Annual Review - Summary Sheet
Title: Support to the World Bank project ‘Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture’
Programme Value: £3,000,000
Programme Code: 204123
Review Date: 11/11/2014
Start Date: 18/11/2013 End Date: 31/08/2016
Summary of Programme Performance
2014
Year
Programme Score
A
Risk Rating
Medium
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
This is the first annual review of the Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture project (BBA), a three
year project commencing in 2013.
The project has made good progress on the first component of the project – developing “Doing
Business” style indicators for agriculture (DBA). The BBA team successfully completed the programme’s
research and design phase, leading to the identification of indicator areas within nine topics, three more
than originally planned. A further four topic areas have been identified for year two, based on the BBA
team’s interactions with the ten pilot countries visited (access to information, livestock, gender, and
environment). The team will integrate gender into 4 areas: land tenure, access to agricultural finance,
water and farmer organisations. Environment will be mainstreamed within the seed, fertilizer, water and
livestock topic areas.
The first year pilot report is due to be published on 21 November 2014. This is slightly delayed owing to
additional checks and peer review to ensure quality assurances. There were also some delays during
the data collection phase as the team amended and updated their questionnaires. The BBA team have
consolidated the lessons learnt from this first year (customised questionnaires, importance of desk
based research ahead of time, liaising World Bank and supporting donors’ country offices), which will
help improve timeliness of the second year report.
Progress on the second component of the project – developing more outcome focused indicators that
provide a deep dive (DD) assessment of the enabling environment in agriculture - has been mixed. The
approach used for the DBA has proved to be unsuitable for these types of data. The team collected
information and conducted surveys on these measures, but the comparability and robustness of the data
was not deemed adequate for publication.
During the second year, while focusing on scaling data collection for policy and regulatory indicators to
40 countries, the BBA team will develop a more coherent approach and alternative methodology to
measure key variables that complement the DBA indicators. A set of options will be presented to the
donors contributing to the mulitdonor trust fund for their consideration in February 2015.
There have been concerns raised by some civil society groups that there has been insufficient
communication about the project. Going into year two, the BBA team will roll out a stakeholder outreach
strategy. Once the first year report has been published, the BBA team will have something tangible to
communicate with. The BBA have also started actively engaging with country governments on the
purpose and role of the indicators, and will continue doing so in year two.
Summary of recommendations for the next year
1. Add access to information, livestock, gender and environment to the list of topic areas to cover in year
two.
2. The DD indicators will be updated in March 2015, once a decision has been taken on how best to
take this component forward.
1
A. Introduction and Context
DevTracker Link to Business Case:
DevTracker Link to Log frame:
Business Case
Logframe
Outline of the programme
The Department for International Development (DFID) is providing £3 million to the Benchmarking the
Business of Agriculture project (BBA) over 3 years. The BBA was initiated in 2013, following a call by the
G8 to “develop options for generating a Doing Business in Agriculture Index”. The BBA is housed in the
World Bank Group, bringing together expertise from the Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES)
department and the Global Indicators and Analysis department (GIA), with ten years of experience of
implementing the Doing Business project. The BBA is funded through a multi-donor trust fund. Current
representation includes USAID, DANIDA, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Dutch Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and DFID.
The overarching aim of the BBA is to incentivise policy-makers to streamline regulations and improve the
enabling environment for agriculture. The project focuses on factors affecting the emergence and
sustainability of agriculture-related businesses within the supply chain, necessary for a healthy and
modern agriculture sector. By developing indicators that assess the enabling environment for agriculture
and agribusiness, the project will enable policymakers to identify and prioritise policies and regulations
that need to be in place to stimulate agricultural growth.
The BBA has two main components: (i) Doing Business in Agriculture indicators and (ii) Deep-Dive
assessments, looking more closely at the performance of the agriculture sector.
(i)
Doing Business in Agriculture indicators: these indicators focus on the laws and regulations that
are the most important for agricultural productivity in countries around the world – developed and
developing. The indicators will be consistent and comparable across economies, enabling benchmarking
to take place.
(ii)
Deep Dives (DD): multi-country studies, which will add breadth to the range of indicators by going
beyond the spectrum of the Doing Business type indicators, by examining a broader range of factors
affecting agricultural productivity, market access, and the policy environment for agriculture. DDs will
bring new benchmarks to the attention of policymakers and will provide a number of important new
metrics to better enable policy makers to establish their country's position in relation to their neighbours
and countries at a similar stage of agricultural development.
These two components will work synergistically to develop indicators in six key areas of analysis: access
to commercial seeds, access to agricultural finance, access to fertilisers, land, markets and transporting
agricultural goods. These indicators will be used to track key laws and procedures affecting the ability of
the commercial agricultural sector to deliver food at affordable prices, such as policies related to seed
importation, land leases, SMEs’ access to finance and trade and customs policies affecting the
movement of goods across the borders. Gender considerations will be built alongside these six areas.
The BBA indicators will be carried out in three years, starting with a pilot phase of data collection in 10
countries in 2013, scaling up to 80 countries in Year 3. The Deep Dives indicators will be collected and
reports prepared for nine topics over a course of three years.
The project supports DFID’s new strategic framework for economic development, specifically pillar 2:
“supporting the enabling environment for private sector growth”. It will help bring transparency to the
sector, while also supporting governments to track the effectiveness of their agriculture based
approaches and programmes.
2
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS
Annual outcome assessment
The overarching outcome of the BBA is that it becomes a key policy tool for policymakers leading to
indicator-informed regulatory reform. Two out of the four outcome level indicators have milestones for
each of the three years of the pilot project. For the remaining two indicators, results are only expected in
the final year.
On the first indicator (countries' understanding of impact of agribusiness enabling environment is
enhanced by dissemination of BBA reports), the BBA team launched their website
(http://bba.worldbank.org/ transitioning to http://eba.worldbank.org) in December 2013. It has had a
greater number of hits than the target in the logframe (4,270 compared to 3,000). No media clips have
been uploaded (target of 10 in 2014). There has been a shift in outreach to be more inclusive and
interactive, and less on media clips. The milestone for June 2015 will be revised to reflect this change in
focus.
On the second indicator (number of countries actively using the BBA indicators to inform policy
improvements), the BBA team actively engaged in discussions on the ability of the indicators to drive
reform with four country governments (Rwanda, Spain, Guatemala and Uganda). The original target was
two. Additional countries have since expressed an interest in having this more in-depth discussion.
Despite positive progress in these areas, there are still some groups (civil society, wider, government
stakeholders, and donor country office staff) that are unaware about the purpose and vision of the BBA
project. The BBA team have taken steps to address these concerns in two ways: First, by developing a
stakeholder outreach strategy, which looks to engage and involve both civil society and private sector
players on the role of the BBA. This has been slightly delayed due to the team wanting to wait until the
data collection exercise had finished. This delay has been interpreted as secrecy by some, underscoring
the importance of active dialogue throughout the process.
The second initiative the BBA team is considering is a partnership with an African institution to help
improve awareness, use and application of the product. This partnership would also help inform how
best to engage policy makers and provide an additional forum for discussion across the region. If
successful, this type of partnership could be rolled out in other regions.
One issue that has been flagged to the BBA team is the difficulty of translating Benchmarking the
Business of Agriculture into other languages. The project’s name has therefore been changed to
“Enabling the Business of Agriculture” (EBA). For the purposes of this review, BBA will be used to refer
to the project. All future documentation will refer to EBA.
Overall output score and description
The overall output score after the first year of the project is A: outputs met expectations. There has been
significant progress in some areas and delays in others, partly due to issues that were not considered at
the time the business case was written.
On the first output, the BBA has moderately exceeded expectations. They have looked at an additional
three topics – one of which was brought forward from year two, and organised two separate events to
discuss the BBA (FAO and Seep Community), one more than targeted. Interviews with donors,
contributing into the trust fund, civil society organisations and one of the pilot countries, suggest that
there is satisfaction on the technical capacity of the BBA team to undertake this work.
Data collection has proved challenging, and the team have responded by ensuring they have the correct
skill set in the team, ensuring technical rigour across the piece. The pilot report is slightly delayed to
ensure the findings could be internally crossed checked and peer reviewed before publication.
On the second output, progress is moderately under expectations. The methodology used to collect data
under the first output is not suitable for these types of data. Whereas this kind of data was collected
during the project’s first year, it could not be gathered and presented in a reliable and robust manner,
affecting data quality, precluding comparability of the information and limiting scalability to a larger
number of countries. Based on the pilot year experience, the BBA team is working on developing an
approach and methodology to collect and integrate this category of information. A set of costed options
will presented for consideration by the donors of the multi-donor trust fund in February 2015.
3
Key lessons
There are six main lessons learnt from the first year of the project:

Questionnaires need to be tailored to different contributors: the master questionnaire for
each topic area has been customised for each contributor type (e.g. private companies,
aggregators, producer organisations, lawyers). This has reduced the time taken to do interviews
and ensured the most relevant information is collected.

Heterogeneity of farming makes benchmarking difficult: not all countries farm the same
crops. Similarly, at difficult stages of development, different farming practices take place. Finding
one master questionnaire or even one uniform set of indicators has therefore proved challenging.
An omission of livestock specific questions has led the team to include this as a separate topic
area in year two.

Engagement is key for data collection: engagement of target country governments to garner
interest and support for the program, in many cases, generated key contacts, facilitated data
collection and established a foundation for ongoing interaction. World Bank country offices
helped provide some of these contacts. The BBA team has also been encouraged to use donor
country offices for additional contacts and support.

Data collection can be started before country visits: Whereas data are collected from key incountry contributors using specially designed questionnaires, the project has learned of the
importance of gathering and organising background data for each of the target countries and
topic areas to make data collection more effective. This has been incorporated as a fundamental
part of the process of data collection for year two.

A focus on key metrics allows the project to scale-up: given the volume and breadth of the
data that can be gathered within each topic area, a key lesson was the importance of selecting,
collecting, organising and refining data in a manner conducive to the development of indicators
that are focused, scalable to a global level and actionable.

A clear articulation of the BBA vision is needed for outreach: while the BBA team has
actively organised conferences and seminars to talk about the BBA project, some stakeholders
and governments in the pilot countries still lack clarity on what the project is ultimately trying to
achieve. Articulating a clear theory of change of the BBA to support engagement will be key
when implementing the outreach strategy.
Key actions
Based on the findings of the BBA team during the first year, there are three action points:

An additional four topic areas have been added to the data collection exercise for year two:
access to information, livestock, gender and environment.

Gender issues will be mainstreamed into 4 areas: land tenure, access to agricultural finance,
water and farmer organizations. Sustainability will be mainstreamed within the seed, fertilizer,
water and livestock topic areas. After data collection and analysis, the ideal reporting format will
be determined for these indicators.

For the DD component of the project, the BBA team will continue working on an alternative
methodology, collecting data where possible during the second year. Options will be presented to
donors on the way forward in February 2015.
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
The milestone for output 1, indicator 1 in June 2015 has been updated to reflect the addition of four
further topic areas in year two. The indicators for the second output will be updated in March 2015,
following a discussion on options with the BBA team.
4
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING
Output Title
Development and roll-out of Doing Business in Agriculture methodology
Output number per LF
1
Output Score
A+
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
50
Risk revised since last AR?
N/A
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
No
Indicator(s)
Milestones
Progress
1.1 Number of DBA indicators
developed
6 indicators: (1) Access to Finance,
(2-3) Access to Inputs (seeds and
fertilizer) (4) Access to secure
property rights on land, (5) Access
to markets, (6) Access to transport
1.2 Number of countries in which
DBA is rolled out
1.3 Number of DBA reports
produced.
10 Pilot countries
Data collected for all of the 6 topic
areas with suggested indicators
provided. Initial data for an
additional three topics collected:
contract farming; rural electricity,
and ICT
10 pilot countries reported on
1.4 Number of workshops, seminars,
conferences organised or coorganised
At least 1 event
Pilot report
Pilot report circulated to donors but
yet to be made public at the time of
this review
Two events organised: seminar at
FAO & with SEEP
Key Points
By the end of the first year, the BBA team successfully completed the programme’s research and design
phase. They covered the six topics covered in the business case (access to finance, access to seeds,
access to fertilisers, access to secure property rights on land, access to markets, and access to
transport). In addition to these six, the team looked into “access to information” and “contract farming”,
as well as rural electrification, which was brought forward from year two. The total number of topic areas
tested was nine, three more than originally planned for. Based on the findings in year one, a light touch
approach to access to information technology and rural electrification will be applied in year two.
The BBA has drawn on the expertise housed in the World Bank, compiling a team with the relevant skills
for the different topics areas and knowledge of indicator development. The project has been held up by
World Bank management as a good example of integrated working between the IFC and the World
Bank, bringing together human and knowledge resources across two departments - the Agriculture
Global Practice and the Global Indicators Group.
During the first year of piloting, the team noted the relative absence of information on livestock farming.
This became obvious in their interviews with a range of private sector and civil society organisations,
which had specific points to cover on the regulatory environment as it related to livestock. Similarly, there
were a number of issues raised under the theme of gender and environment during their interviews,
suggesting that these two themes would merit their own topic area as well as being mainstreamed into
other relevant topic areas.
At the time of this review, the pilot report has been circulated internally to the World Bank for peer
review, and to the donors funding the project. An abridged summary of the report and key messages has
been circulated and discussed with the FAO and with the SEEP community – bringing the number of
seminars organised up to two from one in the original results framework. While these types of seminars
have been useful, more could be done to widen the project’s outreach. Feedback from reviewers has
been incorporated and is part of the final report, which is due to be published on the BBA website on 21
November 2014.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
Not applicable
Recommendations
1. Add access to information, livestock, gender and environment to the list of topic areas to cover in
year two.
5
Output Title
Development of Deep Dive multi-country studies
Output number per LF
2
Output Score
B
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
50
Risk revised since last AR?
N/A
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
No
Indicator(s)
Milestones
Progress
2.1 Number of DD indicators
developed
6 indicators: (1) Access to Finance,
(2-3) Access to Inputs (seeds and
fertilizer) (4) Access to secure
property rights on land, (5) Access
to markets, (6) Access to transport
2.2 Number of DD reports produced
Pilot report
Market metric developed in 6 topic
areas: (1) Access to Finance, (2-3)
Access to Inputs (seeds and
fertilizer) (4) Access to secure
property rights on land, (5) Access
to markets, (6) Access to transport.
No separate report. The data under
the deep dives are neither
statistically robust nor comparable,
and therefore not in a condition to
be used or published. Some of the
findings were wrapped up in the
DBA report.
Key Points
During the first year of data collection the BBA team collected data and information relevant for the Deep
Dive (DD) component of the project. They collected this information using a similar approach as the
“Doing Business” style indicators, using tailored surveys targeted as selected organisations, including
private sector entities, civil society organisations, and government officials. They also looked at
government collected data on indicators such as road quality.
This type of methodology has proved to be inappropriate for data aimed at drawing measurements at the
level of practices, implementation, outcomes and/or market conditions. Verification based on a small
sample size of survey respondents has not presented robust results that can be compared across
countries. Furthermore, country level data were either not available or not comparable owing to the
application of different definitions.
The BBA team has therefore revisited their approach to the DD component of the project. The team has
been requested to develop costed options on how the DDs can be taken forward. These options will be
presented to the contributors of the multidonor trust fund for their consideration in February 2015. This
will help inform a final selection of this category of data, in close connection with the policy and
regulatory indicators (the DBA indicators) under development.
Despite these setbacks, the project remains committed to developing indicators on more outcome
focused areas, which they are now terming “market metrics”. They have used the DD information
collected during year one in two ways:
(i)
(ii)
to provide additional context in the pilot report covering the “Doing Business” style indicators;
and
to produce a report on potential DD indicators and data. This latter report has not be
circulated or made public due to data quality concerns.
Recommendations
The logframe will be updated in March 2015, once a decision has been taken on how best to take this
component forward.
6
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Key cost drivers and performance
Two drivers of vfm were identified in the BBA business case: (i) the design and development of
indicators (economic efficiency) and (ii) the take up and impact of DBA and DD indicators in the decision
making of policymakers in developing countries (economic effectiveness). The project continues to
represent vfm in relation to economic efficiency. It is too early to assess the vfm of the BBA project’s
economic effectiveness but early indications suggests this is on track.
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
Economic efficiency
The business case identified three indicators to assess the value achieved in input purchasing
(economy) and how these are converted to outputs (efficiency):
 Proportion of total costs allocated to value-adding operations: operations (research, indicator
development, data collection) are the BBA’s key value-added. Over the life of the project (3 years),
the cost of management, consultants, staff and travel and accommodation needed for field work will
constitute 78 percent of total costs. The project has spent approximately one third of the allocated
budget for operations in year one. Desk based research should help ensure the project keeps in
budget when additional countries are added in year two and three.
 Cost per report produced: an assessment of the cost per report will need to be amended following the
changes to the DD component of the project.
 Communication costs: 5 percent of the BBA’s budget has been allocated to communication activities.
The website and seminars have been low cost items, meaning the BBA project has underspent on
communications in the first year. This is expected to change in year two when the outreach strategy is
implemented.
Economic effectiveness
Measures to track BBA’s effectiveness include:
 Instances where BBA research and reports have been used by countries to inform policy
improvements.
 Evidence of wider BBA uptake and use of credible methodology, measured by media citations,
website visitors, journal and article references.
 Number of regulatory reforms undertaken using the BBA indicators.
 Process of agreeing to reform, which is consultative and time and cost-effective.
 Wider impact of policy changes that are assessed in a time and cost-effective manner.
The overall effectiveness of the project is expected to increase over time and crucially depends on the
quality of the outputs from the project and outreach. The rigorous assessment of the data applied by the
BBA team and the peer reviewers helps ensure the impact of the project is realised.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
The BBA continues to represent value for money.
Quality of financial management
The BBA is a World Bank Multi Donor Trust Fund. DFID’s £500,000 contribution for this financial year
has been disbursed as per the Administrative Arrangement. The next disbursement of £500,000 is due
by 31 March 2015. There is no expectation that the current approved budget or forecasting profile will
change over next financial year.
The World Bank produces a single annual audit, released 6 months following the end of the Bank’s fiscal
year (due 31/12/2014). The narrative financial report was received by DFID in October 2014. This
included a detailed breakdown of donor contributions, disbursements and undisbursed commitments.
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
September 2014
n/a
7
E: RISK
Overall risk rating: Medium
What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Two main types of risks were highlighted in the business case: (i) the purpose and methodology of BBA
is not well understood; and (ii) the programme cannot achieve buy-in among policymakers and key
users. The risks, mitigation strategies and updates on any progress made and changes in context are
provided in the table below.
Risk identified in business
case
Risk
rating
Confusion over what the
indicators do and don’t
measure.
Medium
DBA and DD are not well
integrated and the programme
narrowly focuses on legal and
regulatory indicators.
High
Brand/position DBA and DD as one
core product with two separate but
complementary components
working in a synergistic way.
Significant variations between
the regulatory frameworks for
different agricultural
commodities limit the
comparability of BBA
indicators.
Indicators produced are not
considered to be rigorous and
evidence based.
Medium
Indicators will use a standardised
case study to allow comparison
across different countries.
LowMed
Countries selected are not
aligned to programme
objectives.
LowMed
Lack of government buy-in
Medium
Programme activities do not
lead to regulatory changes.
LowMed
Pressure over DB and country
rankings lead to pushback on
BBA.
Unintended consequences
Med
Governments narrowly target
their reform efforts to trigger
the time and motion indicators
only.
Medium
A broad group of stakeholders
(including researchers, target
users, subject-matter experts)
should be consulted and their
advice should inform indicator
selection and subsequent
refinements.
WB will consult donors on the
country selection process and the
intention is to select a
geographically diverse set of
countries at different stages of
agricultural growth to allow for subcomparisons.
Take-up and Buy-In
Governments of countries in which
BBA will be rolled out must be
informed and consulted.
BBA should continuously assess
opportunities to affect changes in
the regulatory environment related
to the project’s interventions.
BBA should carefully consider pros
and cons before proceeding with
country rankings.
The programme will devise a way
to model the expected policy
responses from the indicators to
ensure against negative outcomes.
BBA should encourage a broad
reform discussion as opposed to
narrow indicator-focussed reforms.
Medium
How will risk be managed?
Methodology
BBA to continually communicate
the range and limits of the data.
8
Annual Review Update
Outreach strategy developed
and potential partnership with
an African institution being
developed
Ensure a common theoretical
framework for the DBA and DD
indicators in one joint report.
Risk has been increased from
medium to high.
The standardized case scenario
will be based on statistics of the
most traded product, the main
agricultural production area and
the main trading partner at a
regional and international level.
Mitigation measures are taking
place, including the
development of technical notes
summarising the evidence on
the topic areas and broader
agriculture reform.
Mitigation measures are taking
place.
Mitigation measures are taking
place.
BBA team developing a
framework to assist countries in
their thinking on agricultural
transition
Mitigation measures are taking
place.
Mitigation measures are taking
place.
Outreach strategy with private
sector is being developed.
Further engagement with
governments as the indicators
develop will be needed.
The process of agreeing to
policy changes is inclusive
and consultative at countrylevel.
Programme is not sufficiently
proactive to engage
stakeholders.
Medium
Medium
The programme should pay
attention to not only encouraging
policy reforms, but how they have
been achieved.
Specific actions including a
strategic outreach plan should be a
central component of the
programme.
This is an element of the DD
component of the project.
More engagement is needed
during the second year to
address some concerns raised
by civil society.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
The risks to the project’s ability to deliver results remain relevant. The team have put in place a number
of mitigation measures in line with the original risk assessment outlined in the business case.
On the first set of risks, another will be added: “Insufficient resources to take forward the DD indicators”
This is a medium to high risk. The current mitigation measure is a clear articulation by the BBA team of
their options available to develop the DD indicators under the current budget, and what more is required
to develop them in more detail. The budget cuts and on-going restructuring within the World Bank Group
add a level of challenge in some of the project’s processes, but which is expected to be addressed as
the project moves forward.
On the second set of risks, additional action is needed during the second year of the project to ensure
buy-in, given some of the concerns of civil society. The implementation of the outreach plan currently
under development should alleviate some of the concerns.
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Delivery against planned timeframe
The BBA team have made a promising start and have gathered a rich set of data and information on the
relevant topic areas. It has, however, taken more time that originally anticipated, collecting the data and
organising country level interviews with relevant stakeholders. The diversity of the responses and data
has also meant quality assurance has taken longer. This has led to a delay of the first year report by a
few months.
As the team embark on data collection in the second year for 40 countries (the original 10 plus an
additional 30), an initial desk based data collection will take place before country visits. This research will
use the questionnaires and surveys piloted during the first year. Country visits will then take place to
triangulate some of the data and fill gaps where information is not readily available from outside the
country.
Performance of partnerships
The multidonor trust fund has met face-to-face twice since its inception. In between these meetings,
there have been regular conference calls with the donors and the BBA team. During the early stages of
the project, the phone calls were more regular, with the donors sometimes organising separate phone
calls to align thoughts before feeding into the BBA team.
On 9 December 2013, the BBA team hired a programme manager. This has greatly enhanced the ability
of the team to communicate with donors on progress and request steers on strategic direction.
While DFID has participated in these meetings and calls, staff changes (3 over the course of the first
year) have meant continuity has been fragmented.
Asset monitoring and control
Not applicable
G: CONDITIONALITY
It was not deemed relevant to use the partnership principles for management and monitoring when the
programme was approved.
9
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION
Evidence and evaluation
The evidence and context in which this project was devised remains relevant. Sustained economic
growth, combined with strong domestic and global demand for food and agricultural commodities, offers
unprecedented opportunities to transform agriculture in a way that creates jobs, income and
opportunities for agribusinesses and the large smallholder base. Relatively low levels of investment in
agriculture in SSA highlight the need to improve our understanding of enablers and barriers to the
promotion of agriculture as a business. The BBA fills this gap by developing comparative indicators and
actionable information for policy makers and the private sector to assess the ease of doing business in
agriculture, across different countries and over time.
One area the project does not capture is the issue of governance and the political economy around
agriculture. Ad hoc policy reforms and vested interests can severely impact the capacity of the
agriculture sector, both as a driver of growth, and as a mechanism to bring people out of poverty. DFID
has spoken to the BBA team about whether these types of issues could be covered in the existing
project, using the data and methodologies available to them. Finding comparable and objective
indicators in this space is difficult and something the team has looked into, but not found any hard data
as yet.
A mid-term evaluation is planned following the publication of the second year report. To allow sufficient
time for the results of the report to be internalised, this evaluation will take place around September
2015. It will focus on the ability of the BBA to influence reform of the enabling environment for
agribusiness.
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
The BBA team monitors progress against internal milestones related to data collection, questionnaire
development and reports. In addtion, they prepare a stocktake of progress for presentation to the donor
group every 6-8 weeks.
The team have been very responsive to requests for information from DFID and have actively
contributed to this annual review, providing useful insights and reflections on the past year. They have
started working on an agricultural transformation framework and the relationship between the ratio of
agriculture to agribusiness within different economies. This could be an effective tool that governments
can use for looking at long term impact in different countries.
The BBA team has also started developing a baseline with cost measures. While a critical mass of
information will need to be gathered across a number of years before this progress can be tracked, this
is a useful set of data to start tracking in the early stages of the project and will help feed into the
evaluation.
For this annual review, all of the donors contributing to the project were consulted and their views on the
project gathered. The donor group has been working effectively, consulting on a number of issues and
actively feeding into the project.
Views were also gathered from civil society representatives based in the UK.
10