Mid-term of the - CORAF / WECARD Revie… · Mid-term Review of the CORAF/WECARD ... 6.2...

Mid-term Review of the CORAF/WECARD

CIperationsl Plan 20A8- 2073

FINAL REPORT

November \ 2AtL

Sanusi 5. Deen

Senior PartnerTet: +23276608563

Email: sa n u s id ee q{QCdE[ldled.5l

Dunsta* S. C. Spencer

Senior PartnerTel: +232?6610t141

Email: [email protected]

Chrispin E. WilsonSenior Partner

Tel: +23276787890Email: chrispinwilson @edslimited.sl

of 106

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................13

ACRONYMS.............................................................................................14

1.BACKGROUND..................................................................................17

1.1 The Context ............................................................................................................................ 17

1.2 Objectives of the Midterm Review (MTR) ............................................................................ 18

2.METHODOLOGY...............................................................................19

2.1 The Phased Approach ............................................................................................................ 19

2.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Methods of Analysis .............................................................................................................. 19

3.CONTRIBUTIONSOFCORAF/WECARDTOIMPLEMENTATIONOFCAADP.........................................................20

3.1 CORAF/WECARD and the CAADP Process: ........................................................................... 20

3.2 Linkages with Regional Economic Communities (RECs); ...................................................... 21

3.3 The Special Situation of “Weak” NARS ................................................................................. 22

3.3.1 The Competitive Fund ............................................................................................................. 22

3.3.2 Commissioned Projects ........................................................................................................... 23

3.2.3 Participation of NARS .............................................................................................................. 23

4.PROGRAMMEACCOMPLISHMENTS...........................................24

4.1 Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture (LFA) Programme ...................................................... 24

4.2 Staple Crops Programme (SCP) ............................................................................................. 27

4.3 Non‐Staple Crops Programme (NSCP) .................................................................................. 31

4.4 Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) .......................................................... 31

4.5 Biotechnology and Biosafety Programme (BBP) .................................................................. 34

4.6 Policies, Markets and Trade Programme (PMT) ................................................................... 37

4.7 Knowledge Management and Capacity Strengthening (KM&CS) Programmes .................. 38

4.7.1 Knowledge Management: ....................................................................................................... 38

4.7.2 Capacity Strengthening: .......................................................................................................... 40

4.8 Information and Communications Unit ................................................................................ 42

5.THEQUALITYOFSCIENCE............................................................44

6.MAINSTREAMINGGENDERANDTHEENVIRONMENT.........45

6.1 Gender Mainstreaming ......................................................................................................... 45

6.2 Environmental and Social Management ............................................................................... 47

of 106

7.THEEFFECTIVENESSANDEFFICIENCYOFGOVERNANCEANDMANAGEMENT............................................................................50

7.1 The Organisation ................................................................................................................... 50

7.2 Assessment of the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Governing Board and Management ...................................................................................................................................................... 51

7.2.1 The Control Environment ........................................................................................................ 51

7.2.2 Internal Control System ........................................................................................................... 55

7.2.3 Information and Communication ............................................................................................ 57

7.2.4 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 57

8.THEMONITORINGANDEVALUATIONFUNCTION,THEOBJECTIVELYVERIFIABLEINDICATORSANDPROGRESSINACHIEVINGTHEM................................................................................60

8.1 The Monitoring and Evaluation Function ............................................................................. 60

8.2 Modification of the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) ................................................ 63

8.3 Progress in Delivering the Results identified in the OP........................................................ 63

ANNEXES.................................................................................................76

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REVIEW ................................................................... 77

ANNEX 2: TIME TABLE OF THE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 80

ANNEX 3: MID TERM REVIEW METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 81

ANNEX 4: ORGANS OF CORAF/WECARD .................................................................................... 88

ANNEX 5: PEOPLE MET ................................................................................................................ 93

ANNEX 6: PROFILES OF REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................... 104

of 106

EXECUTIVESUMMARY The Operational Plan (OP) [2008‐2013] of CORAF/WECARD is half‐way through its implementation. The initial period has been characterised by organisational, programmatic and structural changes and the integration of change management processes in order to enable the Institution to function effectively in the new paradigm of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D).

The Governing Board of CORAF/WECARD commissioned Enterprise Development Services (EDS) Ltd, a private consulting firm to conduct a Midterm Review of the implementation of the OP. The objectives are to:

• Review the achievements made since the beginning of the implementation of the OP; • Evaluate the OP’s contribution to the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development

Programme (CAADP) • Evaluate all changes resulting from the implementation of the institutional change

management process; • Analyze the efficiency of resources (human, material and financial) deployed for the

implementation of the OP; • Draw lessons learned from the implementation of the OP; • Identify the adjustments necessary for the period 2011 to 2013; and • Examine any other matter relating to the implementation of the OP.

The expected results are:

• The level of realization and scientific quality of projects and programmes implemented under the OP are known ;

• The contribution of CORAF/WECARD to the implementation of the CAADP is assessed • The strengths and weaknesses arising from the implementation of the OP are reported

and documented; • Lessons learned from the implementation of the OP are discussed and shared; • The logical framework is reviewed and amended;

EDS conducted the MTR in four phases as follows:

PHASE 1 ‐ Headquarters Visit and Briefing: The full Midterm Review Team (MTRT) visited the headquarters of CORAF/WECARD from July 3 – 10, 2011 for discussions with members of the Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Committee, and the Executive Secretariat.

PHASE 2 ‐ Country Visits: The MTRT undertook country field visits. They covered the major non‐‐headquarters based operations of the Council in the three agroecological zones, so as to provide a realistic assessment of the Council’s country based operations, working conditions, and interactions with key actors of projects.

PHASE 3‐ Analysis and Report Writing: Following the field visits the MTRT re‐assembled at CORAF/WECARD Headquarters for a period of 5 days to complete the analysis and report writing.

Phase 4: Finalization and Presentation of Report: During this phase the different organs of CORAF/WECARD reviewed the draft report and made their observations. The observations were compiled by Chair of the Board sub‐committee on the MTR and transmitted to the MTRT Leader electronically. The MTRT interacted electronically to revise the report as they saw fit.

of 106

DATA COLLECTION

The countries visited during the review were selected to enable the MTRT to cover a representative cross section of CORAF/WECARD partners and programmes. They are situated in the different agro‐ecological zones of CORAF/WECARD as follows: Sahel ‐ Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal; Coastal Zone – Benin, Ghana, The Gambia, Liberia and Nigeria; Central Africa – Gabon, Central Africa Republic and Cameroon. All projects operational or designed for implementation in the countries visited by the MTRT were subjected to in‐depth review.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS

The MTRT assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency sustainability and impact of CORAF/WECARD programmes. It also assessed the integration of gender and environmental issues.

Relevance: The extent to which the objectives of the Operational Plan intervention are still appropriate and consistent with beneficiaries' requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners' and donor's policies.

Effectiveness: The extent to which the objectives in the Operational Plan were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.

Efficiency: A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are used to obtain the outputs of the programme during the MTR period.

Sustainability: The probability of continued long‐term benefits from the CORAF/WECARD programme.

Impact: The positive and negative, primary and secondary long‐term effects produced by the OP.

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

CORAF/WECARD is a well structured organisation that has successfully implemented its change management program for the transition of the institution along the lines required by its Strategic and Operational Plans.

In the view of the MTRT CORAF/WECARD has made impressive progress in achieving some of the OP results in the three years of operation of the OP, although progress has been slow in a few areas due mainly to the late commencements of projects that should produce the required results.

CORAF/WECARD and the CAADP Process: As indicated in the OP the expanded scale and scope of the CORAF/WECARD mandate in research, analysis, advocacy and capacity strengthening through the use of the IAR4D approach, is to place CORAF/WECARD in synch with the goals and objectives of CAADP. The activities carried out by CORAF/WECARD under the current OP have helped immensely in carrying out the objectives of Pillar IV of CAADP. To‐date, CORAF/WECARD has successfully implemented a number o activities that contribute to the implementation of the CAADP process including the signing of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and earning of recognition as technical partners with the Regional Economic Commissions (RECs) in West and Central Africa (Economic Community of West African States ‐ ECOWAS, Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale ‐ CEEAC and Communauté Economique Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale ‐ CEMAC); assistance to ECOWAS in the development of the West African Agricultural productivity Programme (WAAPP); and working with ECOWAS to develop the Regional Agricultural Investment Programme (RAIP) and subsequently helping member countries of CORAF/WECARD in the development of National Agricultural Investment Programmes (NAIP).

However, Central African RECs have not implemented the MOUs. Once the MOUs were signed, it was expected that Action Plans would be developed and implemented. While such follow‐up actions have taken place with the West African organizations (ECOWAS & Union Economique et Monétaire

of 106

Ouest‐Africaine ‐ UEMOA), there has been no follow‐up action with the Central African communities (CEMAC and CEEAC), a situation that is of great concern to CORAF/WECARD.

The special situation of “weak” NARS: One of the principal responsibilities of CORAF/WECARD in the implementation of the CAADP is to “promote participation of the NARS in its programmes on the basis of comparative advantage” as enshrined in the MOUs signed with the RECs. The principal mechanisms for NARS to participate in CORAF/WECARD programmes are the Competitive Grant Scheme (CGS), Commissioned Projects, and the West Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme (WAAPP). The fact that the playing field is now uneven in terms of the ability of NARS to access the CGS or Commissioned Projects (CP) is clearly evidenced by the very uneven distribution of the current CORAF/WECARD portfolio of projects between countries/NARS.

The MTRT believes that in order to fulfil its mandate for implementation of the CAADP, CORAF/WECARD should make special efforts to help the willing but disadvantaged NARS to participate more fully in its programmes

The Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture Programme (LFA) in tandem with CAADP and the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) aims to achieve sustainable improvements in the broad‐based productivity, competitiveness and markets of livestock, fisheries and aquaculture. The current portfolio of the LFA Programme consists of six projects. LFA projects are relevant to the core function and objectives of CORAF and the OP. However, their effectiveness and efficiency, impact and sustainability may all be compromised by the pervasive delays in project implementation.

The Staple Crops Programme (SCP) seeks to contribute to improved broad‐based productivity of priority staple crops in competitive and sustainable market systems in West and Central Africa (WCA). Eight regional projects, implemented either on commissioned (4) or competitive basis (4), are addressing technological and organizational issues on productivity, postharvest and seed systems across 15 WCA countries with the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Africa Rice, the Centre Africain de Recherches en Bananiers et Plantains (CARBAP) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) providing technical support.

Livestock projects usually have a great potential to make an impact on livelihoods especially of the poor and hardcore poor. With this in mind, livestock should be used more as an entry point for many of the crop projects. The Staple Crop projects could all integrate livestock into their protocols and research activities. This has been done in the Natural Resources Management Programme’s projects.

The Non staple Crops Programme (NSCP) seeks to contribute to sustainable improvements in production and market competitiveness of industrial, cash, horticultural and emergent crops in WCA for food security and income generation through the four main CORAF/WECARD OP results. Operations only started in February 2011

The Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) covers a range of priority issues including soil and water, biodiversity and forestry and agro‐forestry. It aims to achieve sustainable improvements in broad‐based agricultural productivity. Seven projects are being implemented. In the view of the MTRP the projects are relevant, and have good prospects for sustainability and impact. Since they are just starting they cannot be assessed for their effectiveness. The projects are being implemented using the IAR4D approach.

Biotechnology and Biosafety Programme (BBP): CORAF/WECARD has been commissioned by ECOWAS to coordinate the implementation of the ECOBIO/PA, hence, BBP must ensure that CORAF/WECARD’s initiatives are concurrent with the ECOBIO/PA. A Global Platform for Biotechnology (GPB) was formed with representatives of the 22 CORAF/WECARD member countries (including all the ECOWAS states) and officially appointed focal persons of IARCs, ARI and major development partners. The BBP currently has 9 projects.

of 106

BBP projects are relevant to the sections on bio‐safety and advocacy in the OP and ECOBIO/AP. Some projects involve local researchers in product delivery through the use of modern biotechnology but on the whole, many BBP projects fall short of what is required to bring the sub‐region into the arena of laboratory and field biotechnology to the point of becoming a producer of biotechnology products and not merely a consumer or modifier. BBP needs to puts more priority attention on food crops rather than cash crops. The Regional Masters in Biotechnology needs to be revised to prioritise laboratory and field protocols so as to produce “hands‐on” biotechnologists and not merely regulatory officials.

Policies, Markets and Trade Programme (PMT): One project is currently being implemented “Policy, Programmes and Strategies for Management of Natural Resources focusing on non‐timber forest products (NTFP). Two calls for commissioned projects have been launched.

In the project under implementation, the description of planned activities gives no indication of active participation of target groups in the study as required by IAR4D ‐ they are just targets for receipt of results. Furthermore, sufficient attention is not given to the environmental impact of NFTP exploitation.

Knowledge Management: The Knowledge Management Programme is intended to directly address key CAADP targets for improving technology dissemination and use, and information flows. It plays a key role in the delivery of the four Results of CORAF/WECARD. It is the programme that lets the stakeholders realise the intention of CORAF/WECARD to shift to the IAR4D paradigm.

If all eight programmes of CORAF/WECARD are to successfully adopt the IAR4D approach, full understanding of the process by every stakeholder, including the programme managers, is necessary. Unfortunately, it appeared to the MTRT that the seven CORAF/WECARD programme managers have each, seven different interpretations of the IAR4D approach.

Capacity Strengthening: A major role for CORAF/WECARD is the strengthening of capacity of its member NARS. This is acknowledged in the OP. The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)‐incubated Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research in Africa (SCARDA) project has been the flagship project of CORAF/WECARD. It is evident that CORAF/WECARD has facilitated experiential learning through the SCARDA project.

However, the MTRT finds that successes in Mali, The Gambia and Ghana seem isolated because CORAF/WECARD has paid a lot more attention on the transactional approach to capacity strengthening rather than a mix of transactional and transformational approaches.

Furthermore, capacity strengthening in CORAF/WECARD is not a coordinated activity. Each project mounts its own capacity strengthening exercise and there appears to be no organised process for assessing the capacity needs of the various projects and programmes.

Information and Communications: The communications unit is expected to perform a knowledge and information function to the stakeholders of CORAF/WECARD that is distinct from its function as the disseminator of information about the activities of the Executive Secretariat. Unfortunately, there are many deficiencies in the performance of the unit’s function with regards to disseminating technical information about CORAF/WECARD projects. The Unit should be a tool to enhance capacity strengthening of CORAF/WECARD’s constituent NARS. It is clear that the Unit has failed to help NARS organize databases and publish the results of their work.

Quality of Science: The current emphasis of CORAF/WECARD supported research is on short term projects of applied research for development. Peer reviewed publications in refereed journals can arise from all research undertaking and there are journals for any type of research or dissemination activity. The lack of scientific publications emanating from the IAR4D activities of CORAF/WECARD is a blemish on its record. The MTRT believes that scientific publications should be given more weight in CORAF/WECARD.

of 106

Gender Mainstreaming: Since the implementation of the OP, CORAF/WECARD has taken a number of steps towards mainstreaming gender in its research and development programmes and projects. A gender policy was developed through a consultative and participatory process with the NARS. The document was subsequently approved by the CORAF/WECARD Governing Board. Development of a Gender Action Plan (GAP) was on‐going during the MTR. CORAF/WECARD also conducted a Learning Workshop on Mainstreaming Gender in Agricultural Research and Development Programmes for a number of NARS members.

CORAF/WECARD gender mainstreaming activities are a step in the right direction to achieving its stated gender policy objectives of effective strengthening of gender equality in agricultural research and development programmes in WCA. At the institutional level (the ES and the NARS) there is an acknowledgement of the centrality of women in agricultural production, and hence the importance of mainstreaming gender in agricultural development. However, for the most part the ideals of national policies and legislations on the issue are not reflected in the reality on the ground, where gender mainstreaming is often assigned a low priority and funding and capacity for mainstreaming gender are key constraints.

The MTRT finds that neither the CORAF/WECARD ES nor the NARS have assessed the short or long‐term impact of mainstreaming gender in agricultural development programmes and projects at the institutional and community levels. The MTRT also finds that at both the institutional and community levels, the implementation of gender mainstreaming is limited to gender awareness training and computation of sex disaggregated indicators which has resulted in the concept itself being seen as a constraint. Furthermore, at the NARS level, questions arise about the exclusive focus on gender inequality with the exclusion of other forms of social inequalities.

Environmental and Social Management: CORAF/WECARD has an environmental policy document – The Framework for Environmental Management (FEM) published in November 2008 that puts environmental and social issues at the heart of research programmes in terms of preparation, implementation and monitoring.

However, the Strategic Plan and especially the current OP of CORAF/WECARD have not been subjected to strategic environmental and social assessment; Focal points in the Institution are not specialists in environmental and social assessment and their appointments do not guarantee the synergy of actions in the institution and can even lead to conflicts of responsibilities in monitoring programme implementation; Programme Managers have not been trained in environmental and social assessment to help them better prepare projects, to monitor environmental and social issues in the field and continuously mentor the coordinators of the projects.

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Governance and Management: The MTRT assessed the control environment, internal controls, the information, communication and monitoring, and the field operations management systems of CORAF/WECARD. The institution of a strict regime of controls is important in a non‐profit organisation since the Organisation does not have the benefit of the profit barometer to raise red flags regarding its performance.

Board composition: The Strategic and Operational Plans acknowledge the new definition of NARS to include the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and other agricultural research for development stakeholders such as the Universities, private sector, farmer organizations, NGOs and advisory services. As at now, the Universities are excluded from membership of the Board, a deficiency acknowledged by the ES. Without the inclusion of the universities in the decision making process the Board cannot be as effective as it should be in spreading the new IAR4D paradigm to CORAF/WECARD constituency in the West and Central Africa Sub Region

Activities of the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC): The MTRT notes that the STC is greatly involved in programme implementation to the extent of full involvement in the process for selection and approval of competitive and commissioned projects. The MTRT believes that the STC should be

of 106

more strategic and that full responsibility should be given to the ES through the Programme Director and the Programme Managers for the design, approval and implementation of projects

Assessment of the Executive Director (ED): The Governing Board (GB) has the responsibility of assessing the annual performances of the Executive Director. However it has not put in place any formal process to carry out the important function and the current ED has only been assessed once in eight years. The GB needs to develop and implement a formal process yearly.

Operating Style of Management: The ES Management authority seems to be too concentrated at the highest level, especially when it comes to the approval process. The Executive Director must approve all expenditures, both administrative and programme. He also approves all Local and International Purchase Orders. This causes delays in disbursements which lead to unnecessary risks to project implementation. Management should take steps to correct this situation. There are enough senior officers such as the Programme Director and the Communication Manager to expand and render the approval process more efficient.

Staff Competencies: While the Programme Department seems to be reasonably well staffed with the recent additions of four highly qualified and experienced Programme Managers, the MTRT is of the view that the Finance and Administrative Department does not seem to have the necessary staffing to perform its functions efficiently and effectively.

Delegation of authority: There is insufficient delegation of authority in the Executive Secretariat, particularly in the Department of Finance and Administration.

Internal Audit: The Internal Auditor (IA) in CORAF/WECARD is not performing the true role of an internal auditor. The job description does not give the IA the organisational independency that is generally needed to perform the functions objectively. The IA is involved in the approval process by being required to carry out pre‐audits of all expenditures. It is difficult to see how the IA can be objective and make critical observations when he/she is involved in the expenditure process. The job description requires the IA to work “In close collaboration with the Director of Finance and Administration when auditing operational units and programmes or projects”. This is not in line with the independence the IA needs in choosing the areas to audit.

Cash flow management: There is no cash flow analysis in CORAF/WECARD. A projected cash flow should be produced as a matter of routine and made available to management including Project Managers and must be regularly updated to take changing circumstances into consideration.

Compliance with applicable laws: The External Auditors have been reporting for the past three years that the ES has not been complying with Senegalese Law relating to withholding tax and tax on the salaries of locally recruited staff. This should be done

Financial and programme reporting: The present internal control system of CORAF/WECARD is weak in the areas of financial and programme reporting. There are no periodic financial control reports on both the administrative and programme budgets. There are no reports that monitor actual expenditures against budgeted expenditures. Programme Managers have no way of knowing and or verifying how expenditures on the projects they manage are progressing. A system should be established to ensure that budgetary control reports are produced on a monthly basis to give up‐to‐date status of both the financial and programme budgets. This is critical to enable both the Programme Managers and the Programme Director to make informed decisions about corrective measures that they may need to take during the course of the year.

Problems in management of field operations: Most problems relating to management of field operations in CORAF/WECARD are related to delays in project implementation caused by delays in funding as a result of delays in disbursements after project launching and delays in financial reporting from the field. This often leads to increased costs and reduced impact and tends to reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of projects.

of 106

The finance staff of NARS must be fully involved in the planning process for a new project. Their non‐involvement leads to the adoption of budgets that are not sufficiently detailed to enable Finance staff to easily discern where to charge the various expenditures. Because of the complicated procedures involved in the programming process, focal points should be trained in project and financial management before the commencement of projects so that they are better prepared to present the various reports on time.

The M&E Function: The M&E Unit has made very slow progress in implementing the various services required for the OP. Half way through the implementation of the OP with 40 operational projects, no baseline studies have yet been conducted for any of the projects and no guidelines have been adopted for the conduct of baseline studies.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI): In trying to measure the OVIs the M&E Unit has concluded that some of them are very difficult to document during the operational phase of the OP and that some indicators of results and impacts require baseline indicators that are not available. At a workshop to launch the implementation of the M&E activities the indicators of outcomes were reviewed and suggestions for revisions proposed.

The MTRT considered whether the OP log frame indicators were realistic and whether the changes proposed by the M&E programme are reasonable or just amount to a shifting of the goal posts. In a few cases the MTRT agrees with the ES that the variables are complex and will be difficult to measure and so should be deleted. However in the majority of cases the MTRT feels that the proposed changes amount to unjustifiable shifts in the goal post and are therefore not supported. In addition to the new indicators suggested by the ES, the MTRT suggests the addition of three variables on the environment, gender issues and the achievement of work plan and budget milestones.

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OVERALL FUTURE DIRECTION AND PRIORITIES

Based on the lessons learned, the MTRT makes 18 recommendations to improve the implementation of the OP and to set the stage for the next OP. They are presented below. The justification for each recommendation can be found in the appropriate section of the main text.

1. CORAF/WECARD should consider setting up a special mechanism for increasing the participation of “weak but willing” NARS in its projects including provision of:

• increased access to capacity building opportunities • special assistance in seeking external funding for equipment and infrastructure • dedicated research funding (apart from the normal access to CGS and CP) • increased opportunities for mentoring, e.g. more monitoring tours

2. Capacity strengthening exercises should be carried out at the Executive Secretariat level to

arrive at a common understanding of the IAR4D approach among Programme Managers. This will empower the programme managers to promote the concept among the NARS implementing their various projects.

3. CORAF/WECARD should return to the original goal when the OP was developed of

separating Knowledge Management (KM) from Capacity Strengthening. A restructured Capacity Strengthening Programme should lead efforts to institutionalize IAR4D within the CORAF/WECARD family; perform a cross‐cutting function ensuring the coordination and institutionalization of all the capacity building exercises undertaken by CORAF/WECARD; and ensure that equal weight is put on skills acquisition and institutional capacity building.

4. The Communications and Information Unit has concentrated on disseminating news about

the activities of the CORAF/WECARD Secretariat. It is recommended that the Unit

of 106

strengthens its capacity to play its’ critical roles of (1) Disseminating information on the outputs of the technologies and innovations implemented by the NARS on behalf of CORAF/WECARD; (2) Assisting NARS to establish and manage databases on information obtained from the field and to finally see to the publication of the regional and national public goods that result from projects implemented by the constituents of CORAF/WECARD; (3) Take advantage of the eRails project of FARA to establish functioning discussion platforms” within the CORAF/WECARD sub‐region; and (4) Ensure that it works with the Knowledge Management Programme to promote increased understanding of the IAR4D approach.

5. CORAF/WECARD should encourage its Programme Managers and NARS partners to give

more emphasis to publishing the results of IAR4D projects in peer reviewed and other scientific publications by instituting mechanisms such as an annual award for the best scientific publication, publishing technical results in the CORAF/WECARD review should be published more regularly.

6. CORAF/WECARD should adopt the more inclusive approach of socio‐economic analysis in

which effect of programme activities on the livelihoods of all project participants are analysed including the impact on asset acquisition rather than focussing on gender participation statistics as an indicator of gender mainstreaming.

7. CORAF/WECARD should: • Conduct an Environmental and Social Assessment for the 2nd phase of the OP. • Conduct environmental and social audit of all projects under implementation; • Ensure the systematic environmental screening of research projects before they

start; • Share environmental and social information (documents, screening tools, guidelines

and procedures of good practice, etc.) with the NARS • Assign responsibility for the environmental and Social functions to only one Focal

Point ‐ the Programme Manager of the NRMP, for consistency, synergy and to avoid conflicts in roles.

• Provide support to the Focal Point for hiring of short term consultants for monitoring missions so as to reduce the workload as a Programme Manager;

• Organize training on environmental and social issues for the eight (8) Programme Managers on the issues, safeguards and procedures related to environmental and social assessment;

• Promote and support the NARS to establish and formalize MOU with national institutions responsible for environmental assessments to support them in managing environmental projects.

8. CORAF/WECARD should encourage the NARS to:

• Integrate national institutions in charge of issues of environmental and social assessment into the NARS IAR4D Innovation Platforms for the concept to be fully effective;

• Ensure the systematic screening of all research projects for compliance with environmental safeguards

• Ensure environmental monitoring and environmental auditing of all ongoing research projects an activity that could be undertaken by national institutions in charge of environmental assessments, once they are integrated into the NARS.

• Development of best practices manual to support environmental and social implementation of agricultural research projects in the field;

of 106

• Strengthen the training of researchers in environmental and social assessment to improve the integration of the "environment" in all research activities

9. The Human Resource and Administrative Matters Committee should as a matter of

emergency do all in its powers to actively seek qualified members of universities to recommend to the Governing Board to become members of the General Assembly and Governing Board respectively.

10. CORAF/WECARD should review the mandate of the STC to reduce its involvement in

operational issues and concentrate its efforts on strategic issues

11. The Board should develop and implement a formal system for the yearly performance evaluation of the Executive Director

12. The Executive Director should establish a sound system of control for allotment, authorisation, approval and payment of expenditure, which will be exercised by authorising, certifying, approving, and payment officers who should be given clear terms of reference.

13. The Governing Board should take immediate steps to regularize the internal audit function

in the organisation. The GB should separate the internal audit function from the finance function. Presently the Internal Auditor reports to the Executive Director. In order for the position to get the organisational independence necessary the Internal Auditor should still be administratively responsible to the ED, but should report directly to the Board through the Finance and Audit Committee for his/her professional work.

14. A projected cash flow should be produced as a matter of routine and made available to management including Project Managers and must be regularly updated to take changing circumstances into consideration.

15. The Board and Management should take action on the External Auditors observations on non‐compliance with Senegalese law.

16. The Executive Director should review the competencies of the staff in the Finance and Administration Department with a view to taking a decision on what type of reinforcement is needed to assist the Department deal with among other issues the production of financial reports on regular and timely basis. Action should be taken to upgrade the accounting software so that it can efficiently produce the necessary reports. Finance staff should be routinely involved in research programme planning so that finance is seen as an integral part of the process.

17. CORAF/WECARD should ensure that adequate budgetary provision is made in all its projects for M&E activities, including conduct of the necessary baseline studies and that a guidelines for the design and conduct of baseline studies are prepared including draft questionnaire design and sampling schemes.

18. CORAF/WECARD should not adopt most of the changes in the Log frame indicators proposed by the Executive Secretariat as they amount to unjustified shifts in the goal posts in the middle of the implementation of the current Operational Plan; rather the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit should proceed with collecting the necessary information, including the implementation of activities to generate baseline data as soon as possible where such do not exist.

of 106

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On behalf of the lead consultant and the other consultants, Enterprise Development Services Limited (EDS) would like to extend its sincerest thanks to the Chairman and members of the Steering Committee appointed by the Board of CORAF/WECARD to guide the initial stages of the Mid Term Review (MTR) process; the Executive Director and Staff for their services, especially the initial briefings which helped the consultants to become familiar with the operations of the Executive Secretariat. EDS also thanks them for making themselves readily available for discussions during the entire process. Special thanks also go to Mmes. Binetou Ndir' and Sophie Y NGNING for their tireless efforts in arranging the consultants’ travel itineraries and other administrative issues. Considering the difficulties in travelling around the CORAF/WECARD Region, the consultants are truly grateful for their patience and attention to details. Last but not least the consultants would like to extend their thanks to the CORAF/WECARD driver for the long hours he spent at the bank cashing their cheques.

EDS would also like to thank the Directors General and staff of the different NARS that they visited for their availability during the consultants stay in their countries. In some of the countries visited, the consultant had a member of staff present in all the appointments they attended. Without the NARS’ assistance in booking hotels, arranging logistics, making appointments on behalf of the consultants and taking time off together with their staff to brief them about the projects that are being implemented in their countries, it would have been very difficult to achieve the level of success that the consultants achieved during the field trips.

of 106

ACRONYMS

Acronym Description ABS Africa Biofortified SorghumAFD Agence Française de Développement AfDB African Development Bank AGRHYMET Centre Régional AGRHYMET ARI Advanced Research InstituteASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AUC African Union Commission AVRDC Advanced Vegetable Research and Development Centre AWPB Annual Work Plan and BudgetBBP Biotechnology and Biosafety ProgrammeCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CAAPP Central Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme CARBAP Centre Africain de Recherches en Bananiers et Plantains CAS‐IP Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property RightsCBO Community‐Based OrganizationCCARDESA Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa CEEAC Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale CEMAC Communauté Economique Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCIBA Consortium International pour la Biologie AvancéeCIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherches agronomique pour le Développement CORAF/WECARD Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/ West

and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development CILSS Comité permanent Inter‐états de lutte contre la sécheresse au Sahel COSO Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development DFID Department for International Development, UK DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in AfricaEC European Commission EMCCA Economic and Monetary Committee of Central Africa ECOBIO/PA ECOWAS Biotechnology and Biosafety Plan of Action ECOWAP Agricultural Policy of the Economic Community of West African States ECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesED Executive Director ES Executive Secretariat FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa FBO Farmer Based OrganisationFP7 Framework Programme 7 FSP Fonds de solidarité prioritaire GA General Assembly GB Governing Board

of 106

Acronym Description GCARD Global Conference for Agricultural Research and Development IAR4D Integrated Agricultural Research for Development ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agroforestry ICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid TropicsIDRC International Development and Research Centre IER Institut d’Economie Rurale, Mali IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center IFPRI International Food and Policy Research InstituteIGO Inter Governmental Organization IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute INERA Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles, Burkina Faso INSAH Institut du Sahel ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles KKM/PLS Kano Katsina Maradi Pilot Learning Sites KM&CS Knowledge Management and Capacity Strengthening Programme LFA Livestock, Fisheries & Aquaculture Programme M&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDG Millennium Development Goals MDTF Multi‐Donor Trust Fund MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRU Mano River Union NAIP National Agricultural Investment ProgrammeNARI National Agricultural Research Institute NARS National Agricultural Research System NEPAD New Programme for Africa’s Development NGO Non‐governmental Organization MTR CORAF/WECARD Mid Term ReviewNRMP Natural Resource Management Programme NSCP Non Staple Crop Programme PAD Programme Appraisal Document PARAO Programme d’Appui à la Recherche Agricole en Afrique de l’Ouest PMTP Policy, Market & Trade ProgrammeRAILS Regional Agricultural Information and Learning Systems RAIP Regional Agricultural Investment Programme REC Regional Economic Community R&D Research and Development SABIMA Strengthening Agricultural Biotechnology Implementation in Africa SADC South Africa Development Cooperation SCARDA Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa SCP Staple Crop Programme SRO Sub‐regional Organization SSA‐CP Sub‐Saharan Africa Challenge ProgrammeSTC Scientific and Technical Committee UEMOA Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest‐Africaine USAID United States Agency for International Development

of 106

Acronym Description WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Programme WACIP West African Cotton Improvement Programme WAFA West Africa Fertilizer Association WASA West African Seed AllianceWCA West and Central Africa

of 106

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Context The Strategic Plan (2007 – 2016) of the Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/ West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD)1 endorsed by the extraordinary General Assembly of May, 2007, is currently implemented through a first five year Medium‐term Operational Plan (OP), which runs from 2008–20132. The five year plan articulates mechanisms through which all stakeholders contribute to achieving the defined objectives in the Logframe. It aims to support the highest level objectives of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP),3 by sustainably improving broad‐based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets.

The core functions of CORAF/WECARD are capacity strengthening, coordination of agricultural research for development, knowledge management, and advocacy. The OP anticipates the use of an Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) paradigm which relies on the principle of inter‐sectoral and multi‐level approach in priority setting while engaging the whole range of multiple stakeholders from policy‐makers to development service providers. The OP is implemented through eight programmes, addressing agricultural constraints at the sub‐regional level. The programmes, which are technological and cross‐sectional in nature, are intended to contribute to the stimulation of economic growth in the sub‐region. They are : (1) Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (2) Staple crops, (3) Non‐staple crops, (4) Natural Resource Management, (5) Biotechnology and Biosafety, (6) Policy, Markets and Trade, (7) Knowledge Management and (8) Capacity Strengthening. There is also an Information and Communications Unit. To ensure an effective and efficient implementation of the programmes, internal mechanisms for planning, monitoring and evaluation have been defined.

The OP uses the Logical framework as a management and planning tool. The Logframe presents the objectives that CORAF/WECARD plans to achieve over a period of 5 years. The four results to be delivered by the Programmes are:

Result 1 [Appropriate technologies and innovations developed] focuses on technology and innovation development. This is close to the traditional role that CORAF/WECARD stakeholders have assumed, but this result represents a shift in focus compared to the past in order to ensure responsiveness to demand (technologies and innovations are people‐centred) as well as an adaptive approach which ensures that research also supports change by emphasizing the pathways to impact. The focus is on smallholders and pastoralists, although the approach is broad‐based and does not exclude other stakeholders, including large scale and commercial producers.

Result 2 [Strategic decision‐making options for policy, institutions and markets developed] addresses policy, trade, marketing, institutions, and socio‐economics. In doing so, CORAF/WECARD is broadening its perspective to ensure increased likelihood of impact and more appropriate responses to demand, involving non‐conventional partners in the research process.

Result 3 [Sub‐regional agricultural research system4 strengthened and coordinated] covers CORAF/WECARD’s major role as a sub‐regional organisation in developing the capacity of it’s

1 CORAF/WECARD Strategic Plan 2007‐2016, CORAF/WECARD, Dakar, Senegal, May 2007, 46pp 2 CORAF/WECARD Operational Plan 2008‐2013 ‐ Deploying Innovation Systems in West and Central African Agriculture, CORAF/WECARD, Dakar SENEGAL, November 2008, 122pp 3 NEPAD: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. Midrand, South Africa. August 2002. 142pp 4 Agro‐ecological systems and zones within the sub‐region; Public and private sector organisations and institutes; Input and output markets; Policy and decision making bodies;

of 106

constituents. Capacity building includes not just the conventional components of skills acquisition, but the development of competencies to operate and function in the IAR4D design mode; it is concerned with the empowerment of stakeholders to participate fully in the process of development.

Result 4 [Demand for agricultural knowledge from target clients facilitated and met] is an undertaking to increase efforts at developing and activating the types of linkages with uptake networks that are essential if the other results are to have impact. It recognises that CORAF/WECARD does not have a delivery role as such, but needs to be in close contact with those that do. It is about creating the platforms to ensure information on technologies, and the information that makes the technologies happen is combined to create the knowledge necessary for innovation. By internalising a degree of responsibility for doing what it can to improve networks and communication, CORAF/WECARD is reducing the probability of such linkages failing and disrupting the uptake of Results 1, 2 and 3. Importantly it does this without adding to researchers’ terms of reference the dissemination roles for which they themselves do not have comparative advantage.

To support the implementation of the OP and encourage greater ownership by all stakeholders and partners in the sub region, an institutional change management plan was developed and implemented from 2009 to 2010. This Institutional Change Management Plan also used the logical framework as a management and planning tool.

1.2 Objectives of the Midterm Review (MTR) The OP [2008‐2013] is half‐way in implementation. The initial period has been characterised by organizational, programmatic and structural changes and the integration of change management processes into the OP in order to enable the Institution to function effectively in the new paradigm of IAR4D.

The Governing Board of CORAF/WECARD commissioned Enterprise Development Services (EDS) Ltd; a private consulting firm to conduct a Midterm Review (MTR) of the implementation of the OP. Profiles of the EDS Review Team are in Annex 6. The objectives of the MTR are to:

• Review the achievements made since the beginning of the implementation of the OP; • Evaluate the OP’s contribution to the CAADP • Evaluate all changes resulting from the implementation of the institutional change

management process; • Analyze the efficiency of resources (human, material and financial) deployed for the

implementation of the OP; • Draw lessons learned from the implementation of the OP; • Identify the adjustments necessary for the period 2011 to 2013; and • Examine any other matter relating to the implementation of the OP.


• The level of realization and scientific quality of projects and programmes implemented under the OP are known ;

• The contribution of CORAF/WECARD to the implementation of the CAADP is assessed • The strengths and weaknesses arising from the implementation of the OP are reported

and documented; • Lessons learned from the implementation of the OP are discussed and shared; • The logical framework is reviewed and amended;

of 106

2. METHODOLOGY Details of the methodology adopted in the MTR including the definition of assessment criteria and scoring scheme, are given in Annex 3.

2.1 The Phased Approach EDS conducted the MTR in four phases as follows:

PHASE 1 ‐ Headquarters Visit and Briefing: The full Midterm Evaluation Team (here after MTRT) visited the headquarters of CORAF/WECARD from July 3 – 10, 2011 for discussions with (as available) members of the Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Committee, and the Executive Secretariat.

PHASE 2 ‐ Country Visits: The MTRT undertook country field visits. They covered the major non‐‐headquarters based operations of the Council in the three agroecological zones, so as to provide a realistic assessment of the Council’s country based operations, working conditions, and interactions with key actors of projects.

PHASE 3‐ Analysis and Report Writing: Following the field visits the MTRT re‐assembled at CORAF/WECARD Headquarters for a period of 5 days to complete the analysis and report writing.

Phase 4: Finalization and Presentation of Report: During this phase the different organs of CORAF/WECARD reviewed the draft report and made their observations. The observations were compiled by Chair of the Board sub‐committee on the MTR and transmitted to the MTRT Leader electronically. The MTRT interacted electronically to revise the report as they saw fit.

2.2 Data Collection Data was collected in CORAF/WECARD Headquarters in Dakar as well as a number of member countries. The countries visited during the review are situated in the different agro‐ecological zones of CORAF/WECARD as follows: Sahel ‐ Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal; Coastal Zone – Benin, Ghana, The Gambia, Liberia and Nigeria; Central Africa – Gabon, Central Africa Republic and Cameroon. All projects operational or designed for implementation in the countries visited by the MTRT were subjected to in‐depth review.

2.3 Methods of Analysis The MTRT assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency sustainability and impact of CORAF/WECARD programmes.


Effectiveness: The extent to which the objectives in the Operational Plan were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.




Programme accomplishments was summarised using a 25‐point scale with which different elements of relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and impact were scored as follows:

of 106

• Relevance: Programmes/projects were assessed and given scores based on key issues of relevance related to programme strategies (6 points) and project design (6 points)

• Effectiveness: The effectiveness of Programmes/projects was assessed by evaluating the progress in delivering the Logframe results by scoring performance of projects (5 points) and performance of collaborating institutions and partners (3 points);

• Sustainability and Impact: The sustainability and likely impact of the CORAF/WECARD programme/projects was assessed by examining the Impact Pathways (5 points)

In addition, the efficiency of the OP implementation was assessed by examining a number of issues – the quality of science (Chapter 5) and the management and financial framework (Chapter 7).

A gender analysis was conducted using a variety of gender analytical frameworks (including the Harvard, Moser, and Social Relations) which were complemented with the voice of female and male end users and beneficiaries through interviews and focus groups.

The MTRT also conducted an environmental audit of the OP by analyzing actions taken in implementation of research programmes in the field, the degree to which programme and project implementers took environmental and social issues into consideration and the mitigation measures implemented, and the modifications needed to ensure full environmental safety compliance in future.

A combination of participatory data collection techniques ‐ Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Interviews, was used to collect data from stakeholders in the field. Annex 5 contains the list of people interviewed individually or in groups.

3.CONTRIBUTIONSOFCORAF/WECARDTOIMPLEMENTATIONOFCAADP

3.1 CORAF/WECARD and the CAADP Process: As indicated in the OP, the expanded scale and scope of its mandate in research, analysis, advocacy and capacity strengthening of both technical and non‐technical actors in the agricultural sector, as well as knowledge management, through the use of the IAR4D approach is to place CORAF/WECARD in synch with the goals and objectives of CAADP. In fact, CORAF/WECARD’s general objective is aligned with CAADP’s goal of 6% annual growth in agricultural production. Working in collaboration with other Pillar IV institutions, in particular, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), the activities undertaken by CORAF/WECARD have advanced the objectives of CAADP.

To‐date, CORAF/WECARD has:

• Since 2008, participated in “country round‐tables” and assisted in the development of “country compacts. It is to be noted that all fifteen countries in the ECOWAS zone have signed their CAADP country compacts;

• signed MOUs and earned recognition as technical partners with the sub‐regional Regional Economic Communities (RECs) in West and Central Africa (ECOWAS, UEMOA, ECCAS and CEMAC);

• developed with FARA and its other constituencies (ASARECA, CCARDESA,) an Operational Plan for Pillar 4 in support of the country CAADP process;

of 106

• rigorously adhered to the three main elements of FAAP in (i) promoting institutional reform among its constituent NARS, (ii) aggressively advocating for increased investments to support the production and efficient delivery of agricultural technologies, innovations and strategic options, strengthen capacity and collaboration of NARS and dissemination of technologies to its clients (funding from AusAID, CIDA, USAID, DFID, IDRC, and EC), and in the proper alignment and coordination of funding for agricultural research, technology development and dissemination, through the establishment of a Multi‐Donor Trust Fund;

• assisted ECOWAS in the development of the West African Agricultural Productivity Programme (WAAPP); under this programme, CORAF/WECARD is coordinating the activities of 13 countries to develop agricultural technologies and efficiently disseminate them;

• provided support and assistance to FARA in the implementation of activities of the CAADP Partnership Platforms that meet the conditions expressed in the FAAP, notably in initiating the Mutual Accountability Framework for assessing the performance of partners involved in the implementation of CAADP;

• worked with ECOWAS to develop the Regional Agricultural Investment Programme (RAIP) and subsequently has helped member countries of CORAF/WECARD in the development of National Agricultural Investment Programmes (NAIP);

• worked with the lead institutions of the other three CAADP pillars to ensure that there is coordination of activities, recognizing the fact that activities to promote Pillar 4, for which they are mandated in the West and Central Africa region, will fail if they are not supported by activities that are carried out by the other three pillars of CAADP.

3.2 Linkages with Regional Economic Communities (RECs); As indicated above, CORAF/WECARD has signed MOUs for Cooperation in Agricultural Research with all the regional economic communities in West and Central Africa with the aim of contributing to the implementation of their agricultural policies, which are all aligned to the CAADP – with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) on December 22, 2005; with the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) on July 20, 2007; with the Economic Community of Central African States (CEEAC) on July 29, 2008; with the Economic and Monetary Union of West African States (UEMOA) on February 28, 2006. Although, not a Regional Economic entity, for purposes of acquiring information that would enable farmers in the sub‐region to handle the devastating effects of drought, CORAF/WECARD also signed an MOU with the Permanent Inter State Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) on June 30, 2008.

The general objective of the Agreements are aimed at establishing ties between CORAF/WECARD and the organisations with a view to promoting effective implementation of innovative food and agricultural research programmes, satisfying the requirements of the citizens of member countries, promoting economic development and reducing poverty.

CORAF/WECARD and the partner RECs have undertaken to define common research priorities at the community level and to exchange information on a regular basis. They have also undertaken to promote joint research mechanisms, particularly the Regional Competitive Fund Mechanism.

Specifically, with each REC, CORAF/WECARD is to:

• promote participation of the NARS in its programmes on the basis of comparative advantage;

• assist the RECs to identify and implement research priorities among the member countries; • establish coherent and efficient agricultural research programmes with the regions by

strengthening NARS through cooperation; • promote cooperation, coordination and information exchange between stakeholders in the

Communities, through the Operational Research Units; and

of 106

• provide the RECs with scientific and technical research findings obtained by the different research units.

For their part, The Regional Economic Communities are expected, among others, to:

• facilitate mobilisation of resources for the CORAF/WECARD programme; • facilitate the implementation of CORAF/WECARD resolutions on biotechnology, bio‐safety

and technology transfer in member countries of the Community; and • assist CORAF/WECARD to effectively play its role as coordinator.

Once the MOUs were signed, it was expected that Action Plans would be developed and implemented. While such follow‐up actions have taken place with the West African organizations (ECOWAS & UEMOA), there has been no follow up action with the Central African communities (CEMAC and CEEAC).

In the case of CEMAC and ECCAS, this situation is of grave concern to the CORAF/WECARD Executive Secretariat, which urged the MTRT to visit the Headquarters of both Commissions to help understand why. Following extensive discussions with functionaries of both Institutions it is clear to the MTRT that the fault primarily rests with both Commissions – due to non‐functioning of internal operational mechanisms in CEMAC, and apparent over load of the single staff charged with implementing the protocol in CEEAC. The Executive Secretariat has made many attempts to get things moving without success. Due to the important roles both Community Commissions have to play in the facilitation of CORAF/WECARD’s work in Central Africa the MTRT can only urge the Secretariat to continue to devote time to making such contacts with the expectation that the internal situation in both Communities will soon change for the better.

3.3 The Special Situation of “Weak” NARS One of the principal responsibilities of CORAF/WECARD in the implementation of the CAADP is to “promote participation of the NARS in its programmes on the basis of comparative advantage” as enshrined in the MOUs signed with the RECs. The principal mechanisms for NARS to participate in CORAF/WECARD programmes are the Competitive Fund, Commissioned Projects, and the WAAPP.

3.3.1 The Competitive Fund

The projects of CORAF/WECARD are implemented following calls for research proposals, which are launched twice a year, in October and April, by the Executive Directorate. Following the call for proposals, NARS and the International Agricultural Research Communities (IARCs) present their request for funding of projects to the Executive Directorate, according to the proposal development guide. Projects submitted for funding to CORAF/WECARD are assessed according to three sets of criteria – General, Technical and Financial:

General criteria

• Coherence with the CORAF/WECARD strategic plan; • Evidence of inter‐institutional partnership; • Identification of the Project Coordinator and consortium; • Commitment of partners; • Conformity with the rules for the presentation of projects; • Promotion of gender issues; • Promotion of capacity strengthening and synergy between all NARS components through

the establishment of strong relationships.

Technical criteria

• Scientific and technical quality; • Dissemination and use of results;

of 106

• Partnership quality; • Institutional and financial management capacity; • Social , economic, and financial impact; • Environmental impact.

Financial criteria

• The budget must be clearly presented and the amount justified with respect to the scheduled activities in the technical proposal;

• The budget must indicate the amount requested from CORAF/WECARD and the amount contributed by the different actors;

• The eligible expenditures are those linked to direct costs of research; thus indirect costs must not be more than 10% of the project budget.

3.3.2 Commissioned Projects

As stated in the OP the preferred option is for competitive research funding. In cases, however, where a monopoly exits or the need for a response is urgent and immediate, research will normally be commissioned. Such situations include where:

• specific and clearly identified skills are needed, and which exist only in an approved organisation, group of organisations or individual;

• specific equipment or physical resources are required, which are unique to an approved organisation, group of organisations or individual;

• where there is an urgent need for a fast response and an approved organisation, group of organisations or individual is best positioned to do this.

For commissioned projects, an approved organisation, group of organisations or individual is one which has a proven track record with CORAF/WECARD and/or satisfies international criteria and standards for technical, financial and administrative performance. The technical and financial criteria for Commissioned research are the same as for the Competitive Grant Scheme (CGS).

3.2.3 Participation of NARS

The fact that the playing field is now uneven in terms of the ability of NARS to access the CGS or Commissioned Projects (CP) is clearly evidenced by the distribution of the current CORAF/WECARD portfolio of projects by countries/NARS as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of projects in which the NARS are partners

Country CGS/CP Projects WAAPP/ECOWAS Lead Participation Benin 1 11 3 Burkina Faso 8 17 3 Cameroon 3 11 ‐ Cape Verde ‐ ‐ ‐ Central African Republic ‐ ‐ ‐ Chad 1 4 ‐ Congo – Brazzaville ‐ 3 ‐ Cote d’Ivoire 1 6 3 Democratic Republic of Congo ‐ 1 ‐ Gabon ‐ ‐ ‐ Gambia ‐ 1 3 Ghana 2 10 3 Guinea ‐ 2 3

of 106

Country CGS/CP Projects WAAPP/ECOWAS Lead Participation Guinea Bissau ‐ ‐ 2 Liberia ‐ 3 3 Mali 3 9 3 Mauritania ‐ 1 ‐ Niger 2 9 3 Nigeria 2 8 3 Senegal 3 11 3 Sierra Leone 1 5 3 Togo 1 8 3

Source: CORAF, Project Portfolio, 25/07/2011

In the view of the MTRT, countries with very low participation rates can be classified into two groups:

• those with poor capacity for research due to weak human resources capacity and poor infrastructure usually as a result of recent civil conflicts, e.g. Central Africa Republic and Liberia;

• those with reasonable human resource capacity and infrastructure but with poor ambience for research either due to lack of interest from supporting state institutions or of the staff themselves, e.g Gabon and Mauritania.

The MTRT believes that in order to fully fulfil its mandate for implementation of the CAADP, CORAF/WECARD should make special efforts to help the willing but disadvantaged NARS (Group 1) to participate more fully in its programmes

Recommendation 1:

CORAF/WECARD should consider setting up a special mechanism for increasing the participation of “weak but willing” NARS in its projects including provision of:

• increased access to capacity building opportunities • special assistance in seeking external funding for equipment and infrastructure • dedicated research funding (apart from the normal access to CGS and CP) • increased opportunities for mentoring, e.g. more learning tours

4. PROGRAMME ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4.1 Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture (LFA) Programme Activities

According to the CORAF/WECARD strategic and operational plans, livestock covers small ruminants, piggery, poultry and large ruminants. However, Fisheries, for now is to be supported through incorporation with the other issues relating to non‐crop products and commodities. Nothing is mentioned about aquaculture in the definition or clarification.

of 106

The LFA Programme aims to achieve sustainable improvements in the broad‐based productivity, competitiveness and markets of livestock, fisheries and aquaculture through:

• Developing appropriate technologies and innovations for livestock, fisheries and aquaculture • Identifying and supporting the development of strategic decision‐making options for policy,

institutions and markets • Strengthening and co‐ordinating sub‐regional agricultural research systems relevant to

livestock, fisheries and aquaculture • Facilitating and meeting the demand for agricultural knowledge relating to livestock, fisheries

and aquaculture from targeted clients

The OP asserts that research under the LFA Programme will be predominantly through competitive grants to networking NARS members, while commissioned research will be an option for the involvement of specialized national centres (such as ITC, CIRDES, Laboratoire de Farcha), sub‐regional or international centres.

After scoping studies and validation workshop, four priorities for the LFA were identified as follows:

a) Production and productivity improvement b) Performance and market access improvement; c) Competitiveness and added value improvement d) Sustainable improvement of the livestock‐crop‐aquaculture‐environment interactions

The research on these priority issues focus on the following value chains: cattle and small ruminants; milk (cattle and goats), poultry (chickens and guinea fowl), pork, and fish (aquaculture and inland fisheries)

The OP listed two projects that were being implemented and ended in 2008:

a) Management of Forage Resources for Sustainable Utilisation of Pastures in the Sahel. b) Integrated Management for forage resources for the Intensification of Animal Production in

the Agro‐Pastoral Zone of West Africa.

The current portfolio of the LFA Programme consists of 6 projects:

1) Building livelihoods resilience to alleviate poverty in semi‐arid areas of West Africa 2) Assessment of emerging livestock ticks and tick‐borne disease threats and integrated control

strategies in West and Central Africa 3) Support for the durable improvement of the productivity and the competitiveness of

smallholder dairies in West and Central Africa 4) Intensification écologique des systèmes piscicoles extensifs familiaux en Afrique de l'Ouest

et Centrale à partir d'une analyse des processus d'innovation 5) Sustainable Integrated pond based aquaculture with rice and poultry production: Economic,

social and environmental assessment. 6) Poverty Eradication and Grassroots Empowerment through Sustainable Integrated

Aquaculture Development: Fish cum rice and Piggery production

The MTRT was made to understand that the two titles in the OP were general working titles which had become further refined into the projects specified on the above, so that only the listed 6 projects were assessed.

Assessment

Table 2 presents the assessment of the LFA projects using the weighting for each assessment category presented in Annex 3.

of 106

Relevance

LFA/03 relates directly to the identified priority for large livestock of processing and commercialization of products, while LFA 01 and 02 relate to the priorities for small livestock. LFA/ 04‐06 deal with aquaculture which were not expected to come up strong so early. It is clear that these projects are appropriate and consistent with CAADP’s goal. MTRT notes that the integrated crop‐livestock projects, which are being funded by AusAID are managed under the NRM Programme. These projects address priority research areas of the LFA. This is evidence of synergy creation amongst the Programmes.

Effectiveness = Achievement of objectives

The MTRT has some concern about how effective the only launched project has been. Documents and reports seen are virtually devoid of quantitative data and qualitative information relates more to objectives set than to their achievements. Most of the LFA projects are still not launched and those launched have not made appreciable progress. Hence, there is the need for more rigorous monitoring and evaluation right from the onset of projects as any evaluation left to the end of the project may be medicine after death.

Table 2: Summary of performance rating of LFA projects showing number of criteria scored in each category

Category Relevance Effectiveness

Programme Strategies

Project Design

Project Performance

Partnership Performance

Potential Impact & Sustainability

Total [%]

Maximum Score 6 6 5 3 5 25 Project Score 01 (PLM) 6 6 4 3 3 22 [88]02 6 6 NA NA 4 16 [94] 03 6 5 NA NA 5 16 [94] 04 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100]05 3 4 NA NA 3 10 [59] 06 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] NA = Not Applicable, i.e. project not yet operational so project not scored for the category Average performance score for LFA projects = 89%.

Sustainability = Probability of continued effects

CORAF/WECARD has done so well in mobilizing funds for agricultural research in WCA but availability of sufficient funds during the project life may make sustainability more difficult after CORAF/WECARD funding ends as local authorities may have difficulties in providing funds for continuation of activities. Yet innovation trials need good funding to minimise the risk of “going where no one else has gone before”. CORAF/WECARD programmes must give serious thought to the level of optimum funding required for its relatively short term funding to ensure that necessary activities are carried out after the life of the project. And there are good examples of such continued funding – in the SSA‐Challenge Programme’s Kano, Katsina, Maradi – Pilot Learning Sites, farmers enthusiastically funded the “community seed production” activities after project funding ended and were ready to face the wrath of the National Seed Council that was insisting that they should only use seeds supplied by the state (MTRT Field Notes). Similarly, smallholder poultry producers in South‐ West Nigeria were willing to pay up to 5% of the sale price of a cock for a single vaccination service (Sonaiya, et. al., 2002). Cost sharing may be a way to improve sustainability of projects.

Impact = Long term effects produced

of 106

The projects of the LFA programme are of short duration. Nevertheless, the impact pathway of the majority of the show that there is a good reason to expect outcomes such as economic growth (increased income of smallholders and consumers, or value of production (farm level), value added (post farm)); enhanced livelihoods and social welfare (food security, nutrition and health, poverty alleviation, employment generation, education, gender equality, disaster mitigation; and higher quality of environment (soil fertility, water use, soil erosion, pollution, and agro‐biodiversity). As such LFA projects are more than likely to have an impact many years after the projects have come to an end.

Conclusion

The projects of the LFA have been relevant to CAADP’s goals. The average performance score of 89% is satisfactory but the score for LFA/05 is not satisfactory. The approach and design of this project were not fully in accord with the IAR4D principles. The means of verification and the assumptions indicate that the impact pathway could not lead to results that will be sustainable. There was too much concentration on the fisheries aspect to the detriment of the poultry and the rice aspects. The source and actual seed stock of fish, rice and poultry to be used were not specified. One of the animal scientists listed is not an expert on poultry but on pigs. Perhaps the problem is a scarcity of animal scientists as the MTRT could not identify sufficient animal scientist in the LFA projects that were integrating aquaculture and livestock. CORAF should pay as much attention to building capacity in animal science as it has done in crop science during SCARDA. Livestock is important for addressing poverty and responding to the situation of vulnerable groups (including victims of HIV/AIDS and malaria) and so should be prioritized in as many projects as possible. Livestock products also have a crucial role in health and nutrition.

4.2 Staple Crops Programme (SCP) Activities

The Programme seeks to contribute to improved broad‐based productivity of priority staple crops in competitive and sustainable market systems in West and Central Africa (WCA). Roots and tubers (cassava and yams), cereals (rice, maize, sorghum and millet), plantain/banana, pulses and oil crops (cowpea and groundnut) are priority staple crops identified to drive economic growth with cross‐cutting issues (markets, trade, policy, institutions) addressed to create the necessary enabling environment for growth. Six themes covering agricultural productivity enhancement; agricultural input usage enhancement; promotion of post‐harvest technologies; strengthening capacities of value chain actors; accelerated promotion of regional integration systems and strengthening sub‐regional agricultural research systems form SCP’s road map.

Eight regional projects, implemented either on commissioned (4) or competitive basis (4), are addressing technological and organizational issues on productivity, postharvest and seed systems across 15 WCA countries with IITA, ICRISAT, Africa Rice, CARBAP and CSIRO providing technical support. The eight SCP projects are:

1. Promotion of striga resistant sorghum varieties to mitigate food crises in the Sahelian zone ‐ commissioned

2. Promotion of improved yam minisett technology to improve productivity and reduce excessive use of food yam for planting in West Africa ‐ commissioned

3. Improving post‐harvest quality and packaging of rice, sorghum/millet and cassava products to enhance marketability in West Africa ‐ commissioned

4. Promotion of integrated crop management technologies to improve plantain productivity of small‐holder farmers ‐ competitive

of 106

5. Enhancing cowpea productivity and income for sustainable livelihood of resource‐poor farmers ‐ competitive

6. Improving maize productivity and dissemination through the promotion of integrated management technologies in the Savannah zone of Cameroon, Nigeria and Chad ‐ competitive

7. Promotion of post‐harvest technologies in the storage and processing of maize and cowpea to reduce losses and to improve market quality in WCA ‐ competitive

8. Strengthening Seed Systems Research and Development ‐ commissioned Assessment

Table 3 presents the assessment of the SCP projects using the weighting for each assessment category presented in Annex 3

Table 3: Summary of performance rating of SCP projects showing number of criteria scored in each category



Project Design

Project Performance



Total [%]

No. of criteria 6 6 5 3 5 25 [100] Project Score/01 6 6 4 3 5 24 [96] /02 6 6 4 3 5 24 [96] /03 6 6 4 3 4 23 [92] /04 6 6 4 3 5 24 [96] /05 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100]/06 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] /07 6 6 NA NA 4 16 [94] /08 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] NA = Not Applicable, i.e. project not yet operational so project not scored for the category Average performance score for SCP projects = 96%.

All projects have been launched with different types of internal networking, partnering mechanisms and IAR4D innovation platforms. National stakeholder sensitisation meetings have been held for all projects with 76 contractual arrangements formalized among partner organizations and institutions. SCP contribution, as with the other CORAF/WECARD programmes, to progress in achieving results projected in the OP log frame is summarized in Table 9. Programme Strategies: All projects under SCP are relevant to the OP, appropriate and consistent with beneficiaries' requirements, country, regional and continental priorities and partners' and donor's policies.

Projects design logic and focus: SCP grants fall into two categories: competitive and commissioned. Competitive grants encourage value for money. Commissioned projects allow specific bottlenecks to be addressed in a timely manner. The MTRT considers this mix of instruments appropriate and suitably flexible.

The MTRT finds the intervention from USAID’s Global Food Security Response (GFSR) programme to CORAF/WECARD/SCP to address the 2008 food crisis through three short term projects (2‐year life

of 106

cycle) on promotion of striga resistant sorghum varieties, yams minisett technology and sorghum/millet, rice and cassava postharvest technologies very appropriate for small scale producers and processors. The MTRT however observes that the current high priced cassava storage roots as raw material for processing into gari and HQCF may not reduce product prices to competitive levels that formed the basis for the project’s development. This does not however eliminate the advantages gained from improved quality and longer storage capacity of products. There is need to piggyback the project on the numerous production improvement programs currently being implemented within the region to reduce raw material production and processing costs within the value chain.

Compared to the expected year 1 output of 2 million pieces, the number of seed yams produced is very low (25%). This is a worrisome outcome not only in terms of financial loss but limitation in the overall access to improved varieties. The SCP projects on improvements in cowpea and maize production management systems take a pseudo market orientation when considered in connection with the cowpea and maize postharvest storage and processing project. The link between these clusters of projects is inadequate in terms of synergies. Whereas, the maize improvement program emphasizes the nutritional characteristics of QPM varieties for human consumption and ruminant feed (fodder and grain) system, the soil fertility, striga and drought control activities are limited to ordinary maize varieties. QPM maize production system is likewise constrained by these latter production factors. The post‐harvest program, on the other hand is biased towards ordinary maize varieties in addressing storage systems, flour production and baked confectionery products. There is no attention paid to cowpea as a feed resource or the additional advantage of using soybean not only for soil fertility improvements and as false host for Striga but also its grain and fodder as food and feed resource to improve the economic value of production technologies being disseminated. There is also the misconception that postharvest processes are variety independent. Variety quality characteristics determine product quality. The MTRT does not suggest merging projects by combining all project components into a mega project due to their attendant difficult management, however, advocates for better synergies among smaller sized projects addressing commodity subsector issues.

The plantain and sorghum/millet projects take a supply chain approach with an impact pathway comprising participatory germplasm evaluation against constraints, multiplication (seeds, planting material), training, and dissemination of improved production technologies. Production constraints drive technology development with the assumption that markets exist for excess produce. Sale of excess produce to consumers or small scale processors generates income to improve livelihoods of beneficiaries.

The seeds project, on the other hand, presents an integrated approach to developing a sustainable cost effective seed delivery system to improve farmer access to high yielding varieties through a strengthened seed value chain. Synergy is explicitly sought from complementary projects providing new varieties with enhanced productivity.

Cross CORAF/WECARD programme linkages: A value chain consists of all value‐generating activities required to produce, deliver and dispose of a commodity. Defining an agenda based on the production to consumption system requires identification and understanding of the structure, conduct and performance of the commodity system. These issues are documented in the programme's analysis of priority commodity value chains under enabling environments, technologies, policy, markets, harmonization and trade5. Unfortunately, current programme linkages are weak probably due to their differential stages of implementation. Stronger operational links between SCP and other CORAF/WECARD programmes is needed to effectively and efficiently

5 E.A. Asiedu (2008) Analyses of the Value‐Chain of Priority Staple Crops for Research and Development Interventions in West and Central Africa, Staple Crops Programme Report CORAF/WECARD

of 106

address opportunities, constraints and needs along target value chains’ structure, conduct and performance. Policy, structural and institutional constraints that impede productivity and competitiveness of respective commodity chains, industry and service sectors are bound to come to the fore in expanding economic opportunities through market‐oriented reforms spanning application of requisite technological, infrastructural, policy, institutional and organizational components to support required development.

Appropriateness of partners and participants: Except for the Songhai Centre, which coordinates the sorghum/millet, rice and cassava postharvest project, all others are coordinated by NARIs. This may be appropriate considering the production oriented emphasis on varieties and seed distribution and small scale postharvest systems. The NGO group and extension services form the major partnership constituents for technology dissemination. It suffices to note that operations at innovation platforms will change as markets increasingly become drivers for technological development. SCP will have to deal with a ‘different playing field’, where there is less reliance on selling to unknown consumers, and more emphasis on contracting, rules, regulations, grades and standards set by leading firms, including agro processors, wholesalers and supermarkets dominating both upstream and downstream value chain activities. New challenges will be presented in shifting towards market‐oriented production systems with increasing emphasis on end use, quality to meet market requirements, processing and nutritional value. The MTRT suggests that the range of partners in SCP projects be expanded to increasingly network with the private sector at different operational levels regionally and nationally.

Capacity to meet objective and address operation challenges at national level: All SCP projects have experienced regional and national coordinators. Communication between SCP and National Coordinators is by the use of email and telephone. There is no programme web service to allow collaborators to access technical advice and information. Annual SCP meetings are the only major forum where all partners and some beneficiaries meet to assess achievements, plan subsequent activities, address technical issues and exchange experiences.

All projects have capacity building outputs in various formats targeted at the national stakeholders. A range of training manuals have been completed, edited, published for dissemination. They are mostly used for training courses. The reference rice processing unit will further enable processors to appreciate the use of equipment for relatively larger scale operations. The MTRT supports the use of such cost effective national training programmes as these enable higher numbers of platform collaborators to partake in training activities.

The IAR4D concept is a challenge at the national level. Discussion at the NARS and partners level revealed that some national focal coordinators have limited appreciation of the concepts and are inclined to use the linear approach to technology transfer albeit with participation of NGOs and extension personnel at ‘platform’ sites. A concerted effort in training national collaborators on the IAR4D principles is needed to better engrain the concept as an implementation approach.

Livestock projects usually have a great potential to make an impact on livelihoods especially of the poor and hardcore poor. With this in mind, livestock should be used more as an entry point for many of the crop projects. The Staple Crop projects could all integrate livestock into their protocols and research activities. This has been done in the NRM projects.

Sustainability and Impact: The MTRT notes that differentiating among the myriad of factors to identify keys to technology adoption and impact is not easy under any circumstance. Analyzing adoption holistically with due consideration to improving conduct and performance of a target commodity value chain is therefore a preferred option. Efficiencies become primordial to adoption and impact since the conduct and performance of a value chain influences how farmers integrate and adopt different types and levels of production factors based on their vulnerability, risk and asset. For example, the adoption of external inputs is affected by their effectiveness, availability, prices, volumes required, technical capacity, the natural resources base, level of risk (rainfall, price variation), availability of cash or farm credit, and market options for farm products. Interactions

of 106

between input and institutional processes affect coordination and service delivery within a value chain. Success depends not only on the farmers’ work but also, on the effectiveness of supporting institutions, the quality of infrastructure and the performance of stakeholders within the given commodity chain. The complexity of this array of factors suggests what farmers would intuitively consider when deciding whether to adopt new approaches or new inputs that might provide them with a better return. The higher the cost of change, the more difficult change becomes. The MTRT therefore suggests that analysis of cost effectiveness of disseminated technologies along value chains should be pursued in all projects.

There is a problem of spreading resources too thinly over a large number of countries in multiple years for institutions and platforms operations. This can affect operations in terms of reducing activities to fit funding level or activities are undertaken with less regard to quality.

The different types of partnerships established by the SCP have allowed it to have good thematic coverage. The linkages among partners have also influenced efficiencies in human, financial and material resources utilized in removing production and postharvest constraints. There have also been important technical achievements in disseminating striga resistant varieties to farmers in addition to the seed yam technologies. Delivery on outputs against project indicators is on‐going (see Chapter 8). The MTRT suggests the development of knowledge/information databases with easy access for stakeholders.

The current portfolio is mostly production oriented. Looking forward, commissioned projects will need to be carefully chosen to build upon the successes or likely successes expected as all the first round projects continue to deliver their outputs. SCP cannot wait for other CORAF/WECARD programme outputs before initiating its market oriented activities. Future commissioned projects should focus on subsector market issues that benefit a wider range of stakeholders, if economic development is to be achieved through agricultural processes.

Although sustainability and impact are longer term variables, innovative fund management and including livestock, especially poultry which is the livestock of the poor, will improve the sustainability and impact of projects in the Staple Crop Programme just as it has been done in the Natural Resources Management Programme.

4.3 Non‐Staple Crops Programme (NSCP) The NSCP seeks to contribute to sustainable improvements in production and market competitiveness of industrial, cash, horticultural and emergent crops in WCA for food security and income generation through the four main CORAF/WECARD OP results. Operations only started in February 2011.

Activities undertaken during the five month life of the Programme include organising a baseline study for participative identification of research priorities and organisation of validation sessions with stakeholders to produce programmes strategy, plans and activities. A programme review and validation of themes and subthemes to pursue was conducted 1‐3 August 2011. Once the necessary refinements have been undertaken, calls for competitive and commissioned proposals will be made. An environmental impact assessment is expected to be conducted in due course as part of programmes development strategy. The short life does not warrant assessment of programme achievement across the four CORAF/WECARD results by the MTRT.

4.4 Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) Activities

This programme includes a range of priority issues including soil and water, biodiversity and forestry and agro‐forestry. It aims to achieve sustainable improvements in broad‐based productivity through:

• Developing appropriate technologies and innovations for natural resource management;

of 106

• Identifying and supporting the development of strategic decision‐making options for effective natural resource management policy and institutions;

• Strengthening and co‐ordinating the sub‐regional agricultural research system relevant to natural resource management;

• Facilitating and meeting the demand for agricultural knowledge relating to natural resource management from targeted clients.

The Scoping study for NRM research identified four major research themes:

1. Sustainable management of land and water and adaptation to climate change (Integrated soil fertility management; Reclamation of degraded lands; Water management in rainfed systems);

2. Sustainable intensification and diversification of agriculture (Development and promotion of efficient irrigation; Adaptation to climate change with respect to new crop varieties, breeds of livestock, fish and water resources; Integrated soil fertility management; Integrated pest management; Management of water: access, availability and quality; Integrated crop/livestock/aquaculture system);

3. Biodiversity (Animal, plants, fisheries) conservation and improvement (Knowledge and conservation of genetic resources; Use and improvement of genetic resources; Rehabilitation of the productivity of agricultural and forestry ecosystems; Impact and adaptation of biodiversity to climate change and assessment of environmental services);

4. Socioeconomics and policy research on natural resource management ( Adoption of natural resource management technologies at different scales; Impacts of natural resource management technologies at different scales; Land tenure and management of natural resources; Financial and economic analysis of proposed natural resources management technologies; Use of natural resources and improvement of livelihoods; Economic and social impacts of policies and programmes on resource management at different levels; Gender and natural resources management).

The NRMP has at its disposal the strategic reviews of environmental and social management prepared for the WAAPP (WAAPP‐1A, 1B and 1C) including Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMF); Pest Management Plans (PMP) and the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). The WAAPP also provided the opportunity for training of the Focal Points in Ghana, Mali, The Gambia and Benin on questions of environmental and social safeguards: Research under this Programme will be mainly competitively funded involving networking between NARS members. Seven projects are being implemented:

1. Negative externalities of the intensification of the cultivated lands: methods and tools of alternative evaluation and practices

2. Optimizing productivity and perennial intercrop diversity trade‐offs in West and Central African cocoa farms

3. Introgression of Sahelian zebu cattle into trypanotolerant Bos taurus population of West Africa

4. An integrated cereal‐livestock‐tree system for the sustainable use of land and improved living conditions of smallholder farmers in the Sahel

5. Durable intensification of the integrated systems of agriculture‐livestock in order to increase the productivity of agro‐pastoralism and food safety in Central and West Africa

6. Sustainable Intensification Options for Management of agro‐silvo‐pastoral systems to reduce management risk and vulnerability in the semi‐arid and sub‐humid zones of West Africa

of 106

7. Sustainable Intensification of Integrated Crop‐Small Ruminant Production Systems in West Africa

Assessment Table 4 presents the assessment of the NRMP projects using the weighting for each assessment category presented in Annex 3 Table 4: Summary of performance rating of NRM projects showing number of criteria scored in each category



Project Design

Project Performance



Total [%]

No. of criteria 6 6 5 3 5 25 [100]Project Score /01 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] /02 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [94] /03 6 6 NA NA 4 16 [100]/04 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] /05 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [100] /06 6 6 NA NA 5 17 [94] /07 6 6 NA NA 4 16 [98]NA = Not Applicable, i.e. project not yet operational so project not scored for the category Average performance score for listed NRM projects = 98%. The high overall percentage for the NRMP projects (98%) indicates that, in the view of the MTRP, the projects are relevant, and have good prospects for sustainability and impact. Since they are just starting they cannot be assessed for their effectiveness. The projects are being implemented using the IAR4D approach.

An important area of research for WCA that is currently receiving attention in the NRMP is climate change. Key Climate Change initiatives currently being pursued are:

1. Development of a CORAF/WECARD Climate Change Strategy. This activity has led to the

identification of the following core principles: • Linking agricultural development and food security with climate change concerns • A systems approach integrating synergies of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable

food production • Equity and participation of partners and beneficiaries in policy formulation and

decision making process • Consideration of gender specific needs as well as priorities of indigenous and

vulnerable communities 2. Review of Climate in West and Central Africa ‐ (funded by AusAID) 3. Study on vulnerability of agriculture to climate change – CCAFS/IFPRI 4. Platform for exchange between researchers and policy makers on climate change adaptation

in Africa – IDRC.

of 106

The MTRT notes that there are several initiatives in West Africa that deal with research and capacity strengthening in the area of Climate Change. One of these initiatives is the West African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL). WASCAL is funded by the German Ministry of Higher Education and Research and, in addition to conducting research on various aspects of climate change in West Africa; graduate training courses leading to the PhD degree are planned in different areas concerning climate change and agricultural production. CORAF/WECARD through the NRMP and the CSP has been associated with and continues to collaborate with WASCAL to ensure that the technologies and innovations developed are readily made available to the people of West and Central Africa. 4.5 Biotechnology and Biosafety Programme (BBP) Activities

The second ECOWAS Ministerial Conference on Biotechnology and Biosafety, held in Bamako in June 2005, authorised the ECOWAS commission to mandate CORAF/WECARD and INSAH/CILSS, to finalize and circulate a detailed Action Plan for the implementation of its recommendations. The ECOWAS Biotechnology and Biosafety Plan of Action (ECOBIO/PA) was developed, costed and validated through a participatory process involving regional and national experts and adopted during the 3rd Ministerial Conference held in May 2007, in Accra, Ghana. CORAF/WECARD was then commissioned by ECOWAS to coordinate the implementation of The ECOBIO/PA through the Biotechnology and Biosafety Programme (BBP). Hence, BBP must ensure that CORAF/WECARD’s initiatives are concurrent with the ECOBIO/PA.

A Global Platform for Biotechnology (GPB) was formed with representatives of the 22 CORAF/WECARD Member countries (including all the ECOWAS states) and officially appointed focal persons of IARCs, ARI and major development partners. Four Specialized Working Groups (Plant Biotechnology, Animal Biotechnology, Biosafety and Communication) were constituted out of the GBP to work on the specific ECOWAS biotechnology mandate.

The CORAF/WECARD OP reflects the fact that biotechnology is principally a tool and activities of BBP should be integrated with the other animal, crop and natural resources programmes, where appropriate. The BBP priorities were identified during the consultation process, and the aim, during the OP period is to achieve sustainable improvements in productivity through:

• Developing appropriate technologies and innovations using biotechnological methods • Identifying and supporting the development of strategic decision‐making options for

biotechnology and biosafety policy • Strengthening and coordinating the sub‐regional agricultural research system’s capacity for

biotechnology and biosafety • Meeting and facilitating the demand for agricultural knowledge relating to biotechnology and

biosafety from targeted clients. The OP makes clear that research under BBP will be mainly commissioned through specialist centres but research partnerships involving specialized national, regional and international centres and networking in this way will be supported on a competitive basis. The priority activities identified were:

• Institutional support to CORAF/WECARD for the implementation of the Plan • Training of scientific and technical personnel in Biotechnology, • Biotechnology research Capacity Strengthening of National and Regional Institutions, • Putting in place competitive funds to conduct basic and applied biotechnology research in

laboratories and Centres of Excellences of the region,

of 106

• Evaluating socio‐ economic impacts of GM products in the region The BBP currently has nine projects as follows:

1. Facilitating the adoption of Bt‐ Cowpea in selected West African countries (USAID Global Food Security Response)

2. Using in vitro tissue culture methods to preserve, multiply and distribute ACMV free cassava cuttings to farmers in West and Central Africa (USAID Global Food Security Response)

3. Evaluation and deployment of rice varieties with RYMV resistant gene in West Africa (USAID Global Food Security Response)

4. Africa Bio fortified Sorghum Project (ABS) (Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International) 5. Fonds de Solidarité Prioritaire ‐ mobilisateur Coton (FSP‐ cotton) (French Ministry of Foreign

and European Affairs) 6. Strengthening Capacity for Safe Biotechnology Management in Sub‐Sahara Africa, (SABIMA)

(Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture) 7. Setting up a Regional Master in Biotechnology (ECOWAS) 8. Capacity Strengthening in Biotechnology and Biosafety in West Africa (ECOWAS) 9. Implementation of the ECOWAS Action Plan on Biotechnology and Biosafety (ECOWAS)

Not listed is the WAEMU Initiative on Biosafety, which aims at filling the gap of a regional regulatory and or institutional framework as well as the lack of technical and administrative guidelines for the evaluation and management of environmental, socioeconomic and sanitary risks, associated with the introduction of LMO and derived products within the WAEMU region. Assessment Table 5 presents the assessment of the BBP projects using the weighting for each assessment category presented in Annex 3. Table 5: Summary of performance rating of BBP projects showing number of criteria scored in each category



Project Design

Project Performance



Total [%]

No. of criteria 6 6 5 3 5 25 [100] Project Score /01 6 5 5 3 5 24 [96] /02 6 5 5 3 5 24 [96]/03 6 5 5 3 5 24 [96]/04 4 3 4 NA 4 15 [60] /05 4 4 3 2 3 16 [64] /06 4 4 5 2 4 19 [76] /07 4 4 4 2 4 18 [72]/08 4 3 4 3 4 18 [72]/09 6 6 5 3 5 25 [100] Average performance score for listed BBP projects = 81%. The relatively low overall score for the BBP projects (81%) should be a cause of concern to the ES.

of 106

Relevance

Two BBP projects (4 and 7) are rated low on relevance because of the spread of countries and activities involved. In project 4 there is only 1 country and only media related activities. In project 7, a network of institutions based only in francophone countries (including Mauritania, a non‐ECOWAS member) is developing a Masters programme with unusually close collaboration of French institutions, one of which will receive all student applications. This effectively shuts out Anglophone countries. The two most relevant BBP projects are No 9 & 1 – 3. Project 9 is a direct implementation of the ECOBIO/PA for which CORAF bears direct responsibility. Projects 1‐3 are applying biotechnology to address the main food crops – cowpea, cassava and rice.

The food crisis is addressed by research on food crops and using biotechnology as a tool can greatly improve targeting and impact of such research. All the BBP projects on food crops i.e. (No. 1 ‐ 4) are relevant and appropriate. The projects aimed at building capacity in biotechnology and bio‐safety (Nos. 6 ‐ 9) are equally relevant.

The MTRT is concerned that the BBP may be too successful in “business winning” such that the focus may be lost. There is need to carefully review commissions and contracts coming to this programme in order to avoid overload as well as mere commercialization.

Another limitation in terms of the relevance of BBP projects is that they all focus on biotechnology and biosafety only of crops leaving out animals and natural resources, which were stipulated in the OP. MTRT was informed that new initiatives are currently being developed that will apply biotechnology and biosafety to animals with support from AusAID but there is yet no planned project that will cover NRM.

UEMOA has commissioned CORAF/WECARD to carry out a study in the region for the development of common procedures and methodologies for the evaluation and the management of risks associated with the introduction of modern biotechnology products in the UEMOA space. This project, which was to start in January 2011, was not included in the list of BBP projects. Risk assessment and management are crucial to the introduction of biotechnology and to biosafety. CORAF/WECARD should endeavour to implement this highly relevant project or develop another to fulfil this crucial objective.

Effectiveness

Most of the BBP projects rate high for their effectiveness, with the exception of the ABS project which has no partnership arrangement. The ECOWAS Capacity building initiatives, the USAID Global Food Security Response, the FARA Biosafety stewardship project (SABIMA), and the French Cotton project (FSP‐Cotton) are being successfully implemented and are producing the expected results. The SABIMA project, for example, is now in its last year of implementation and has achieved a lot of its objectives including:

- The current status of agricultural biotechnology in the region has been updated; - Biosafety Stewardship policy is defined at national, regional and continental levels; - 15 regional Biosafety Stewardship Champions have been trained (3 modules: Biotechnology

Stewardship Introduction, Biotechnology Stewardship Communication and Policy Development, Biotechnology Stewardship Audit and Verification);

- 70 national researchers have been trained in Biotechnology Stewardship (at least 1 module); - 3 sensitization and advocacy workshops have been conducted.

Efficiency

The efficiency of BBP projects has been very high due to the fact that they are commissioned projects with restricted participation. Success of the activities depends on the BBP manager and regional coordinators as individual country coordination and activities have not been necessary.

Sustainability and Impact

of 106

CORAF/WECARD must pay special attention to this issue with regards to biotechnology. Many scientists and policy makers may be willing to attend training workshops coordinated by CORAF/WECARD but may be less willing to organize them in their own countries, and have been even less willing to develop and implement policy for biotechnology use. ECOWAS admitted to the MTRT that funding of the ECOBIO/PA has been less than adequate. Whether this is deliberate could not be ascertained but CORAF/WECARD needs to pay particular attention to sustainability of the outputs from the BBP projects.

Furthermore, the BBP projects are only likely to have medium to long term effects on economic growth, value added; enhanced livelihoods and social welfare and higher quality of environment. In order to ensure that these projects will have impact, there must be sustained follow‐up of the trainees and champions of biotechnology and biosafety and provision of necessary back stopping for them as they plan and implement activities in their respective NARS and political spaces.

Conclusion

The projects of BBP have been generally relevant to CAADP’s goals and particularly relevant to the ECOBIO/PA. BBP is conducting a lot of activities in Biosafety (training, participating in the development of the regional biosafety framework, backstopping countries for the development of biosafety laws, etc.), and is currently conducting an ex ante socio‐economic study on the impact of GM crops. Deliberate follow‐up actions/projects will be needed to ensure sustainability and impact. Great care must also be taken to avoid the suspicion by the NARS and civil society organizations that CORAF/WECARD is less than objective in the evaluation of the safety and socioeconomic effect of the introduction of biotechnology products in the sub‐region.

4.6 Policies, Markets and Trade Programme (PMT) Activities

PMT used the scoping studies conducted by the other CORAF/WECARD programmes to identify a set of strategic research priorities among which are the following:

• Study of land tenure, the mode of operation and management of resources and constraints affecting the conservation of resources.

• Strengthen the capacity of producer organizations in the production, access and marketing of improved seeds in the light of the global food crisis and climate change

• Promote and harmonize laws, rules and regulations in the field of regional exchange of seeds and other inputs to facilitate trade and regional exchange of genetic resources

• Promote the harmonization of laws, regulations and standards on food products to facilitate regional trade in food products

• Etc.

Research on these priorities is to be executed through projects and one project is currently being implemented “Policy, Programmes and Strategies for Management of Natural Resources focusing on non‐timber forest products: What works for small producers and the resource in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal?” The countries participating are Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cameroon, DRC and Gabon.

At the time of the MTR, the MTRT was informed that two calls for commissioned projects had been launched:

1. Enhancing the competitiveness of locally processed safe food products at local, national, and regional scale through attractive packaging, labelling and sensitisation of consumers

of 106

2. Strengthening CSOs capacity on evidence based policy analysis and dialogue to influence policy change and improve access to markets.

In addition contacts for identification of joint CILSS‐CORAF/WECARD research topics have been launched.

The programme has also been involved in stakeholder wide consultations and analyses that have led to the delivery of options for decision making captured in the following publications:

• Inventory and analysis of agribusiness and mixed crop‐livestock systems in WCA (A synthetic document).

• Regional integration, market access and diversification of agriculture in the UEMOA zone: policy options for a competitive and sustainable dairy sector (A Policy Brief).

• Analysis of mechanisms for the dissemination of improved agricultural technologies and innovations in the ECOWAS region (A synthetic document)

• Regional and country guidelines for the processing of Agricultural produce and products (Policy briefs).

Assessment:

With only one OP project just launched the Programme can only be assessed on the relevance and potential impact as portrayed in the project document.

Relevance:

Using the scoring scheme discussed in Chapter 2 the project is rated 6/12 i.e. 50% on relevance. In the view the projects does not address strategic priorities identified during the scoping study. The project proposal states that attention will be given to women and other disadvantaged groups and that representatives of potential beneficiaries will be involved in feedback workshops and validation of research results. It also states that the potential beneficiaries are expected to contribute to the definition of reforms to be proposed and the content of advocacy, therefore, it is expected that they will appreciate the potential outcomes of the project. However, the description of planned activities gives no indication of active participation of target groups in the study as required by IAR4D ‐ they are just targets for receipt of results.

Sustainability & Impact

The project is rated 3/5 i.e. 60% in these areas. It is clear that the project is designed to influence regional and national policy therefore to have impact after it ends, but there is no strategy for ensuring that the recommendations will actually influence policy (advocacy will be needed after the policy options are produced, i.e. after the life of the project) – just traditional policy research to produce options. Furthermore, sufficient attention is not given to the environmental impact of NFTP exploitation.

4.7 Knowledge Management and Capacity Strengthening (KM&CS) Programmes

4.7.1 Knowledge Management:

Activities

The Knowledge Management Programme is intended to directly address key CAADP targets for improving technology dissemination, technology use and information flows. It plays a key role in the delivery of the four Results of CORAF/WECARD. It is the programme that lets the stakeholders realize the intention of CORAF/WECARD to shift to the IAR4D paradigm. It thus combines efforts with the

of 106

Communication Unit to ensure that all relevant and appropriate media channels and mechanisms are utilized to share and advocate policy options, technologies and innovations which are developed using the IAR4D approach.

Assessment

The projects that are implemented by the constituents of CORAF/WECARD generate a lot of data and information that are relevant to agricultural growth in WCA. Managing the data and information to produce knowledge that is beneficial for the stakeholders is the task of the Knowledge Management Programme of CORAF/WECARD.

In developing this programme, CORAF/WECARD chose the “business unusual” path by abandoning the linear model of technology development followed by transfer, and choosing a multi‐stakeholder participatory process that puts the farmer/entrepreneur at the centre. In this novel approach, which is characterized by systemic facilitation and mutual learning between all actors, value‐chain and innovation approaches are employed. This paradigm is designated the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach. In it, the development of Innovation Platforms, where mutual learning occurs among all stakeholders, is essential.

If all eight programmes of CORAF/WECARD are to successfully adopt the IAR4D approach, full understanding of the process by every stakeholder, including the programme managers, is necessary. Unfortunately, it appeared to the MTRT that the seven CORAF/WECARD programme managers have seven different interpretations of the IAR4D approach. The MTRT was, therefore, not very surprised to observe during country visits that many NARS personnel implementing CORAF/WECARD’s projects felt that IAR4D approach was not different from the Farming Systems approach of yester‐years. Of the 19 projects observed by the team that visited Senegal, Mali, Ghana and Nigeria, the IAR4D approach was practiced fully in only two (see Table 6).

Table 6: Degree of adherence to IAR4D in selected sample of CORAF/WECARD projects visited

Project Adherence 1. Promotion of improved yam minisett technology to improve productivity and

reduce excessive use of food yams for planting in West Africa (Ghana) Partial

2. Improving post‐harvest quality and packaging of rice, sorghum/millet and cassava products to enhance marketability in West Africa

Partial

3. Building livelihood resilience to alleviate poverty in semi‐arid areas of West Africa (Mali)

Partial

4. Intensification of integrated crop‐small ruminant production systems in West Africa (Ghana)

Partial

5. Promotion of integrated crop management technologies to improve plantain productivity of small farmers (Ghana)

Partial

6. Using in‐vitro tissue culture methods to preserve, multiply and distribute ACMV‐free cassava cuttings to farmers in West Africa (Ghana)

Partial

7. Sub‐Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (Nigeria) Full 8. Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA) (Mali) Full 9. Promotion of striga‐resistant sorghum varieties to mitigate food crises in the

Sahelian Zone (Senegal, Mali) Partial

10. Strengthening seed systems research and development (Mali) Partial

As stated earlier, under the IAR4D paradigm, the cohesiveness among all agricultural sector workers is achieved through the establishment of the Innovation Platforms (IP). To a great extent, this has been achieved in the Kano/Katsina/Maradi (KKM) Pilot Learning site of the Sub‐Saharan Africa

of 106

Challenge programme and at the maize value chain project under the Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA) projects in Mali, Burkina Faso and Ghana.

In Kano in Nigeria, the seat of coordination of the KKM project, information from a focused group discussion showed that the Innovation Platform promoted strong linkages between policymakers, scientists, extension agents, farmers and the private sector. Where research scientists, especially from the universities, had been previously excluded from contacts with both State and Local Government extension workers, the Innovation Platform brought these stakeholders together. The role of the policymakers was highlighted. Whereas in one local government area of Kano State only five villages were involved in the project, within two years, the local government administration had provided sufficient resources to up‐and out‐scale the project to all nineteen villages in the local government area (LGA). Kano State is currently asking that the project be expanded to all 44 local government areas of the State. Farmer‐Groups were strengthened and community seed production was greatly improved. Livelihoods of farmers of both sexes were visibly improved. These experiences of the KKM demonstrated the wisdom of the drafters of the CORAF/WECARD Strategic Plan.

Success in implementation of the DONATA project, as was observed through key informant discussions in Mali, Ghana and Burkina Faso, is another illustration of what could be achieved using the IAR4D approach. The MTRT was informed that Burkina Faso had become a star‐performer in the implementation of the DONATA project. As at the 2010 growing season, over 1,200 additional hectares have been planted to Hybrid and Open Pollinated varieties (OPV) of maize. A value chain approach for maize has been developed in Mali (where over 2000 ha have been planted to improved maize varieties) and in Burkina Faso. In the process of implementing the DONATA project, 11 scientists are at various stages of their MSc training A 12th is still in school. The project which started with 10 countries has expanded to 14 countries.

Implementing value‐chain and IAR4D approaches involves requires a good understanding at the national level of the definition of NARS as presented in CORAF/WECARD’s OP. In every country, the National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) is the designated focal point for CORAF/WECARD. The fact that in most of these countries, weakness in the extension systems is still regarded as a major constraint to agricultural technology dissemination shows that collaboration within the NARS in the countries is still weak. Such collaboration can be enhanced through the Innovation Platforms.

4.7.2 Capacity Strengthening:

Activities

The development of the capacity of the NARS is a key function of CORAF/WECARD as clearly highlighted in its strategy. Through the programme approach, CORAF/WECARD is demonstrating its commitment to improve delivery of knowledge and information to the NARS. Activities carried out within this programme point to the mechanisms for CORAF/WECARD to ensure that the new programme approach is used to empower the constituent NARS.

Under this programme, the main issues that will be promoted by CORAF/WECARD include:

• Pooling of resources: Centres of specialization • Creating and maintaining a minimum base of expertise in different areas • Development of competence to implement IAR4D • Partnership development.

Assessment

A major role for CORAF/WECARD is the strengthening of capacity of its member NARS. This is acknowledged in the OP. The FARA‐incubated Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research and Development in Africa (SCARDA) project has been the flagship project of CORAF/WECARD under this programme. The MTRT visited three (Gambia, Ghana and Mali) of the four countries where SCARDA

of 106

was implemented in the CORAF/WECARD sub‐region. Key informant interviews showed that CORAF/WECARD facilitated experiential learning through the SCARDA project in the four countries. Twenty‐ five of twenty‐seven students have completed training at the MSc level. For Gambia, this project has provided a lifeline and has enabled the country to restructure its national agricultural research system. Most of the staff members leading research and development work in the Gambia are products of this project. In Mali positive changes have occurred as a result of CORAF/WECARD’s intervention through the SCARDA project. Changes include the establishment of three committees (research planning, finance, science administration) within the Institut d’Economie Rural (IER), Mali’s national agricultural research institute, to promote research planning and advocacy. As was the case with The Gambia, the establishment of a Change Management Action Plan led, in Ghana, to a major institutional restructuring at the Crop Research Institute (CRI).

The MTRT finds that the successes in Mali, The Gambia and Ghana seem isolated. As aptly noted in the presentation of the programme’s activities by the Programme Manager, the two approaches to capacity strengthening ‐‐‐the transactional and transformational—must go hand‐in‐hand for successful capacity strengthening. In the three successful cases cited, more attention seemed to have been paid to the transactional approach to capacity strengthening. This situation has apparently arisen because most of the training conducted by CORAF/WECARD is project‐related. Such training, naturally, involves the improvement of the skills of scientists and technicians participating in the projects, but it leaves little room for capacity strengthening at the institutional level.

Key informant interviews in all countries revealed that capacity strengthening in CORAF/WECARD is not a coordinated activity. Each project mounts its own capacity strengthening exercises and there appears to be no organized process for assessing the capacity needs of the various projects and programmes. In general, information on capacity needs of the CORAF/WECARD constituents is derived from the study conducted by the Forum for Agriculture in Africa (FARA) for the Africa Region. For the CORAF/WECARD sub‐region, the MTRT was informed that the data from the FARA study was sufficiently detailed for the sub‐region to be used for the initial phases of implementing the capacity strengthening programme. There are efforts underway to update this information.

The MTRT wanted to know if the research institutes belonging to the CGIAR system were assisting CORAF/WECARD in capacity strengthening of its member NARS. Focused group discussion involving all members of the West African research group and the training unit of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (17 persons) revealed that IITA has been involved in skills development, especially in the areas of biotechnology. The group was very enthusiastic in their support to the efforts of CORAF/WECARD in all phases of training but expressed desire for CORAF‐WECARD to financially support their own training exercises. Incidentally, IITA is coordinating one of the Task Teams in the KKM project. The group expressed tremendous satisfaction at the progress made by the project in the Sudan Savannah zones of Nigeria and Niger.

Building capacity of non‐technical and various NARS constituents is essential for effective implementation of the projects of CORAF/WECARD. The IAR4D process, if properly implemented caters to mutual learning between all Innovation Platform members. It was thus easy to observe that in Burkina Faso (DONATA), Mali (DONATA) and Nigeria (KKM), mutual learning and enhancement of capacity of all actors in the agricultural sector took place. In fact, at the KKM project site, the farmers know just one terminology: Innovation Platform! The fact that many NARS still believe that following the “Farming Systems” approach is the same as following the IAR4D approach demonstrates that the programme at CORAF/WECARD has not succeeded in promoting changes in mindset among the constituents.

Recommendation 2:

As a matter of urgency, capacity strengthening exercises should be carried out at the Executive Secretariat level to arrive at a common understanding of the IAR4D approach among Programme

of 106

Managers. This will empower the programme managers to promote the concept among the NARS implementing their various projects. Experts from the International Centre for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) and FARA can help to strengthen the capacity of the Programme Managers in the area of IAR4D.

Through the KM&CS Programmes, CORAF/WECARD collects, stores, analyzes data and information and makes resulting knowledge available to its constituent NARS. In the view of the review team, a return to the original goal of the OP of separating Knowledge Management (KM) from Capacity Strengthening (CS) is required. A restructured KM Programme should lead efforts to institutionalize IAR4D within the CORAF/WECARD family. It should liaise strongly with the Information and Communications Unit.This strong linkage will serve to improve access to knowledge by the all constituents of CORAF/WECARD. A restructured Capacity Strengthening Programme should also perform a cross‐cutting function ensuring the coordination of all the capacity building exercises currently undertaken under “projects” by CORAF/WECARD. Working together, the new leadership should ensure that all programmes adopt the IAR4D approach and develop plans within each programme for knowledge gained to be disseminated to the CORAF/WECARD constituents. Individuals with the requisite skills and knowledge should be tasked with managing these restructured programmes.

Recommendation 3:

CORAF/WECARD should return to the original goal when the OP was developed of separating Knowledge Management (KM) from Capacity Strengthening. A restructured Capacity Strengthening Programme should lead efforts to institutionalize IAR4D within the CORAF/WECARD family; perform a cross‐cutting function ensuring the coordination and institutionalization of all the capacity building exercises undertaken by CORAF/WECARD; and ensure that equal weight is put on skills acquisition and institutional capacity building.

4.8 Information and Communications Unit Activities

Through the Knowledge Management Programme, CORAF/WECARD identifies, collects, stores and analyses data and information and makes resulting knowledge available to its constituent NARS. The Information and Communications Unit is expected to be the organ for CORAF/WECARD to accomplish this agendum. This function to the stakeholders of CORAF/WECARD is distinct from that of the disseminator of information about the activities of the Executive Secretariat.

Assessment

As previously stated the MTRT believes that Information and Communications should function as a unit that serves the other functional programmes of CORAF/WECARD. Thus, as a strong collaborator of the present KMCP programme, it is expected to perform a knowledge and information function for the stakeholders of CORAF/WECARD that is distinct from its function as the disseminator of information about the activities of the Executive Secretariat. Unfortunately, information from key informants points to many deficiencies in the performance of the unit’s function with regards to disseminating technical information about CORAF/WECARD’s projects. The Information and Communications Unit should be a tool to enhance capacity strengthening of CORAF/WECARD’s constituent NARS. Helping the NARS to organize their information into databases is one way to fulfil this function. At each project site visited by the MTRT it was informed that the Unit has failed to help NARS organize databases and publish the results of their work.

of 106

Progress made by various projects throughout the sub‐region is expected to be highlighted in “CORAF ACTION” which is supposed to be published every three months. The latest edition that MTRT could lay its hands on was dated 2000. Obviously CORAF ACTION is not an effective tool for sharing sub‐regional public goods.

The Regional Agricultural information and Learning Systems (RAILS) project coordinated by FARA aims at building research knowledge management capacity within participating NARS. CORAF/WECARD implements RAILS within its sub‐region. eRAILS is designed to promote access to information through the establishment of an electronic portal in each participating country. The MTRT was informed that computers and servers have been provided to ten countries in the CORAF/WECARD sub‐region. Unfortunately internet connectivity is a major problem in most of these countries. Given this situation, one wonders how the scientists in these countries receive information on competitive grant projects.

The MTRT believes that it would be expedient if the coordinator of the CORAF/WECARD Information and Communications unit would begin to think “outside the box” to find solutions to the problems of communications with these stakeholders. As one key informant put it “CORAF/WECARD is a good organisation but it does not do networking.” Helping NARS to build Information and Communications capacity is also a mandate of the unit. In Senegal, the representative of the Farmer’s Groups (ASPRODEB) noted that because of communications weakness at ROPA, the sub‐regional body that represents all farmers’ organizations in WCA on the CORAF/WECARD Board, the activities of CORAF/WECARD are not known by the farmers.

The Communications and Information Unit has concentrated on disseminating news about the activities of the CORAF/WECARD Secretariat. CORAF/WECARD has a range of stakeholders with different capabilities. The Information and Communications Unit should consider using a wider range of communication options so that the successes of CORAF/WECARD can be made known to the whole range of stakeholders.

Recommendation 4:

The Communications Unit should strengthen its capacity to play its’ critical roles of (1) Disseminating information on the outputs of the technologies and innovations implemented by the NARS on behalf of CORAF/WECARD; (2) Assisting NARS to establish and manage databases on information obtained from the field and to finally see to the publication of the regional and national public goods that result from projects implemented by the constituents of CORAF/WECARD; (3) Take advantage of eRails and national ARD portals to establish functioning “discussion platforms” within the CORAF/WECARD sub‐region; and (4) Ensure that it works with the Knowledge Management Programme to promote increased understanding of the IAR4D approach.

of 106

5. THE QUALITY OF SCIENCE Scientific quality as determined by the quality of the process, from formulation of objectives, development of research protocols, generation of high quality data, correct data analyses and interpretation of results. It depends on the quality and professional competency of staff involved in the process.

The current emphasis of CORAF/WECARD supported research is on short term projects of applied research for development and it has characterized NARS research efforts with direct effect on livelihoods. The short time horizon is not geared to address fundamental issues or indulge in cutting edge science. The 2‐3 year project cycles (in effect 1 or 2 with start‐up and reporting) are too short for any meaningful fundamental research. Short term funding encourages applied research and a search for immediate impacts on beneficiaries by providing a better scope for participation of a wider range of stakeholders. They are expected to deliver noticeable results since the emphasis is on livelihood improvement. Scientific publications and cutting edge research is not the goal. Relevance, in terms of contribution to program strategies and project design and potential impact and sustainability of the CORAF/WECARD portfolio are highly scored in the MTRT analysis. However, that does not mean that results from the process of research which is typical of the IAR4D concept that underscores implementation of all CORAF/WECARD programmes should not be published. Encouraging publication closely tied to scientific research is required for career development.

Peer reviewed publication in refereed journals can arise from all research undertaking and there are journals for any type of research or dissemination activity. Non‐publication of results from projects by NARS collaborators and/or Program Managers in refereed journal give the wrong impression that research outputs are not subjected to peer review or articles emanating from the OP have high rejection rates by journals. Publications so far produced during the implementation of the OP cover baseline information, training manuals, brochures, project reports in addition to the use of media in disseminating results. Field demonstration, study tours, training are generally used in dissemination processes.

There is no record of peer reviewed publication in scientific journals from CORAF/WECARD coordinated and facilitated projects during the period under consideration. A number of approaches can be used to assess quality of science in addition to the objective measure of analysing scientific publications emanating from programme activities in peer reviewed journals through citation analysis using the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) database.

Awareness of current scientific knowledge in the CORAF/WECARD programme is assured by linkages established between NARIs, Universities and CGIAR centres in proposal development and technology generation whilst non‐traditional research partners are engaged in technology dissemination in establishing balances among collaborating partners. The process of reviewing and selecting project proposals by the STC has been transparent and well received by partners. Science quality can further be assessed by the quality of scientific leadership, stability, management style to drive quality research activities; creative use of existing knowledge to address constraints and needs of production, processing and marketing systems; use of multidisciplinary approaches; innovations in scientific risk taking and involvement of non‐traditional partners in technology development, to mention but a few. The MTRT has, however, not been able to assess these under the present circumstances in CORAF/WECARD whereby the first round projects are only a year into implementation, with most others grappling with addressing start‐up issue and the last launched as recently as 1‐3 August, 2011.

of 106

The lack of scientific publications emanating from the research IAR4D activities of CORAF/WECARD is a blemish on its record, and has clearly not been seen as a priority activity for the Council. The MTRT believes that scientific publications should be given more weight in CORAF/WECARD. Recommendation 5: Programme Managers of CORAF/WECARD should encourage their NARS partners to give more emphasis to publishing the results of IAR4D projects in peer reviewed and other scientific publications by instituting mechanisms such as an annual award for the best scientific publication, and more regularly publishing technical results in the CORAF/WECARD review.

6. MAINSTREAMING GENDER AND THE ENVIRONMENT 6.1 Gender Mainstreaming Achievements:

Since the implementation of its Operational plan, CORAF has taken a number of steps towards mainstreaming gender in its research and development programmes and projects. A CORAF/ WECARD gender policy was developed through a consultative and participatory process with the NARS. The policy document was subsequently approved by the CORAF/WECARD Governing Board. Development of a Gender Action Plan (GAP) to support the implementation of CORAF/WECARD gender policy was on‐going during the mid‐term review (MTR). A consultative workshop was held in Conakry on 19‐20 July, 2011. In addition, CORAF/WECARD also conducted a Learning Workshop on Mainstreaming Gender in Agricultural Research and Development Programmes for a number of NARS members in December 2010. The CORAF/WECARD “Statement of Gender Policy” is as follows:

“Strengthen gender equality and provide an opportunity for men and women to contribute to agricultural development in West Africa and Central Africa, and benefit equitably.”

In its Statement of Gender Policy, CORAF/WECARD defines four objectives for its gender policy to strengthen its role “as an organisation that coordinates regional agricultural research in West Africa and Central Africa and which promotes gender equality in the region”. The objectives are to:

1. incorporate all current thinking on gender in development; 2. increase the number of components and projects that are of equal benefit to women and

men and in accordance with their specific needs; 3. establish institutional mechanisms to reduce inequalities between women and men ; and 4. establish long‐term expertise in the CORAF/WECARD to support its process of gender

mainstreaming.

Assessment

CORAF/WECARD gender mainstreaming activities implemented during the first half of the Operational plan are a step in the right direction to promote and strengthen gender equality in agricultural research and development programmes in WCA. At the institutional level (the CORAF Secretariat and the NARS) there is a stated acknowledgement in policy documents of the centrality of women in agricultural production and hence the importance of mainstreaming gender equality in agricultural development. For the most part, however, the ideals of national policies and legislations on the issue are not reflected in the reality on the ground, where gender mainstreaming is often assigned a low priority, and as a add‐on task to junior level female staff, and is limited to gender sensitization training and construction of sex disaggregated indicators. The MTR further found that

of 106

funding and capacity for the effective implementation of gender mainstreaming are key constraints as reported by several NARIs visited.

The absence of a CORAF/WECARD Gender Action Plan (which was developed post MTR) was did not allow the MTRT to assess the effectiveness of mainstreaming gender equality in the implementation of the OP. The development of the GAP half‐way through the life cycle of the OP also has implications for the successful implementation of the gender policy and the achievement of its stated objectives. Furthermore, it throws into question CORAF/WECARD’s own commitment as a regional coordinating organisation, to the effective promotion of gender equality in agricultural development in the sub‐region. CORAF/WECARD as a coordinating agency, should be the torch bearer for the NARS in the active integration of gender equality and it should, therefore, have developed its’ Gender Action Plan in a more timely fashion. The absence of an Action Plan means that clear guidelines that CORAF/WECARD partners could use in mainstreaming gender in their programmes did not exist.

During its field visits it was evident to the MTRT that there is growing awareness about the critical role of women in agricultural production. All the NARS visited have integrated gender considerations into their respective projects and programmes. A consistent problem pointed out by many of the NARIs, however, was the difficulty in conceptualising and operationalising gender mainstreaming.

The absence of a user friendly gender mainstreaming guidelines has resulted in a gap between stated objectives of the gender policy and implementation. For the majority of the NARS, gender mainstreaming is currently limited to gender awareness training workshops and sex‐disaggregated statistical indicators.

The MTRT finds that neither CORAF/WECARD SC nor the NARS have assessed the short or long‐term impact of mainstreaming gender in agricultural development programmes and projects at the institutional and community levels. The NERICA rice project in The Gambia that was visited by the MTRT, although not a CORAF/WECARD project, can be used to illustrate the issue. The project is a good example of the implementation of the IAR4D model and the MTRT was provided with an impressive quantitative indicator of gender participation ‐ of the 200 participants, 180 are women and 20 are men. Benefits communicated by the women member to the MTRT included the traditional ones of increased ability to pay school fees, meet household expenses such as clothes, and increase access to rice area. But no analysis has been conducted on the impact (positive or negative) of the project on the lives of the women. Within the IAR4D paradigm, key assessment questions should include the progress made by the 180 women (and 20 men) towards food security and in building assets. This has not been done. Rather the focus was on the number of women participating in the project. None of the women mentioned the purchase of durable assets. Ironically, it was one of the 20 men who provided the MTRT with a concrete indicator of the asset acquisition impact of the project —a house built with income from the project.

The limitations of operationalising gender mainstreaming, with an exclusive focus on gender training and quantitative sex disaggregated indicators has resulted in the concept itself being seen as a constraint. For example, there is a growing body of literature that not only argues that gender mainstreaming has failed but also questions its resonance in African relations of production and in the lived realities of African women. UNIFEM and other gender research agencies have done a great deal of research on the topic.

Furthermore, at the NARS level, questions were also raised about the exclusive focus on gender inequality with the exclusion of other forms of social inequalities. The increasing awareness about other forms of social exclusions and vulnerabilities is resulting in a gradual paradigm shift from gender focus to a socio‐economic focus. As observed by the MTRT, some NARIs e.g. Gambia, Burkina Faso, and Cameroun, have already adopted the more inclusive socio‐economic analysis approach to address social inequality and the needs of vulnerable groups across the population spectrum. Two of NARIs—Gambia and Burkina Faso even have socio‐economic advisors.

of 106

Recommendation 6

CORAF/WECARD should adopt the more inclusive approach of socio‐economic analysis in which effect of programme activities on the livelihoods of all project participants are analysed including the impact on asset acquisition rather than focussing on gender participation statistics as an indicator of gender mainstreaming. CORAF/WECARD should also consider enhancing the Secretariat’s gender mainstreaming capacity by engaging a full time highly qualified socio‐economic and gender specialist at a senior level with decision‐making authority.

6.2 Environmental and Social Management Achievements

CORAF/WECARD has an environmental policy document – The Framework for Environmental Management (FEM) published in November 2008, which puts environmental and social issues at the heart of research programmes in terms of preparation, implementation and monitoring. The document focuses on the role of CORAF/WECARD in supporting the development of the IAR4D characterized by institutional diversity to generate knowledge and scientific information required to meet the needs of the sector across the region. The document also stresses that agricultural activities are directly linked to natural resource and that some of the impacts can be positive or negative. It states that environmental protection in the context of intensive production systems must remain central to all CORAF/WECARD projects. In this respect, all agricultural research activities of CORAF / WECARD will focus on poverty reduction, food security, provision of health benefits, and maintenance of natural resources. All activities which tend to preserve the environment will be encouraged by CORAF / WECARD. Ex‐ante and ex‐post Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) will be conducted for projects. CORAF / WECARD will mount a strong advocacy programmes with NARS on the need to institutionalize the EIA and will ensure that NARS conduct EIA for all sub‐regional activities they lead.

More specifically, the FEM CORAF/WECARD includes structural elements that must be observed by all programmes and projects as follows:

1. A list of ineligible activities or features or activities for support by CORAF/WECARD should be drawn up and widely publicised;

2. Establishment of environmental and social policies (policies and minimum standards of environmental management to be integrated in all projects based on the requirements of the Environmental Safeguards of the World Bank; studies of impacts on the environmental, resettlement, natural habitats, forests, management of pesticides, and genetically modified organisms);

3. Establishment of process and responsibilities (description of the process to be followed in the implementation of the FEM and the allocation of responsibilities for these processes,

4. Capacity building (technical assistance and training to be provided to strengthen capabilities so that commitments in terms of the FEM are executed successfully,

5. Monitoring (the steps to be taken to monitor, report, and strengthen the implementation of the FEM).

Assessment

At the level of CORAF/WECARD Executive Secretariat, the MTRT observed the following:

• The Strategic Plan and especially the current OP of CORAF/WECARD have not been subjected to strategic environmental and social assessment. Among the projects of the eight programmes of the PO, only the WAAPP in the NRMP has documents on environmental and social assessment (the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) which includes procedures and tools for environmental screening such as the " Management Plan

of 106

for Pests and Pesticides, the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Resettlement Action Plans (RAP). Other programmes have no documents on environmental assessment. However, as indicated above, the adoption of the Strategic Plan was accompanied by the establishment of an environmental management framework and CORAF/WECARD has carried out Environment and Social Assessments in 13 countries in West Africa, within the framework of the WAAPP. Furthermore all USAID funded projects have undergone environmental assessment and all project assessments address criteria related to environmental and social issues (cf CORAF/WECARD Project valuation criteria). All contracts signed between CORAF/WECARD and lead institutions have clauses that trigger environmental and social assessments; A checklist is provided to all institutions involved in project implementation which they complete. Based on the results of the checklist projects may or may not undergo environmental and social assessments.

• Some projects apart from WAAPP are incorporating environmental and social concerns. For example, the Striga control project envisages the use of biological control (insects, fungi) and IPM); in the LFA Programme project proposals include a section on the analysis of environmental and social impacts. However, it is curious to note that the Capacity building programme does not include a component on assessing and managing environmental and social impacts.

• Environmental and social function exists within the SE of CORAF/WECARD. There is a Focal Point for the Environment and another Focal Point for Social Issues. The experts, although they are not specialists in environmental and social assessment, possess reasonable knowledge of the issues, which allows them to coordinate and facilitate environmental and social impact assessments. Moreover, it should be noted that one of the Focal Points (Policy Market and Trade) has a Masters degree in enviromental issues. But the appointment of Focal Points does not guarantee synergy of actions in the institution and can even lead to conflicts of responsibilities with Programme Managers for monitoring programme implementation.

• Not all Programme Managers have been trained in environmental and social assessment to help them better prepare projects, to monitor environmental and social issues in the field and continuously mentor the coordinators of the projects. The OP states that any researcher appointed Programme Manager should receive intense internal training in leadership, planning, strategic thinking, etc. But there is no mention of training in environmental and social assessment! At the time of the MTR only four Programme Managers had received internal training in Environment and Social Assessment impact assessment, organized by the World Bank. NARS Focal Persons also benefitted from this training. Training was also organised recently by USAID for Programme Managers involved in the coordination of USAID funded projects and NARS focal persons, specifically on managing projects that address environmental and social issues.

• The M&E Plan and the monitorable indicators of CORAF / WECARD OP do not include environmental and social indicators.

Recommendation 7: CORAF/WECARD should improve its environmental and social management by:

• Conducting an environmental and social assessment for the second phase of the OP, • Systematising the conduction of environmental and social audit of all projects under

implementation; • Ensuring the systematic environmental screening of research projects before they start; • Sharing environmental and social information (documents, screening tools, guidelines and

procedures of good practice, etc.) with the NARS;

of 106

• Assigning responsibility for the environmental and Social functions to only one Focal Point ‐ the Programme Manager of the NRMP, for consistency, synergy and to avoid conflicts in roles;

• Providing support to the Focal Point for hiring of short term consultants for monitoring missions so as to reduce his workload as a Programme Manager;

• Organising training on environmental and social issues for the seven Programme Managers on the issues, safeguards and procedures related to environmental and social assessment;

• Promoting and supporting the NARS to establish and formalize MOUs with national institutions responsible for environmental assessments to support them in managing environmental projects.

At the level of the NARS, the MTRT observed the following:

• Training and sensitisation environmental safeguards have been conducted at regional level by CORAF/WECARD as part of the preparation of the WAAPP they have not been followed up at the country level.

• The NARS have no specific environmental and social strategy. In most case they make reference to national strategies such as National Environmental Action Plans or to those in programmes such as WAAPP

• National Innovation platforms often do not incorporate national environmental institution, except in Ghana, and consultation between stakeholders in the platforms and national institutions in charge of environmental have been insufficient

• In some countries, the environmental function exists within the NARS or Focal Points have been designated but they are not fully operational and many NARS lack the capacity for environmental and social assessment. The lack of best practice project guides on environmental and social issues does not give confidence that they can comply with environmental and social safeguards.

Recommendation 8: CORAF/WECARD should encourage the NARS to:

• Integrate national institutions in charge of issues of environmental and social assessment into the NARS IAR4D Innovation Platforms for the concept to be fully effective;

• Ensure the systematic screening of all research projects for compliance with environmental safeguards

• Ensure environmental monitoring and environmental auditing of all ongoing research projects an activity that could be undertaken by national institutions in charge of environmental assessments, once they are integrated into the NARS.

• Development of best practices manual to support environmental and social implementation of agricultural research projects in the field;

• Strengthen the training of researchers in environmental and social assessment to improve the integration of the "environment" in all research activities

of 106

7.THEEFFECTIVENESSANDEFFICIENCYOFGOVERNANCEANDMANAGEMENT

7.1 The Organisation CORAF/WECARD has put in place eleven principal organs of governance and management shown in Figure 1, and listed below (Article 4.1 of the Governance Manual):

• The General Assembly • The Governing Board • The Chairperson of the Governing Board • The Scientific and Technical Committee • The Executive Secretariat • The Executive Director • The Director of Programmes • The Director of Finance and Administration • Manager Information and Communication • Programme Managers • The Internal Auditor.

Figure 1: Organisational Structure of CORAF/WECARD

Detailed descriptions of the various organs of governance ‐ the General Assembly, the Governing Board and its Committee and Sub Committees and the Executive Secretariat are in Annex 5. The various articles in the Governance Manual giving legal legitimacy to these various bodies are as follows:

of 106

1) The General Assembly (GA): Article 4.2.1 states that the General Assembly is the supreme authority of CORAF/WECARD, and its sovereignty relates to all matters concerning the Association. Article 4.2.2: outlines the composition of the General Assembly while its functions are outlined in Article 4.3.4 of the Governance Manual. The specific functions of the General Assembly towards the Governing Board are contained in Article 4.2.4 of the Governance Manual.

2) The Governing Board (GB): Article 4.3.1 states that the Governing Board shall have 13 members of which the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be appointed by the General Assembly at its by‐annual meetings. Article 4.3.10 of the Governance Manual gives the Governing Board authority to establish Sub‐Committees. The GB has established three such Sub‐Committees; The Programme, Finance and Audit and the Human Resources and Administrative Matters Sub‐Committees. The functions of the Programme, Finance and Audit and Human Resources and Administration Sub‐Committees are governed by Articles 4.3.11, 4.3.12 and 4.3.13 respectively.

3) The Scientific and Technical Committee (STC): The STC is the only full Committee of the Governing Board, and its Status and authority are defined in Article 4.4.1. Article 4.4.2 of GM, which stipulates that the STC shall consist of twelve (12) experts appointed from the National Agricultural Research Systems or National Agricultural Research Institutions of CORAF/WECARD members and partner institutions on the basis of their personal merit, proven expertise and experience in agricultural research for development and capacity strengthening. It further states that the Composition of the membership of the STC shall ensure representation of the areas of CORAF/WECARD activities, official working languages and gender.

4) The Executive Secretariat: According to Article 4.5.2 the Senior Management Team of the Executive Secretariat shall consist of the Executive Director, the Director of Programmes, the Director of Finance and Administration and the Manager of Information and Communication.

7.2 Assessment of the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Governing Board and Management

The MTRT assessed the control environment, internal controls, information, communication and monitoring, and the field operations management systems of CORAF/WECARD. The institution of a strict regime of controls is important in a non‐profit organisation since the Organisation does not have the benefit of the profit barometer to raise red flags regarding its performance. It is only through the system of controls installed within the organisation that red flags can be raised.

7.2.1 The Control Environment

The control environment sets the tone of the organisation by influencing the control consciousness of its staff. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control by providing discipline and structure. While examining the control environment the MTRT looked at (a) the attention paid by the GB to the activities of the ES, (b) the management’s operating style, (c) competence of the staff and (d) the delegation of responsibility.

(a) Attention and direction provided by the Governing Board:

Board composition: The Strategy and Operational Plans acknowledge the new definition of NARS to include the National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and other agricultural research for development stakeholders such as the Universities, private sector, farmer organizations, NGOs and advisory services. As at now, the Universities are excluded from membership of the Board, a deficiency acknowledged by the Executive Secretariat. CORAF/WECARD’s stakeholders are the direct

of 106

beneficiaries of the training offered by the universities. CORAF is mandated to serve as a platform for debate and identification of key issues affecting agricultural research and development in the West and Central Africa sub‐region. With the wealth of research knowledge and infrastructure that the universities possess, to exclude them from the decision‐making process is not in the best interest of the mandate and overall goal of CORAF/WECARD. Without the inclusion of the universities in the decision making process the Board cannot be as effective as it should be in spreading the new IAR4D paradigm to CORAF/WECARD constituency in the West and Central Africa Sub Region.

Recommendation 9:

The Human Resource and Administrative Matters Committee should as a matter of urgency do all in its powers to actively seek qualified members of universities to recommend to the Governing Board to become members of the General Assembly and Governing Board respectively. Activities of the Scientific and Technical Committee (STC): The MTRT notes that the STC is greatly involved in programme implementation to the extent of full involvement in the process for selection and approval of competitive and commissioned projects (Figure 2). The MTRT believes that the STC should be more strategic and that full responsibility should be given to the ES through the Programme Director and the Programme Managers for the design, approval and implementation of projects. In the process, the STC can have call to scientific specialists as it sees fit. Once it has approved the programme procedures manuals, the STC should concentrate on strategic questions such as the distribution of projects across countries, whether the portfolio of projects addresses the priority strategic issues identified in the scoping studies by the suite of projects being implemented, etc.

Procedures for Selection and Approval of Competitive and Commissioned Projects

Figure 2: Process for Selection of research projects in CORAF/WECARD

of 106

Recommendation 10:

CORAF/WECARD should review the mandate of the STC to reduce its involvement in operational issues and concentrate its efforts on strategic issues.

The Programme Sub Committee of the Governing Board: The Partnership and Strategic Sub Committee (PSSC) has been renamed Programme Sub Committee (PSC) with exactly the same functions. Thus, one of the functions of the new PSC is “Advise the Governing Board on CORAF/WECARD political matters”. The Team feels that such a task would require people with different profiles from those needed to advise on programmatic issues and that this task should be removed from those of the PSC. The Governing Board recognized this anomaly and requested the Secretariat in its second ordinary session of 2008 to “Clearly define the role of such bodies (the STC and the PSC) in the scientific management of programmes in order to avoid conflicts of interest and inconsistency of roles”. In the face of this, the MTRT is surprised that this opportunity was not used to correct the anomalies and clearly define the roles of two organs that play important roles in governance.

The Finance and Audit Sub‐Committee of the Governing Board: This sub‐committee should ensure that its finance and internal audit functions are enhanced by putting in place mechanisms that will produce reports such as financial and budgetary control reports. This will enable it improve on its financial and internal audit oversight functions. It should also ensure that necessary steps are taken by the ES to separate the internal audit functions from the finance functions at the Secretariat level.

The Human Resource and Administrative Matters Sub‐Committee (HRMSC) of the Governing Board: Among other responsibilities, the HRMC is empowered by the Board to recommend candidates for appointment to the General Assembly and Board. The HRMSC has also been delegated the function of evaluating the annual performance of the Executive Director ‐ Article 4.3.13 (viii) of the Governance Manual. The article does not state, as it does for the other tasks that the results should be forwarded to the Board for approval. This therefore contradicts Article 4.3.2. (ii), which states that the Governing Board should “Assess the annual performances of the Executive Director”.

Neither the Board, nor the HRMSC has put in place any formal process to carry out the important function of assessment of the performance of the ED. Whereas it has put in place a formal system to assess the performance of the Executive Secretariat it has not done so for the person of the Executive Director. The Board should distinguish between its responsibilities to assess the Executive Secretariat from that of assessing the performance of the Executive Director. The present Executive Director who took up office in 2003 has only been assessed once in eight years (in 2007)! This is clearly not in line with good management practices. The GB should develop and put in place an appraisal system that will guide the performance of the Executive Director.

Recommendation 11:

The Board should develop and implement a formal system for the yearly performance evaluation of the Executive Director

The GB also has the responsibility for setting out the principal functions of the Executive Secretariat (ES) and these are laid down in Article 4.5.3; Article 4.5.3 (ii) which states that the ES should “Undertake financial management and control of all resources used by CORAF/WECARD both to conduct its own internal activities and to manage development funds”. The MTRT considers this to be vague because it is not obvious that human resource management is catered for in the article. The Operational Plan sets out in great detail the activities that will be undertaken to implement its

of 106

change management plan. Among other things it states that the governance and management manuals will be updated to institutionalise these changes. Taking into consideration the critical role the ES is required to play in bringing about change management the GB should give this prominence by inserting specific Articles in the Manual to cover implementation of the Change Management Process.

(b) Operating Style of Management

The ES Management authority seems to be too concentrated at the highest level, especially when it comes to the approval process. The Executive Director must approve all expenditures, both administrative and programme. He also approves all Local and International Purchase Orders. This means that when he is absent no approval of expenditures can take place. Furthermore, there are only two signatories to the CORAF/WECARD Accounts (the Executive Director and the Director of Finance and Administration (DFA). If one of them is absent no payments can be made. This means that the ED signs all cheques that are over CFA 50, 000 which is the petty cash ceiling for a single payment. An internal survey by the DFA showed that in 2008, 2009 and 2010 there were 9,740, 12,455 and 14,460 individual financial transactions respectively. Just taking the ED’s approval and signing functions into consideration it means he signs 28,920 documents in a year. The actual number will far exceed that, because the ED also signs Local Purchase Orders. Assuming that there are 260 working days in a year, the ED signs on average 111 documents per day! This is not the best way for the ED of CORAF/WECARD to be spending his/her time.

The fact that every item of expenditure, apart from petty cash, has to go through the ED unnecessarily restricts the approval process of the ES in dealing with 22 Country operations each of which may handle a number of projects for which expenditures may be required at any time. As a Regional Organisation with on‐going activities that include donor deadlines, the approval and payments processes should be up and running at all times. The negative effects of delays in disbursements lead to unnecessary risks to project implementation. Management should take steps to correct this situation. There are enough senior officers such as the Programme Director and the Communication Manager to render the approval process more efficient.

Recommendation 12: The Executive Director should establish a sound system of control for allotment, authorisation, approval and payment of expenditure, which will be exercised by authorising, certifying, approving, and payment officers who should be given clear terms of reference.

(c) Staff Competencies

The MTRT also looked at the staffing of the various departments. While the Programme Department seems to be reasonably well staffed with the recent additions of five highly qualified and experienced programme managers, the MTRT is of the view that the Finance and Administrative Department does not seem to have the necessary staffing to perform its functions efficiently and effectively. The gap between the DFA and the other officers in the Department in terms of qualifications and levels is too wide. This puts too much pressure on the DFA. He spends an inordinate amount of his time micro‐managing instead of ensuring that the internal control system is functioning properly and giving the Programme Department the backup it needs to implement programmes and projects.

The two areas that are particularly affected are human resource management and financial reporting. The new Human Resource Management Manual needs an experienced professional to oversee its implementation. Management feels that the present incumbent does not have the necessary skills to effectively perform the required tasks. With the emphasis on change management

of 106

and the training activities outlined in the OP, the Human Resource Management Section should take the lead in organizing and overseeing the process. These weaknesses are recognized by management and the MTRT was informed that action will be taken to address them soon.

Staff Evaluation The Executive Director has instituted control systems to evaluate staff of the Secretariat. This is commendable seeing that the Board has not instituted any formal procedure for the ED’s evaluation. In the opinion of the MTRT, however, the system needs improvement because it is too heavily dependent on numeric indicators. . The objectives are set for each staff at the beginning of the year, but no mechanism is put in place to monitor progress so that, if needed, corrective action can be taken to help staff who may be facing work challenges. More weight should be put on qualitative appraisal. Discussions during such sessions will help to motivate staff and develop their self‐esteem and confidence

(d) Delegation of authority:

As implied by the discussion in (b) and (c) above, the MTRT is of the view that there is insufficient delegation of authority in the ES, particularly in the Department of Finance and Administration. One of the factors that determine delegation of authority is the level of confidence and trust that the person who is delegating authority has in the person to which authority is being delegated and the Internal control System. A good internal control system makes it easier to delegate functions. Qualified staff must, however, be in the position to which authority is to be delegated. It was clear to the MTRT for example that because of the lack of confidence in the ability of the staff carrying out the human resources function, authority has not been delegated to the present incumbent. CORAF/WECARD has experienced important growth in its resource base over the last four years; with actual expenditures growing from just over $3m in 2007 to over $9m in 2010. This growth has not been reflected in the quality and numbers of staff needed in the Finance and Administration Department to ensure efficient and effective financial management.

7.2.2 Internal Control System

Under the Committee of Sponsoring Organisations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission Framework in the USA, internal control is broadly defined as a process effected by an entity's Board of Directors, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following internal control categories: effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting and compliance with applicable laws.

Internal Audit

The effectiveness and efficiency of operations can be measured by internal controls put in place and the comments on those controls by both the internal and external auditors. An important tool in helping ensure the effectiveness of internal controls is the internal audit function.

The internal audit function in an organisation should be independent, objective and a consulting activity designed to add value and improve the organisation's operations. If used properly it will assist the organisation to accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes. Internal auditing is also a catalyst for improving an organisation’s effectiveness and efficiency by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes.

The Internal Audit function has expanded its traditional responsibility from supplementing the annual certification audit to conducting organisation‐wide evaluations through operational auditing techniques. The primary purpose and the main benefit of operational auditing are to assist management in solving problems by making meaningful recommendations for realistic courses of action.

of 106

The MTRT observed that the Internal Auditor in CORAF/WECARD is not performing the true role of an internal auditor (IA). The job description does not give the IA the organisational independency that is generally needed to perform the functions objectively. The IA is involved in the approval process by being required to carry out pre‐audits of all expenditures. It is difficult to see how the IA can be objective and make critical observations when he/she is involved in the expenditure process. The job description requires the IA to work “In close collaboration with the Director of Finance and Administration when auditing operational units and programmes or projects”. This is not in line with the independence the IA needs in choosing the areas to audit as it is common for the AI to interact with members of staff whose work is being audited.

Recommendation 13:

The Governing Board should take immediate steps to regularize the internal audit function in the organisation. The GB should separate the internal audit function from the finance function. Presently the Internal Auditor reports to the Executive Director. In order for the position to get the organisational independence necessary the Internal Auditor should still be administratively responsible to the ED, but should report directly to the Board through the Finance and Audit Committee for his/her professional work.

The Budget and Financial Management processes

The budget process is well laid down in the Administrative & Finance Procedures Manual. However it is the view of the MTRT that the manual needs to be revised to make it clear that a management report in the form of a budgetary control report should be prepared monthly and distributed routinely to the responsible officers including the Executive Director and the Programme Director.

The Manual also lays down in clear and detailed form the various procedures to follow in the financial management of the Organisation. However, the manual also needs to be revised to include the procedures to follow when misappropriation of funds or fraud is suspected.

As indicated already, the approval and payment processes are too concentrated in the hands of the Executive Director and the Director of Finance. According to the Manual every payment above CFA50, 000 should be approved by the ED and the DAF and the cheques for such payments must be signed by the same officers. This is not in keeping with checks and balances needed in an efficient and effective internal control system. The ES has enough staff at senior level to put in place a documented approval process that will clearly nominate and define the roles for certifying, approving, authorising and paying officers. Certifying officers should be responsible for originating expenditures in areas of the budget that they control after certifying that the amount in question is included in the Secretariat’s budget. They will also be part of the group to receive goods ordered to ensure that the specifications are in line with the original request. Approving officers can also be paying officers. They will normally be the Heads of Departments and in certain cases the Executive Director depending on the size and nature of the expenditure. The paying officers will be empowered to sign cheques, so that the operations of the Secretariat do not get bogged down by lack of signatories. With proper internal control reports and regular bank reconciliations the system should work.

Whereas the budget procedure is exhaustively outlined in the manual there is no mention of cash flow management. Cash flow management is the process of monitoring, analysing, and adjusting an organisation’s cash flow. Cash flow is essentially the movement of money into and out of a business; it's the cycle of cash inflows and cash outflows that determine an organisation’s liquidity. This is particularly important where the inflow of cash is not entirely certain. It is an important management tool, which projects the actual cash at the disposal of the Secretarial. The budget is not

of 106

cash; therefore cash flow management should be put in place and the procedure included in the Manual. The fact that the ES receives funds from various donors makes the need for cash flow management very important. The cash flow will help the ES plan its programme better. This could be done over a two to three year period on a rolling basis, meaning that it should be revised periodically; for example, quarterly.

Recommendation 14:

A projected cash flow should be produced as a matter of routine and made available to management including Project Managers and must be regularly updated to take changing circumstances into consideration.

Compliance with Applicable Laws:

The External Auditors have been reporting for the past three years that the ES has not been complying with Senegalese Law relating to withholding tax and tax on the salaries of locally recruited staff. The ES explained to the MTRT that it is in the process of reviewing the Headquarters Agreement with the Senegalese Government to clarify certain issues including the above, but that such revisions are a complex undertaking. Taking into consideration that this has the potential of causing conflict between the Senegalese Government and the ES the matter should be resolved expeditiously.

Recommendation 15:

The Board and Management should take action on the External Auditors observations on non‐compliance with Senegalese law.

7.2.3 Information and Communication

There are four areas of information and communication that are essential in an organisation: Financial Control Reporting, Internal control information, internal communication and external communication. As has been mentioned already financial control reporting needs to be put in place to provide the internal control information necessary for management to monitor and keep abreast of the operations. With its non‐availability the necessary internal control information within the ES is incomplete. Internal communication between Departments must be enhanced for the ES to reach an acceptable level of internal communication within the organisation. External Communication is dealt with in another chapter.

7.2.4 Monitoring

Monitoring enables management to determine whether the other components of internal control over financial reporting are functioning. It also helps to identify and communicate problems in a timely manner, to those who are responsible for taking of corrective action, for the benefit of management and the Board.

Financial and programme Reporting

The present internal control system of CORAF/WECARD is weak in the areas of financial and programme reporting. There are no periodic financial control reports on both the administrative and programme budgets. There are no reports that monitor actual expenditures against budgeted expenditures. Programme Managers have no way of knowing how expenditures on the projects they manage are progressing. A system should be established to ensure that budgetary control reports are produced on a monthly basis to give up‐to‐date status of both the financial and programme budgets. This is critical to enable both the Programme Managers and the Programme Director to

of 106

make informed decisions about corrective measures that they may need to take during the course of the year. Presently, financial programme reports are only prepared for the Board. The Executive Director also needs to receive budgetary control reports on the progress of programme and administrative expenditures. This will assist the ED to make informed decisions about how to manage the budget so that there are no over/under expenditures. There are significant financial risks that the organisation is exposed to by not being able to monitor its administrative and programme budgets on a routine basis.

The lack of monthly financial monitoring reports for both programme and administrative expenditures poses risks to the internal control system. Taking into consideration the limited staff at the disposal of the Finance and Administration Department an assessment of the present staff should be undertaken in order to ascertain their competencies in producing the necessary reports. This should be done as a matter of urgency otherwise the Organisation will continue to be exposed to financial management risks, such as over/under expenditures of donor funds thus depriving its constituency of valuable resources, delayed disbursements etc.

During an examination of the computerised accounting system which was installed in 2003, it was observed that the capturing of administrative expenditure was done accurately. However, when the question was raised as to why programme budgets were not broken down to enable reporting to be done on the progress of expenditures, the MTRT was informed that the software was not capable of doing this. The figures have to be exported into an excel spread sheet to enable this to be done. This unnecessarily increases the workload. A new version or an upgrade of the existing software system acquired to enable it to perform this essential function.

Recommendation 16:

The Executive Director should review the competencies of the staff in the Finance and Administration Department with a view to taking a decision on what type of reinforcement is needed to assist the Department deal with among other issues the production of financial reports on regular and timely basis. Action should be taken to upgrade the accounting software so that it can efficiently produce the necessary reports. Finance staff should be routinely involved in research programme planning so that finance is seen as an integral part of the process.

7.2.4 Management of Field Operations: The MTRT found that most problems relating to management of field operations in CORAF/WECARD are related to delays in project implementation caused by delays in funding. This often leads to increased costs and reduced impact and tends to reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of projects. They are also due to issues that affect the ES already discussed above, including the low levels of communication between the Programme and the Finance Departments at the ES in the planning and implementation of programmes and projects. The Finance Department and the Programme Departments have not developed a system which ensures that financial information flows between the two departments systematically and routinely.

Delays in disbursements after project launching: One cause of delays in disbursement to countries implementing CORAF/WECARD projects is the complexity of the process for launching projects once approved. After going through the planning stages of a project which can take anything up to twelve months a road map is established during the workshop for the launching of the project. The various steps to be followed before the first disbursement is made are agreed upon in detail. The reality has been that the road map is almost always not adhered to because of delays in completing all the formalities required before the signing of the contract. The regional nature of projects negatively impacts on the process, because disbursements will not be made until all the countries in the project

of 106

have completed all the formalities. After the launching workshop the NARS that respect the road map go ahead and mobilise their partners only to find out that the first instalment is not forthcoming due to delays in the process caused by those NARS that have not fulfilled their obligations. They claim that one of the negative effects of this is that they lose credibility with their partners who feel that their time is being wasted. They say it is very difficult to mobilise them again. This is a challenge that the ES has to find answers to. One way to reduce delays may be to ensure that at the workshop to launch projects all the necessary formalities like agreement on the terms of the contract, the account to which the funds will be remitted, the special requirements of the donor as regards financial reporting, etc., are completed.

Delays in financial reporting: Another cause of delays in disbursement is the delay in financial reporting from field projects. When NARS in various stages of development are put together to implement a regional project there are delays because “weaker” NARS usually struggle to keep pace with the process of financial reporting, which frustrates Project Leaders who have to put in extra work to keep projects moving. The project led by SONGHAI now being implemented in 10 different locations has virtually ground to a halt because of this problem. Eight partners are struggling to present their financial reports in a form and within a timeframe acceptable to USAID. The MTRT was informed that the Donor requires that financial reporting should be done monthly and should be submitted to them within six weeks to enable further disbursements to be made. This is proving to be very cumbersome and unworkable in the field. The project is due to end in September 2011 and some of the implementing partners are still struggling with their reports. In such cases the ES should make a conscious effort to assist the countries that are lagging behind for example by having more monitoring visits, providing technical assistance, etc.

Another reason for delayed reporting is the fact that the planting season in countries that are grouped together to implement a project may be different. As a result there are difficulties in synchronizing their activities to be able to report at the same time. This must be taken into consideration at the time projects are developed.

Funds Management: There are two different ways in which NARS’ handle funds received from CORAF/WECARD. Some NARS set up special accounts for the projects, in which case it is easy to follow the trail of all monies transferred to them. In other NARS the monies are paid into the general pool and it becomes very difficult to follow the trail. This is not to imply that monies will necessarily be misused, but to indicate that tighter controls need to be put in place. In one particular country the head of the local NARS was particularly sceptical about being asked too many questions about the use of CORAF/WECARD funds, because he contends that CORAF/WECARD funding is just a small part of the total funds they receive.

Involvement of Finance Staff in Project development: The finance staff of NARS must be fully involved at some stage in the planning process for a new project. Their non‐involvement leads to the adoption of budgets that are not sufficiently detailed to enable Finance staff to easily discern where to charge the various expenditures. This often causes delays in project implementation, and leads to tensions with project coordinators who accuse finance staff of stifling the implementation of their projects.

Use of Service Providers: CORAF/WECARD should ensure that backstopping institutions are not only selected because of their specialty, but also for their willingness to be able to devote the time and expertise necessary to ensure the successful implementation of projects. The MTRT is aware that there are instances when backstopping institutions are unable to provide the services not because they do not have the expertise, but do not have the time needed to devote to the project.

Training of focal points: Because of the complicated procedures involved in the programming process, focal points should be trained in project and financial management before the commencement of projects so that they are better prepared to present the various reports on time.

of 106

8. THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION FUNCTION, THE OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS AND PROGRESS IN

ACHIEVING THEM 8.1 The Monitoring and Evaluation Function The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, under the Director of Programmes, is charged with monitoring the progress of CORAF/WECARD in achievement of the OP log frame indicators at the level of impact, operational outcomes and output (project and programme level).

The OP articulates mechanisms through which all stakeholders contribute to achieving the defined objectives in the Logframe, which is a concise statement of what constitutes this Operational Plan. As a planning and management tool, it is governed by principles of cause and effect and supports onion‐skin nesting which permits a hierarchy of activities to relate directly to each other. It presents targeted outcomes that CORAF/WECARD plans to achieve in a given timeframe if certain critical assumptions hold true. The full log frame with quantified objectively verifiable indicators is presented in Annex 1 of the OP and was arrived at apparently after a long consultative process. It is summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Summary of key elements of the Operational Plan Logical Framework General Objective High broad‐based agricultural growth sustainably established in WCA Specific Objective Broad‐based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets sustainably improved for target groups in WCA

Assumptions ‐ Specific to General Objective• Extension of area under sustainable land management and water

systems is achieved on target [Pillar I] • Contribution of improved rural infrastructure and access of trade

to markets is achieved on target [Pillar II] • Famine response and food supply improved on target [Pillar III] • Benefits lead to improvements in livelihoods of rural and urban

households • Potential for expanding markets exists and is realised • Improved productivity is accessible and of benefit to the poor and

disadvantaged • Improved markets are accessible and of benefit to the poor and

disadvantaged • Competitive markets are accessible and of benefit to the poor and

disadvantaged • National and international context promotes benefits [at this level]

Results 1. Appropriate

technologies and Innovations developed

2. Strategic decision‐making options for policy, institutions and markets developed

3. Sub‐regional agricultural

Assumptions ‐ Result to Specific Objective • The IAR4D paradigm is an effective approach for ensuring

business unusual • Governments meet or exceed Maputo Declaration commitment of

10% contribution to agriculture R&D • Adequate infrastructure is maintained • National policies and unfair competition do not compromise gains • Complementary policies/enabling policies exist and are

implemented • Extension services able to take advantage of gains • Platforms for consultation exist

of 106

research system strengthened and coordinated

4. Demand for agricultural knowledge from target clients facilitated and met

• Adequate resources and enabling environment exist • Private sector and youth accept agriculture as a positive

opportunity for income generation • Civil society and producer organisations are adequately

resourced • International markets support gains • Food‐aid programmes do not negate/disrupt efforts • Political/economic environment does not negate gains

M&E Activities An M&E strategy document was published in February 2010. A Manual on M&E had earlier been published in September 2009. The Strategy document details a number of services that the M&E Unit is expected to provide as shown in Table 8. Table 8: M&E Services to support the implementation of the Operational Plan

Intervention of CORAF/WECARD M&E services

Goal “High broad based agricultural growth and food security sustainably established in West and Central Africa”

• Examination Coherence of CORAF/ WECARD with regional priorities

Strategic objective

Contribution to “Broad‐based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets sustainably improved for target groups in West and Central Africa”

• Evaluation of progress in achieving the CORAF/WECARD Strategic objective

Operational outcomes (results)

Results 1 ‐ 4 • Monitoring progress made in achieving the Operational outcomes

• Monitoring management performance of CORAF/WECARD

• Monitoring quality of partnerships CORAF/WECARD – donors – NARS – other partners

Outputs (programmes)

Technical & Policy Research programmes; Knowledge Management, Capacity Strengthening; Information and Communications

• Support project and M&E system design • Monitoring of outputs (programmes and

projects) • Management of information flows • Support knowledge management • Capacity building of partners and staff

Outputs (projects)

Research projects through the Regional Competitive Fund; Priority Commissioned research projects

• Support project M&E • Periodic audit and evaluations • Management of information flows

of 106

The M&E Unit has conducted a number of Monitoring Missions to track progress in implementation of CORAF/WECARD projects including:

• Monitoring and evaluation of PROMISO project (‘Increasing millet and sorghum production in West Africa’)

• Support and evaluation of the national coordination of the PLM project (Reinforcement of the resilience of means of subsistence to reduce poverty in the semi‐arid zones of West Africa)

• Monitoring and evaluation of three USAID funded projects ("Promotion of striga resistant sorghum to reduce the food crisis in the Sahel region (Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso)"; “Promotion of seed yam production in Nigeria, Ghana, Togo and Benin by the rapid multiplication technique; and the "Project to improve the post harvest quality of cassava, millet/sorghum and rice products in West Africa ")

The M&E Unit has started the development of Programming Monitoring Plans (PMP) for the CORAF/WECARD projects which require the full definition of logical frameworks for each project as well as the conduct of baseline studies for the definition of outcome and impact variables. A start has also been made in developing an Excel based Programme Monitoring System for the unit which is expected to include a CORAF/WECARD wide data base management system. A web based data base management system is also being developed initially for the WAAPP, and to be extended thereafter to cover all CORAF/WECARD programmes

Revisions to the OVIs of the OP Logframe were proposed to the Governing Board earlier this year. The GB decided to ask the MTR to review the proposals.

Assessment of M&E

The M&E Unit has made very slow progress in implementing the various services identified in Table 8.

Half way through the implementation of the OP with 40 operational projects, no baseline studies have yet been conducted for any of the projects and a proposal has been developed for only one of the projects – the AusAid funded seeds project.6 According to the CORAF/WECARD M&E Manager it has been extremely difficult o convince CORAF WECARD Program Managers and project leaders to budget for and undertake such studies. The general view was that Scoping Studies were all that was necessary.

No guidelines have been adopted for the conduct of baseline studies. The present situation is that the M&E Manager has made comments on proposal and design for one such study by a project leader. There is no systematic process for assuring that the necessary corrections are made and that baseline studies are properly designed and conducted.

Care should be taken to ensure that there is no duplication of effort in development of the web based data management system and the Excel based programme planning tool.

6 In the view of the MTRT the baseline survey questionnaire will not produce the require information. Some of its design faults have been pointed out by the CORAF/WECARD M&E Manager.

of 106

Recommendation 17:

CORAF/WECARD should ensure that adequate budgetary provision is made in all its projects for M&E activities, including conduct of the necessary baseline studies and that a guidelines for the design and conduct of baseline studies are prepared including draft questionnaire design and sampling schemes.

8.2 Modification of the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) In trying to measure the OVIs the M&E Unit concluded that some of them are very difficult to document during the operational phase of the OP (2008‐2013) and that some indicators of results and impacts require baseline indicators that are not available. At a workshop to launch the implementation of the M&E activities the indicators of outcomes were reviewed and suggestions for revisions proposed.

The MTRT considered whether the OP log frame indicators were realistic and whether the changes proposed by the M&E Unit are reasonable or just amount to a shifting of the goal posts. The views of the MTRT are summarised in Table 9 below. In a few cases the MTRT agrees with the ES that the variables are complex and will be difficult to measure and so should be deleted. However, in the majority of cases the MTRT feels that the proposed changes amount to unjustifiable shifts in the goal post and are not supported. In addition to the new indicators suggested by the ES, the MTRT suggests the addition of three variables on the environment, gender issues and the achievement of work plan and budget milestones

Recommendation 18:

CORAF/WECARD should not adopt most of the changes in the Log frame indicators proposed by the Executive Secretariat as they amount to unjustified shifts in the goal posts in the middle of the implementation of the current Operational Plan; rather the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit should proceed with collecting the necessary information, including the implementation of activities to generate baseline data as soon as possible where such do not exist.

8.3 Progress in Delivering the Results identified in the OP In earlier sections of this report the effectiveness of the CORAF/WECARD operations has been reviewed. In preparation for the MTR, the M&E Unit has produced a summary Table of the progress in delivering the results identified in the OP (Evaluation des résultats du PO 06‐05‐11). The MTRT reviewed the achievements recorded and supplemented it with information from collected during the field visits. The result is presented in Table 10. The Table shows that in some areas CORAF/WECARD has made impressive progress in achieving some of the OP results in the three years of operation of the OP, but progress has been slow in a few areas due mainly to the late commencements of projects that should produce the required results.

of 106

Table 9: Assessment of changes to Objectively Veifiable Indicators of Outcomes proposed by the Executive Secretariat of CORAF/WECARD Results OP Log frame Indicators Observations of

ES Suggestions for revised indicators by ES

MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

1. Appropriate technologies and innovations developed

1.1 At least 15 appropriate technologies/innovations for crops, livestock and/or fisheries available to poor and vulnerable households by 2013

None No Change Supported

Suggest slight redefinition to incorporate MDTF agreement as follows: 1.1 At least 15 appropriate technologies/innovations for crops, livestock and/or fisheries available to poor and vulnerable households developed and adopted by 2013

1.2 At least 10 technologies for land rehabilitation for sustainable production developed by 2013/

None The development by 2013 of at least 5 sustainable land management technologies for improved agricultural production developed

Not supported .

This is changing the goal posts. Variable is measurable. Suggest slight redefinition to incorporate MDTF agreement as follows: 1.2 At least 10 technologies for sustainable land management for improved agricultural production developed and adopted by 2013

1.3 At least 60 new multi‐stakeholder partnerships and mechanisms for the development of appropriate technologies and innovations effectively operational by 2013.

None No change Supported

of 106

Results OP Log frame Indicators Observations of ES

Suggestions for revised indicators by ES

MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

1.4 New Indicator By 2013, all initiatives of CORAF / WECARD operate according to the IAR4D paradigm

Supported New indicator that can be measured. Need clear definition of what a CORAF/ WECARD IAR4D paradigm is.

1.5 By 2013 all programmes have undergone Environmental and Social Assessment and all projects screened accordingly

New Indicator

New indicator to take care of environmental issues

1.6 By 2013 gender fully mainstreamed in all CORAF/ WECARD sponsored projects

2. Strategic decision making options for policy, institutions and markets developed

2.1 At least 15 new and effective multi stakeholder partnerships and mechanisms for the development of policy, institutional and market options established and functional by 2013

Value slightly modified

At least 5 new and effective multi stakeholder partnerships and mechanisms for the development of policy, institutional and market options established and functional by 2013

Not Supported Moving the goal posts. Variable can be measured

.

2.2 At least 20 policy options have been proposed/ recommended and advocated to decision makers at regional and national levels by 2013

Value slightly modified

At least 10 policy options have been proposed/ recommended and advocated to decision makers at regional and national levels by 2013

Not Supported Moving the goal posts. Variable can be measured. Suggest slight re‐definition as follows:

“At least 20 policy options validated and advocated to decision makers at regional and national levels by 2013.

of 106



MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

2.3 At least 50% of proposed policy options are effective and operational by 2013

Activity outside the research responsiblity of the Policy, Markets and Trade Programme

To be deleted Not Supported Moving the goal posts. Variable can be measured. Follow up to see that proposed policy recommendations are adopted should be part of Policy and Market’s objective and should be a measure of programme success

2.4 At least 10 % improvement in overall sub regional agricultural market performance by 2013

Interesting indicator, but very ambitious. Documentation requires a great baseline study that was was not made at the start of Operational Plan

By 2013, at least 3 projects contributing to regional market integration implemented in CORAF/WECARD region

Supported Agree that original objective ambitious and because of the lack of a baseline might be difficult to track

2.5 At least 10% reduction in farmer‐pastoralist conflicts over resource use in WCA by 2013

Options to be developed already addressed in 2.2

To be deleted Not Supported

Moving the goal posts. This is an important problem in the region that CORAF/WECARD must launch specific projects to address. Cannot be subsumed under 2.2: ES should take steps to establish a simple baseline by literature search, simple questionnaire etc.

of 106



MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

3. Sub‐regional agricultural research system strengthened and coordinated

3.1 At least 50% capacity enhancement needs relating to implementation of IAR4D identified and addressed by 2013

The baseline study and identification of SCARDA on opportunities and constraints too (i) limited to serve as reference (ii) limited to NARI, (iii) difficult to have baseline data

Capacity Strengthening taken into account in 3.5 and 3.6

Not Supported Important indicator to be maintained. CORAF/WECARD should launch an initiative to collect the necessary data, rather than dropping the indicator because it is difficult to have basic data: Can use FARA study for West Africa as baseline information

3.2 At least 30 % increase in effective partnerships and mechanisms operating in an IAR4D paradigm established, strengthened and effectively operational by 2013

Without a baseline study it is impossible to to calculate growth percentage of partnerships

By 2013, at least 40% of regional centres of excellence, core centres and networks are involved in the initiatives of CORAF/WECARD

Supported Involvement in CORAF/WECARD initiatives taken to be adoption of the IAR4D paradigm.

3.3 At least 20% of women, youth and other vulnerable groups are positively involved and operating in the IAR4D mode of CORAF/WECARD by 2013

Slight reformulation

By 2013, at least 20% of women, youth and other vulnerable groups actually involved in the activities of CORAF / WECARD, work according to IAR4D modele

Supported

of 106



MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

3.4 At least 30% increase in the capacity of identified stakeholders to acquire information and utilise improved technologies/ innovations to produce, develop, process and market agricultural products by 2013

Variable complex, not relevant and needs to be reformulated

To be deleted Supported

3.5 New Indicator By 2013, the portfolio of regional projects coordinated by CORAF / WECARD increased by at least 30%

Not Supported CORAF/WECARD should concentrate on efficiently implementing the OP portfolio rather than focussing on increasing the number of projects

3.6 New Indicator By 2013 at least 40% increase in funding for research initiatives coordinated by CORAF / WECARD

Not Supported Ditto above

4. Demand for agricultural knowledge from targeted clients facilitated and met

4.1 At least 40% increase in met demand for appropriate knowledge, information and requested technology by 2013

Variable not specific and not measurable

By 2013, at least 40% increase in the use of research and knowledge products of CORAF/ WECARD by clients

Supported

4.2 At least 40% increase in the numbers of stakeholder groups forming alliances for joint learning, knowledge and information sharing by 2013

Throughout the sub‐region, there are no reliable database on different groups

To be deleted Not Supported The CORAF/ WECARD M&E Unit should compile a data base on groups/platforms using IAR4D (maybe in collaboration with FARA and ECOWAS). Use of IAR4D is a fundamental part of

of 106



MTRT Observations

MTRT Comments

of actors using the IAR4D approach

the strategy for CORAF/ WECARD and it has the obligation to provide data on its use to its partners and donors.

4.3 At least 30% increase in the numbers of users including vulnerable/disadvantaged stakeholders able to successfully access relevant knowledge and information by 2013

Variable non specific and not relevant. For example : What type of knowledge and information? When do we say that the information is relevant or not?

To be deleted Supported

4.4 New Indicator The knowledge management system (database, website and other publications) of CORAF / WECARD is operational and regularly updated

Not Supported:

This is an internal programme development issue. No justification for creating an indicator for one and not the other programmes

5 Implementation of work plans

5.1 Percentage of activities implemented according to CORAF/WECARD annual work plans (on target, on budget and on time)

New Indicator New Indicator as in MDTF Agreement

of 106

Table 10: Progress in achieving results in Operational Plan Logframe

Results Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Achievements Comments Score

Logframe Indicators 1. Appropriate technologies and innovations developed

1.1 At least 15 appropriate technologies/innovations for crops, livestock and/or fisheries available to poor and vulnerable households by 2013

Benin – Seed yam technology disseminated (3000 setts); Ghana – Seed yam technology. In‐vitro vine development in 10 locations to produce 60,000 tubers and 40 plantlets per tuber. Ghana – Cassava programme. Four varieties released under WAAPP; which varieties have the potential to increase yield by more than 70%. Ghana – Cocoyam programme. Eight elite clones of Xanthosoma identified which yield 6‐8 MT/ha Ghana – Biotechnology. Established molecular diversity of 115 sweet potato, 50 cocoyam, 389 cassava and 284 yam collections. Mali, Senegal, Ghana: PLM – Senegal – ITA established a value chain for cereals for composite flour and ‘economic cous‐cous’. Ghana – Value‐added yam products developed, validated, market‐tested with a collaborating food company. Extended value‐added composite flour for the bakery industry and trained 15 commercial bakers in the Central Region. Mali, Burkina Faso, Senegal: Striga resistant Sorghum variety

13/15

of 106



now reaching 150 farmers this year; 13.8t of striga tolerant varieties distributed, 583,984 yams setts distributed Seven West African countries: Tissue Culture cassava materials ‐ to cultivate 250 ha in all 7 countries Benin – SONGHAI post harvest technologies promoted DONATA on maize technologies disseminated ‐ reaching 1,200 ha Burkina Faso – Bt Cotton – 250,000 ha, Yields from 1‐3 t/ha

1.2 At least 10 technologies for land rehabilitation for sustainable production developed by 2013/

Projects just starting 0/10

1.3 At least 60 new multi‐stakeholder partnerships and mechanisms for the development of appropriate technologies and innovations effectively operational by 2013.

Gambia – 3 DONATA platforms being set up Benin – 3 Seed Yam platforms Mali – 1 DONATA platform KKM – 12 platforms PLM – 2 input, output value chains Burkina Faso – 1 DONATA Platform

Staple Food Crops Programme claims that over 80 regional and national partnerships established. Not clear that these are multi‐ stakeholder platforms – the definition used by the MTRT

19/60

1.5 By 2013 all programmes have undergone Environmental and Social

Only one CORAF project (WAARP) with environment assessment

of 106



Assessment and all projects screened accordingly

1.6 By 2013 gender fully mainstreamed in all CORAF/WECARD projects

2. Strategic decision making options for policy, institutions and markets developed

2.1 At least 15 new and effective multi stakeholder partnerships and mechanisms for the development of policy, institutional and market options established and functional by 2013

Projects just starting 0/15

2.2 At least 20 policy options have been proposed/ recommended and advocated to decision makers at regional and national levels by 2013

WAAPP‐Ghana 1. Draft bio‐efficacy protocols for biological evaluation of have been reviewed, validated and proposed. 2. The new seed and fertilizer law aligned with ECOWAS regulations has been passed in Ghana. 3. A final draft of the environmental management plan of WAAPP has been completed and validated. At least 4 Countries in WCA have passed Bio‐safty laws with the assistance of CORAF/WECARD

7/20

2.3 At least 50% of proposed policy options are effective and operational by 2013

2.4 At least 10 % improvement in overall sub regional agricultural market performance by 2013

The twelve platforms in KKM in Nigeria & Niger have improved market performance

2.5 At least 10% reduction in PLM in Mali, Niger and Togo Manure is bartered 2

of 106



farmer‐pastoralist conflicts over resource use in WCA by 2013

WAAPP supported forage seed production through the competitive grants

for legume by‐products in the value chain. Increased forage production reduces conflicts

activities

3. Sub‐regional agricultural research system strengthened and coordinated

3.1 At least 50% capacity enhancement needs relating to implementation of IAR4D identified and addressed by 2013

SCARDA in Ghana, Gambia and Mali WAAPP in Ghana

3.2 At least 30 % increase in effective partnerships and mechanisms operating in an IAR4D paradigm established, strengthened and effectively operational by 2013

KKM in Nigeria & Niger

3.3 At least 20% of women, youth and other vulnerable groups are positively involved and operating in the IAR4D mode of CORAF/ WECARD by 2013

The IP for PLM project in Mali has 25% women in Bamako and 50% in Niono.

3.4 At least 30% increase in the capacity of identified stakeholders to acquire information and utilise improved technologies/ innovations to produce, develop, process and

Senegal: CORAF supports training of ANCAR technicians in multi‐institutional projects; from finance raising to field visits RAILS built national and regional websites and discussion groups and some researchers are online (10 Countries) SONGHAI coordinated project has prepared manuals of post‐

of 106



market agricultural products by 2013

harvest technology.

4. Demand for agricultural knowledge from targeted clients facilitated and met

4.1 At least 40% increase in met demand for appropriate knowledge, information and requested technology by 2013

Every CORAF/WECARD project has a training component Senegal: CORAF supports training of ANCAR technicians in multi‐institutional projects; from finance raising to field visits RAILS built national and regional websites and discussion groups and some researchers are online (10 Countries) SONGHAI coordinated project has prepared manuals of post‐harvest technology.

Without baseline cannot establish % increase

Intended result for 2013 probably already achieved!

4.2 At least 40% increase in the numbers of stakeholder groups forming alliances for joint learning, knowledge and information sharing by 2013

CERAAS (Senegal) is connecting to other NARS through WAAPP e‐RAILS ‐ Learning Teams formed at country level – researchers, NGOs, farmers, etc share information. Togo: Réseau des Transformateurs de Manioc au Togo (RTMT) formed Nigeria: Cassava Processors and Marketers Association of Nigeria (CAPMAN) formed KKM PLS in Nigeria & Niger

Without baseline cannot establish % increase

4.3 At least 30% increase in the numbers of users including Vulnerable /

of 106



disadvantaged stakeholders able to successfully access relevant knowledge and information by 2013

Multi Donor Trust Fund Indicators 5.1 Percentage of activities

implemented according to CORAF/WECARD annual work plans (on target, on budget and on time)

Budget Achievement in

2010 1. Programmes 73,79%

Coordination of programmes 73,29%

Livestock, Fisheries & Aquaculture 96,57%

Staple Food Crops 89,95%

Non Staple Food Crops 0,99%

Natural Resource Management 85,64%

Biotechnology & Biosafety 25,66%

Policy, Markets & Trade 78,63%

Knowledge Management 98,00%

Capacity Strengthening 64,99%

Institutional Change 89,05%

2. Governance & Management 88,69%

General Total (1+2) 77,00%

of 106

ANNEXES

of 106

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE REVIEW

1. Background

CORAF/WECARD revised its Strategic Plan (1999 – 2014)7 and developed a new strategy following a participatory process, which lasted for twelve months and involved its main stakeholders and partners. The new CORAF/WECARD strategic plan (2007‐2016) intends to make an important contribution to agricultural growth in the sub‐region. It will achieve this goal by providing broad‐based and sustainable improvements in agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets in the sub‐region, adapted to the needs of majority of its priority clients. This new strategic plan allowed CORAF/WECARD to align itself, especially with the objectives of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP), and also with the strategies of other sub‐regional organizations. The Strategic Plan was divided into two phases, with an Operational Plan (OP) developed for the first phase, covering the period from 2008 to 2013.

During the development of these new plans, stakeholders in the sub‐region, based on results of a study commissioned by CORAF/WECARD and conducted by l’IFPRI8, organized the sub regional agricultural system into eight (08) programmes, in order to address agricultural constraints at the sub‐regional level. These programmes, which are technological and cross‐sectional in nature, when implemented, will contribute to the stimulation of economic growth in the sub‐region. They are : (1) Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (2) Staple crops, (3) Non‐staple crops, (4) Natural Resource Management, (5) Biotechnology and Biosafety (6) Policy, Markets and Trade (7) Knowledge Management and (8) Capacity Strengthening and Coordination. To ensure the normal functioning of these Programmes, internal mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation and responsibilities have been defined.

The OP uses the logframe as a management and planning tool. This logical framework presents the objectives that CORAF/WECARD plans to achieve over a period of 5 years if certain key assumptions are verified. The four results to be delivered by these Programmes are :

• Technologies and appropriate innovations are developed;

• Strategic options for decision‐making on policies, institutions and markets are developed;

• The sub‐regional agricultural research system is strengthened and coordinated;

• The demand for agricultural innovation system from target groups is facilitated and met.

Moreover, to support the implementation of the OP and encourage greater ownership by all stakeholders and partners in the sub region, an institutional change management plan was developed and implemented from 2009 to 2010 with technical support from the IDLgroup. This Institutional Change Management Plan also used the logical framework as a management and planning tool.

In order to improve the performance of the implementation of the OP, which should take into account the progress realized with the CAADP, notably the ECOWAP, it is necessary, after three years of implementation, to evaluate achievements made and draw appropriate lessons To this end, the expertise of a firm qualified is solicited to assess the implementation of the OP. 7 Strategic Plan for Agricultural Research and Development, Cooperation for West and Central Africa, 1999‐2014. CORAF/WECARD, Dakar, Senegal. 120p 8 IFPRI (2006). Regional strategy alternatives for agricultural‐led growth and poverty reduction in West africa. IFPRI. December 31st 2006. 162p.

of 106

2. Objectives

The objectives of the assessment are to:

• review achievements made since the beginning of the implementation of the OP; • evaluate its contribution to the CAADP • evaluate all changes resulting from the implementation of the institutional change

management process; • analyze the efficiency of resources (human, material and financial) deployed for the

implementation of the OP; • drawing lessons learned from the implementation of the OP; • identify the adjustments necessary for the period 2011 to 2013; • examine any other matters relating to the implementation of the OP.

3. Expected results


• The level of realisation and scientific quality of projects and programmes implemented under the OP are known ;

• The contribution of CORAF/WECARD to the implementation of the CAADP is assessed • The strengths and weaknesses arising from the implementation of the OPs are reported

and documented; • Lessons learned from the implementation of the OP are discussed and shared; • The logical framework is reviewed and amended; • Lessons learned from the implementation of the OP are discussed and shared.

4. Mandate of the firm

The mandate of the mission is to:

• Collect and analyze data on the achievements of CORAF/WECARD since the beginning of the implementation of the OP;

• Analyze aspects of the institutional change management process; • Assess the contribution of the OP to the realization of the objectives of the regional

strategies (CAADP, ECOWAS); • Consider in the analyses, the changes that have taken place with regards to the RECs

including the formulation and adoption of the NAIPs and RAIPS in the ECOWAS zone, during the three years of implementation of the OP

• Review and/or fine tune the indicators of the logical framework of the OP; • Assess the efficiency of the human, financial and material resources deployed for the

implementation of the OP • Interact with the key actors of projects (UAU/NEPAD, FARA, NARS, TFP, RECs. • Rapport the results of the review to the GB • Prepare a report with related recommendations on the perspectives of the OP.

5. Methodology

The external review will be realised by a qualified firm. As such, call for manifestation of interest will be launched. The applicants will be invited to propose a methodology wherein they will indicate amongst other issues, the methodology that will be used, the composition of the team, the countries to be visited, the length of the evaluation, and the exact time‐table. The choice of the team of consultants will be based mainly on the quality and methodology proposed.

of 106

The firm will work in the three agro‐ecological zones of CORAF/WECARD and will interact closely with the main actors of programmes and projects coordinated by CORAF/WECARD (AU/NEPAD, FARA, NARS, TFP, RECs).

6. Composition of the firm (see the RQP)

The firm will be made up of the following specialists:

• Agricultural policies

• Agricultural research management

• Monitoring and Evaluation

• Finance

They must possess the experiences and practices relevant to agricultural research in Africa

7. Reports

The following reports should be submitted to CORAF/WECARD ::

• A report one week after the commencement of the mission. This report must indicate the methodology to be used, the countries to be visited, the time table, the plan of the study, the stakeholders to be met and/or contacted;

• A preliminary report one week after the end of the mission. This report must present all the results of the study;

• A final report which will take into account the observations made by the different organs of CORAF/WECARD.

of 106

ANNEX 2: TIME TABLE OF THE REVIEW

Date Activity Monday, July 4 MTRT Meeting

• Welcome • Admin & Logistics • Plan for the week

Briefing by Secretariat Tuesday, July 5 MTRT Meeting Work Session with Board & MTR Sub‐Committee Wednesday, July 6 MTRT Meeting Teleconference with DFID, UK Programme Briefings Thursday, July 7 Programme Briefings MTRT Meeting

• Outline of Inception Report • Report Writing assignment • Drafting of Inception Report

Friday, July 8 Drafting of Inception Report Lunch Break Drafting of Inception Report MTRT Meeting

• Discussion of Draft Inception Report End of Session Saturday, July 9 Revision of Draft Inception Report Lunch Break Revision of Draft Inception Report Presentation of Inception Report End of SessionSunday, July 10 ‐ 29 Country Visits July 30 Country Visits De‐briefing meetingAug 1 ‐ 3 Report writing Aug 4 ‐ 5 Draft Final Report ‐ Team discussions and revisions Aug 6 – 10 Report revision – Team Leader, Dakar Aug 11 – 15 Report revision – Team Leader, Freetown

of 106

ANNEX 3: MID TERM REVIEW METHODOLOGY

The Phased Approach EDS conducted the MTR in four phases as follows: PHASE 1 ‐ Headquarters Visit and Briefing: The full evaluation team (here after MTRT) visited the headquarters of CORAF/WECARD from July 3 – 10, 2011 for discussions with (as available) members of the Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Committee, and the Executive Secretariat. PHASE 2 ‐ Country Visits: The MTRT undertook country field visits. They covered the major non‐‐headquarters based operations of the Council in the three agroecological zones, so as to provide a realistic assessment of the Council’s country based operations, working conditions, and interactions with key actors of projects. PHASE 3‐ Analysis and Report Writing: Following the field visits the MTRT re‐assembled at CORAF/WECARD Headquarters for a period of 5 days to complete the analysis and report writing. Phase 4: Finalization and Presentation of Report: During this phase the different organs of CORAF/WECARD reviewed the draft report and made their observations. The observations were compiled by Chair of the Board sub‐committee on the NTR and transmitted to the MTRT Leader electronically. The MTRT interacted electronically to revise the report as they saw fit. Inception Phase Activities During the Inception Phase the MTRT engaged in the following activities:

(a) Familiarization among the members of the MTRT, synchronization of proposed evaluation methodologies, elaboration of specific responsibilities among team members and the schedule of activities including pertinent arrangements for a successful evaluation process were addressed.

(b) Interactions with the CORAF/WECARD programme managers and staff of the Executive

Secretariat were held to define and/or refine key questions to be covered by the evaluation, assess and contact expertise needed to seek the responses to those questions, identify partners including project beneficiaries, project and implementing agency staff, staff from the cooperating institution and members of the implementation team.

(c) A desk review of available reports was undertaken: project proposals, annual work

programme and budget; interim and annual progress reports; appraisal report; documents produced by the programme, the cooperating/partner institutions in relation to programme design, implementation, supervision or follow‐up and achievements and others deemed relevant by the Programme Director and Managers. Documentary data, particularly performance monitoring plan, baseline data, targets and performance reports will be critical. In anticipation of the MTR, the ES produced a special background report for the MTRT9 which was compiled from a number of different sources by staff of the CORAF/WECARD

9 CORAF/WECARD, Operational Plan (2008 – 2013); Mid‐term Status Report, May 2011

of 106

Secretariat. It was intended as an information portal to the large number of internal and published reports and documents that CORAF/WECARD has produced since the process of revising and realigning its Strategic Plan began in 2006. Some of the information was provided as the result of a self assessment retreat.

(d) Obtained an overview of the Council’s current activities and future plans, to identify strategic issues to be covered during the review. The MTRT received briefings from Secretariat staff including administrative and finance staff. Topics covered included:

• The achievements of CORAF/WECARD since the beginning of the implementation of the OP;

• Implementation of the Institutional Change Management Process; • The contributions of the OP to the realization of the objectives of the regional

strategies (CAADP, ECOWAS); • Changes that have taken place with regards to the Regional Economic Communities

(RECs) including the formulation and adoption of the National Agricultural Investment Programmes (NAIPs) and Regional Agricultural Investment Programmes (RAIPs) in the ECOWAS zone, during the three years of implementation of the OP

• Description of the logical framework of the OP and level of achievements of Objectively Verifiable Indicators to date;

• Projects and programmes implemented under the OP • The human, financial and material resources deployed for the implementation of the

OP

(e) MTRT members also had face‐to‐face interviews with selected CORAF/WECARD staff to get additional information as needed

To help ensure that these briefings and discussions were as comprehensive and up‐to‐date as possible, and to enable the MTRT to obtain a comprehensive overview of the Council’s work, the Executive Secretariat provided the MTRT with a CD which contains relevant Council‐related documentation (including the latest Strategy Document, Operational Plan, Logical Framework, Change Management Plan, programme reports, funding requests, annual accounts, and other relevant policy documents). Although most of the documents were off the shelf, the MTRT understands that a few were prepared specifically for the MTR and acknowledges the efforts of the Executive Secretariat in that respect. An output of the Inception phase was a list of key questions to frame and guide the MTR, covering Governance and Policy; the Programmes (crop systems and livestock); and Cross cutting Issues (gender, the environment, Monitoring and Evaluation and capacity strengthening, management and finance). These were used as interview guides during Key Informant and Focus Group Discussions in Phase 2 of the MTR Country Data Collection Selection of Countries visited

The choice of countries to be visited by the MTRT was based on the following reasoning:

1. The CORAF/WECARD Strategic and Operational Plan objectives are aligned to key policy frameworks of regional organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), the Economic and Monetary Committee of Central Africa (CEMAC), and the permanent Inter‐State Committee for Combating Drought in the Sahel (CILSS). Moreover, it has signed agreements with these organizations to either

of 106

implement their agricultural policies (ECOWAS, UEMOA, ECCAS and CEMAC) or to create enabling conditions for promoting research through partnerships in specific areas of common interest (CILSS). To investigate the relevance of CORAF/WECARD with respect to these institutions, the following countries hosting these organizations were selected: Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Gabon, and Central African Republic.

2. The OP objectives are also nested in the CAADP framework of the African Union (AU)/New Partnership for Agricultural Development (NEPAD). The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) has been entrusted with the mandate of implementing CAADP Pillar IV by the AU/NEPAD and ECOWAS in West Africa. FARA has mandated CORAF/WECARD to implement CAADP Pillar IV in the West and Central Africa region. This will be done by following the principles spelled out in the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) developed by FARA and its partners. Certain dispositions have been taken as well to create an enabling environment for this including the membership of CORAF/WECARD in the Governing Board of FARA. To measure the relevance of CORAF/WECARD with respect to this, the country hosting FARA was selected: Ghana.

3. CORAF/WECARD has progressively launched projects under its different programmes depending on the availability of funds. These projects are in effect being implemented by the different National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in the 22 countries in the CORAF/WECARD zone. Since these projects were launched at different times, some even before the initiation of the OP, the projects are at different stages of implementation. In some countries the project are well advanced, whilst in others they have just started. To measure the effectiveness and efficiency of CORAF/WECARD the following countries were chosen, representing countries in which projects have progressed well into implementation, those in which projects have not progressed much in implementation or have just been launched, and countries in which projects take into account the cross‐cutting issues of gender and environment and management by NGOs: Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Benin, The Gambia and Liberia.

4. One of CORAF/WECARD’s core functions is strengthening capacity of NARS. For this, partnership with Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Centres and other International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) including AfricaRice, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), the International Centre for Research in the Semi arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), which are especially recognized for their competences in the designing of experimental protocols and methodologies across country landscapes and also in training, is key for implementing projects. To measure the effectiveness of CORAF/WECARD as regards this, countries hosting these key CGIAR Centres involved in the implementation of CORAF/WECARD coordinated regional programme were visited: Benin, Mali, and Nigeria.

The countries visited are situated in the different agro‐ecological zones of CORAF/WECARD as follows: Sahel ‐ Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal; Coastal Zone – Benin, Ghana, The Gambia, Liberia and Nigeria; Central Africa – Gabon, Central Africa Republic and Cameroon.

Participatory Data Collection EDS considers qualitative methods to be highly important to gain in‐depth understanding from stakeholders and partners of CORAF/WECARD. A combination of techniques: Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Interviews, was used to collect data from stakeholders in the field. Annex 5 contains the list of people interviewed individually or in groups.

of 106

i. Key informant Interviews were used to obtain data from persons who have broad

knowledge of the type of information being solicited on a particular topic. These were persons within a community who are knowledgeable of and benefitted from the services of CORAF/WECARD. Interviews were used to collect information about past events. In this review, Key informants included public officials, beneficiaries of services and key stakeholders. They were selected for their knowledge of the type of information being solicited and the objectives of the MTR.

ii. Focus Group Interviews involved discussions with groups of stakeholders to gather information on respondents’ experiences in planning and implementing CORAF/WECARD projects. When well executed, a focus group creates an enabling environment that puts participants at ease allowing then to thoughtfully answer questions in their own words and add meaning to their answers. Focus groups are used to learn about the experiences and perceptions of groups. Compared to individual interviews, focus group interviews may yield deeper insights as the comments of each respondent can stimulate reactions from the other respondents. When appropriate, groups of women and men were interviewed separately. The advantage of this was that it provided checks and balances to the appropriateness and accuracy of the information given.

As indicated earlier, the List of key questions developed during the Inception Phase of the MTR were used as Interview guides during field data collection. Methods of Analysis The MTR followed the European Union process10 and assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency sustainability and impact of the eight programmes of the Operational Plan.


Effectiveness: The extent to which the objectives in the Operation Plan were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.




All projects, operational or designed for implementation in the countries visited by the MTRT, were subjected to in‐depth review. Assessing relevance

It is clear that at the global level the OP closely follows the CAADP and FAAP principles for sustainably improving broad‐based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets, which in turn is being achieved through the delivery of the Results of CORAF/WECARD’s SP and OP. The OP

10 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/methods/mth_ccr_en.htm

of 106

presents targeted outcomes that CORAF/WECARD will deliver in a given timeframe if certain critical assumptions hold true. The OP is fully coherent with CAADP and FAAP.

The MTRT assessed the contribution of CORAF/WECARD to the CAADP, and the implementation of the MOUs signed with the RECs (Chapter 3), as well as an examination of how Programmes and the portfolio of projects designed and implemented will enable CORAF/WECARD to actually fulfil the intentions of the OP (see Chapter 4).

Programmes/projects were assessed and given scores based on key issues of relevance related to programme strategies (6 points) and project design (6 points) as follows:

Programme strategies

Assessment of projects for relevance to programme strategies: 1) focus, 2) relevance to CAADP, ECOWAS and ECCAS strategies, response to Poverty Reduction Strategies, national CAADP compacts and investment programmes, 3) subsector baseline information (ex‐ante analyses), 4) ex‐post analyses, 5) contribution to improved productivity, productive potential, markets, institutions, policy, poverty reduction, 6) mitigation of environmental constraints and promotion of socio‐economic growth

Design of projects

Are projects designed to meet the following: 1) logic and scientific approach, 2) multidisciplinary (including socio economics, gender, environment), 3) demand‐led and use of IAR4D platforms ‐ application of integrated commodity systems approach, innovations, dissemination and uptake pathways in delivery of technologies (processes, products), 4) appropriate policy options and institutional frameworks, 5) influence on regional agenda, capacity building and skills transfer, 6) networking, partnerships and stakeholder participation, reporting, monitoring and review

Assessment of Effectiveness:

The effectiveness of Programmes/projects was assessed by evaluating the progress in delivering the Logframe results by scoring performance of projects (5 points) and performance of collaborating institutions and partners (3 points); as well as an assessment of how the programmes have addressed the cross cutting issues of gender, , Knowledge Management, Capacity building and M&E .

Performance of projects

Quality of research through the effectiveness and efficiency of 1) human, financial and material resources utilized in removing production, postharvest, market constraints, 2) sustainable development and management of natural resources, 3) working with local communities, 4) project cycle management vis‐à‐vis targets and milestones, delivery of outputs against logical framework, 5) development of knowledge/information databases

Performance of collaborating institutions, partners

Types, effectiveness and efficiency of 1) partnerships established, 2) thematic coverage, 3) participation in constraints and project identification, development, implementation, monitoring and reviews, technology delivery

Assessment of Efficiency

The efficiency of the OP implementation was assessed by examining a number of issues – the quality of science (Chapter 5) and the management and financial framework (Chapter 7)

Assessing Quality of Science

As a measure of scientific quality the MTRT examined the publications record of CORAF/WECARD. Peer reviewed publication in refereed journals can arise from all research undertakings and there

of 106

are journals for any type of research or dissemination activity. The MTRT also attempted to assess scientific quality as determined by the quality of the process from formulation of objectives, development of research protocols, generation of high quality data, correct data analyses and interpretation of results, all of which depend on the quality and professional competency of staff conducting the study.

Assessing the Management and Financial Framework

The MTRT used the Integrated Framework Approach on Internal Control developed by the USA based Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), to assess the financial and administrative framework. This approach consists of five interrelated and equally important components. Four of the components relate to the design and operation of the system of internal controls: control environment, risk assessment, control activities and information and communication. The fifth component; monitoring is designed to “ensure that internal control continues to operate effectively”.

a) The MTRT assessed the design and operation of internal controls by examining how controls existing within the organs of the governance structure and the type and nature of the various controls, documents/reports and how they flow through the system. During the examination particular emphasis was placed on the methodology used, e.g. zero‐based budgeting, and the extent to which the process was participatory and gives ownership to all staff members rather than being a process that the staff at large leave only to senior management and the board. The same approach will be used to examine the other areas to ascertain the level of involvement of the staff at various levels at CORAF/WECARD. In examining the Control Environment the MTRT examined the commitment of staff, especially top management to the development of a culture of sound integrity and ethics. In examining risks to CORAF’s financial and administrative management the MTRT sought to establish the extent to which management specifies financial reporting objectives with sufficient clarity and criteria to enable the identification of risks to reliable financial and administrative reporting. The review also focussed on the control activities of the NARS that receive funds from CORAF/WECARD. In order to arrive at a decision as to whether funds from CORAF/WECARD are properly used or not, the following were examined:

o The system of budgeting and accounting. o Internal control system and procedures. o The flow of funds to support projects financed by CORAFWECARD. o Financial reporting arrangements between the NARS and CORAF/WECARD,

especially the type of dialogue that is triggered after financial reports are sent to CORAF/WECARD.

o Auditing arrangements.

b) Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring and/or separate evaluation will enable the Management to determine whether all components of the integrated internal control on financial reporting continue to function over time. The monitoring system was examined to ascertain whether it enables management to identify internal control deficiencies in a timely manner and bring them to the attention of those who are responsible for taking corrective action, including the Board as appropriate.

Assessment of Sustainability and Impact

The sustainability and likely impact of the CORAF/WECARD programme was assessed by examining the Impact Pathways, the integration of gender and environmental issues (Chapter 6), and the risks associated with implementation of the programme.

of 106

Impact Pathways

Since impact cannot be measured in a MTR, the MTRT examined the Impact Pathways being followed in implementation. The guiding approach of the Operational Plan (OP) is to utilize the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach to carry out projects that would yield the expected results. The MTRT assessed the relevance of this approach in terms of how clearly the pathways that would lead to expected impact have been set. The team also assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of this approach by examining the level of understanding of the process by the Programme Leaders as well as the NARS that implement the projects. The MTRT assessed the level of achievement of results of the OP Logframe (Chapters 4 and 8). The Programmes/projects were assessed for potential impact and sustainability using a 5 point score as shown below:

Impact of project achievement on structure, conduct and performance of target value chains

Examine the Impact pathways to show how projects have progressed or can progress over time to achieve: 1)sustainability, replicability of project for impact outcomes on economic growth (income of smallholders and consumers, value of production (farm level), value added (post farm)); 2) livelihoods and social welfare enhancement (food security, nutrition and health, poverty reduction, employment generation, improved access to education, gender equality, disaster mitigation); 3) quality of environment (soil fertility, water use, soil erosion, pollution, ago‐biodiversity) from improved sub sector operations, 4) lessons learned, best practices and promotion of opportunities to enhance research impact on livelihoods, 5) defining research (new/continuation of existing themes) by stakeholders including CORAF/WECARD

Assessing the Integration of Gender and Environmental Issues

A gender analysis was conducted using a variety of gender analytical frameworks (including the Harvard, Moser, and Social Relations) which were complemented with the voice of female and male end users and beneficiaries through interviews and focus groups.

The MTRT conducted an environmental audit of the OP by analyzing actions taken in implementation of research programmes in the field, the degree to which programme and project implementers took environmental and social issues into consideration and the mitigation measures implemented, and the modifications needed to ensure full environmental safety compliance in future.

of 106

ANNEX 4: ORGANS OF CORAF/WECARD

The General Assembly (GA) Article 4.2.2 of the Governance Manual outlines the composition of the General Assembly as follows:

• Members of the Governing Board • Delegates representing each member National Agricultural Research System or National

Agricultural Research Institution. • Representatives of regional and international agricultural research organizations operating

in the West and Central Africa sub‐region. • Representatives of Regional Economic Communities (CEEAC, CEMAC, ECOWAS, UEMOA and

ECA), as observers. • Development Partners as observers • Representatives of the Private Sector • Representatives of Farmer‐based organizations • Representatives of Community‐based organizations.

The General Assembly has functions and powers as stated below:

I. Approve the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly; II. Approve and ratify all policies, statutory agreements, operational plans and programs,

contracts, protocols, by‐laws, budgets and financial plans, financial statements, audit reports, and review annual membership contributions on the recommendation of the Governing Board;

III. Serve as a platform for debate and identification of key issues affecting agricultural research and development in the West and Central Africa sub‐region;

IV. Commission special studies and evaluations related to the functions of CORAF/WECARD; V. Perform any other functions that shall be necessary for CORAF/WECARD to achieve its

mission and objectives. VI. Write‐off members’ outstanding contributions at the instigation of the Governing Board. VII. Functions and powers in relation to the Governing Board and Executive Director are stated

in Article 4.2.4. Article 4.2.4 outlines the f Functions of the General Assembly in relation to the Governing Board and Executive Director as follows:

I. Oversee the efficient conduct of the functions of the Governing Board; II. Receive, examine, approve and make decisions on the report of the Governing Board; III. Elect the Chairperson, Vice‐Chairperson and other members of the Governing Board; IV. Establish the composition of the Governing Board; V. Ratify the recruitment process and appointment of the Executive Director of

CORAF/WECARD on the recommendation of the Governing Board; VI. Delegate powers deemed necessary to the Governing Board for the efficient and

effective implementation of CORAF/WECARD approved programs; VII. Monitor and evaluate the work of the Governing Board, through special ad‐hoc

committees which shall report to the General Assembly. The Governing Board (GB) Article 4.3.1 of the Governance Manual stipulates that the Governing Board of CORAF/WECARD shall consist of thirteen (13) members as follows:

of 106

• Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Governing Board appointed by the General Assembly.

• Six (6) Representatives (including the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson) from National Agricultural Research Systems and or from National Agricultural Research Institutions elected by the General Assembly.

• Two (2) Representatives of the main Regional Economic Communities such as CEMAC, ECOWAS, UEMOA and ECCAS.

• One (1) Representative of Scientific partners from agricultural research institutions recognized by CORAF/WECARD and which adhere to the Statutes.

• One (1) Representative of Non‐Governmental Organizations, which are members of the Association.

• One (1) Representative of the Private Sector, which is a member of the Association. • One (1) Representative of Professional Agricultural Organizations, for example farmer‐

based organizations, which are members of the Association • The Executive Director of CORAF/WECARD • Development partners, as observers. • Membership of the Governing Board selected from Civil Society shall rotate between the

two regions of the CORAF/WECARD zone and at least four (4) of the thirteen (13) members must be women.

Article 4.3.4 of the Governance Manual outlines the functions of the Governing Board as follows: I. The Governing Board is entrusted with extended powers to act on behalf of the General

Assembly within the framework of the Statutes of the Association. II. Convenes the meeting of the General Assembly and acts on behalf of the Association on

all matters requiring immediate action. III. Recommends for approval or ratification by the General Assembly, policies,

programmes, budgets, financial statements, audit reports agreements contracts, protocols, bye‐laws, new memberships, and the membership subscriptions.

IV. Reviews the status of members and takes actions on expulsion, or suspension of members according to the provisions in article 9 of these Statutes.

V. Ensures that an effective system of financial controls is maintained VI. Recommends candidates to the General Assembly for appointment to the position of

Executive Director of CORAF/WECARD. VII. Defines the functions and responsibilities of the Executive Director of the Association. VIII. Assesses the annual performances of the Executive Director IX. Supervises the operations of the Executive Secretariat. X. Reviews and approves the Annual Programme of Work and Budget. XI. Approves the Technical and Annual Financial Reports for presentation to the General

Assembly. XII. Makes decisions on the creation or dissolution of operational units. XIII. Delegates all powers necessary to the Chairperson to oversee the day to day operations

of the Association and implementation of the decisions of the General Assembly. XIV. Performs all other functions appropriate for the implementation of the directives

received from the General Assembly in pursuit of the mission of the Association. XV. Conducts evaluations of the scientific activities of CORAF/WECARD between meetings of

the General Assembly. Article 4.3.10 of the Governance Manual gives the Governing Board the authority to establish Sub‐Committees of the Governing Board. The Governing Board has established three Sub‐Committees; the Programme, Finance and Audit, and the Human Resources and Administrative Matters Sub‐Committees

of 106

The Programmes Sub‐Committee shall: I. Receive, review and analyze the reports of the Scientific and Technical Committee. II. Advise the Governing Board on CORAF/WECARD political matters. III. When necessary, call upon the Scientific and Technical Committee for explanation and

clarification of issues. IV. Recommend eligible and suitable candidates for appointment to the Scientific and

Technical Committee. V. Facilitate technical cooperation between CORAF/WECARD and its partners.

The Finances and Audit Sub‐Committee shall:

I. Provide the Governing Board with professional advice and assessment supervision of the CORAF/WECARD financial and physical resources management system. This includes the political approach on resources mobilization, assets administration and budgeting system.

II. Assist the Governing Board and the Executive Secretariat in efficient management procedures for accounting, finance and management controls which must be adopted by CORAF/WECARD.

III. Analyze and comment on CORAF/WECARD annual financial reports before they are submitted to the Governing Board and the General Assembly.

IV. Provide technical advice on the preparation of the terms of reference for financial audits and particularly the annual external audit for CORAF/WECARD.

V. Recommend the appointment of a credible External Audit firm to the Governing Board and the General Assembly.

VI. Study and recommend to the Governing Board the approval of CORAF/ WECARD internal audit procedures and system.

VII. Receive and review the External Auditors reports, and prepare appropriate comments on the External Audit reports.

VIII. Prepare financial reports for the Governing Board to be submitted to the General Assembly.

IX. Submit reports to the Governing Board on the status of CORAF/WECARD’s financial and physical resources, and their relevance for the programmes under consideration by CORAF/WECARD.

X. Provide technical advice on management control of the financing of research in West and Central Africa.

XI. Ensure the payment of the contributions by Member States according to the relevant clauses in the CORAF/WECARD Statutes

XII. Investigate members’ outstanding contributions and recommend write‐off or other actions to the General Assembly.

XIII. Supervise and direct the activities of the Internal Auditor. The Human Resources and Administration Sub‐Committee shall:

I. Identify and recommend candidates for appointment to the Governing Board when there is a vacancy.

II. Recommend a composition of the Governing Board that reflects a diversity of relevant expertise.

III. Provide professional advice to the Governing Board on CORAF/WECARD human resources and administrative matters, management system (human resources management policy and procedures).

IV. Assist the Governing Board to ensure coherence between the Association’s organic texts and the statutory and legislative texts of CORAF/WECARD member countries.

V. Seek suitable candidates for appointment to the position of the Executive Director of

of 106

CORAF/WECARD. VI. Prepare the letter of appointment of the Executive Director. VII. Conduct an assessment and annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director.

The Scientific and Technical Committee (STC)

The only full Committee of the Board is the Scientific and Technical Committee. Under Article 4.4.7, it is empowered to set up sub‐committees to facilitate implementation of its functions and address specific issues of concern to its work. Its Status and Authority are defined in Article 4.4.1 of the Governance Manual as follows:

I. The Scientific and Technical Committee shall be the technical advisory arm to the Governing Board.

II. The rules and regulations governing the operations of the Scientific and Technical Committee shall be approved by the Governing Board.

Article 4.4.2 of GM stipulates the composition of the STC as follows: The Scientific and Technical Committee shall consist of twelve (12) experts appointed from the National Agricultural Research Systems or National Agricultural Research Institutions of CORAF/WECARD members and partner institutions on the basis of their personal merit, proven expertise and experience in agricultural research for development and capacity strengthening. Composition of the membership of the STC shall ensure representation of the areas of CORAF/WECARD activities, official working languages and gender. The STC’s functions are stipulated by Article 4.4.3:

I. Review programmes and advise the Governing Board on scientific and technical matters and the relevance of research programme activities, base centres, networks and research poles to the vision and mission of CORAF/WECARD.

II. Assist the Executive Secretariat in carrying out the functions of scientific cooperation and coordination

III. Assist the Governing Board in evaluating the scientific activities of CORAF/WECARD between meetings of the General Assembly

IV. Monitor and evaluate all scientific co‐operation programme activities, including scientific publication and dissemination of technical information, implemented by CORAF/WECARD.

V. Assist the Executive Secretariat in coordinating the scientific activities of CORAF/WECARD with a view to promoting scientific excellence and enhancing the influence of CORAF/WECARD in the West and Central Africa sub‐region and throughout Africa.

The Executive Secretariat According to Article 4.5.2, the senior management of the Executive Secretariat shall be:

I. Executive Director II. Director of Programmes III. Director of Finance and administration IV. Manager of Information and Communication.

The functions of the Executive Secretariat are outlined in Article 4.5.3:

I. Conduct oversight of the implementation of the Strategic Plan II. Undertake financial management and control of all resources used by CORAF/WECARD

both to deliver its own internal activities and to manage development funds

of 106

III. Undertake monitoring and evaluation of all programmes delivered by CORAF/WECARD IV. Strengthen the capacity of member institutions to deliver effective agricultural research

for development V. Promote accountability in agricultural research in West and Central Africa. VI. Support programme strategy development. VII. Provide programme support, including resource mobilization for agricultural Research. VIII. Coordinate agricultural research programmes and specialized networks. IX. Serve as the focal point for development partners and other stakeholders. X. Undertake advocacy for increased investment and support for agricultural research and

development. XI. Coordinate programmes in knowledge management and the promotion of information

exchange amongst member countries and institutions.

of 106

ANNEX 5: PEOPLE MET Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Gabon Office National de

Developpment Rural (ONADER Mbeng, Celixt Director General +241 76 38 36

Institut de Recherche Agronomiques et Formation (IRAF)

Ndoutoume, Auguste Prof Director +241 07 60 92 68

Ministere de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage, de la Peche et du Developpment Rural

Ngoua Assoumou, Henri‐Gregoire

Directeur General de l’Agriculture + 241 07 37 82 25

Institut Gabonaise d’Appui au Developpment (IGAD)

Koumba, Sabastien Directeur de Programme +241 74 52 47

Communaute Economiques des Etats de l’Afrique Centrale

Beassem, Joel Dr Coordonnateur du Programme de Securite Alimentaire

+ 241 07 29 87 43

Central African Republic

Minister de l’Agriculture Gouadika, Fidele Ministre

FAO, Representative Fall, Rokhaya Daba Representative +236 72 15 77 94 Universite de Bangui Bobossi‐Serengbe, Gustave

Prof Rector +236 75 50 35 85

Mossoa, Lambert Prof Directeur de l’Ecole Doctorat +236 75 50 16 43 Andsipakoto, Georges Directeur, BEPA Sy, Ismaila Directeur, FSJP Rouauld, Joachim Vice Recteur +236 75 50 8368 Agence National de

Developpment l’Elevage (ANDE)

Nakoisse, Emmanuel Dr Directeur General

Federation National des Eleveur (FENEC)

Sheou, Ousmane Secretaire General

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Centre de Documentation,

d’Information pour de Developpment (CEDIFOD)

Karangaze, Narc President Directeur General

Agence Centreafricaine de Developpment Agricole (ACDA)

Feizoure, Honore Director General +236 21 61 54 85

Communaute Economique et Monetaire De L’Afrique Central (CEMAC)

Pong‐Ballet, Robert Chef de Project +236 75 05 46 02

Maudzou, Patrice M. D. A. Chef de Cabinet +236 75 76 35 78 Wafio, Jean S. Commissionaire +236 75 05 58 96 Institut Centrafricain de la

Recherche Agronomique (ICRA) Namkosserena, Solomon Dr Directeur General +236 75 05 14 68

Mbedan, Herve DONATA/RAILS Project Leader European Union Delegation en Republique du

Senegal Simon, Anne Attache +221 33 8891100

Australian Aid (AusAid)

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Pengelly, Bruce Dr Partnership Leader +61 7 3214 2348

Liberia Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI)

Marshall, Aaron MTR Leader, Interim management MTR

+231 6 110248

Sumo, Victor Dr DONAT/RAILS project Leader Koffa, David Tissue Culture Project Leader Tokpah, Eric Programme Leader, Vegetables Ministry of Agriculture McClain, Charles N. Deputy Minister/ Administration +231 6 874343 Senegal Ministère de l’ Agriculture

Fonds National de Recherches agricoles et agro‐alimentaires (FNRAA)

Dr El Hadji Pape N. Sall Executive Director Tel.: (221) 33 820 35 10

FNRAA Dr Samba Sall, Agricultural Economist Scientific Coordinator

Tel.: (221) 33 820 35 10

Ministére de l’ Agriculture Dr Alioune Fall, Scientific Director Tel. Bur.: (221) 33 859

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)

17 35/36

Université Cheikh Anta Diop Départment de la Biologique Végetale

Dr Djibril Sane Regional Coordinator, Regional Masters in Biotechnology

Tel.: (221) 76 594 30 08

Ministére de l’ Agriculture Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)

Dr Macoumba Diouf Director General Tel.: (221) 33 859 17 20

Centre d’étude regional pour l’amélioration de l’adaptation à la sécherese (CERAAS)

Dr. Ndiaga Cisse Plant BreederDirector

Tel.: (221) 33 951 49 93/94

Association Senegalaise pour la Promotion du Développement à la Base (ASPRODEB) Agence d’Execution des Projets

Ousmane Ndiaye National Director Tel.: 00221 33 860 79 17

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Mr Innocent Butare Tel.: (221) 33 864 00 00

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)

Mr Georges De Noni Representative of IRD in Senegal with coverage of Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau and Mauritania. Regional Animator West and Central Africa

Tel.: (221) 33 849 83 31

IRD Dr Amadou Ba Director of Research at IRD Laboratoire Commun de Microbiologie IRD/ISRA/UCAD

Tel.: +221 33 849 33 29

Ministére de l’ Agriculture Direction de l’Analyse, de la Prévision et des Statistiques (DAPS)

Mr Ngolo Diarra Ingénieur Agronome – Genie Rural, MSc Ressources Engineering Chef Division Projets et Programmes

Tel.: +221 33 864 64 69

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts DAPS Mr. Adama Niang Freelance Adviser DAPS Mr Arona Niang Ingénieur Agro‐economiste Cell.: +221 77 648 85 34 Dissemination of New

Agricultural Technology in Africa (DONATA)

Mr. Cheikh Mbacke Ndione National Coordinator

INTERFACE Mme Gisele Lopes D’Almeida President Tel: (221) 33 835 07 08

ANCAR Mr. Mour Gueye Technical Director Tel (B):+221 33 859 14 25 / 14

INP Mame NDéné Lô Director General Tel: (221) 33 832 65 65

INP Dr Mostapha Dièye Technical Director Tel: (221) 33 832 65 65

ITA Dr Ababacar Ndoye Director General Tel: (221) 33 859 07 11 / 07

ITA Dr Amadou Kane Director of Research and Development

Tel: (221) 33 859 07 11 / 07

PSAOP PPAAO / WAAPP

Oumar Sene Coordinator Tel: +221 33 869 49 70

PSAOP PPAAO / WAAPP

Mme Ndir Rouguillatou Diagne

Monitoring & Evaluation Officer Tel: +221 33 869 49 75

Mali IER Dr Mohamed N’Diaye Scientific DirectorVeterinarian, Molecular Microbiology, Scientific Coordinator

Tel. Bur: (223) 222 19 05

IER Dr Ibrahima N’Diaye Scientific Director, CORAF Focal Point at IER

Tel: (223) 22 26 06 / 23 19 05

IER Dr. Mamourou Diourté Sorghum Striga Coordinator Tel: (223) 76 45 03 21

IER Mr NTji Coulibaly DONATA Focal Point in Mali (Maize) Tel: (223) 66 71 53 42

IER, Research Centre at Sotuba M. Amadou Sidibe Researcher in the Seed System Tel: (223) 66 76 87 57

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Project

IER Dr Madiam dit Tíéman Diarra Chief, Information Service Tel: (223) 20 22 26 06

IER Dr Daouda Dembélé Scientific Coordinator, National Focal Point for SCARDA

Tel: (223) 20 22 26 06 /

CNRA Dr Adama Traore Executive Secretary Tel/Fax: (223) 20 22 71 65

IER Dr Bara Ouologuem Chief, Programme on Cattle and Camel

Tel. mobile: (223) 76 46 15 30

IER Dr Abdoul Karim Traore Research Director Scientific Coordinator of Riverine Cultivation

Tel. Bur: (223) 2023 19 05

IER, Research Centre at Sotuba Mme Coulibaly Salimata Sidibé

Food technologist Tel: (223) 20 22 26 06

IER Dr Bino Témé Director General Agric Economist

Tel. B: (223) 20 22 26 06 /

Ghana Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Dr Salifou Director General Tel: (233) 777 654, 774 772, 777

Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

Dr André Bertiono Senior Resource Mobilization Officer, Africa

Tel: (233) 302 740 660, 768 597 /8

AGRA, West African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL)

Mamadou Ouattara Coordinator for Capacity Building Tel (Direct): (233) 302 740 666

FARA Ms. Brenda Semevo Legal Affairs & Corporate Governance Officer

Tel: +233 (0) 30‐772823/2779421

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Forum for Agricultural

Research in Africa (FARA) Prof. Wale Adekunle Director, Partnerships and Strategic

Alliances; SSA CP Coordinator Tel: (233) 30 277 28 23, 77 94 21

FARA Dr Irene Annor‐Frempong Director, Capacity Strenghtening Tel: (233) 30 277 28 23, 77 94 21

FARA Ifidon S. Ohiomoba Project Manager, Promotion of Science and Technology for Agric. Dev in Africa (PSTAD)

Tel: (233) 30 277 28 23, 77 94 21

FARA Mr Dady Demby Programme Officer, Regional Agricultural Information & Learning Systems (RAILS)

Tel: (233) 30 277 28 23, 77 94 21

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – Crop Research Institute (CSIR‐CRI)

Dr. Stella A. Ennin Deputy Director Tel: +233 (0) 32 20 60 389/91 60 425

CRI Mrs Elizabeth Y. Parkes Scientist Tel: +233 (0) 32 20 60 389/91 60 425

CSIR Dr F.O. Anno‐Nyako Technical Specialist Tel: (233) 777 654, 774 772, 777 940

CRI Dr Emmanuel Otoo Country Coordinator (Yam Minisett Project)

Tel: +233 (0) 32 20 60 389/91 60 425

CRI Mr Paul Mintah Country Coordinator (Plantain Production Project)

Tel: +233 (0) 32 20 60 389/91 60 425

USAID Biotechnology Prof. Walter Alhassan African Coordinator FARA Prof. Monty P. Jones Executive Director FARA Mr Johnson Ukpong Financial Controller Tel: (233) 30 277 28 23,

77 94 21

Nigeria IITA Dr Robert Asiedu Director, Researcg for Development (W. Africa)

IITA Dr Christian A. Fatokun Consultant

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts IITA Dr Dominique Dumet Head, Genetic Resources Centre IITA Dr Irmgard Hoeschle‐

Zeledon Coordinator, System Project – Integrated Pest Management (SP‐IPM)

Tel: +1 201 633 6094

IITA Dr Abebe Menkir Maize Breeder IITA Dr Lava Kumar Germplasm Health / Virology IITA Dr Subash Marcus Manager, Geospatial Lab. IITA Mr Kayode Awobajo Resource Management Officer,

Contracts & Grants

IITA Mrs Lola Idowu Training Coordinator IITA Engr. Thierno A. Diallo Head, Post‐Harvest Engineering Unit IITA Dr Norbert Maroya Cassava Breeder IITA Dr Mbaye Yade Regional Strategic Analysis &

Knowledge Support System in West Africa (ReSAKSS‐WA)

IITA Dr. Busie Maziya‐Dixon Crop Utilization Specialist IITA Dr. Sam O. Ajala Maize Breeder IITA Dr Hidehiko Kikune Yam Physiologist IITA Dr Antonio Lopez ‐ Montes Yam Breeder IITA Dr Uroh Bi Irié Breeder (Banana – Plantain) CORAF Prof. A.M. Emechebe KKM Coordinator Tel: (234) 802 303 0765

KNARDA Othman Yahaya Deputy Director, Extension KNARDA Muh’d Abdulhamid KKM Desk Officer Tel: (234) 808 569 1130

KNARDA Umar Garba Supervisor Tel: (234) 803 964 8105 Shanono Local Government Lawan A. Abubakar Extension Officer Bayero Univ., Kano (BUK) Amiru Fagge Research Supervisor Tel: (234) 802 374 9315 IITA Ucheibe, George Research Supervisor Tel: (234) 803 270 3696 IITA Dr. Alpha Kamara Task Force Leader Tel: (234) 802 080 480 Abuja, ECOWAS

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts ECOWAS Dr. Rui Luiz da Costa dos Reiz

Silva Director, Agriculture and Rural Development

Tel: +234 706 418 5010

Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN)

Prof. B.Y. Abubakar Executive Secretary Tel: +234 803 451 8811 (Mobile)

ARCN Dr Hassan Mohammed Director, Partnerships and Linkages ARCN Prof. Mohammed Magaji Director, Capacity Strengthening ARCN Dr. Ataja Director, Knowledge ManagementThe Gambia NARI Dr. Babou Ousman Jobe Director General Tel : +220 4484925

Office : 220 9733137 NARI Mr. Lamin M.S. Jobe Director of Research. Entomoologist Tel: +220 4484926

NARI Ms. Absa Jaw Programme Leader, Cereal

Programme, Senior Research Officer,

NARI Ms. Mama Mariama Saho Programme Leader, Livestock Programme, Senior Research Officer

NARI Abdoulie B. Mboge Programme Leader, Fisheries and Aquaculture Programme

Nerica Rice Farmers Association, Jambur

Omar Bajang General Secretary

NARI Hassan Mboge Director of Finance ITC Dr. Momoduo Mbake Programme Coordinator MbakeMomodou@yaho

o.com ITC Dr. Ruben Kigbu Technical Assistant [email protected] ITC Mr. Sunday Lah Technical Assistant [email protected] ITC Dr Arss Secka Livestock Research Scientist Mob:(220) 9845904. Benin INRAN Dr. O. Delphin Koudande Directeur Scientifique, Directeur

General Adjoint Tel: +229 21300264

University of Abomey‐Calavi, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,

Prof Dr. Ir Houngnandan Pascal

Senior Professor of Soil Microbiology, Director of Microbial

+229 21048314

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Department of Crop Production Ecological Laboratory, Head of

Cooperation Services, AFRA National Coordinator

INRAN Dr. David Y. Arodokoun Director General Tel: +229 21360391 IITA Dr. Ousmane Coulibaly Agricultural Economist Tel: +229 21350188 CBRST Prof Philippe Adedjobi Laleye Directeur General Tel: +229 21321263 Cameroon DGRST/CARBAP Dr Pierre Michel Loubana Nematologist Tel: +237 96423485 IITA Dr. Rachid Hanna Country Representative,

Entomologist Tel: +237 22237434

CARBAP Fombah Cletus Chick Ingenieur Agronome Tel: +237 33127051 CARBAP Dr. Alassa Mouliom Pefoura Phytopathologiste Tel: +237 33427129 Fonds Camerounais d’Epargne

pour le Progres Clotaire Yomfo Tekeu Directeur Commercial du Credit

Directeur Regional du Centre Tel: +237 22102563

ICRAF/WCA Kunodickong Jazary Data curator IRAD Richard Awah Nche RAILS Focal Point IRAD Dr. Bidzanga Nomo IRAD Dr. Noe Woin Deputy Director General IRAD Meppe Paco Sustainable Seed systems project

coordinator IRAD Ndioro a Mbassa Focal Point Coordinator, DONATA

Coordinator, APM project

IRAD Moma Crescence Agroeconomist IRAD Ottou Jean Francois Bruno Director, Valorization and

Innovations IRAD Aroga Regine Coop IRAD Dr. Kameni Anselme Focal Point Coordinator,

Cowpea/maize postharvest project +237 77658686

ICRA/CARBAP Zima Guy Gildias Responsible Suivi et Evaluation Tel:(237) 98 26 10 73. CARBAP Fombah Cletus Country Coordinator; Plantain Tel:(237) 77 21 09 96; IRAD/CARBAP Mouliom Pefoura Alassa Coordinateur Regional du Projet Tel:(237) 99 68 52 25

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Coraf Plaintain

DGESI/CARBAP Loubana Pierre‐Michel Coordinateur Scientific P.I. Tel:(237) 96 42 34 85;

CARBAP Tetang Tchinda Yojue Rep INFOCOM Tel:(237) 99 42 34 85 Burkina Faso INERA Dr. Jacob Sanou Directeur Regional +226 70283797 PAFASP Adama Savadogo Specialiste en Communication et

Relation Publiques +226 50304279

IRSAT Dr.Laurencia Songre/ Ouattara

Chercheur au Departement Technologie Alimentaire

+226 50363790

SODEPAL Mme Simone Zoundi President, Directeur Generale +226 50361082 UPB Pr. Hamidou Boly President +226 20980635 CNRST Souleymane Ouedraogo Tel (cell): +226

70264719 CILSS Mahalmoudou Hamadoun Tel: +226 50374125/26 UEMOA Seyni Hamadou Tel: +226 50318873/74

(Direct) +22650328814 CILSS Amadou Mactar Konate +226 503474133 IRSAT Bougouma Boniface Specialiste Technologie Alimentaire +226 50363790 CIRDES Dr.Kanwer Augustine Chef URPAN

CIRDES Dr. Sidibe Issa Director Scientifique CIRDES Email: [email protected] CIRDES Adakal Hassane Coordonnateur Regional

WECATIC/AUSAID CIRDES Mamadou Sangari Coordonteur Composante CIDERS

d’un Projet CIRDES Dr Hamidou Tamboura Director General P.I. Tel:(226) 70 30 29 29 APESS

Mme Fatouma Barry Mr. Adama Traore

MRSI Professor MILLOGO, Hassanata

Secretaire General

of 106

Country Organisation Name Position Contacts Dr. TRAORE Gue Julienne Conseiller Technique

ANB Mme. ZOUNGRANA, Chantal Directrice

of 106

ANNEX 6: PROFILES OF REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS

KHADIJA ALIA BAH‐WAKEFIELD: BS (Cornell), MA (Sussex), MPhil (Cambridge). She is a social scientist with degrees from Cornell, Sussex and Cambridge. Her particular interests are governance, combatting HIV and AIDS and meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and promoting gender equality in Africa. Khadija worked at the NEPAD Secretariat as an advisor on the MDGs, helped develop socio‐economic dimensions of the African Peer Review (APR), and joined the APR Team that reviewed Nigeria’s democratic and governance institutions in 2008. She also advised the UK Commission on Africa and the United Nations Millennium Project on NEPAD. Khadija has also worked for the World Bank and United Nations. She was a visiting associate to the Global Economic Governance Programme at Oxford University for the academic year 2005‐2006.

MBAYE MBENGUE FAYE: Certificate of Advanced Studies in Water Management (Luxemburg), Diploma of Specialized Higher Studies in Sanitary Engineering/Environment (Lausanne, Switzerland), Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering Design (Thies, Senegal). He is a Civil Engineer, Specialist Sanitary/Environmental Engineer. He has extensive experience in environmental and social Assessment, with over 30 years of professional experience including 15 years in the study and monitoring of development projects and 15 years entirely devoted to planning, assessment and environmental management of projects and programs. He has conducted over 160 missions as an environmental and social expert for programs, including more than 50 environmental assessments and Strategic Environmental and Social Management Frameworks, more than 20 Resettlement Policy Frameworks and Resettlement Action Plans, and more than 10 Pest and Pesticides Management Plans in over 30 African countries on behalf of the World Bank, the West African Development Bank (BOAD), the African Development Bank (ADB), USAID, UNDP, European Union, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and the Nordic Fund. Mr FAYE is also a consultant on Training and has conducted studies of environmental impact, natural resources management, water and sanitation, waste management.

EMMANUEL BABAFUNSO SONAIYA: Ph.D (Cornell) M.Phil., B.Sc., (Ife). He is a Fellow, Nigerian Society for Animal production (FNSAP), Fellow, Animal Science Association of Nigeria (FASAN)], Professor of Animal Science at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife, Nigeria. He has worked briefly in other Nigerian and foreign universities and at the International Livestock Research Institute. His research on energy nutrition and family poultry has produced 166 scientific publications with 45 in the last five years. He established an African Network which became the International Network for Family Poultry Development and is now a global working group within the World’s Poultry Science Association. As the Dean of Agriculture at Obafemi Awolowo University, he established the agricultural biotechnology programme. He was a member, responsible for agricultural biotechnology, of the 5‐member Steering Committee of the University’s Biotechnology Programme. He served as a consultant to the National Biotechnology Programme, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology; as a technical expert on the National Subcommittee on Agricultural Biotechnology (a joint committee of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Federal Ministry of Science and Technology); wrote the lead paper for the 10‐year (2002‐2012) agenda for agricultural biotechnology of the National Biotechnology Development Agency. He served as the project coordinator for the livestock biotechnology project of the International Livestock Research Institute, West Africa Programme, which was funded by the USAID through the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan. Internationally, he has been consultant to the governments of Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Tanzania, Zambia, Sierra Leone, and Kenya and to FAO (for 25 years), World Bank and ECOWAS. In the last three years, he was involved in: the FAO’s Evaluation of the National Special Programme on Food Security in Nigeria (2004‐2007), the Evaluation of the FAO – Sudan Cooperation Programme (2004 – 2009), the formulation of the ECOWAS Regional Livestock Priorities, and the formulation of the ECOWAS Regional Programme of Investment in Agriculture.

of 106

DUNSTAN SYLVESTER CHRISTIE SPENCER : MS, PhD (Illinois) BSc Agric with Hons (London). (Team Leader). He is a professionally qualified agricultural economist, with graduate level training in animal science, and undergraduate level training in agronomy. He taught agricultural and development economics to undergraduate students in Sierra Leone, and graduate students in the USA. He has led major farming systems research projects in international research organizations in the CGIAR system including the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA). He is currently an independent Consultant, based in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in which capacity he has been a team member and leader in a number of agricultural project identification, design, appraisal supervision and evaluation missions on behalf of international organizations such as FAO, the World Bank and UNDP, as well as a number of Foundations such as Rockefeller and Ford. He is an expert in Women in development, environmental assessment, impact evaluations, and poverty alleviation issues. Having chaired the Board of Directors of a national as well as an international research institute has tackled the problems of resource mobilization and oversight in difficult national as well as international arenas. As a native English speaker who has lived and worked in both French and English speaking countries, have excellent communications skills in both languages.

JAMES BENJAMIN ABAKA WHYTE: M.S., Ph.D. (Michigan State) B.Sc. (Ghana). His academic training is in crop science. He has worked in most sub‐Saharan African countries since 1982 in various capacities at IITA, encompassing both specialist activities in genetics and plant breeding as well as broader responsibilities in coordinating food security and income generation activities. Jim was influential in shifting the paradigm for germplasm development from resistance and ideotype to ecological based programs through optimum physiological expression of genetic potential under different biophysical conditions in combination with profiling genotypes for different end uses. As a research liaison scientist, Jim deepened and broadened knowledge at IITA of agricultural research priorities and needs, research capacities, scope of institutional research agenda, internal and external linkages of Central Africa countries. Jim coordinated the ASARECA’s East Africa Root Crops Research Network during which he initiated the strategic shift from the original production orientation to a market oriented network with a mission to transform cassava into a broad based commercial commodity to sustain food security, alleviate poverty, generate income and contribute to socio‐economic growth. He developed in‐country networking systems to rapidly deploy improved varieties to farmers, open quarantine mechanisms to enhance germplasm delivery across countries with similar ecologies and improved the quarantine facility at Muguga, Kenya to serve as clearinghouse for regional germplasm acquisition, disease elimination, virus indexing, international exchange and conservation of core collections in the East and Southern Africa region. Process cumulated in the released of 12 varieties in Uganda, 12 in Kenya, 9 in Rwanda, 5 in Burundi. Jim promoted integrated commodity value chain systems analysis in designing cassava subsector activities. From 2002‐3 he coordinated an IITA mid‐term program to develop and promote, in collaboration with public and private sector stakeholders, the utilization of improved technologies and market support services for sustainable increases in production, utilization and commercialization of mandate commodities in East and Southern Africa. From 2003‐5 Dr. Whyte managed a program for improvement of rural livelihoods in Southern Africa. He has undertaken a number of consultancies in diversifying rural livelihoods through improved root and tuber crops systems. Through a private sector initiative, Jim is currently developing a championing program to revolutionize the cassava subsector in Ghana.

CHRISPIN EKUNDAYO WILSON: B.A. Econs. (Durham), FCCA: He is a Certified Accountant with a background in economics and considerable expertise in the preparation of Statutory Accounts, the interpretation of financial accounts including the use of financial ratios, financial analysis of projects and the conceptualisation, development, and implementation of projects. He has worked both for the Central Government and in the private sector. He has experience in the auditing of government accounts, and in the financial analysis of government projects. As Director of Finance of the National

of 106

Development Bank he developed accounting systems for small businesses and carried out financial analysis and projections of investment projects. His international work experience include assignments for the International Planned Parenthood Federation ‐ IPPF and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Kenya, Jordan, Cote d’Voire, Chad, & Togo. He served the IPPF as a Management Auditor and Financial Controller. In these positions he gained vast experience in auditing and financial services in 22 African Countries South of the Sahara. As UNICEF Representative in Chad, Kenya, and Togo he held sensitive programme negotiations at the highest levels with host Governments. He is an expert in operational and management audits and planning and programming of investments. He is proficient in both written and spoken French, which stood him in good stead during his high profile appointments as UNICEF Representative in Francophone African Countries.

AUGUSTINE UZO MOKWUNYE: PhD (Illinois), BS, MS (Ohio State): He is a development strategy consultant, natural resources management specialist and an expert in capacity development, agricultural research management and application of innovations systems to agriculture. He has been involved in international development since the late 1970’s. He has been a Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor at the Agricultural Complex of the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, Nigeria. As a researcher in the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) he led the program to understand the chemistry of phosphorus in the soils of the Savannas of the then ten northern States of Nigeria. Later, at the International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC) located in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA, he was Leader of the Phosphorus Program where he organized the West African Fertilizer Management and Evaluation Network (WAFMEN) which became IFDC’s primary instrument for capacity strengthening of the NARS of the West African. Under his leadership as the Director of IFDC‐Africa based in Lome, Togo, the African Fertilizer Trade and Marketing Information Network (AFTMIN) was established to facilitate information sharing and the delivery of soil fertility management information to African NARS. Prof Mokwunye was also Director of the United Nations University‐Institute for Natural Resources in Africa (UNU‐INRA) which is the only institution in Africa with UN recognition and support to develop and strengthen individual and institutional capacities for research, education and outreach. He was also a member of the Governing Board of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‐Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and was the Chair of the Committee of CGIAR Centre Board Chairs and a member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR. With the establishment of the Sub‐Saharan Africa Challenge Program coordinated by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), he was appointed the Chair of the Management Committee of the Kano/Katsina/Maradi Pilot Learning Site. He was published extensively in the area of chemistry of tropical soils.

Mid-term of the - CORAF / WECARD Revie… · Mid-term Review of the CORAF/WECARD ... 6.2...

Documents

Transcript of Mid-term of the - CORAF / WECARD Revie… · Mid-term Review of the CORAF/WECARD ... 6.2...