Search

This work summarizes background papers prepared for the World Bank Group with significant input from government counterparts and other development partners. It takes stock of major recent developments and argues that a lot has been achieved in the last decade in terms of production of commodities for export and food consumption, with favorable impact on rural poverty reduction. It also argues that the two factors driving the recent agricultural performance, namely favorable international prices and expansion of the agricultural frontier, have reached their limits. So while trade policies are broadly on target, much can be done by focusing on the productivity of small family agriculture and improving competitiveness by reducing transaction costs (logistics) affecting small, medium, and large commercial farms. In the short to medium term, the household income of the rural poor will continue to depend largely on agriculture. Thus interventions will need to take into account the heterogeneity of smallholder agriculture while simultaneously increasing its resilience to climate risks through climate-smart agriculture.

The report is part of a series of learning products with limited objectives geared towards synthesizing existing knowledge as well as learning and gaining new insights into the factors that influence design, policy implementation, and performance of development policy loans. It aims to provide fresh insights and build on previous evaluations of Bank investment projects and research and analytical work (for example, recent independent evaluation group (IEG) work on development policy operations (DPOs) includes the evaluation of poverty reduction support credits (PRSCs), first and second financial crisis evaluations (which examined crisis DPOs), recent operations policy and country services (OPCS) DPO retrospectives, and new research presented in this report on aspects of DPOs using a combination of approaches). The quality of macro frameworks in DPOs alone has not been subject of in-depth study. This report aims to contribute to filling that gap with a: (i) preliminary analysis of the quality of macro-fiscal frameworks in DPOs, and (ii) a comprehensive database of project level DPOs and related country and economic policy and statistical information, which is a byproduct of the study.

Over the review period covered by this report (2003-2012), the budget allocated to agriculture increased noticeably more than the sector’s contribution to GDP. This reflects a notable effort by the Chad authorities to increase the budget to boost this sector’s development in recent years. In this proactive context, Chad signed its CAADP compact in December 2013 to continue supporting agriculture’s revival. The CAADP is being implemented in Chad even as the terms of the National Rural Sector Investment Program (PNISR, 2014-2020) are being finalized. Within the context of the CAADP, the Government of Chad (GOC) wished to undertake a review of public agriculture expenditures to learn from past budgetary implementation in this sector with a view to improving future program performance. Following a request by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MoAI), the NEPAD planning and coordination agency gave Chad it’s backing for this review. This process was undertaken by the Program for Strengthening National Comprehensive Agricultural Public Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa, co-financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund. This program, implemented by the World Bank, aims to improve the impact of the still-limited public resources available to governments in Sub-Saharan Africa to foster agricultural development and reduce poverty in rural areas, where most of the poor in these countries, notably Chad, live. This study follows and builds upon a number of similar studies conducted in recent years on public expenditure management, in particular in Chad the Action Plan for the Modernization of Public Finances (PAMFIP). However, these studies have focused on budget management as a whole, and none to date has looked at the agricultural sector specifically.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has been one of the most successful research-for-development organizations over the past 40 years. The $11 billion invested by CGIAR donor members in research conducted by the international Centers under its umbrella has yielded many multiples of that sum in economic benefits to developing and emerging countries. Annual economic benefits of research on rice in Asia alone are equivalent to the total investment made by CGIAR donors over 4 decades, leaving aside benefits in other continents and from other research conducted by CGIAR institutions. The CGIAR‘s success is due in part to the way it was organized. The Group itself was an informal forum for dialogue among donor members about research priorities, investment options, and the continuing relevance and effectiveness of the institutions supported. The international centers constituted the core of the CGIAR. Each was (and still is) an autonomous international organization governed by an international board. The Group and the Centers were originally advised by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of distinguished scientists from developing and developed countries, each appointed as an individual. The Group’s activities were facilitated by its Secretariat based at the World Bank in Washington, DC, and TAC’s activities by another secretariat based at the food and agriculture organization in Rome.

Direct cash transfers for vulnerable elderly and disabled populations have been provided by the Ministry of Social Welfare (Kementerian Sosial, Kemensos) since 2006; a similar cash transfer for at-risk youth was inaugurated in 2009. The Government of Indonesia's (GoI) pro-poor development initiatives, international agreements and domestic laws and regulations, and considerable experience delivering more general social assistance programs led to the creation of cash transfers for these historically neglected and difficult-to-reach groups. These programs Jaminan Sosial Lanjut Usia (JSLU), Jaminan Sosial Paca Berat (JSPACA), and program Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak (PKSA) for the elderly, disabled, and youth respectively transfer cash directly to beneficiaries. They account for increasing shares of the Kemensos overall budget, but subsidies directed to care and rehabilitation facilities as well as direct provision of institutional care still account for a noticeable portion of the Kemensos budget for these groups. Program support operations socialization and outreach; allocation, targeting and prioritization; monitoring and evaluation; and complaints and grievances have very small budgets and depend crucially on cooperation and enthusiasm from local governments and facilitators. A full range of safeguarding activities is spelled out in program guidelines but these have not been institutionalized at the local implementation level. There is variation in the content, methods, frequency, completion rates, and outcomes in all safeguarding activities, and no easy-to-use reporting process that would ensure information from implementation level reaches the central funding and policy agency, Kemensos. The note summarizes quantitative and qualitative evidence in order to build a sound foundation for evaluating the cash transfer programs JSLU, JSPACA, and PKSA provided by Kemensos. The evidence on which the evaluation is based here is composed primarily of first-hand observation of the programs in operation. Where possible information collected from administrative records, including monitoring and evaluation reports, and from Kemensos itself, is summarized. Design features, efficiency and effectiveness of program implementation and operation, and impacts (intended or not) the program produces for beneficiaries are all analyzed in as much detail as possible. Current policy planning within Kemensos assumes expansion of these programs in the coming years, so an evaluation of the programs' features is relevant for Indonesian policymakers and stakeholders.

Thailand has been pursuing the implementation of results based management techniques in the public sector for over a decade. Leading this task is the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) which has been supporting various agencies and departments in undertaking a wide variety of results based management reforms, including key performance indicators, balanced scorecards, and individual performance bonuses, among others. This report summarizes the results of a two week fact finding mission and a one day workshop conducted by the Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) of the Prime Minister's office in collaboration with the World Bank's Public Sector Performance Global Expert Team (PSP-GET) held on September 24, 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand. This report covers the main areas to consider in implementing a results based management system. The report provides an overview of Thailand's Results Based Management (RBM) system, with an emphasis on lessons from international experience in leveraging performance information to deliver results. Chapters on how to link performance with planning and budgeting, as well as an overview of incentives to improve performance are included. Each chapter is loosely structured in the following way: issues identified during discussions; relevant lessons from international experiences; and overall recommendations and findings of the PSP-GET.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was a multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder assessment by about 400 experts which had four primary goals: 1) to assess the effects of agricultural knowledge, science and technology policy and institutional environments, as well as practices, in the context of sustainable development; 2) to identify where critically important information gaps exist in order to more effectively target research; 3) to make the resulting state of the art, objective, analyses accessible to decision makers at all levels from small producers to those who create international policy; and 4) to further the capacity of developing country nationals and institutions to generate, access, and use agricultural knowledge, science and technology that promote sustainable development. The IAASTD was a useful experience at the nexus of politics and science. However, agricultural technology, with its complexity, diversity and politics, proved to be a bridge too far. The process itself was instructive and there is much useful information in the reports. However, the present review concludes that, for the substantial resources used, the program did not offer sufficient new knowledge or conceptual frameworks for decision makers.