technical notes - african union · national budget, p 5 2016 benchmark 3.33 10 1.1 2016 .1 2016 1.1...

Draft March 2017

TECHNICAL NOTES for preparing the 2017 African Agriculture Transformation Scorecard on implementing

Commitments of the June 2014 AU Heads of State Malabo Declaration

The 2017 Progress Report on African Agricultural Transformation for implementing the Malabo Declaration is due at the January 2018 AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government

Introduction

The African Union (AU) Commission is preparing the 1st Report on the implementation of the June 2014 AU Assembly Declaration on the Malabo Commitments for agricultural transformation in Africa; a report which is due for the January 2018 AU Assembly.

The Report is currently being prepared and will be a compilation of data expected from the 55 AU Member States that are being trained to carry out self-assessments and provide their individual progress report for achieving each target set in the Malabo Declaration.

Member states are preparing their report using the Country Reporting Template and Technical Guidelines that are developed in line with the 7 performance themes of the Malabo Declaration, where 23 performance categories and 43 indicators have been prioritized to be tracked and reported on by member states for the 2017 reporting round.

The seven (7) performances themes of the Malabo Declaration include:

Theme 1- Commitment to CAADP process

Theme 2- Investment finance in Agriculture

Theme 3- Ending Hunger

Theme 4- Eradicating Poverty through Agriculture

Theme 5- Intra-African Trade in Agriculture commodities

Theme 6- Resilience to Climate Variability

Theme7- Mutual Accountability for Actions and Results

Agreement reached by the leadership of the AU Commission is to evaluate the progress made by individual member state in the form of Balanced Scorecard and to come up with the African Agricultural Transformation Scorecard, using appropriate methods to benchmark country performance in achieving targets set in the Malabo Declaration.

Benchmarking methods are metric methods that bring accuracy, rightness and fairness in evaluating progress for achieving a specific goal for which smart targets and corresponding indicators have been designed and agreed upon. The methods can help to get a Balanced Scorecard that enables peer-to-peer metric comparison of performances in order to stimulate continuous improvement of interventions towards the common agreed targets. In this case, the clarity of the benchmarking model seeks mainly to allow Member States to see how their performance is measured, and to search for best practices in order to overcome identified challenges, while reinforcing the culture of continuous improvement and providing sense of urgency in achieving agriculture Sector goals for Africa.

These 2017 Technical Notes, while recalling methods used in the AU’s Malabo Biennial Review Technical Guidelines to calculate each performance indicator, provide as well further details on the methods used to calculate the Performance Indices and reference points for performance measurement that permit to set a right score in the Balanced Scorecard, accordingly with the agreed weighting systems.

In line with the performance structure set for the Biennial review exercise, the models in this document, provide: the I-score which is the score attributed to the performance Indicator; the C-score which is the combined score of the performance Category; the T-score which is the combined score of the performance Theme; and the O-score which is the Overall score in achieving the Malabo declaration. The milestone and the Benchmark as appeared in the document, are respectively the current values (minimum) of the indicator and the score, for the country to be on track for achieving the target set for the target year.

These Technical Notes will serve as basis for the design of the database for country data compilation to generate the 2017 Malabo Scorecard.

ADOPTED WEGHTING SYSTEM for designing the balanced African Agricultural Transformation Scorecard: The Performance Structure.

Technical Notes 1 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 1 : “COUNTRY COMMITMENT TO CAADP PROCESS”

PC 1.1 ǀ Country CAADP Process

1.1- CAADP process to be fully completed at the country level: Reach 100% of the completion, CAADPpro, by 2018 .

Performance targets

I-score1.1 ǀ Estimating progress on completing CAADP Process

Existence of Communication on

internalizing CAADP, p1 2016

TARGET

Ʈ1.1 = 100%

I-score1.1

On Track ???

1.1

10

CAADPpro

(b)

CAADP process completion Index , CAADPpro

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

711)( toipaverage

(a)

Existence of National CAADP Roadmap for implementing Malabo, p2

Existence of NAIP Appraisal Report, p3

Existence of the New NAIP, p4

NAIP implementation reflected in national budget, p5

2016 Benchmark

33.310

1.1

1.120161.12016

B

(d)

Existence of NAIP M&E System, p6

Existence of NAIP implementation progress Report, p7

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520161.11.12016

(c)

= C-score1.1

1.2- Multi-sectorial coordination body and multi-stakeholder body fully established and operational at national level: Reach 100% for the Quality of multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder coordination body, Qc, by 2018.

PC 1.2 ǀ CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance

Performance targets

I-score1.2 ǀ Estimating progress on establishing multi-sectorial coordination body and multi-stakeholder body

Existence of quality terms of reference,

Qc1 2016

TARGET

Ʈ1.2 = 100%

I-score1.2

On Track ???

2.1

10

Qc

(k) (%)iQc

Existence of, and Quality of multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder coordination

body, Qc

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

)(5

1

i

i

i wQc

(j)

Level of implementation of the coordination

actions , Qc2

Level of participation and inclusiveness, Qc3

Level of commitment to decisions , Qc4

Level of representation, Qc5

W1 = 10%

W2 = 25%

W3 = 25%

W4 = 20%

W5 = 20%

- Existence of the TORs, pTOR1

- Reflection of the key elements, pTOR2

- Relevance of membership, pTOR4

- Existence of List of official nominees and affiliation, pTOR5

- Representation of stakeholders, pTOR3

).( )(iTORpav(e)

- Performance for meetings held, pIPM1

- Level of engagement, pIMP2

2/)( 21 IMPIMP pp

(f)

- Total number of organizations, Norg

- Number of organizations present at each meetings organized, Norgi

- Total number of meetings organized, NmO

mOorgorgi NNN /

(g)

-Total number of recommendations taken during the evaluation period, NRT

- Number of decisions implemented, NDI

-Total number of decisions taken with out of the number of recommendations during the evaluation period, NDT

RTDI NN /(h)

- Total expected senior attendance per meeting, TSA

- Observed senior attendance at each meetings organized, QSAi

- Total number of meetings organized, NmO

SAmOSAi TNQ /(i)

2016 Benchmark

33.310

2.1

2.120162.12016

B

(m)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520162.12.12016

(l)

= C-score1.2

PC 1.3 ǀ CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support

1.3- Evidence-based policies and institutions that support planning and implementation are established and implemented by the country to deliver on Malabo: Reach 100% for the Evidence-based policies, supportive institutions and corresponding human resources, EIP, by 2018.

Performance targets

I-score1.3 ǀ Estimating progress on establishing evidence based policies and institutions

2016

TARGET

Ʈ1.3 = 100%

I-score1.3

On Track ???

3.1

10

EIP

(r)

Evidence-based policies, supportive institutions and

corresponding human resources , EIP

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

3/)( FTEEPIEPE

(q)

Supportive institutions -laws

and regulations, EPI

Full-time equivalent staff dedicated to agricultural policy

planning, implementation

and M&E within the Ministry of

agriculture, FTE

- Number of institutions (laws and regulations) that exist to support policies and strategies, NIP NRINIP /100

(O)

2016 Benchmark

33.310

3.1

3.120163.12016

B

(t)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520163.13.12016

(s)

- Total number of policies and strategies in the NAIP, TNP

- Number of policies and strategies that are evidence-based, NEP

TNPNEP /100(n)

Evidence-based policies and

strategies evidence,

EPE

- Number of policies and strategies elements in the NAIP that required supportive institutions (laws and regulations), NRI

- Number of staffing positions filled, FTS

FTPFTS /100(p)

- Number of required fulltime staff positions for planning and M&E, FTP

= C-score1.3

T-score1 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 1: “COUNTRY COMMITMENT TO CAADP PROCESS”

T-score1

On Track ???

)( .1 iscoreCaverage

(u)

2016 Benchmark

33.3),,( tmdaverage

(v)

I-score1.1 = C-score1.1



Technical Notes 2 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 2 : “INVESTMENT FINANCE IN AGRICULTURE”

2.1ii- Ensure adequate intensity of agricultural spending by keeping annual public agriculture expenditure as % of agriculture value added to no less than (or at a minimum of) 19% from 2015 to 2025.

PC 2.1 ǀ Public Expenditures to Agriculture

2.1i- Increase public expenditures to agriculture as part of national expenditures, to at least 10% , from 2015 to 2025.

2.1iii- Ensure that Official Development Assistance (ODA) committed to implement the NAIPs is fully disbursed to countries. The target is to have 100% ODA disbursement annually from 2015 to 2025.

Performance targets

I-score2.1i ǀ Estimating progress on public expenditures in agriculture

TARGET

Ʈ2.1i = 10%

I-score2.1i

On Track ???

Average Public agriculture expenditure as share of total

public expenditure, ƮPAE

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.2

1.220161.22016

i

iiB

(ab)

2016 Milestone:

%101.21.22016 ii

(aa)

Total Public Expenditure in local currency unit

(lcu), TPE

Public agriculture expenditure as share of

total public expenditure, ƮPAE2015

Public Agriculture Expenditure in local

currency units (lcu), PAE

2015

Total Public Expenditure in local currency unit

(lcu), TPE

Public agriculture expenditure as share of

total public expenditure, ƮPAE2016



2016

(%),/100 TPEPAE(w)

2/)( 20152016 PAEPAE

(y)

(%),/100 TPEPAE

(x)

0,10,10

1.2 i

PAEMinMax

(z)

I-score2.1ii ǀ Estimating progress on intensity of agricultural spending

TARGET

Ʈ2.1ii = 19%

I-score2.1ii

On Track ???

Average Public agriculture expenditure as % of

agriculture value added, PAEAgGDP

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.2

1.220161.22016

ii

iiiiB

(ah)

2016 Milestone:

%191.21.22016 iiii

(ag)

2015

2016

AgGDPPAE /100

(ac)

2/)( 2015.2016. AgGDPAgGDP PAEPAE

(ae)

0,10,10

1.2 ii

AgGDPPAEMinMax

(af)

AgGDPPAE /100(ad)

Public Agriculture expenditure as % of

agriculture value added, PAEAgGDP .2015

Public Agriculture expenditure as % of

agriculture value added, PAEAgGDP .2016



Agriculture Value Added in local currency units

(lcu), AgGDP



Agriculture Value Added in local currency units

(lcu), AgGDP

I-score2.1iii ǀ Estimating progress on ODA disbursement to agriculture

TARGET

Ʈ2.1iii = 100%

I-score2.1iii

On Track ???

Average ODA disbursed to agriculture as % of

commitments, ODA

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.2

1.220161.22016

iii

iiiiiiB

(an)

2016 Milestone:

%1001.21.22016 iiiiii

(am)

2015

2016

agODACagODAD /100(ai)

2/)( 20152016 ODAODA

(ak)

0,10,10

1.2 iii

ODAMinMax

(al)

agODACagODAD /100(aj)

ODA disbursed to agriculture as % of

commitments , ODA2016

ODA for agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fishery, commitments

(US$): agODAC

Official Development Assistance (ODA) for agriculture, livestock,

forestry, and fishery, gross disbursements (US$),

agODAD

ODA for agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fishery, commitments

(US$): agODAC

Official Development Assistance (ODA) for agriculture, livestock,

forestry, and fishery, gross disbursements (US$),

agODAD

ODA disbursed to agriculture as % of

commitments , ODA2015

C-score2.1 ǀ Combined progress on Public Expenditures to Agriculture

C-score2.1

On Track ???

iiiixxscoreIaverage )( 1.2

(ao)

2016 Benchmark

10),,( anahabaverage

(ap)

I-score2.1i

I-score2.1ii

I-score2.1iii

PC 2.2 ǀ Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agriculture

2.2- Ensure that government investment leverage at least X times, domestic private investment in agriculture sector by 2025.

Performance targets

I-score2.2 ǀ Estimating progress on domestic private investment in agriculture

TARGET

Ʈ2.2 = X

I-score2.2

On Track ???

Ratio of domestic private sector investment to

government investment in agriculture (%), ƮDPrPb

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

2.2

2.220162.22016

B

(au)

2016 Milestone:

1020152025

201520162.22.22016

X

(at)

2016

FDIagODADGAETAI

(aq)

GAEIAD /Pr100

(ar)

0,10,

Pr10

2.2

PbDMinMax

(as)

Domestic Private Investment in

Agriculture, DPrIA Government Agriculture

Expenditure, GAE

Official Development Assistance (ODA) for

agriculture, forestry, and fishing, gross

disbursements, agODAD

Foreign Direct Investment, FDI

Total Agricultural Investments, TAI

Government Agriculture Expenditure, GAE

= C-score2.2

2.3- Ensure that government investment leverage at least Y times, foreign private direct investment in agriculture sector by 2025.

Performance targets

PC 2.3 ǀ Foreign Private Sector Investment in Agriculture

I-score2.3 ǀ Estimating progress on foreign private investment in agriculture

TARGET

Ʈ2.3 = Y

I-score2.3

On Track ???

Ratio of foreign private sector investment to

government investment in agriculture (%), ƮFPrPb

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

3.2

3.220163.22016

B

(ay)

2016 Milestone:

1020152025

201520163.23.22016

Y

(ax)

2016

GAEFDI /100

(av)

0,10,

Pr10

3.2

PbFMinMax

(aw)

Foreign Direct Investment, FDI

Government Agriculture Expenditure, GAE

= C-score2.3

PC 2.4 ǀ Market Access

2.4- Ensure that 100% of men and women engaged in agriculture have access to financial services to be able to transact agriculture business, by 2018.

Performance targets

I-score2.4ǀ Estimating progress on market access

TARGET

Ʈ2.4 = 100%

I-score2.4

On Track ???

Proportion of men and women engaged in

agriculture with access to financial services, ƮAgFs

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

2016 Benchmark

33.310

4.2

4.220164.22016

B

(be)

2016

Number of men and women engaged in

agriculture that have access to financial

services, NfsAg

NtAgWNtAgM

(az)

NfsAgNtAg /100

(bb)

NfsAgWNfsAgM

(ba)

4.2

10

AgFs

(bc)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520164.24.22016

(bd)

2016

= C-score2.4

Total number of men engaged in agriculture,

NtAgM

Total number of men and women engaged in

agriculture, NtAg

Number of men engaged in agriculture that have

access to financial services, NfsAgM

Number of women engaged in agriculture

that have access to financial services,

NfsAgW

Total number women engaged in agriculture,

NtAgW

T-score2 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 2: “INVESTMENT FINANCE IN AGRICULTURE”

T-score2

On Track ???


(bf)

2016 Benchmark

82.3),,,( beayauapaverage

(bg)

= C-score2.1

C-score2.2

C-score2.4

C-score2.3

C-score2.1

Technical Notes 3 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 3 : “ENDING HUNGER”

PC 3.1 ǀ Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies

Performance targets

3.1ii- Increase the size of irrigated areas (as per its value observed in the year 2000), by 100% by the year 2025.

3.1i- Ensure minimum use of fertilizer for African agriculture development at level of consumption of at least 50 kilograms/ha of arable land, from 2015 to 2025.

3.1iii- Double (100% increase) the current levels of quality agricultural inputs for crops (seed), livestock (breed), and fisheries (fingerlings) by 2025, from 2015.

PC 3.1 ǀ Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies

Performance targets

3.1v- Increase the level of Investments in Agricultural Research and Development to at least 1% of the Agricultural GDP, from 2015 to 2025.

3.1iv- All farmers have access to quality agricultural advisory services that provide locally relevant knowledge, information and other services by 2018.

3.1vi- Ensure that 100% of farmers and agribusiness interested in agriculture have rights to access the required land, by 2018.

I-score3.1iǀ Estimating progress on fertilizer use (organic and/or inorganic)

TARGET

Ʈ3.1i = 50 kg/ha

I-score3.1i

On Track ???

Average Fertilizer consumption (kilogram of nutrients per hectare of

arable land), Fz

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.3

1.320161.32016

i

iiB

(bm)

2015

LFc /

(bh)

2/)( 20152016 FzFz

(bj)

Fertilizer consumption (kilogram of nutrients per hectare of arable

land), Fz2016

2016

LFc /

(bi)

0,10,10

1.2 i

FzMinMax

(bk)

2016 Milestone:

hakgii /501.31.32016

(bl)

Total fertilizers consumption (N+P,

N+P+K) in Kg, Fc

Arable Land and Permanent Crops in

hectare, L

Total fertilizers consumption (N+P,

N+P+K) in Kg, Fc

Arable Land and Permanent Crops in

hectare, L

Fertilizer consumption (kilogram of nutrients per hectare of arable

land), Fz2015

I-score3.1iiǀ Estimating progress on the size of irrigated areas

TARGET

Ʈ3.1ii = 100%

I-score3.1ii

On Track ???

Growth rate of the size of irrigated area (in %),

RiIA

Baseline Yr 2000

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

50.510

1.3

1.320161.32016

ii

iiiiB

(bq)

200020002016 /)(100 IAIAIA

(bn)

AR

i

AR

i

AR

i

i

i

i

AR

AR

AR

%50

%50%25

%25

10;)0.510(%50%100

%500.5min

)5.20.5(%25%50

%255.2

0;5.2%25

max

(bo) Size of Irrigated areas ,

IA2000

2016 Milestone:

%55)()20152025(

201520161.320151.31.320151.32016

iiiiiiii

(bp)

The milestone 2005 of 25% and the milestone 2015 of 50% in the same commitment, are to be considered in the scoring method. It is called the multi-targets situation in the Easy-Theory. (***)

%251.32005 ii %501.32015 ii(***) 2025 2015 2005 2000

Targets

Years

100% 50% increase 25% increase Baseline

Multi-targets commitment on the size of irrigated areas in the African Water Vision 2025, used in this performance category.

Size of Irrigated areas , IA2016

I-score3.1iiiǀ Estimating progress on quality agricultural inputs for crops (seed), livestock (breed), and fisheries (fingerlings)

I-score3.1iii

On Track ???

Average Growth rate of the ratio of supplied quality agriculture inputs to the

total national inputs requirements , ƮAI

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.3

1.320161.32016

iii

iiiiiiB

(bx)

2015

ii AgIRAgIS /

(br)

201520152016 /)(100 RiRiRi

(bt)

0,10,10

1.3 iii

AIMinMax

(bv)

Supplied quality agriculture inputs for

the commodity i ,

AgISi

Total national quality agriculture inputs

requirement for the considered

commodity I, AgIRi

2016 ii AgIRAgIS /

(bs)

Supplied quality agriculture inputs for

the commodity i ,

AgISi

Total national quality agriculture inputs

requirement for the considered

commodity I, AgIRi

Commodity i , ƮAIi

Commodity j, ƮAIj

… TARGET

Ʈ3.1iii = 100%

2016 Milestone:

%10

)20152025(

201520161.31.32016

iiiiii

(bw)

Ratio of supplied quality agriculture inputs to the total

national inputs requirements for

the commodity i, Ri

Ratio of supplied quality agriculture inputs to the total

national inputs requirements for

the commodity i, Ri

Growth rate of the ratio of supplied quality agriculture inputs to the total national inputs requirements for the

commodity i: ƮAIi

…

,..., jixxAIaverage

(bu)

I-score3.1ivǀ Estimating progress on access to quality agricultural advisory services

TARGET

Ʈ3.1iv = 100%

I-score3.1iv

On Track ???

Proportion of farmers having access to Agricultural

Advisory Services (%), AFAgAS

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

2016 Benchmark

33.310

1.3

1.320161.32016

iv

ivivB

(cb)

NFNFAgAS /100

(by)

iv

AFAgAS

1.3

10

(bz)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520161.31.32016

iviv

(ca)

2016 Number of farmers having access to

Agricultural Advisory Services, NFAgAS

Total Number of farmers, NF

I-score3.1v ǀ Estimating progress on investment in agriculture research and development

TARGET

Ʈ3.1v = 1%

I-score3.1v

On Track ???

Average of Total Agricultural Research Spending as a share of AgGDP, ƮTARS

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.3

1.320161.32016

v

vvB

(ch)

2016 Milestone:

%11.31.32016 vv

(cg)

2015

2016

AgGDPTARS /100

(cc)

2/)( 20152016 TARSTARS

(ce)

0,10,10

1.3 v

TARSMinMax

(cf)

AgGDPTARS /100

(cd)

Total Agricultural Research Spending as a

share of AgGDP, ƮTARS2016

Total Agricultural Research Spending, TARS

Agriculture, value added, AgGDP

Total Agricultural Research Spending, TARS

Agriculture, value added, AgGDP

Total Agricultural Research Spending as a

share of AgGDP, ƮTARS2015

I-score3.1viǀ Estimating progress on access to land

TARGET

Ʈ3.1vi = 100%

I-score3.1vi

On Track ???

Proportion of farm households with ownership or secure land rights, ƮHhSL

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

2016 Benchmark

33.310

1.3

1.320161.32016

vi

viviB

(cl)

NTFHhNFHhSL /100

(ci)

vi

HhSL

1.3

10

(cj)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520161.31.32016

vivi

(ck)

2016 Total number of farm households in the

country, NTFHh

Number of farm HHs with secured land

rights, NFHhSL

C-score3.1 ǀ Combined progress on Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies

C-score3.1

On Track ???

viixxscoreIaverage )( 1.3

(cm)

2016 Benchmark

53.5),,,,,( clchcbbxbqbmaverage

(cn)

I-score3.1ii

I-score3.1iv

I-score3.1vi

I-score3.1iii

I-score3.1v

I-score3.1i

PC 3.2 ǀ Agricultural Productivity

Performance targets

3.2ii- Double (increase by 100%) the current agricultural land productivity levels, by 2025 from 2015.

3.2i- Double (100% increase) the current agricultural labor productivity levels by the from 2015 to 2025.

3.2iii- Double (100% increase) the current agricultural yield levels, by 2025 from 2015.

I-score3.2iǀ Estimating progress on labor productivity

I-score3.2i

On Track ???

Growth rate of Agriculture value added per agricultural

worker , ƮAgW

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

2.3

2.320162.32016

i

iiB

(cu)

2011 to 2015

tt WAgGDP /

(co)

..2016 /)(100 avav AgWAgWAgW

(cr)

0,10,10

2.3 i

AgWMinMax

(cs)

Agricultural worker,

Wt

Agriculture value added in constant US

dollars, AgGDPt

2016

20152011ttAgWaverage

(cq)

TARGET

Ʈ3.2i = 100%

2016 Milestone:

%10

)20152025(

201520162.32.32016

ii

(ct)

Agricultural value added per

agricultural worker (constant 2010

USD), AgWt Average Agricultural value

added per agricultural worker (constant 2010

USD), AgWav

20162016 /WAgGDP

(cp)

Agricultural worker,

W2016


dollars, AgGDP2016 Agricultural value added per

agricultural worker (constant 2010

USD), AgW2016

I-score3.2iiǀ Estimating progress on land productivity

I-score3.2ii

On Track ???

Growth rate of agriculture value added, at constant US

dollars, per hectare of agricultural arable land,

ƮAgL

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

2.3

2.320162.32016

ii

iiiiB

(db)

2011 to 2015

tt LAgGDP /

(cv)

..2016 /)(100 avav AgLAgLAgL

(cy)

0,10,10

2.3 ii

AgLMinMax

(cz)

Agricultural arable

land in hectare, Lt


dollars, AgGDPt

2016

20152011ttAgLaverage

(cx)

TARGET

Ʈ3.2ii = 100%

2016 Milestone:

%10

)20152025(

201520162.32.32016

iiii

(da)

Agriculture value added in constant

US dollars per hectare of

agricultural arable

land , AgLt Average Agriculture value

added in constant US dollars per hectare of agricultural

arable land, AgLav

20162016 / LAgGDP

(cw)

Agricultural arable

land in hectare, L2016


dollars, AgGDP2016 Agriculture value added in

constant US dollars per hectare of agricultural

arable land, AgL2016

I-score3.2iiiǀ Estimating progress on agricultural yield

I-score3.2iii

On Track ???

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

2.3

2.320162.32016

iii

iiiiiiB

(dj)

TARGET

Ʈ3.2iii = 100%

2016 Milestone:

%10

)20152025(

201520162.32.32016

iiiiii

(di)

Average of observed growth rates of agricultural yields for all the commodities, ƮY

2011 to 2015

titi LPd /

(dc)

.

.2016100avi

avii

Y

YY

(df)

0,10,10

2.3 iii

YMinMax

(dh)

Total size of the production unit of the commodity i

at year t , Li-t

Total production of commodity i at

year t , Pdi-t

20152011 ttiYaverage

(de)

Yield of

commodity i, Yi-t

Commodity i , ƮYi

Commodity j, ƮYj

…

…

2016

20162016 / ii LPd

(dd)

Total size of the production unit of the commodity i

in 2016, Li-2016

Total production of commodity i in

2016, Pdi-2016

Average value of the Yield of

commodity i, Yi-av

Yield of commodity

i in 2016, Yi-2016

Growth rate of the yield of the

commodity i, ƮYi

For at least the 5 priority commodities of the country and the 11 African Union

priority commodities that include: -Rice, -Maize, -Legumes, -Cotton, -Oil palm, -Beef, -Dairy, -Poultry and fisheries, -Cassava, -Sorghum and -Millet.

itiescoiYaverage

mod

(dg)

C-score3.2 ǀ Combined progress on Agriculture Productivity

C-score3.2

On Track ???


(dk)

2016 Benchmark

00.1),,( djdbcuaverage

(dl)

I-score3.2ii

I-score3.2iii

I-score3.2i

PC 3.3 ǀ Post-Harvest Loss

Performance targets

3.3- Halve (decrease by 50%) the current levels of Post-Harvest Losses (PHL), by the 2025 from 2015.

I-score3.3ǀ Estimating progress on Post-Harvest Loss

I-score3.3

On Track ???

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

3.3

3.320163.32016

B

(dt)

TARGET

Ʈ3.3 = 50%

2016 Milestone:

%5

)20152025(

201520163.33.32016

(ds)

Average of observed reduction rates of post-harvest loss for all the

commodities, ƮPHL

2011 to 2015

titi PdLs /

(dm)

.

2016.100avi

iavi

PHL

PHLPHL

(dp)

0,10,10

3.3

PHLMinMax

(dr)

Total loss of the commodity i at

year t , Lsi-t

Total production of commodity i at

year t , Pdi-t

20152011 ttiPHLaverage

(do)

Commodity i , ƮPHLi

Commodity j, ƮPHLj

…

…

2016

20162016 / ii PdLs

(dn)

Total loss of the commodity i in

2016, Lsi-2016

Total production of commodity i in

2016, Pdi-2016

Average value of the Post harvest

Loss of commodity

i, PHLi-av

Post harvest Loss of commodity I in

2016 , Yi-2016

Reduction rate of the post-harvest loss of

the commodity i,

ƮPHLi

For at least the 5 priority commodities of the country and the 11 African Union

priority commodities that include: -Rice, -Maize, -Legumes, -Cotton, -Oil palm, -Beef, -Dairy, -Poultry and fisheries, -Cassava, -Sorghum and -Millet.

itiescoiPHLaverage

mod

(dq) = C-score3.3

Post harvest Loss of the commodity

i, PHLi-t

PC 3.4 ǀ Social Protection

Performance targets

3.4- Commit within national budgets, budget lines that amount to 100% of the total resource requirements for coverage of the vulnerable social groups, from 2015 to 2025, for use to support social protection initiatives, and to address any eventual disasters and emergencies with food and nutrition security implications.

I-score3.4ǀ Estimating progress on Social Protection

I-score3.4

On Track ???

Average Budget lines on social protection as % of the total resource requirements

for coverage of the vulnerable social groups, ƮSP

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

1010

4.3

4.320164.32016

B

(eb)

2/)( 20162015 SPSP

(dy)

4.3

10

SP

(dz)

Budget Allocation to social protection Emergency Food

Supplies, BAEFS

Budget Allocation to social protection Cash Transfers for food and

cash reserves, BACT

2015

2015.2015. /100 SPSP TBRTBA

(dv)

TARGET

Ʈ3.4 = 100%

Total Budget Allocation to social

protection,

TBASP.2015 Budget lines on social

protection as % of the total resource requirements for coverage of the vulnerable

social groups, ƮSP2015

Budget Allocation to social protection Other

protective services ,

BAOther

Budget Allocation to social protection School

Feeding, BASF

OtherSFEFSCT BABABABA

(du)

Total Budget Requirements for social protection,

TBRSP.2015

Budget Allocation to social protection Emergency Food

Supplies, BAEFS

Budget Allocation to social protection Cash Transfers for food and

cash reserves, BACT

2016

2016.2016. /100 SPSP TBRTBA

(dx)

Total Budget Allocation to social

protection,

TBASP.2016 Budget lines on social

protection as % of the total resource requirements for coverage of the vulnerable

social groups, ƮSP2016

Budget Allocation to social protection Other

protective services ,

BAOther

Budget Allocation to social protection School

Feeding, BASF

OtherSFEFSCT BABABABA

(dw)

Total Budget Requirements for social protection,

TBRSP.2016

2016 Milestone:

%1004.34.32016

(ea)

= C-score3.4

PC 3.5 ǀ Food security and Nutrition

Performance targets

3.5ii- Bring down underweight to 5% or less, by 2025.

3.5i- Bring down child stunting to 10% or less, by 2025.

3.5iii- Bring down wasting to 5% or less, by 2025.

PC 3.5 ǀ Food security and Nutrition

Performance targets

3.5v- Increase the proportion of women at reproductive age that attain the minimum dietary diversity by 50%, by 2025.

3.5iv- Bring down undernourishment to 5% or less, by 2025.

3.5vi- Reach at least 50% of children 6-23 months that have the minimum acceptable diet by 2025.

I-score3.5iǀ Estimating progress on prevalence of stunting

TARGET

Ʈ3.5i = 10%

I-score3.5i

On Track ???

Prevalence of stunting (% of children under 5 years old),

St

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.1105.30

5.3201605.32016

i

ii

St

StB

(ee)

i

i

St

StiSt

StSt

5.30

5.30

10

105.30

0

(ec)

2016 Milestone:

ii StSt 5.3005.32016

)20152025(

20152016

(ed)

2016

2015 Prevalence of stunting (% of children under 5 years old),

St0

This is a relative milestone which is specific to each country as it depends on where the country is coming from: the 2015 baseline value …

iSt 5.30 … with

I-score3.5iiǀ Estimating progress on prevalence of underweight

TARGET

Ʈ3.5ii = 5%

I-score3.5ii

On Track ???

Prevalence of underweight (% of children under 5 years

old), Uw

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.1105.30

5.3201605.32016

ii

iiii

Uw

UwB

(eh)

2016 Milestone:

iiii UwUw 5.3005.32016

)20152025(

20152016

(eg)

2016

2015 Prevalence of underweight (% of children under 5 years

old), Uw0

ii

ii

Uw

UwiiUw

UwUw

5.30

5.30

10

105.30

0

(ef)


iiUw 5.30 … with

I-score3.5iiiǀ Estimating progress on prevalence of wasting

TARGET

Ʈ3.5iii = 5%

I-score3.5iii

On Track ???

Prevalence of wasting (% of children under 5 old), W

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.1105.30

5.3201605.32016

iii

iiiiii

W

WB

(ek)

2016 Milestone:

iiiiii WW 5.3005.32016

)20152025(

20152016

(ej)

2016

2015

Prevalence of wasting (% of children under 5 old), W0

iii

iii

W

WiiiW

WW

5.30

5.30

10

105.30

0

(ei)


iiiW 5.30 … with

I-score3.5iv Estimating progress on prevalence of undernourishment

TARGET

Ʈ3.5iv = 5%

I-score3.5iv

On Track ???

Proportion of the population that is

undernourished (% of the country's population), U

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.1105.30

5.3201605.32016

iv

iviv

U

UB

(en)

2016 Milestone:

iviv UU 5.3005.32016

)20152025(

20152016

(em)

2016

2015 Proportion of the population that is undernourished (% of the country's population), U0

iv

iv

U

UivU

UU

5.30

5.30

10

105.30

0

(el)


iiiU 5.30 … with

I-score3.5vǀ Estimating progress on Minimum Dietary Diversity-Women

I-score3.5v

On Track ???

Increase rate of the proportion of Minimum

Dietary Diversity-Women (in %), ƮMDDW

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

5.3

5.320165.32016

v

vvB

(er)

201520152016 /100 MDDWMDDWMDDW

(eo)

0,10,10

5.3 v

MDDWMinMax

(ep)

TARGET

Ʈ3.5v = 50%

2016 Milestone:

%5

)20152025(

201520165.35.32016

vv

(eq)

Proportion of minimum Dietary Diversity-Women,

MDDW2015

Proportion of minimum Dietary Diversity-Women,

MDDW2016

2016

2015

I-score3.5viǀ Estimating progress on child Minimum Acceptable Diet

TARGET

Ʈ3.5vi = 50%

I-score3.5vi

On Track ???

Proportion of 6-23 months old children who meet the Minimum Acceptable Diet,

MAD

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.11005.3

05.320165.32016

MAD

MADB

vi

vivi

(eu)

2016 Milestone:

05.305.32016)20152025(

20152016MADMAD vivi

(et)

2016

2015 Proportion of 6-23 months old children who meet the Minimum Acceptable Diet,

MAD0

vi

vi

MAD

MADvi MAD

MADMAD

5.30

5.30

10

1005.3

0

(es)


viMAD 5.30 … with

C-score3.5 ǀ Combined progress on Food security and Nutrition

C-score3.5

On Track ???


(ev)

2016 Benchmark

00.1),,,,,( euerenekeheeaverage

(ew)

I-score3.5ii

I-score3.5iv

I-score3.5vi

I-score3.5iii

I-score3.5v

I-score3.5i

T-score3 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 3: “ENDING HUNGER”

T-score3

On Track ???


(ex)

2016 Benchmark

71.3),,,,( ewebdtdlcnaverage

(ey)

= C-score2.1

C-score3.3

C-score3.5

C-score3.4

C-score3.2

= C-score2.1 C-score3.1

Technical Notes 4 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 4 : “ERADICATING POVERTY THROUGH AGRICULTURE”

PC 4.1 ǀ Agricultural GDP and Poverty Reduction

Performance targets

4.1ii- Ensure that agriculture growth contribute to at least 50% to the overall poverty reduction target, from 2015 to 2025.

4.1i- Sustain annual agricultural GDP growth of at least 6%, from 2015 to 2025.

4.1iii- Reduce poverty level by at least 50%, at national poverty line, from 2015 to 2025.

PC 4.1 ǀ Agricultural GDP and Poverty Reduction

Performance targets

4.1v- Contribute to poverty reduction by reducing the gap between the wholesale price and farm-gate price, by 50% , by 2025, from 2015.

4.1iv- Reduce poverty level by at least 50%, at international poverty line, from 2015 to 2025.

I-score4.1iǀ Estimating progress on agricultural GDP growth

I-score4.1i

On Track ???

Growth rate of agriculture value added, at constant US

dollars, aAgGDP

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

201520152016 /)(100 AgGDPAgGDPAgGDP

(fa)

0,10,10

1.4 i

aAgGDPMinMax

(fc)

20152011ttAgGDPaverage

(ez)

TARGET

Ʈ4.1i = 6%

Agriculture value added in constant US dollars,

AgGDP2015

Agriculture value added in constant US dollars,

AgGDP2016

2011 to 2015

Annual growth rate of Agriculture value added, in

constant US dollars,

tAgGDP2016


dollars, AgGDPt

2016tAgGDP

(fb)

2016

2016 Benchmark

1010

1.4

1.420161.42016

i

iiB

(fe)

2016 Milestone:

%61.41.42016 ii

(fd)

I-score4.1iiǀ Estimating progress on agriculture growth contribution to the overall poverty reduction target

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

Stand-by for more research

I-score4.1iiiǀ Estimating progress on poverty reduction at national poverty line

I-score4.1iii

On Track ???

Reduction rate of poverty headcount ratio, at national

poverty line, dpovN

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.4

1.420161.42016

iii

iiiiiiB

(fj)

201520162015 /100 phrNphrNphrN

(fg)

0,10,10

1.4 iii

dpovNMinMax

(fh)

TARGET

Ʈ4.1iii = 50%

2016 Milestone:

%5

)20152025(

201520161.41.42016

iiiiii

(fi)

Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of

population), phrN2015

2016

2015

Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of

population), phrN2016

20152011

.ttphrNrecentmost

(ff)

I-score4.1ivǀ Estimating progress on poverty reduction at international poverty line

I-score4.1iv

On Track ???

Reduction rate of poverty headcount ratio, at

international poverty line, dpovI

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.4

1.420161.42016

iv

ivivB

(fo)

201520162015 /100 phrIphrIphrI

(fl)

0,10,10

1.4 iv

dpovIMinMax

(fm)

TARGET

Ʈ4.1iv = 50%

2016 Milestone:

%5

)20152025(

201520161.41.42016

iviv

(fn)

Poverty headcount ratio at international poverty lines

(% of population), phrI2015

2016

2015

Poverty headcount ratio at international poverty lines

(% of population), phrI2016

20152011

.ttphrIrecentmost

(fk)

I-score4.1v ǀ Estimating progress on wholesale-farmgate price gap

TARGET

Ʈ4.1v = 50%

I-score4.1v

On Track ???

Reduction rate of the gap between the wholesale

price and farmgate price (in %), Ʈfgws

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025 2015

WsPFgPWsP /)(100

(fp)

201520162015 /)(100 GfgwsGfgwsGfgws

(fr)

0,10,10

1.4 v

fgwsMinMax

(fs)

Average weighted farm gate price, FgP

Average weighted Wholesale/Market Price,

WsP

Gap between the wholesale price and

farmgate price, Gfgws2015

2016

WsPFgPWsP /)(100

(fq)

Average weighted farm gate price, FgP

Average weighted Wholesale/Market Price,

WsP

Gap between the wholesale price and

farmgate price, Gfgws2016

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.4

1.420161.42016

v

vvB

(fu)

2016 Milestone:

%5

)20152025(

201520161.41.42016

vv

(ft)

C-score4.1 ǀ Combined progress on Agricultural GDP and Poverty Reduction

C-score4.1

On Track ???

iixvixxscoreIaverage ,1.4 )(

(fv)

2016 Benchmark

25.3),,,( fufofjfeaverage

(fw)

I-score4.1iv

I-score4.1iii

I-score4.1v

I-score4.1i

PC 4.2 ǀ Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains

Performance targets

4.2- Establish and/or strengthen inclusive public-private partnerships (PPP) for at least five (5) priority agricultural commodity value chains with strong linkage to smallholder agriculture, by 2025.

I-score4.2ǀ Estimating progress on priority agricultural commodity value chains that involve smallholder agriculture

I-score4.2

On Track ???

Number of priority agricultural commodity value chains for

which a PPP is established with strong linkage to smallholder

agriculture, Nc

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025 Tismhi VV /

(fx)

%25,0

%25,1

smhismhii

smhismhii

ifPCsmh

ifPCsmh

(fz)

10,10

2.4

NcMin

(gb)

Volume of trade between smallholders and target buyers of

the priority

commodity i, Vsmhi

Total volume of trade for the priority

commodity i, VTi

2016

Tismhi NN /

(fy) Total suppliers that are supplying the

market of the value chain of the priority

commodity i, NTi

Number of smallholders

integrated into the value chain of the

priority commodity i,

Nsmhi

Commodity i , PCsmhi

Commodity j, PCsmhj

… TARGET

Ʈ4.2 = 5

Percentage of smallholders as part

of the total suppliers, supplying that market of the priority commodity

i, ȵsmhi

Percent of volume of trade between smallholders and

target buyers of the priority commodity

i, Ʈsmhi

Priority commodity value chains for which a PPP is established with strong linkage to smallholder

agriculture, PCsmhi

…

,..., jix

xPCsmh

(ga)

2016 Benchmark

1010

2.4

2.420162.42016

B

(gd)

2016 Milestone:

52.42.42016

(gc)

= C-score4.2

PC 4.3 ǀ Youth job in agriculture

Performance targets

4.3- Create job opportunities for at least 30% of the youth in agricultural value chains, by 2025.

I-score4.3ǀ Estimating progress on Youth job in agriculture

TARGET

Ʈ4.3 = 30%

I-score4.3

On Track ???

Percentage of youth that is engaged in new job

opportunities in agriculture value chains, ƮYth

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016

ythyth TNAgN /100

(gf)

10,10

3.4

thYMin

(gg)

Number of youth who do any agriculture related

work as paid employees for any agriculture entreprise or SME,

AgNythE

Total number of youth at working age in the

country, TNYth

2016

FEAgNSEAgNEAgN ythythyth

(ge)

Number of youth who work as self-employed in

their own business or profession or on their own farm, AgNythSE

Number of youth who work 15 hours per week

or more as unpaid workers in a family-operated enterprise,

AgNythFE

Number of youth that is engaged in new jobs

in agricultural value chains, AgNYth

2016 Benchmark

00.110

3.4

3.420163.42016

B

(gi)

2016 Milestone:

%3

)20152025(

201520163.43.42016

(gh)

Cumulative number of new jobs for youth, counted from the year 2015.

!

= C-score4.3

PC 4.4 ǀ Women participation in Agriculture

4.4- Ensure that 20% of rural women have access to productive assets, including land, credit, inputs and financial services and information (empowered) by 2023.

Performance targets

I-score4.4ǀ Estimating progress on Women Empowerment in agriculture

I-score4.4

On Track ???

Proportion of rural women that are empowered in

agriculture, ƮWE

Baseline Yr 2013

Target Yr 2023

NtwNwE /100(gk)

10;

10

4.4

WEMin

(gl)

TARGET

Ʈ4.4 = 20%

2016 Total number of women engaged in

agriculture, Ntw, forming a set W

2016 Benchmark

00.310

4.4

4.420164.42016

B

(gn)

2016 Milestone:

%620132023

201320164.44.42016

(gm)

ii

lkji

lkji DEnDEDEDEDEn5,4,3,2,1

5,4,3,2,1,,,

(gj)

Number of women that have control over : a) Workload and b) Leisure, NDE5, forming a

set DE5

Number of women that have: a) Group member and b) Speaking in public , NDE4,

forming a set DE4

Number of women that have Control over use of income, NDE3, forming a set DE3

Number of women that have: a)Ownership of assets, b)Purchase, sale or transfer of assets, c)Access to and decisions about credit , NDE2,

forming a set DE2

Number of women that have: a) Input in productive decisions and b) Autonomy in

production, NDE1, forming a set DE1

Number of women empowered in

agriculture, NwE

5

!45!4

!54

5

C sets in total

= C-score4.4

T-score4 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 4: “ERADICATING POVERTY THROUGH AGRICULTURE”

T-score3

On Track ???


(go)

2016 Benchmark

31.4),,,( gngigdfwaverage

(gp)

= C-score2.1

C-score4.3

C-score4.4

C-score4.2

= C-score2.1 C-score4.1

Technical Notes 5 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 5 : “INTRA-AFRICAN TRADE IN AGRICULTURE COMMODITIES”

PC 5.1 ǀ Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services

Performance targets

5.1- Triple intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services, by 2025 from 2015.

I-score5.1ǀ Estimating progress on Intra-African Trade for agriculture commodities and services

TARGET

Ʈ5.1 = 200%

I-score5.1

On Track ???

Growth rate of the value of trade of agricultural

commodities and services within Africa, in constant US

dollars (in %), ƮIAT

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025 2015

201520152016 /)(100 IATIATIAT

(gr)

Value of intra- African trade (imports and

exports) for agriculture goods and services, in

constant US dollars 2010, IAT2016

0,10,10

1.5

IATMinMax

(gt)

Value of intra- African imports for agriculture

goods, IAMg

Value of intra- African trade (imports and

exports) for agriculture goods and services, in

constant US dollars 2010, IAT2015


services, IAMs

Value of intra- African exports for agriculture

goods, IAXg


services, IAXs

2016


goods, IAMg


services, IAMs


goods, IAXg


services, IAXs

IAXsIAXgIAMsIAMg

(gs)

IAXsIAXgIAMsIAMg

(gq)

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.5

1.520161.52016

B

(gv)

2016 Milestone:

%20

)20152025(

201520161.51.52016

(gu)

= C-score5.1

PC 5.2 ǀ Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions

Performance targets

5.2i- Fully establish trade facilitation measures by reaching 100% of Trade Facilitation Index by 2025.

5.2ii- Reduce the Domestic Food Price Volatility Index to less than 7.5% by 2025.

I-score5.2iǀ Estimating progress on Trade Facilitation

TARGET

Ʈ5.2i = 100%

I-score5.2i

On Track ???

Trade Facilitation Index, TFI

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

5/IMATABAICTPI

(gy)

i

TFI

2.5

10

(gz)

Physical infrastructure, PI

2016

Number of countries with

visa free entry, NVF

Number of countries with

visa on arrival, VA

2016 Benchmark

00.110

2.5

2.520162.52016

i

iiB

(hb)

2016 Milestone:

%10

)20152025(

201520162.52.52016

ii

(ha)

Information and communication technology, ICT

Border administration, BA

Bilateral Agricultural trade related

agreements, ATA

Number of countries with bilateral agricultural trade

related agreements, NTA

Immigration, IM

10055

NTA

(gw)

100

54

VANVF

(gx)

10054

NTA

I-score5.2iiǀ Estimating progress on Domestic Food Price Volatility

TARGET

Ʈ5.2ii = 7.5%

I-score5.2ii

On Track ???

Domestic Food Price Volatility Index, CV

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.1102.50

2.5201602.52016

ii

iiii

CV

CVB

(he)

ii

ii

CV

CViiCV

CVCV

2.50

2.50

10

102.50

0

(hc)

2016 Milestone:

iiii CVCV 2.5002.52016

)20152025(

20152016

(hd)

2016

2015

Domestic Food Price Volatility Index, CV0


iiCV 2.50 … with

C-score5.2 ǀ Combined progress on Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions

C-score5.2

On Track ???

iiixxscoreIaverage )( 2.5

(hf)

2016 Benchmark

00.1),( hehbaverage

(hg)

I-score5.2i

I-score5.2ii

T-score5 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 5: “INTRA-AFRICAN TRADE IN AGRICULTURE COMMODITIES”

T-score5

On Track ???


(hh)

2016 Benchmark

00.1),( hggvaverage

(hi)

C-score5.1

C-score5.2

Technical Notes 6 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 6 : “RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY”

PC 6.1 ǀ Resilience to climate related risks

Performance targets

6.1i- Ensure that at least 30% of farm, pastoral, and fisher households are resilient to climate and weather related risks, by 2025.

6.1ii- Ensure that at least 30% of agricultural land is placed under sustainable land management practice by 2023 from 2013.

I-score6.1iǀ Estimating progress on households resilience to climate and weather related risks

I-score6.1i

On Track ???

Percentage of farm, pastoral, and fisher

households that are resilient to climate and weather related shocks (in %),

ƮRAgHh

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.110

1.6

1.620161.62016

i

iiB

(hm)

NagHhNRagHh /100

(hj)

i

RagHh

1.6

10

(hk)

TARGET

Ʈ6.1i = 30%

2016 Milestone:

%3

)20152025(

201520161.61.62016

ii

(hl)

Total number of farm, pastoral, and fisher

households, NagHh 2016

Number of farm, pastoral, and fisher households that

are resilient to climate variability and related risks,

NRagHh

I-score6.1iiǀ Estimating progress on sustainable land management

I-score6.1ii

On Track ???

Share of agriculture land under SLM practices (in %),

SSLM

Baseline Yr 2013

Target Yr 2023

2016 Benchmark

00.310

1.6

1.620161.62016

ii

iiiiB

(hq)

AAASLM /100

(hn)

ii

SSLM

1.6

10

(ho)

TARGET

Ʈ6.1ii = 30%

2016 Milestone:

%9

)20132023(

201320161.61.62016

iiii

(hp)

Agriculture area under SLM,

ASLM 2016

Total agriculture area, AA

C-score6.1 ǀ Combined progress on Resilience to climate related risks

C-score6.1

On Track ???

iiixxscoreIaverage )( 1.6

(hr)

2016 Benchmark

00.2),( hqhmaverage

(hs)

I-score6.1i

I-score6.1ii

PC 6.2 ǀ Investment in resilience building

Performance targets

6.2- Create permanent investment budget-lines to respond to spending needs on resilience building initiatives, especially for disaster preparedness plans, functioning early warning and response systems, social safety nets, and weather-based index insurance, from 2015 to 2025.

I-score6.2ǀ Estimating progress on availability of budget lines on resilience building

I-score6.2

On Track ???

Existence of government budget-lines to respond to

spending needs on resilience building initiatives

(in %), EIRB

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

3,2,1iRBiEIaverage

(hu)

2.6

10

RBEI

(hv)

TARGET

Ʈ6.2 = 100%

Existence of government budget-lines on disaster preparedness policy and

strategy, EIRB1

2016

Existence of government budget-lines on Early warning and response

systems and social safety

nets, EIRB2

= C-score6.2

Total number of

households, Z

Number of households covered by weather based

index insurance schemes, z

Zz /100

(ht)

Number (proportion) of households covered by

index insurance, EIRB3 2016 Benchmark

1010

2.6

2.620162.62016

B

(hx)

2016 Milestone:

%1002.62.62016

(hw)

T-score6 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 6: “RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE VARIABILITY”

T-score6

On Track ???


(hy)

2016 Benchmark

00.6),( hxhsaverage

(hz)

C-score6.1

C-score6.2

Technical Notes 7 Performance Evaluation for achieving goals under Theme 7 : “MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACTIONS AND RESULTS”

PC 7.1 ǀ Country capacity for evidence based planning, implementation and M&E

Performance targets

7.1- Reach at least 63 for the Index of capacity to generate and use agriculture statistical data and information (ASCI), by 2025. 2015.

I-score7.1ǀ Estimating progress on the country capacity to generate and use agriculture statistical data

TARGET

Ʈ7.1 = 63

I-score7.1

On Track ???

Index of capacity to generate and use agriculture

statistical data and information, ASCI

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

2016 Benchmark

00.11001.7

01.720161.72016

ASCI

ASCIB

(ic)

2016 Milestone:

01.701.72016)20152025(

20152016ASCIASCI

(ib)

2016

2015 Index of capacity to generate and use agriculture statistical data and information, ASCI0

1.70

1.70

10

1001.7

0

ASCI

ASCIASCI

ASCIASCI

(ia)


1.70 ASCI… with

= C-score7.1

PC 7.2 ǀ Peer Review and Mutual Accountability

Performance targets

7.2- Foster alignment, harmonization and coordination among multi-sectorial efforts and multi-institutional platforms for peer review, mutual learning and mutual accountability, (reach 100% for the Existence of inclusive institutionalized mechanisms and platforms for mutual accountability and peer review, ECI) by 2018.

I-score7.2ǀ Estimating progress on Peer Review and Mutual Accountability

I-score7.2

On Track ???

Existence of inclusive institutionalized

mechanisms for mutual accountability and peer

review ECI

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2018

3/CARRAMAPEMAP

(ig)

2.7

10

ECI

(ih)

TARGET

Ʈ7.2 = 100%

2016

= C-score7.2

6/100 NKAA(if)

Coverage of agricultural

review report, CARR

Existence of mutual accountability mechanism

and platform (%), EMAP

Adherence to mutual accountability principles (%),

AMAP

Number of mutual accountability principles satisfied by the country,

MAPS

Number of best practices satisfied by

the country, BPS

Number of key areas covered by the

country’s review report, NKAA

12/100 BPS(ie)

6/100 MAPS(id)

2016 Benchmark

33.310

2.7

2.720162.72016

B

(ij)

2016 Milestone:

%33

)20152018(

201520162.72.72016

(ii)

PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process

Performance targets

7.3- Conduct a biennial Agriculture Review Process that involves tracking, monitoring and reporting progress made in implementing the Malabo Declaration, by availing the regular country Biennial Report to the AU Assembly.

I-score7.3 ǀ Estimating progress on availing the regular country Biennial Report for the AU Assembly

Existence of Draft 1 Country Biennial Report that has been validated at country level, BR1

2016

TARGET

Ʈ7.3 = 100%

I-score7.3

On Track ???

3.7

10

BR

(im) (%)iQc

Country Biennial Report submission, BR

Baseline Yr 2015

Target Yr 2025

)( i

i

i wBR

(il)

Quality of the Draft 1 of the Biennial

Report, BR2

Draft 2 Country Biennial Report that has been validated at

subregional level, BR3.1

Country attendance to the regional validation meeting ,

BR3.2

Submission of the Biennial Report by the country to the AUC/NPCA through RECs, BR4

W1 = 25%

W2 = 25%

W3 = 12.5%

W4 = 12.5%

W5 = 25%

- Number of parameters reported by the country, n

- Total number of parameters reflected in the country reporting format, N Nn /

(ik)

= C-score7.3

2016 Benchmark

1010

3.7

3.720163.72016

B

(io)

2016 Milestone:

%1003.73.72016

(in)

T-score7 ǀ Overall progress for Theme 7: “MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACTIONS AND RESULTS”

T-score7

On Track ???


(ip)

2016 Benchmark

78.4),,( ioijicaverage

(iq)

C-score7.2

C-score7.3

C-score7.1

O-score ǀ OVERALL PROGRESS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE JUNE 2014 MALABO DECLARATION ON AFRICAN AGRICULTURE TRANSFORMATION

O-score

On Track ???

)( iscoreTaverage

(ir)

2016 Benchmark 85.3),,,,,,( iqhzhigpeybgvaverage

(is)

T-score4

T-score3

T-score2

T-score1

T-score7

T-score6

T-score5

The 2017 Benchmark Scorecard on Country performances in implementing Malabo Declaration for agricultural transformation in Africa… … minimum scores to be on track in 2017 for meeting targets set for each of the 7 commitments of the Malabo Declaration.

Temporary Structure of the Country Scorecard proposed @ the Experts Group Reflection Meeting on Scorecard held on 3rd-5th August 2016 in Nairobi, Kenya.

The 2017 Malabo Benchmark Scorecard

No. Item T-score No. Item C-score

PC 1.1 National CAADP Process 3.3

PC 1.2 CAADP based Cooperation, Partnership & Alliance 3.3

PC 1.3 CAADP based Policy & Institutional Review/ Setting/ Support 3.3

PC 2.1 Public Expenditures to Agriculture 10

PC 2.2 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agric., Agribusiness, Agro-

Ind.

1.0

PC 2.3 Domestic Private Sector Investment in Agric., Agribusiness, Agro-

Ind.

1.0

PC 2.4 Access to finance 3.3

PC 3.1 Access to Agriculture inputs and technologies 5.5

PC 3.2 Agricultural Productivity 1.0

PC 3.3 Post-Harvest Loss 1.0

PC 3.4 Social Protection 10

PC 3.5 Food security and Nutrition 1.0

PC 4.1 Agricultural GDP for Poverty Reduction 3.3

PC 4.2 Inclusive PPPs for commodity value chains10

PC 4.3 Youth job in agriculture1.0

PC 4.4 Women participation in Agri-business3

PC 5.1 Intra-African Trade in agriculture commodities and services 1.0

PC 5.2 Intra-African Trade Policies and institutional conditions 1.0

PC 6.1 Resilience to climate related risks 2.0

PC 6.2 Investment in resilience building 10

PC 7.1 Country capacity for evidence based planning, impl. and M&E 1.0

PC 7.2 Peer Review and Mutual Accountability 3.3

PC 7.3 Biennial Agriculture Review Process 10

Performance Theme Performance Category

1 Commitment to CAADP

Process3.3

2 Investment Finance in

Agriculture3.8

3 Ending Hunger 3.7

4 Eradicating Poverty through

Agriculture4.3

5 Intra-African Trade in

Agriculture Commodities1.0

O-Score 3.9

6 Resilience to Climate

Variability6.0

7 Mutual Accountability for

Actions and Results4.8

African Union Commission, Headquarters, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture (DREA),

Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)

Contacts: Anselme Vodounhessi, [email protected] & Maurice Lorka N’Guessan, N'[email protected]

Acknowledgements to Africa Lead and USAID for availing Technical Expert to support the development of this Technical Notes.

mailto:[email protected]







technical notes - african union · national budget, p 5 2016 benchmark 3.33 10 1.1 2016 .1 2016 1.1...

Documents