as planned? Describe progress to date on each policy commitment and is implementation on track given policy due date. Refer to example above. Same template to be provided.

o If no, why not?

o What actions are needed to meet the policy commitments (use Excel file template)?

Identify the policy implementation gap

o How many or what proportion of policies are NOT being fully implemented?

g) Adequacy of policy coverage?

o Are all policies needed to support a successful implementation of the NAFSIP in place? For example, a NAFSIP requiring seed sector development requires a seed policy that is effectively implemented.

o If not, what actions are needed to develop such policies?

Identify the policy coverage gap

o How many of policies that are needed are not in place?

4. Institutional Review

What are the key institutions that are involved in the implementation of NAIP and other cooperation agreements? How far is the institutional architecture aligned with the needs of successful NAIP and cooperation agreements implementation? What gaps exist, what adjustments or alignments are needed to improve the quality of implementation for

90

results? Assign rating using traffic light scoring suggested in the JSR concept note and template to be provided.

a) Institutional landscape of NAIP

o Do an inventory of key institutions involved in formulation and implementation of the NAIP (institutions include state and non-state actors; within state actors, this includes key government ministries, departments, units, (MDUs) and agencies; non-state actors include: NGOs, farmers’ organizations, CSO, private sector, donors, etc.)

Government institutions

b) Coordination within government institutions:

o Are there institutional structures for MDUs and government agencies to coordinate actions around the NAIP?

o If not, are such structures needed and why?

▪ What actions are needed to create them?

o If yes, do the institutional structures have the required capacities to deliberate, plan, and execute decisions?

▪ If not, what actions are needed to become effective?

Non-State Actors

c) Participation by non-state actors in policy and program formulation

o Are there institutional structures that allow NSA to participate in policy and program formulation?



o If yes, do they all have the required capacities to deliberate, plan, and execute decisions?

▪ If not, which ones need what actions to become effective?

d) Participation by non-state actors in policy and program implementation

91

o Are there institutional structures that allow NSA to participate in policy and program implementation?



o If yes, do they all have the required capacities to deliberate, plan, and execute decisions?

▪ If not, which ones need what actions to become effective?

State and Non-state actors

e) Institutional alignment with NAIP and Institutional gaps

o Is institutional leadership of major investment areas of NAIP clearly assigned among state and non-state actors?

▪ If not, what are the institutional gaps, i.e. areas with no clearly assigned institutional leadership?

f) Institutional implementation capacity

o Do all lead institutions have the required capacities to deliberate, plan, and execute decisions?

o If not, which ones need what capacities to effectively meet their implementation responsibilities?

Development partner organizations

g) Coordination among development partners

o Do donors have shared work or action plans?

o Do donors conduct joint analytical work and joint missions?

o Do donors pool technical or other capacities?

o Do donors share knowledge and information?

Donor alignment with country policies and programs

o Is there synergy or concordance between donor and government programs regarding:

• Program targets,

• funding allocation,

92

• implementation modalities,

• indicators to measure progress,

5. Review of key financial and non-financial commitments

What are the respective commitments made by various key stakeholders, in particular government, development partners, and private sector including farmers’ organizations? Here we would need to scrutinize commitments in CAADP compacts, NAFSIPs, NA cooperation frameworks, sector policy documents, strategy papers, relevant regional agreements and international agreements.

a) Government:

i) Inventory of government budget and other financial commitments

z Has government met each of its budgetary/financial commitment as planned?

o If not, what progress has been made? (Fill in table in Excel File, Government Financial Commitments worksheet).

o What actions are needed to fulfill commitments?

ii) Inventory of government institutional and capacity development commitments

z Has government met each of its non-financial, institutional, and capacity commitment as planned?

o If not, what progress has been made? (Fill in table in Excel File, Government Non-financial Commitments worksheet).

o What actions are needed to fulfill commitments?

b) Non-state Actors (NSAs) [Private Sector, Farmer’s organizations, CSO, etc.]

iii) Inventory of financial, institutional, and capacity development commitments by NSA

z Has each key NSA group met each of its financial/investment, institutional, and capacity commitment as planned?

93

o If not, what progress has been made? (Fill in table in Excel File, NSA Financial and Non-financial Commitments worksheets).

What actions are needed to fulfill commitments?

c) Development Partners (DPs):

iv) Inventory of each DP’s non-financial commitments in terms of institutional and capacity support

z Has each DP met each of its institutional and capacity support commitment as planned?

o If not, what progress has been made for each commitment? (Fill in table in Excel File, DP Non-financial Commitments worksheet).

o What actions are needed to fulfill commitments? (Include actions in above table)

v) Inventory of each DP’s financial commitments

z Has each DP met each of its financial commitment as planned:

o If not, what progress has been made for each commitment? (Fill in table in Excel File, DP Financial Commitments worksheet).

z What actions are needed to fulfill commitments? (Include actions in above table)

6. Agriculture sector performance baselines:

z Create a matrix listing the different input, output, and outcome target indicators that need to be quantified for all countries and derived as explained above;

z Evaluate each of above targets for the time period 2010-2013. Use a table to list the various indicators and their baseline values (values for 2010-2013).

7. JSR Assessment conclusions and lessons

The purpose of this JSR assessment is to support country efforts to introduce JSR practices where they do not exist and improve their quality where they do.

z Synthesis of JSR assessment findings and action plan

94

o Summarize key findings with respect to sector performance, policy processes, institutional landscape, and financial and non-financial commitments;

o Describe how actions called for in each of the above areas will be implemented and monitored, including indicators for progress

z Synthesis findings regarding JSR practice and improvement plan

o Summarize key findings with respect to the status and quality of the JSR process;

o Describe how actions plan to improve the current JSR process and achieve best practices will be carried out and monitored, including indicators of progress.

95

Appendix J: Persons Present During the JSR Consultation Workshops Persons Present at the Sensitization Workshop on CAADP JSR Assignment on 27-08-2015 at Lillian Towers (Extracted from the respective minutes)

Name Organization Telephone number

e-mail address

Rose Nyikal University of Nairobi

0722248405 [email protected]@uonbi.ac.ke

Paul Mumina State department ofFisheries

0722218358 [email protected]

Mary Mungai Min. of Industrialization and Enterprise Development


Stanley Mbagathi

Africa Lead Consultant


Japhet Kiara Africa Lead 0722889530 [email protected]

Washington Ochola

Africa Lead 0721986770 [email protected]

Albin Ruto Sang MOALF 0722213477 [email protected]

Fatou Mbaye ACoRD 0707676740 /0202721172

[email protected]

Ernest Njoroge USAID 0733821386 /0717710713

[email protected]

Robert Allport FAO 0737701441 [email protected]

Josephine Love SDA 0722596094 [email protected]

Dorcas Mwakoi USAID-AL 0722890594 [email protected]

Rebecca Wahome

SDA 0721418503 [email protected]

Silas Okech ILRI 0724855300 [email protected]

Susan Imende State Dept. of Fisheries


96


e-mail address

F. W. Waweru MOALF 0722925843 [email protected]

Dr. Beatrice Akunga

MOALF 0713811647 [email protected]

Dan K. Marangu MEWN 0729461664 [email protected]

Paul Guthiga RESAKSS-ECA/ILRI


Dr. Njagi, O MOALF/TS 0735291495 [email protected]

Dr. Dulu T.D MOALF/SDL 0721276508 [email protected]

Dr. George Wamukoya

MOALF/SDL 0729952821 [email protected]

Anderson Mwenda

Min of Transportand Infrastructure


Jane Kinya MOALF/SDF 0727674861 [email protected]

Kiruwa MOALF 0720346634

Hezekiah Okeyo Min ofIndustrialization


Joseph Katumo MOALF/SDF 0722539391 [email protected]

Dr. John Mutunga

KENAFF 0721222828 [email protected]

Sammy Macharia

MOALF/SDF 0724681954 [email protected]

George Okoth NEPAD(K)Secretariat


Amb. Ann Nyikuli

NLHUD 0714024997 [email protected]

Sammuel Mutisya

Council of Governorssecretariat


Paul Gamba Africa Lead 0722462388 [email protected]

Andrew Read USAID 0724255815 [email protected]

Lucy Muchoki Kenya Agribusiness


Dr. Julia Kinyua MoALF/SDL 0722922072 - [email protected]

97

The Persons Present at the Consultative Workshop on CAADP JSR Assignment at KALRO Headquarters

The Persons Present at the Meeting with TI and IGS on CAADP JSR Assignment


e-mail address

Njogu S c Intergovernmental Secretariat (IGS)


Patrick McMullin

Transformation Secretariat (TS)


Dr Beatrice Akunga

TS 0713811647 [email protected]

Stanley Mbagathi

Africa Lead KIIA 0722808023 [email protected]

Paul Gamba Africa Lead KIIA 0722462388 [email protected]

Japhet Kiara Africa Lead KIIA 0722889530 [email protected]

Alban Bellinguay MoALF GIZ 0715786371 [email protected]

Jens Rydder Transformation Secretariat / ASDSP


Obadiah N Njagi SDL / TS 0735291495 [email protected]

Jennifer S Mwilu TS 0712589998 [email protected]

99

REPUBLIC OF KENYA




November, 2017

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and FisheriesKilimo House P.O Box 30028 – 00100Nairobi

AGRICULTURE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR KENYA · 2018-02-28 · Kenya Joint Sector Review...

Documents

Transcript of AGRICULTURE JOINT SECTOR REVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR KENYA · 2018-02-28 · Kenya Joint Sector Review...