Assessing progress made toward shared agricultural transformation objectives in Mozambique

What has been the recent performance of the agricultural sector in Mozambique and the progress made thus far toward achieving the objectives established under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) initiative for Mozambique that began in late-2011?

CAADP promotes agriculture-driven economic growth to reduce hunger, malnutrition, and poverty across Africa. Central to the design of national-level efforts under CAADP is broad ownership and mutual accountability—ownership across a wide range of stakeholders of the process through which priority investments are identified, programs are designed, and action is taken; and mutual accountability for any successes or failures realized in pursuit of CAADP objectives. Mutual accountability here is defined as a process by which the CAADP stakeholders hold one another accountable for the commitments they have voluntarily made to one another for the successful implementation of the CAADP–Mozambique investment plan, the Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agriculture Sector (PNISA). This commitment is institutionalized within the investment plan in an explicit framework of mutual accountability through a regular Joint Sector Review (JSR) process. This document was developed to inform the JSR process for 2014, early in the implementation of the PNISA.

We highlight both effective features as well as some deficiencies in the initial implementation of the PNISA. This is done with the expectation that by highlighting these features early, the quality of implementation of the plan should improve quickly and the Mozambican agricultural sector will transform in ways that lead to economic growth, improved household welfare, and reduction in poverty. The programme of mutual accountability for the successes and shortcomings associated with PNISA implementation is laudable and necessary. Of some concern in the early stages of implementation of the PNISA is that limited effective coordination mechanism has been put in place to address programming gaps or duplications that may retard progress or inefficiently use public resources. Of equal concern is that the mutually agreed-upon milestones and targets have not been sufficiently articulated for PNISA implementation. The quality of the program of mutual accountability will be compromised if choices are not made among program milestones and targets for monitoring, evaluation, and accountability purposes.