Assessing the Performance of Agricultural and Rural Management Councils (CARGs) in Western

Democratic Republic of Congo

Catherine Ragasa, John Ulimwengu

and Thaddee Badibanga

Motivation

• 2010-2013: IFPRI’s 3-year research program in 3 provinces in western DRC

• Study on CARGs not initially included in the main research programs

• MINAGRI requested IFPRI to assess the performance of CARGs

• We wanted to investigate status, measure performance, and attempt to identify patterns and factors that explain CARG performance Focusing on western DRC (not national) Linking to ongoing surveys and interviews

Development domains (map from World Bank 2006)

15 years of conflict

DB 2015: 187th of 189 countries

HDI 2013: 186th of 187 countries

GHI 2011: worst of 89 countries

DRC agricultural potential

Most externally-funded projects are concentrated in eastern part, Equateur, Katanga, Kinshasa, Bas-Congo and Bandundu

Agricultural Policy of DRC

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

National Advisory Council

of Provincial-level CARGs

Provincial Advisory Council

of Territory-level CARGs

Communication & Knowledge Management Platform

Journal of CARG;Thematic brochures

Government agencies

Provincial Agricultural Development Plan

Territory-level CARGs30-member management committee (composed of 2/3 members from Civil society and 1/3 from State); and 10-

member leadership

Cooperatives, farmer-based organizations, producer associations, local development committees

Agricultural research agricultural schools,

institutes and universities

Churches, Private companies, financial

institutions

Agricultural market and information systems; rural radio communication

General Assembly meetings; executive management meetings; policy discussions and dialogues;

information sharing; service demand articulation and monitoring

External partners (donors, international

NGOs, etc.)

Sector-level CARGs

Relevant structures and approaches to CARGs

Structures/ Approaches

Example of studies

Scope Outcomes

Participatory (consultative) policymaking processes

Resnick and Birner (2012); Schut et al. (2014)

Broad in scope (national, regional)

Mixed outcomes; lessons: manage expectations; focus on tangible outcomes; complementary expertise; operational capacity

Community-based and -driven development

Review by Mansuri and Rao (2004)

Localized (community or district)

Mixed outcomes on targeting, service delivery and empowering the poor; major challenges of implementation; impact depends on local context

MSP for natural resources management

Faysee (2006); Ribot (1995); Warner 2006; Ribot 1995); Berger et al. (2007)

Localized (e.g., common resource)

Mixed outcomes. Many successful stories but there are also some challenges; impact depends on local context

Innovation platforms Kilelu et al. (2014); van Paassen et al. (2014); Pamuk et al. (2014)

Localized (value chain)

Mixed outcomes. Pockets of successes based on case studies; but limited impact based on evaluation studies; impact depends on local initial condition

Multi-level MSP for demand-driven services and policymaking processes

Spielman et al. (2012); World Bank (2006)

Broader (district, provincial or national)

Only project implementation and completion reports available and no independent evaluation of these projects; clearly-communicated objectives are important

Research questions

• Are CARGs effective? • What are the objectives (what are they intended for)?• Any indication of achieving these objectives?• What are the perceptions of stakeholders on these CARGs?

• What conditions explain CARG performance?• Context (conflict & collection action): (-) Montalvo and Reynal-

Querol 2005; Hellin et al. 2007); (+) Cramer 2006; Bellows and Miguel 2009; Voors et al. 2010; Unruh 2002

• Characteristics and governance with these CARGs (coordination processes, training, time spent on CARG activities, financial capacity)

• Characteristics of membership and leadership (heterogeneity of membership and leadership)

Data and methods

• Process evaluation (not impact assessment; not casual effects)• Scoping visits, key informant interviews (2010-mid 2011)• Survey of 55 CARGs in 23 randomly-selected territories

(consistent with INS 1-2-3 national survey)• Group of 6 members and leaders

• CARG module in various surveys (main research programs (mid 2011-2012))• 145 villages (4-6 opinion leaders) • 181 RPOs (4-6 leaders and members)• 107 extension organizations (head)• 162 agricultural workers

• Review of meeting minutes and reports (2012)• More visits and key informant interviews (2012-2013)• Preliminary findings presentations (2013); under journal review

Sample of 55 CARGs

o By province• 38% (21 CARGs) in Bas-Congo• 62% (34 CARGs) in Bandundu• Kinshasa (not functional, deceased champion)

o By level• 76% territory CARGs • 24% city/sector CARGs

o By year of set-up• 65% were set-up in 2009 (36 CARGs) • 26% in 2010 (14 CARGs) • 5% in 2011 (3 CARGs)• 4% in 2008 (2 CARGs)

 

Status of CARG implementation

• As of 2014, there were 144 territory CARGs installed across DRC (2/3 of territories)

• Active in 4 provinces (Bas-Congo, Bandundu, North Kivu, Katanga)

• Agricultural market information system and rural radio communication – stakeholders were not aware

• Provincial Agricultural Development Plan (Bandundu) - most stakeholders were aware and some had participated, but no follow-up

• Thematic journals/brochures published regularly, but most stakeholders were not aware

• Highly depends on a committed champion in the area – Kinshasa case

• Diverse experience: pockets of successes, major challenges

Outcome variables

• (1) Stakeholders’ perception on CARGs (%, OLS)• % of stakeholders who are aware of CARG • % of stakeholders attending CARG meeting• % of stakeholders perceiving CARG to be useful• % of stakeholders reporting having benefited from CARG

• (2) Matching reported objectives with reported activities (dummy, probit)• 50% of CARGs have conducted activities consistent with at least

one of the main goals• (3) External linkages (role in problem-solving and as bridge)

(count, Poisson)• Frequency of interaction with external partners (NGOs, donors,

MOFA, service providers, researchers, universities, private sector)

Stakeholders’ perceptions about CARGs

Aware of CARGs Have attended a CARG meeting

Considers CARG as useful

Benefitted from CARG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

79

56

64

20

58

30 30

10

49

22 22

8

Extension organizations Agricultural workers RPOs

Correlates of CARG Performance

Factors Indicators (one at a time per factor)Heterogeneity of membership

o % of women in membershipo Dummy variables of gender balance in membership, defined as (i)

40:60 ratio and (ii) 25:75 ratio of female to male in membership (Agarwal 2009, 2010)

o % of youth in the membershipo Number of distinct ethnicities and religions in the focus territoryo Coefficient of variation of per capita expenditure in the territorieso Composite index

Active participation

o Frequency of meetingso Meeting attendance rateo Members' rating of the meetingso Composite index

Effective coordination of CARG process

o Time of CARG leadership for CARG activities (number of hours)o Frequency of leadership meetingso Education level of CARG leaderso Dummy variable if decisions in meetings were transformed into actual

activities o Composite index

Correlates of CARG Performance

Factors IndicatorsFinancial capacity of CARG

Annual funds available (in US$000), total, and disaggregated into internally- and externally-generated

Training received o Dummy variable for receipt of any external trainingo Frequency of trainingo Frequency of training rated as at least "satisfactory"

Composition of leadership

o Heterogeneity of leadership (% women and youth in the leadership)o Balance of power between government and non-government actors:

measured in terms of % of government actors in the leadership % of CARG leaders designated by government officials, as

supposed to the CARG rule of electionLocal context and enabling environment

o Dummy for provinceo Per capita expenditure in territory (US$000)o Distance to nearest national road (kilometer)

Risk of political instability and conflict

Number of conflict events in the territory 1997-2010, defined as battles, riots, protests, violence against civilians, and nonviolent transfer of territory from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset (ACLED)

Stage of CARG Number of months since CARG was establishedType of CARG Dummy for territory or sector CARG

Results

Significant correlates of better CARG performance o Financial capacity of CARGs (both external and internal)

Financial support is likely to be needed especially in early stages of CARG set-upo Time spent by CARG leaders on CARG-related activities (a proxy for the

commitment of CARG leadership to CARGs) Ways to incentivize management and role of third part broker/facilitator

o Coordination capacity indicator (training received and whether decisions from meetings led to specific actions or activities) Training of management committee members is likely to strengthen CARGs Follow-up issues during meetings

o Representation by government officials in CARG executive leadership Consistent with the role of state actors in CDD (Mansuri and Rao 2004) Some distrust among government officials seems to be outweighed by the

technical and political support that government officials can contribute to CARGs

Results (2)

o No evidence that risk of conflict can either induce or prevent collective action and coordination

o Indicators for local context and enabling environment are correlated with CARG performance Consistent with others (Mansuri & Rao 2004; Pamuk et al. 2014; Faysee 2006) CARGs in Bandundu have better performance indicators than those in Bas-

Congo Within each province, measures of general well-being, connectivity, and

access to services and markets are correlated with CARG performanceo Heterogeneity in membership and leadership not significanto Women and youth representation not significant

30% of leadership should be women, but most CARGs have not followed Quota system should be carefully designed as to ensure that constraints to

participation and engagement are addressed

Some reflections

How transformative are CARGs?• The experience of CARGs in DRC reinforces the limits of

MSP to be transformative • Same representatives attending meetings and dialogues

– limits as coalition of change• CARG is a platform that depends on the capacity of

existing organizations (but currently with weak capacity)Role in agricultural extension service provision?

• High expectation on CARGs as the solution to ineffective extension system in DRC

• Demand side (yes); supply side (no)

Some reflections (2)

Need to manage expectations• Current benefits are in terms of consultations• Need capacity to be an effective bridge between

demand and supply of services• Rethink role of CARGs’ role in monitoring of

projects/programs and extension service deliveryFindings should be viewed as the early stages of

CARG implementation (after 3-4 years)• CARG performance may come with maturity

(regression results support this)

THANK YOU

Results of probit, OLS, and Poisson models  (1)

Matched objectives &

activities

(2)% aware of

CARGs

(3)% attended

CARG activities

(4)% perceived CARGs as

useful

(5)% benefitted from CARGs

 (6)Freq. of external linkages

Time spent by CARG leaders 0.01** 0.16*** 0.19*** 0.20*** 0.23*** 0.05*** (number of hours) (0.01) (0.05) (0.04) (0.05) (0.04) (0.00)

Coordination capacity 0.22** 0.89*** 0.93** 0.75*** 0.50 0.21*** indicator (composite index) (0.11) (0.29) (0.39) (0.33) (1.19) (0.08)

Financial capacity (US$000) 1.08* 1.78 4.79* 3.53 1.40 1.40***(0.40) (2.31) (2.41) (2.39) (1.98) (0.11)

Training received (dummy) 0.12** 3.12* 5.37*** 3.84** 3.69** 3.30**(0.05) (1.79) (1.86) (1.84) (1.53) (1.05)

% of government actors in 0.02 3.56* 5.51*** 3.30** 3.71** 0.05** leadership (0.05) (1.70) (1.19) (1.30) (1.13) (0.01)

% of CARG leaders designated by -0.32 0.56 0.51 0.30 0.11 5.50* government officials (0.45) (0.79) (1.19) (1.10) (0.13) (2.3)

Bandundu province (dummy) 0.96** -7.89 2.38 -4.94 19.87*** 3.40**(0.13) (7.48) (7.78) (7.71) (6.39) (1.30)

Age of CARGs (number of -0.01 0.41 0.83*** 0.59** 0.54* 0.10 months) (0.01) (0.27) (0.13) (0.11) (0.23) (0.20)