CIAFS_capacity_building_needs_assessement_of_the_MOA_at_Federal_and_Regional.pdf

i

September 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Fintrac Inc.

Capacity Needs Assessment of the Ministry of Agriculture at the Federal and Regional Levels

Capacity to Improve Agriculture and Food Security (USAID-CIAFS) i

Fintrac Inc.

www.fintrac.com info@fintrac.com

US Virgin Islands 3077 Kronprindsens Gade 72 St. Thomas, USVI 00802 Tel: (340) 776-7600 Fax: (340) 776-7601

Washington, D.C.

1400 16th Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20035 USA Tel: (202) 462-8475 Fax: (202) 462-8478

USAID-CIAFS

6th Floor, K12 Building Ethio-China Road Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Tel: + 251 (0)114 401 473 Fax: + 251 (0)114 403 649

Cover Photo: Participants at the Ministry of Agriculture Needs Assessment Workshop Photo by Fintrac Inc.

October 2011 The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

http://www.fintrac.com/ mailto:info@fintrac.com

Prepared by Fintrac Inc.

ii

USAID-CIAFS CAPACITY BUILDING NEEDS ASSESSEMENT OF THE MINISRY OF AGRICULRURE AT

THE FEDERAL AND REGIONSL LEVELS

THE USAID-FTF STRATEGY

Through its Feed the Future (FtF) programming, USAID/Ethiopia strives for system-wide transformation by demonstrating the potential role that agricultural, market-based economic growth can play in addressing chronic poverty and food insecurity, especially when coupled with productive safety net and asset building interventions aimed at increasing the resiliency and market readiness of vulnerable households. The strategy utilizes a Push-Pull Model that seeks to build the capacity of vulnerable and chronically food insecure households to participate in economic activity (the “push”), while mobilizing market-led agricultural growth to generate relevant economic opportunity and demand for smallholder production, labor, and services (the “pull”). The strategy has three components:

The first component is about agricultural growth and food security for system-wide transformation where USAID will take a leading role in supporting Ethiopian efforts to promote agricultural-led economic growth by strengthening strategically selected value chains, promoting private sector engagement and improving market function.

The second component is linking the vulnerable to markets and for this to happen vulnerable households must have the capacity in terms of assets, skills, risk tolerance, and access to both markets and information. USAID/Ethiopia seeks to build this capacity and promote the “market readiness” of targeted, chronically food insecure populations.

The third component supports the first two components – “Agricultural Growth Enabled Food Security” and “Linking the Vulnerable to Markets” – through its emphasis on capacity building, analysis and evaluation, and knowledge sharing, in areas of agricultural development, food security, nutrition, and climate change.

iii

ABOUT USAID-CIAFS

USAID-CIAFS supports Ethiopia’s participation in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and other regional policy development agenda and helps public and private sector institutions and professional associations build their capacities for agricultural change and food security. Program services include institutional needs assessments, leadership development, enabling environment assessments, dissemination of best practices and technologies, and monitoring and evaluation.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study represents the contributions of many generous, intelligent, and hard-working Ministry of Agriculture personnel in the regions and in Addis Ababa. Bureau heads and deputies, directors, process owners, experts and district agricultural officers, CIAFS “agents of change” assisted the assessment team by organizing focus group discussions and interviews, and also by taking part in the assessment itself. We appreciate their support and willingness to share their experience and insights. In addition, we are grateful to the many personnel in regional chambers, professional associations, donor and NGO organizations who provided information and valuable perspectives on the working of the Ministry. Without their participation, this study would not have been possible.

We would also like to acknowledge the support given to us by the State Minister, Ato Wondirad Mandefro, and the Director of the Planning and Programs Directorate, Ato Sitotaw, for facilitating the assessment and collaborating in organizing the feedback workshop.

Finally, we would like to thank the workshop participants from the regions and federal Ministry offices and other stakeholders. They demonstrated their enthusiasm and knowledge of the subject by deliberating on the findings and coming up with actionable answers to some of the difficult questions. We wish to thank them all for their insightful contributions and dedication. We hope they will find our comparative findings of interest to building the Ministry’s capacities to execute the GTP/ATP.

v

Table of Contents THE USAID-FTF STRATEGY .......................................................................................................... II

ABOUT USAID-CIAFS ..................................................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................................IV

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

1. BACKGROUND

2. OBJECTIVES

3. SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

4. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

5. METHODOLOGY

6. RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT

I. Organisation Mapping, Mission and Goals………………………………………………………14 II. Coordination and Communication………………………………………………………………19 III. Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation…………………………………………………………..20 IV. Leadership and Management…………………………………………………………………...29 V. Human Resource Management………………………………………………………………….34 VI. Service Delivery……………………………………………………………………………… 41

7. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

ANNEX 1: ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON RESULTS OF THE NEEDS

ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP

ANNEX 2: INDICATIVE WORK PLAN BASED ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND WORKSHOP

ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP PROPOSED ACTION PLAN BY THEMATIC SUBJECT

ANNEX 3A: STRUCTURE, MISSION, GOAL ＆ORGANIZATIONAL MAPPING

ANNEX 3C: LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

vi

List of Tables

TABLE 1: NUMBER OF KEY INFORMANTS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS

TABLE 2: SEMI-STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS

TABLE 3: MINISTRY DEFINED MISSION AND GOALS AND COMMUNICATED TO STAFF

TABLE 4: SATISFACTION WITH DIFFUSION OF MINISTRY MISSION AND GOALS

TABLE 5: MINISTRY’S MISSION AND GOALS ARE UNDERSTOOD BY OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS15

TABLE 6: MOA STAFF BELIEF THAT MOA MISSION AND GOALS ARE ACHIEVABLE

TABLE 7: STRATEGIES AND WORK PLANS ALIGNED WITH MOA MISSION AND GOALS

TABLE 8: COMMUNICATING THE MINISTRY’S GTP/ATP TO MOA STAFF

TABLE 9: MINISTRY STAFF UNDERSTANDING OF THE GTP/ATP

TABLE 10: MINISTRY’S COMMUNICATION OF THE GTP/ATP OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES TO

DISTRICTS

TABLE 11: COORDINATION BETWEEN SECTIONS IN THE MOA/BOA

TABLE 12: THE MOA/BOAS’ CAPACITY COORDINATING DIVISIONS

TABLE 13: LINES OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY CLEARLY DEFINED AND COMMUNICATED

TO STAFF

TABLE 14: TEAM BUILDING CAPACITY IN THE MOA/BOA

TABLE 15: LINKAGES BETWEEN REGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS IN TERMS OF REPORTING

TABLE 16: LINKAGES BETWEEN REGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS FOR ACTIVITY PLANNING

TABLE 17: LINKAGES BETWEEN REGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS FOR PLANNING

TABLE 18: LINKAGES BETWEEN EGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT

TABLE 19: DISTRICT LEVEL STAFF INVOLVED IN PLANNING

TABLE 20: USE OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION FOR PLANNING

TABLE 21: APPLICATION OF MONITORING & EVALUATION TO ADJUST PROGRAMS AND PLANS26

TABLE 22: MOA/BOA UNDERTAKE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

TABLE 23: SHARING MONITORING AND EVALUATION WITH STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS

TABLE 24: NEED TO STRENGTHEN THE MINISTRY’S CAPACITY FOR PLANNING, MONITORING AND

EVALUATION

TABLE 25: MOA LEADERSHIP PROFILE

TABLE 26: EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITIES

TABLE 27: MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY IN TERMS OF SOLVING PROBLEMS

TABLE 28: MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY IN TERMS OF MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

TABLE 29: MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY IN TERMS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

TABLE 30: MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY FOR PRESENTATION AND COMMUNICATION

TABLE 31: MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING HUMAN CAPACITY

TABLE 32: STAFF TURNOVER IN THE MOA AND BOAS

TABLE 33: MAIN REASONS FOR MOA STAFF TURNOVER

TABLE 34: PERFORMANCE BASED CRITERIA FOR JOB APPRAISALS

TABLE 35: PERFORMANCE IS RELATED TO JOB PROMOTION AND SALARY INCREASES

TABLE 36: LEVEL OF STAFF MOTIVATION

TABLE 37: CONCERN REGARDING UPDATING JOB DESCRIPTIONS

TABLE 38: JOB DESCRIPTIONS RESPECTED AND APPLIED

TABLE 39: UPDATING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PLANS

TABLE 40: BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 41: STAFF TRAINING BASED ON NEEDS ASSESSMENT, PERSONNEL PLANNING AND

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

TABLE 42: REWARDING STAFF TRAINED

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADLI Agriculture Development Led Industrialisation AfDB African Development Bank AGP Agricultural Growth Plan ATP Agricultural Transformation Plan ATVET Agricultural and Technical Vocational Education Training BoA Bureau of Agriculture BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development BPR Business Process Re-Engineering BSC Balanced Score Card CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CIAFS Capacity to Improve Agriculture and Food Security DA Development Agent FGD Focus Group Discussion FtF Feed the Future GoE Government of Ethiopia GTP Growth and Transformation Plan IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty MoA Ministry of Agriculture M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development MoI Ministry of Industry MoT Ministry of Trade NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PIF Policy and Investment Framework PPP Private-Public Partnership forum RCBP Rural Capacity Building Project RDP Rural Development Program SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Sciences USAID United States Agency for International Development WB World Bank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

USAID-CIAFS conducted this needs assessment for the Ministry of Agriculture at the federal level and in four regions - Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray. The findings of the needs assessment are validated with basic data from AGP districts and a follow-up workshop. The assessment aimed at identifying the human and institutional capacity gaps in the Ministry of Agriculture and design appropriate actionable activities.

The assessment used a mix of focus group discussions, key informant interviews, surveys, and review of documents and policy papers. Findings from the assessment were presented to representatives from the federal and regions, donor communities, NGOs and USAID in a-two-day workshop.

Overall, participants, during the assessment as well as at the workshop, reflected that most training programs in the past lacked strategic focus and have not led to significant improvement in MoA operations or service delivery. Participants suggested that USAID-CIAFS should plan relevant capacity building activities based on the specific gaps identified by this needs assessment and should also formally follow up with participants to measure the effectiveness and sustainability of the training delivered. Specific recommendations for Capacity Building activities in each category include the following:

1. Organization Mapping, Mission and Goals

Knowledge of the mission, goals, objectives and strategies has the potential to motivate staff, create a sense of professional pride and encourage higher level of commitment. With this in mind, the needs assessment looked into awareness gaps in the goals and objectives among the Ministry staff. The following are a summary of the findings and recommendations:

A. Communication of mission and goals of the Ministry: The federal MoA and regional bureaus have clearly defined missions and goals and communicated this to staff. The communication was not adequate, however.

B. Communication of the GTP/ATP objectives and strategies: The GTP/ATP objectives and strategies of the Ministry are also communicated to staff at the federal, regions and down to district and kebeles. However, only a small proportion of staff at all levels think that the communication was effective.

C. Recommendations: It is recommended that the leadership needs to do more to deepen staff understanding of the GTP/ATP. Staff need to clearly articulate the mission and goals of the MoA and the strategic objectives of GTP/ATP. There is a general sense of what the GTP/ATP strategies and targets are, but clarifying them in terms of what they are trying to achieve will help inform and direct efforts.

2. Leadership and Institutional Management

The probability of meeting organizational objectives and results is as good as the leadership and management capacity. Recognising this, the needs assessment looked into leadership and management capacity and the findings and recommendations in this respect are as follows:

A. Leadership and management skills: Most of the managers at the federal and regional levels have strong technical background in crop, livestock, etc. However, many have not been trained in non-technical subjects to enhance their leadership and management skills to back up their technical knowledge. They have no instruments for measuring the performance of the departments they lead. They also seem to lack capacity to motivate and inspire their staff.

B. Project management and presentation skills: Senior leaders/managers have received very low ratings by their staff for their project management, presentation, influence and communication skills, suggesting the need for training in this area.

C. Recommendations: Leadership and management capacities of senior and mid-level managers and directorates need to be strengthened through a program of training in such areas as performance and process management; delegation of authority; transparency in leadership; creating vision and sense of urgency. Specialized skill imparting program through study visits and tours to countries with success stories of best examples of leadership and transformation of agriculture might be useful to focus on for practical application. The leadership should also have adequate capacity to provide on-the-job training to subordinates through delegation, coaching and mentoring, among other options.

3. Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

The Needs Assessment identified a critical skill gap in monitoring and evaluation. The following is a summary of the findings and recommendations:

A. Lack of participation in planning: Planning at all levels is found to be top down. Most staff feel that participation in planning is minimal and ad hoc.

B. Lack of integration of planning and monitoring and evaluation: Most staff believe that monitoring and evaluation process is not adequately built into the planning process and managers often do not measure progress against plans and budgets. The regional bureaus in particular do not evaluate projects and programs for impact. In general, M&E is not effectively used to inform programs and adjust plans. Awareness of evaluation techniques and the importance of evaluation for management purpose appear to be lacking as well.

C. Managers’ and leaders’ awareness of the importance of M&E: Reinforcing the above finding, most staff feel that evaluations of projects are not conducted because decision-makers don’t seem to recognize the value.

D. Sharing of M&E results with staff: There is a general discontent that M&E is not conducted regularly and appropriately to inform and improve efficiency of programs;

even when it is conducted, results are not shared with staff and stakeholders.

E. M&E at district level: Validation discussions with key regional level informants suggest that planning and M&E at the district level is conducted in an elementary manner; most districts have no monitoring system in place. Many district staff also do not have training in planning. Plans (e.g. seed and fertilizer demand forecast) submitted by districts are either too high or too low.

F. Recommendations: There is a need for practical capacity building training in planning, monitoring and evaluation for key personnel at various levels of the structure and directorate. Training in such areas like baseline data collection, encoding, analysis, benchmarking should be considered seriously. Inclusion of risk analysis with various scenarios would also be useful to develop realistic plans and targets. Introduction to IT supported planning and decision techniques as a management tool could potentially enhance the efficiency of top level managers and experts. Capacity gaps at district level should be addressed by providing TOTs and then cascading the training to the lower level. Communication skill training is another area worth considering for top level management and mid-level staff and experts. Study tours, both abroad and in-country, to expose leaders and managers to best practices of designing, planning and managing agriculture would be helpful.

4. Human Resource Management

General training in leadership and management and more specifically in key areas of human resource management would be indispensable to build the leadership skills of senior and mid-level managers. The following are the findings and recommendations:

A. Performance management and implementation: Leaders noted that lack of staff motivation is a common problem because of one-size-fits-all performance management system applied across the board in all directorates.

B. Decision-making and problem-solving: The assessment revealed that leaders and managers often lack basic skills to manage tasks and conflicts, coordinate efforts and solve problems in a supportive manner. Managers and leaders often handle conflicts indirectly and through ad hoc groups rather than systematically to understand the underlying causes.

C. Coordination, advocacy, communication skills, team building and managing staff:

Leaders seem to lack skills in advocacy, managing and coordinating staff and programs;

forming, strengthening and motivating teams; empowering and rewarding successes through recognition and delegation.

D. Recommendations: Training to enhance the management skills of leaders, including experts, for building organizational and human resources capacity is essential. The training should include subjects like assessing performance management and applying different performance standards, processes and measurements. Leaders would also benefit from training in communication skills; setting targets and performance focused objectives; incentivizing and motivating staff; and communicating and managing work-flows. The demand for training is so large that building capacity should be a continuous process.

5. Service Delivery

This includes direct technical support by regional bureau experts to the private sector, including small-scale farmers. The findings and recommendations in the area of service delivery include the following:

A. Support to commercial farming: Regional chambers and agribusiness noted that regional bureaus of agriculture do not engage large scale farms as major stakeholders in GTP/ATP other than providing some technical and regulatory services to those involved in commercial seed production; the federal MoA and regional bureaus largely target small farmers with their extension program. The MoA and bureaus also do not engage the private sector on a regular basis and, as a consequence, they are not adequately informed of and respond timely to issues pertaining to agribusiness expansion.

B. Knowledge of contract farming: Contract farming is the most important emerging area for technology transfer and product marketing in the country, benefitting both small farmers and the agribusiness sector. Ad hoc trade agreements are increasingly replaced by co-ordinated commercial relations between small farmers and other actors through vertical integration of the agricultural value chain. A major constraint is that there are no standard guidelines and legally binding frameworks for contract farming. Contract modalities are not developed either.

C. Coordination with NGOs and the private sector: The Ministry has good collaboration with international donors and NGOs like SNV in SNNPR, REST in Tigray on value chain programs. However, linkages with agribusinesses and professional associations need a lot of improvement. The MoA institutions lack capacity to identify stakeholders and their needs and design demand-driven services to support them.

D. Recommendations: Basic training on contract farming for MoA and agribusiness communities is a perquisite for the development of sustainable contract farming in the country. Study tours to South Asia and some African countries to learn best models of contract farming would also help design legally binding contracts. Chambers and sectoral associations also recommended a scheduled public-private partnership forum with regional bureaus so that their members can engage officials and experts. It was also recommended that regional bureaus should improve their communication with the private sector. Potential capacity building activities include training in modern communication and advocacy skills; adult education and teaching methods; use of information technology and communication media; reporting skills and communicating to stakeholders; packaging information; addressing feedback from others; partnership skills;

and stakeholder analysis.

INTRODUCTION

USAID-CIAFS conducted a capacity needs assessment of the Ministry of Agriculture at the federal and regions at the request of the State Minister for Agriculture. The aim of the assessment was to identify the human and institutional capacity gaps and to propose actionable recommendations to address them. The assessment team visited Agriculture Growth Plan (AGP) districts from each region in order to validate information obtained from the federal and regional levels. The assessment also targeted agribusinesses, principal stakeholders and other recipients of the Ministry’s services.

The findings and recommendations from the assessment were presented to representatives from the federal and regions, donor communities, NGOs and USAID in a two day workshop, held in Addis Ababa, on August 23 -24, 2011. The purpose of the workshop was to validate the findings, agree on priorities and propose next steps. Plenary discussions were used to good effect to deliberate on the general findings. In addition, participants were divided into thematic working groups to address specific topics. In most cases, agreement was reached on the findings and recommendations presented in this report.

The assessment also provides the baseline information to track and monitor progress and measure performances over time. The gaps identified and recommendations presented in this report will strengthen the MoA’s ability to steer the agricultural growth and transformation plan by tackling shortcomings in critical area of “soft capacities.”

The Ministry is into the second year of the GTP and with this in mind, the report culminates in a proposal that translates the recommendations into a realistic and actionable strategy for building capacity in the next two to three years. USAID-CIAFS fully understands the dynamic nature of organizations and realizes that some of the findings may reflect situations that have already changed. Since convening the workshop, USAID-CIAFS has been collaborating with a technical task force constituted by the State Minister to map the way forward for capacity building by USAID-CIAFS and other partners.

The danger in a report like this is that it could easily be interpreted negatively – as a catalogue of ills and problems, unfairly critiquing the subject of study. After all, the nature of the assessment

– capacity gaps – automatically focuses on what is not working well, and does not focus on what the MoA and subsidiary institutions do well. Moreover, there are many hardworking and dedicated individuals, especially in the regions, who work in less than optimal conditions, doing their best in difficult circumstances. The intention of the report is not to disparage anyone in the system, but to highlight actions which can make their work more effective. The assessment and the report are about the challenges and gaps, where capacity could be improved to effectively execute the GTP.

The report is structured as follows: A brief account of background information to the needs assessment is presented. In the next section, we describe how the study was done, and then present the issues and gaps organized under six major thematic areas: organisation mapping, mission and goals and objectives; coordination and communication; leadership and management;

planning, and monitoring and evaluation; human resource management; and service delivery.

The discussion in each section is followed by specific recommendations for capacity building.

The analysis incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information and is presented by region and federal level. Annex 1 provides a summary of actionable activities with timelines.

Annex 2 provides indicative workplan and Annex 3 classifies the action plan by thematic subjects.

1. BACKGROUND

It is a well-documented fact that agriculture accounts for the principal share of the Ethiopian economy and yet, despite some improvements, the sector faces many challenges. In general, production lags behind population growth, fostering food insecurity and widespread poverty.

Ethiopian agriculture is characterized by a high degree of production variability, relatively low crop yields and dependency on a few primary exports with low income elasticity and high price volatility. Relative to other developing countries in the region, Ethiopia’s agriculture is undercapitalized, uncompetitive and underperforming. The sector’s relatively weak performance is symptomatic of the myriad challenges it faces. In the past several decades, policy reforms have been implemented with mixed results while measures to boost output have been undermined by climate change, rising input prices and low world prices for Ethiopia’s key agricultural exports.

Over the past years, the Ethiopian government has initiated different policies, programs and strategies to boost agricultural growth and development. The Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy was the first comprehensive strategy that continues to influence successive policies, strategies and plans, including the Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (PRSP), the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), and the current Growth and Transformation Plan of 2010-2015 (GTP). In recent years, the government has liberalized marketing, eliminated state subsidies on inputs, and carried out other policy reforms, as part of a broader strategic program of agricultural transformation.

Meanwhile, donor assistance for the sector has reached an all-time record high and there is a growing hope that the country may at last become food secure. In all programs and strategies, including PASDEP, capacity building has been identified as a means to achieve the Government’s development goals. In this context, the then MoARD launched a Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP) with the objective of building the capacities of the Ministry.

Complementing this, the Government developed a strategy, under the Rural Development Program (RDP), to promote service cooperatives, technical and vocational education and training centres, microfinance services, physical infrastructure (such as rural roads), and access to basic services to promote the transformation of agriculture and of the rural economy. The capacity development activities delivered under the World Bank’s Agricultural and Technical Vocational Education Training (ATVET) program, aimed to improve the capacity of human resources through short and long-term training. While most of the training in this project focused on technical and infrastructural skill building and helped regions to improve their infrastructure, the MoA’s soft skills - management and leadership - remain inadequately addressed.

Capacity building is the centrepiece of the Ethiopian Government’s Growth and Transformation Plan. The GTP aims to improve the capacity of senior leadership, build the capacity of government institutions tasked with implementing agricultural policies, and enable public participation and accountability. It also emphasizes the importance of scaling up best practices in the design and implementation of civil service reforms (GTP, 2011).

USAID/Ethiopia is implementing a broad portfolio of projects to address the agriculture and food security challenges of Ethiopia. One of these initiatives is a multi-year strategy of Feed the Future (FtF). The objectives of FtF include, increasing agriculture productivity while preserving the natural resource base, improving the efficiency of agriculture marketing, increasing the purchasing power of vulnerable households and maximizing the efficient utilization of resources.

USAID/Ethiopia has aligned its activities with Ethiopia’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program Compact, which supports the GoE’s long-term agriculture development strategy. Implementation of the goals outlined in the CAADP Compact has been further developed through Ethiopia’s CAADP Policy and Investment Framework (PIF).

This report presents findings and recommendations of the USAID-CIAFS needs assessment for building the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Information collected from GoE documents, progress reports, strategy and policy papers, datasets, and interviews with key persons and officials in Addis Ababa, were complemented with interviews and focus group discussions conducted in Oromia, Amhara, SNPP and Tigray regions as well as at the federal level between June and July 2011. The findings of the study are intended to inform the Ministry to build its capacity for effective implementation of the GTP and ATP and achieve the Government’s strategic objectives of food security and agricultural transformation.

Given the untapped potential of the agricultural sector to dramatically reduce food insecurity and act as an engine for economic transformation, the recommendations presented in this report are specifically oriented towards strengthening the MoA’s ability to steer the agricultural transformation program by tackling shortcomings in critical areas such as leadership, management, planning and M&E.

2. OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this assessment is to systematically assess capacity gaps of the Ministry of Agriculture, both at the federal and regional levels, prioritize the needs and map strategies to address them over the course of two to three years. The specific objectives are:

1. Assess institutional and human resource capacities in relation to management and leadership and identify gaps for effective program implementation;

2. Assess and describe institutional structures, inter-institutional coordination and communication and related relationships and activities; and

3. Identify subject areas for targeted training to complement on-the-job training and other capacity building initiatives

3. SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

The scope of this needs assessment is defined by CIAFS’ strategic focus on the capacity of the MoA to implement the GTP/ATP. In this respect, the two most important and closely intertwined dimensions of capacity for the purposes of this assessment are: leadership and management.

The first dimension focuses on organizational structures, processes, resources, leadership and management styles and competencies that affect how staff skills and knowledge are used to accomplish particular tasks. This is an important dimension because organizations establish goals, structure work, define authority relations, and provide incentives and disincentives that shape the behaviour of those who work within them. They define and encourage management practices that increase the productivity of staff. Thus, it is important to know how organizations define their goals, how they are structured, what routine processes define the flow of work, what leadership and management styles are adopted, and how communication flows operate within the organization.

The assessment focused on the structural organization of the Ministry and the functional relationships between the various entities; alignment of scope of program with government’s mission and priorities; the ability of staff members to implement plans, strategies and programs;

clarity and awareness of goals and priorities and capacity to develop, communicate and give direction on vision, mission and values; leadership skills to develop and implement a system for overall management, create an environment to motivate and support individuals, manage relationships with external stakeholders and the ability to communicate and negotiate.

The assessment also included management style (e.g., participatory, enabling), the degree of delegation of responsibilities, evidence of effective staff involvement and teamwork in planning, nature and quality of planning, decision-making and benchmarking processes. It assesses the existence of monitoring and evaluation systems, guidelines, procedures, and the capacity to monitor and evaluate projects. The assessment team examined how skills are used within each unit of the Ministry, how well positions and responsibilities match with skills, the practice pertaining to promotion, remuneration, general operating procedures, and standards of performance.

4. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

An organization such as a government ministry can be thought of as a “system of related components that works together to achieve an agreed-upon mission” (TIPS, 2000:3). An effective and efficient organization is one that has strong leadership and appropriate structures, systems and procedures to deliver services to its constituencies. An organization must also be able to optimize the resources at its disposal -- human, financial, and material-- to achieve stated objectives. Several factors contribute to organizational performance and to achieving goals and mission, including process management, human resource management, and fostering collaborative relations with stakeholders. Organisational performance is also a function of personnel, leadership and facilities at the organization’s disposal. While certain strengths may be intrinsic to an organization and its leaders, others can be developed through a concerted program of capacity building.

A needs assessment is a prerequisite for any capacity building program. A capacity needs assessment examines an organization’s mandate and strategy, its performance in achieving stated objectives, its external relations, and its internal functioning and resource utilization (Suresh, et.

al. 2007). It analyses actual capacities as they exist (“What is the capacity now in relation to strategic objectives?”), determines capacity building objectives (“Where does it wants to be?”), identifies appropriate capacity building programs and measures (“How can it get there?”), prioritizes capacity enhancing instruments (“What support can donors and others provide to build capacities?”), and finally addresses sustainability to ensure the quality of achievements (“How can capacities be sustained?”) (see Figure -1)

What is the Where does it MoA capacity now want to be (vision, mission)

How can it What capacity enhancing get there initiatives needed (strategy and action) (USAID/CIAFS, others)

How can it stay there (sustainability)

Source: adapted from GTZ (2005) “Module B: Methods and Instruments for the Capacity Building Cycle (Toolkit), version 2, SfDM report.

Data from a needs assessment can be used as a baseline against which an organization can measure its progress and development over time. A holistic approach – looking at the whole organization and how the different parts interrelate – makes it easier to identify capacity needs and priorities than an assessment focusing on subsets.

5. METHODOLOGY

The assessment was conducted at three levels: the federal, regional and district. At the federal level, key informants from State Ministers for Extension, Food Security, and Natural Resources and related directorates were consulted to gauge their perspectives. Federal MoA departments such as planning and programming, human resources, and related departments that provide support services were also consulted for the assessment.

At the regional level, deputies, senior managers of key departments, directorates, experts, agencies and institutes were consulted. In some regions, seed and marketing departments constitute an integral part of the BoAs; in others, they are organized independently of the BoAs as parastatals. In either case, they are functionally related to the BoAs and were therefore consulted to shed light on leadership and functional relationships.

In consultation with the regional bureaus, two AGP districts from each region participated in the assessment, selected according to their strength and weakness in terms of their “level of development.” The assessment team visited each of the selected districts to validate data obtained from the regions.

The MoA is expected to provide a range of services to agricultural stakeholders, including the private sector (broadly defined to include producers, large scale commercial seed multipliers, processors, and other agribusinesses), professional associations, research and academic institutions, NGOs and donors. These stakeholders were consulted in order to assess their perspectives on MoA service delivery, NGOs, research institutions and agribusiness managers and leaders of regional chambers of sectoral associations were interviewed.

Table 1: Number of key informants and focus group discussants

Region Process Owners

Deputy Heads

Directors Private Experts

Interview FGD Tigray 5 2 1 3 5 Amhara 5 1 2 2 3 13

Oromia 1 2 3 2 2 11

SNNPR 5 2 2 4 3 6

Federal 13 2 5 4

The assessment team used a wide range of tools and instruments for data collection. Two to three focus group discussions (FGDs) were constituted at federal and regional levels, each comprising 4-6 persons, from different units and directorates, representing varied technical and professional functions. Key informant interviews were held with process owners, directors and heads of agencies using checklists (Table 1). In addition to the qualitative data, quantitative data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire from a sample population (Table 2). The quantitative assessment captures hard empirical data and benchmarks while the qualitative data captures perceptions. At the district level, the team held informal discussions with district agricultural office heads and other senior persons to validate regional data.

Table 2: Semi-Structured Questionnaire Respondents

Region Number (N) Tigray 32

Amhara 38 Oromia 34

SNNPR 37

Federal A/A 38

Total 179

The assessment made extensive use of strategic documents, including business process re-engineering (BPR) and sector policy papers, and draws findings from a review of previous capacity needs assessments of the Ministry. By weaving qualitative with quantitative information, the team developed a deeper understanding of the functions and capacities of directorates, agencies, and existing capacity gaps.

Quantitative data collected through semi-structured questionnaires were entered in SPSS software, and results are tabulated by region and federal level. Responses to open-ended questions are also coded from questionnaires while information from FGDs and key informants are entered in matrix format in Microsoft Word.

Results of the assessment provide up-to-date information on capacity gaps at the national and regional levels, and can be sued to further inform the design of follow-on activities to strengthen the Ministry’s capacity to effectively implement the agricultural transformation program.

Building the leadership, management and planning and implementation competency of senior staff is the key for agricultural transformation and improved food security in Ethiopia. Finally, for ease of analysis and to propose recommendations, findings were coded and categorized into six broad thematic areas: organisation mapping, mission and goals and objectives; coordination and communication; leadership and management; planning, monitoring and evaluation; human resource management; and service delivery.

6. RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT

I. Organisation Mapping, Mission and Goals

Leaders who are able to inculcate a sense of ownership and commitment among their staff about their mission and goals and the GTP/ATP objectives and strategies stand a better chance of implementing the transformation agenda. MoA staff knowledgeable of the mission, goals, objectives and strategies of the organization have the potential to motivate workers, create a sense of ownership and encourage higher level of commitment. This assessment looks into the functional relationships between the various entities (horizontal and vertical) in the context of the MoA mission and goals and in terms of understanding objectives and strategies of the GTP. The implementation capacity of the MoA is therefore assessed for leadership, management, coordination, reporting, information sharing and communication. The GTP provides the basis for the construction of M&E system with high quality quantitative and qualitative data in order to measure progress and the effectiveness of the policy against the baseline (GTP, 2011) The MoA has reorganized the institutional structures and defined their mandates for the implementation of the GTP/ATP (MoA, 2003 Amharic version). The assessment findings suggest that:

1. The federal MoA and regions have all defined their missions and goals and communicated them to staff. This was affirmed by the vast majority of respondents, ranging from 92% in SNNPR to 100% in Tigray. There is little inter-regional difference in responses (Table 3).

Interestingly, however, a substantial proportion of respondents feel that the missions and goals are inadequately understood by staff. In Oromia and SNNPR, for example, over 60% believe that MoA staff do not have a full comprehension of the missions and goals, in contract to 34% at the federal level. The aggregate for the regions and federal is over 52%, compared to 39% who declared their satisfaction with the mission and goals diffusion process (Table 4).

Table 3: Ministry defined mission and goals and communicated to staff (%)

Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 0.0 100.0 0.0 32 Amhara 2.6 97.4 0.0 38 Oromia 5.9 94.1 0.0 34

SNNP 5.6 91.7 2.8 36

Federal, A/A 2.6 97.4 0.0 38 Total 3.4 96.1 0.6 178

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.187 0.598

Table 4: Satisfaction with diffusion of Ministry mission and goals (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 3.1 50.0 40.6 6.3 32 Amhara 2.6 52.6 42.1 2.6 38 Oromia 3.0 63.6 30.3 3.0 33

SNNP 0.0 61.1 30.6 8.3 36

Federal, A/A 0.0 34.2 50.0 15.8 38 Total 1.7 52.0 39.0 7.3 177

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.274 0.280

2. Respondents in regions and at the federal level stated that the Ministry’s missions and goals are understood by other stakeholders, including the private sector, NGOs, and donor communities (Table 5). This has been strongly disputed by the private sector, however (see section V on service delivery). A significant proportion of the respondents doubted that the communication has been effective.

Table 5: Ministry’s mission and goals are understood outside stakeholders (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 3.1 56.3 25.0 15.6 32 Amhara 5.3 50.0 18.4 26.3 38 Oromia 6.1 48.5 30.3 15.2 33

SNNP 2.7 45.9 32.4 18.9 38

Federal, A/A 2.6 39.5 28.9 28.9 38 Total 3.9 47.8 27.0 21.3 178

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.185 0.898

3. The assessment revealed that Ministry staff believe the Moa’s mission and goals are realistic.

Overall, 58% of the respondents agree that the mission and goals are achievable, but with strong inter-regional variation, ranging from a low 49% in Amhara to 67% at the federal level.

Inter-regional differences in response are significant (Table 6). Staff commitment to mission and goals appears to be positive, but a large proportion of the respondents remain uncertain suggesting the need to do more in communicating mission and goals.

Table 6: MoA staff belief that MoA mission and goals are achievable (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 0.0 40.6 56.3 3.1 32 Amhara 0.0 48.6 48.6 2.7 37 Oromia 0.0 29.4 64.7 5.9 34

SNNP 2.8 38.9 55.6 2.8 36

Federal, A/A 0.0 15.8 65.8 18.4 38 Total 0.6 34.5 58.2 6.8 177

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.338 0.037

4. A significant proportion of the staff at the federal and in the regions believe that MoA strategies and work plans are aligned with the Ministry’s mission and goals. Over 80% of the respondents at the federal level affirmed this. In the regions, this ranges from a low 51% in Amhara to a high 69% in Oromia. The average for the regions and federal is 66%, in contract to 31% who do not believe that the alignment was adequate (Table 7)

Table 7: Strategies and work plans aligned with MoA mission and goals (%

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 3.2 32.3 64.5 0.0 31 Amhara 0.0 40.0 51.4 8.6 35 Oromia 0.0 31.3 68.8 0.0 32

SNNP 0.0 33.3 63.9 2.8 36

Federal, A/A 0.0 19.4 80.6 0.0 36 Total 0.6 31.2 65.9 2.4 170

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.305 0.132

5. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews in regions suggest that MoA leadership has communicated the GTP objectives and strategies to regional and kebele staff.

In the regions, the GTP has been discussed at staff workshops by regional bureau leaders, process owners and department heads. Other senior MoA staff at the regional level was informed of the GTP in a series of workshops. The GTP/ATP were also communicated to other stakeholders outside of the BoAs. Across the board, there appears to be a sense of satisfaction among the senior staff in all regions and federal in the diffusion of GTP strategies and goals.

6. Interestingly, results from the questionnaires do not entirely correspond with this response;

only 44% of respondents (at the federal and regions) are satisfied that the GTP/ATP strategies and goals have been communicated well to staff, compared to 31% who are not satisfied (Table 8). A sizeable proportion, 18%, said they do not know if the Ministry’s GTP has been communicated effectively or not. The difference between regions is significant.

Table 8: Communicating the Ministry’s GTP/ATP to MoA staff (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 6.5 45.2 16.1 32.3 31 Amhara 19.4 27.8 25.0 27.8 36 Oromia 3.3 40.0 50.0 6.7 30

SNNP 5.6 27.8 47.2 19.4 36

Federal, A/A 0.0 17.1 80.0 2.9 35 Total 7.1 31.0 44.0 17.9 168

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.469 0.000

7. This partial success of the diffusion of the GTP/ATP agenda to staff is also captured by about 51% of the respondents in the regions and federal level doubting that staff actually understands the plans. Surprisingly, 71% of respondents in Tigray and 62% in SNNPR feel that the bureau staff are not well versed with the plans, compared to 37% at the federal and Amhara regions and 47% in Oromia (Table 9). This is supported by focus group discussants in Amhara and SNNPR regions, who affirmed that though MoA leadership introduced the GTP to process owners and other senior persons through workshops, many staff do not have a full comprehension of the plan. In Oromia, according to middle level officials and experts, the GTP was communicated to only a few selected BoA staff.

Table 9: Ministry staff understanding of the GTP/ATP (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N) Tigray 3.2 71.0 9.7 16.1 31 Amhara 20.0 37.1 25.7 17.1 35 Oromia 6.7 46.7 40.0 6.7 30

SNNP 2.7 62.2 21.6 13.5 37

Federal, A/A 0.0 37.1 60.0 2.9 35 Total 6.5 50.6 31.5 11.3 168

Symmetric Measures Value Approximate Significance Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.438 0.000

8. At the district level, the understanding of the MoA missions and goals and the strategic objectives of the GTP/ATP is more generic. Validation data from district level interviews suggests that the regional bureaus have not been effective in communicating the GTP agenda to districts. It was noted that even though regions have defined the GTP and ATP for the next five years, it has not been adequately understood by district staff in both Amhara and SNNPR. Data from SNPPR suggests that, while senior district staff were trained on the goals and objectives of the AGP, there was no similar training on GTP. Likewise, the bureau in Amhara region has not cascaded the GTP/ATP effectively to districts. A large proportion of respondents in Tigray and Oromia also doubt the effectiveness of the bureaus in communicating the AGP/ATP to districts (Table 10). In Tigray, district offices confirmed that the mission and goals of the BoA are well defined and understood by all staff, however information on the ATP has not been well cascaded to district and kebele levels. Some districts expressed concern that the plan and targets of GTP and the ATP were given to them from the top levels of the MoA, with minimal input from districts staff.

Table 10: Ministry’s communication of the GTP/ATP objectives and strategies to districts (%)

No Somewhat Yes Don’t Know Total (N)

Tigray 3.1 31.3 53.1 12.5 32 Amhara 13.5 43.2 32.4 10.8 37 Oromia 9.7 25.8 64.5 0.0 31

SNNP 5.6 38.9 47.