The Federal Government of Nigeria has demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the NEEDS Targets. Recognizing the importance of agriculture, as well as the challenges faced by the sector, in providing evidence for policymaking, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR) established the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (APSF), with the International Food Policy Research Institution (IFPRI) as its implementing partner and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) providing financial support. APSF aims to strengthen the capacity of FMAWR to design and implement agricultural policies by addressing the fundamental knowledge, capacity, and communication problems faced by the Government of Nigeria. In order to support evidence-based policymaking, it is essential to identify the current capacity within Nigeria for providing evidence for policymaking and for creating this capacity for future generations. In collaboration with the University of Ibadan, University of Agriculture-Abeokuta, FMAWR, and IFPRI, a consultation workshop on “Sustaining Capacity for Supplying Evidence for Agricultural Rural Development Policies and Strategies was held at the University of Ibadan on April 28, 2008. The objectives of this consultative workshop were to identify: specific capacity challenges confronting university professors who are teaching the next generation of policymakers, policy analysts, researchers and university professors; curriculum gaps within the university programs for building capacity for designing and implementing pro-poor, gender sensitive, and environmentally sustainable agricultural and rural development policies and strategies; employment opportunities for the university graduates in agricultural economics and extension and the required skills; existing capacity for undertaking agriculture and rural development policy research; and current methods used by researchers to convey their results to decisionmakers and other stakeholders.

Afghanistan-ICARDA programs have field tested a range of rural development approaches and practices. Many of these are ripe for scaling-up at national level and can contribute to the EU-Afghanistan National Priority Programs (NPP) 2017-2021. The rural development plans of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have been supported by ICARDA – the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas – since 2002, in areas including: provision of seeds and new crop varieties, improving management of land and water, introducing new agricultural production technologies and farming practices, and enterprise building for rural communities, with a special focus on women’s empowerment. These programs have helped develop the national agriculture sector – particularly in a number of remote areas – and the rebuilding the agricultural genetic diversity that was lost during the country’s conflict years. Development and research programs over the past two decades were funded by the European Union, Australia, USAID, IFAD, OFID, JICA (Japan), UKAID, The Netherlands, IDRC (Canada) and FAO.

The purpose of this report is to provide national- and state-level policymakers, private-sector investors, civil society, and donors with an analysis of the rural economy of Mon State and pathways to improved prosperity for its population. The analysis is based on a representative survey of rural households, which make up 73 percent of Mon State’s 2 million residents, and extensive interviews with farmers, traders, processors, local leaders, and government officials. Whereas some parts of the Mon State economy are quite dynamic, such as construction, others are stagnant and far from reaching their full potential. Furthermore, the dynamic sectors are heavily dependent on remittances from migrants to neighboring countries. The current pattern of donor investment is heavily focused on necessary infrastructure and energy investments, but with only very limited support to productive sectors, especially agriculture and fisheries. Major investments in education, both formal and vocational training, are also necessary to support the growth of a modern economy. The analysis in this report identifies options for more balanced growth, leading to a vibrant economy in which returning migrants can invest and find employment.

Bridging the research and policy divide remains a top priority on the Nigerian federal government's agenda. This renewed commitment paved the way for the Agricultural Support Facility Project (APSF), which seeks to, among other things, create an environment and produce evidence on specific policy issues facing the Nigerian agricultural sector that allows for a more inclusive design and implementation of evidence-based, pro-poor, gender sensitive, and environmentally sustainable agricultural and rural development policies and strategies in Nigeria. The conviction that the policymaking process should benefit from stakeholders' active participation led APSF to organize a stakeholder workshop to serve as a forum for addressing issues emanating from the evidence being generated by the facility. The workshop objectives were to: share progress on implementing APSF; discuss current research findings; and dialogue with stakeholders on upcoming activities (see Appendix A for Agenda). The workshop brought together participants from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR), the National Planning Commission (NPC), the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF), the Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry (FMCI), the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the donor community, academia, farmers' organizations and the private sector. This executive summary provides an overview of the research findings, highlights key group discussion points, and provides next steps.

This study assessed the capacity for designing and implementing agricultural and rural development policies, strategies, and programs in Nigeria. Data for this study were derived from initial consultations at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR), Federal Ministry of Women affairs and Social Development (FMWASD), and the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) early in 2008. Two consultation workshops were also held, one for relevant staff in the ministries, parastatals, and NGOs; and the other for relevant university professors and researchers. This was followed by a review of relevant literature and a more detailed survey of institutions and individuals. A sample of relevant institutions and individuals were purposively selected from the Federal Capital, Abuja, Oyo, Kaduna, Enugu Ogun, Benue, and Abia States. At each location, trained data collectors compiled a list of state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and universities where 32 institutional questionnaires were administered, of which 29 were valid for further analysis. Similarly, 320 individual questionnaires were administered, of which 183 were valid for further analysis. The null hypothesis that job satisfaction and institutional incentive was independent of selected background information (gender, position, years spent on job, nature of institution, and level of formal education) of the experts was tested using the Chi square analysis. The respondents were mostly male (23 of 24) and were either heads of departments (10 of 24) or directors, their deputies and their equivalents (12 of 24). Most of the respondents (22 of 24) exhibited an indifferent perception to the general environment and processes involved in policymaking. Reported capacity- strengthening efforts (for 13 of the 24 institutions surveyed) amounted to an average cost of US$76.98 per person per day for the 1-3 weeks training provided. While the practice of strategic planning was widespread, mission statements were widely used in only two-fifths of selected institutions; near-term strategies were widely used in about one third; and long-term visions were widely used in a little more than one third. Even the practice of participation in planning from a broad range of personnel within the institution was only widely used in one third of the selected intuitions. Similarly, written guidelines were widely available (22 of 24), but fully disseminated in less than half of the selected institutions. However, respondents claimed that the financial guidelines were being followed strictly, but half of the respondents (12 of 24) did not know the frequency of receiving reports from the accounting system. Most of the selected institutions had both a human resource management unit (70.8 percent) and dedicated staff training centers (54.2 percent), but about half of the respondents neither knew the regularity of review of staff training needs nor when last staff training needs were assessed. The implication of this is that the extent to which the training exercises match the skill gaps of staff and capacity requirements of the institutions were unknown. Between 75–80 percent of the selected institutions engaged in some collaborative programs and linkages with other government institutions, relevant NGOs, international development partners, training institutions, and research institutions. These collaborative ventures worked mainly through cost sharing, exchange, joint engagements, and sharing of reports. Over 70 percent of the individual respondents (experts) had at least a Master of Science (MSc) or its equivalent. The majority (79.7 percent) were male who had spent more than 10 years on the job. About half of the experts worked with universities, compared to 13.1 percent in the ministries and 37.7 percent in parastatals. Their expertise cut across a broad range of subjects relevant for designing and implementing agricultural and rural development policies— more than one quarter were experts in agricultural economics, extension, communication, rural development, and rural sociology. The most frequently mentioned (51.4 percent) person responsible for agricultural and rural development programs, policies, and strategies was the officer-in-charge, but the list of stakeholders was long and varied. Over 60 percent of the respondents stated that at least some consultation was done with stakeholders through face-to-face communication at stakeholder fora, meetings, conferences, summits, and talks. According to the respondents, the major concerns of stakeholders about agricultural and rural development policies, programs, or strategies were the extent to which they achieve stated goals. More than half of the respondents claimed that research evidence such as the achievements of previous and on going programs, results of fresh surveys, and extension and On farm Adaptive Research (OFAR) reports were used to support the development of agricultural and rural strategies, policies, and programs. This evidence was obtained mainly from agricultural institutions and universities as well as available reports, journals, and publications. The respondents stated that the major sources of funds for the process of agricultural and rural development policy were the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), The World Bank, state and local governments, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They also stated that the various agricultural and rural development policies, strategies, and programs largely benefited the poor (52.5 percent). It was noteworthy that respondents preceived that the number of women at the ministerial and research levels of agricultural and rural development was less than 1 percent. Even at the level of rural farming communities, only 15.3 percent of the respondents felt that there were more women. Furthermore, only 27.4 percent of the experts incorporated environmental issues in their work and only 20.4 percent undertook environmental analysis in their work. Finally, 91.3 percent were indifferent to their job, meaning that it would be difficult for them to perform to the best of their abilities without allowing them greater freedom in the performance of their jobs and work out a reasonable and acceptable reward package for the job done. The results of the Chi square tests showed that the experts’ perception of job satisfaction and institutional incentives is independent of all the background variables considered. The main capacity gaps for designing and implementing agricultural and rural development policies in Nigeria included 1) the need to entrench democratic principles and transparent leadership and 2) to bridge the gap between universities, research institutions, and policymaking and implementing entities. There was also a limited understanding of the relationships between institutional, human, and material resources versus impact of policy on target end-users at every level in the policy design, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Finally, there was a need for the institutionalization of effective measures for tracking changes in the role of evidence in strategic, gender-sensitive planning, through regular monitoring and evaluation, impact assessment, adequate documentation, and commitment to utilize the results of the exercise. Efforts should also be targeted towards improving the quality, gender sensitivity, timeliness, and circulation of policy-relevant evidence.

The purpose of this report is to provide information and analysis to government, civil society, and donors interested in improving the well-being of the rural population of Mon State. Specifically, the report analyzes the different sources of income for rural households, as well as their socioeconomic characteristics, with a view to identifying potential pathways to improving incomes, especially for poor households, and stimulating inclusive rural growth. The overall picture that emerges is one of an economy heavily dependent on services for local employment and on international migration for income. Like a two-legged stool, such an economy is potentially unstable in the face of external shocks. Diversification of the Mon State economy, including diversification and increased productivity within the agricultural sector, will lessen the relative dependence on external migration remittances and result in more resilient growth in the future

The present study analyses the income, saving and saving gap among agricultural households (HHs) to understand their investment behaviour, using the data obtained from the NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (NAFIS) 2016-17, which was conducted by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). The NAFIS had the crop year 2015-16 (kharif and rabi seasons) as the reference year. It covered more than 40,000 households, of which 55% were agricultural HHs and the remaining were non-agricultural HHs. The sample was drawn from all the states, and covered farmers with different size of land holdings. Direct enquiries were made about HHs income, expenditure on food and non-food items including farm inputs, amount deposited in bank and invested in financial and physical assets, outreach of institutional credit, financial inclusion and so on.

In this technical guide we describe the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) concept developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute in response to the capacity gaps typically found in many African countries for generating and translating evidence into action. SAKSS is defined as a collaborative network that acts as a mechanism by which relevant evidence is generated and used to inform agricultural and rural development strategy formulation and implementation. SAKSS brings together two important concepts—“strategic analysis” and “knowledge support systems.” The strategic analysis component describes an integrated framework of analysis that helps identify strategy and investment options for achieving high-end development goals. This analysis is carried out within the context of a knowledge support system, a network that serves the evidence needs of strategy formulation and implementation. By providing a platform for exchange, information, data analysis, and knowledge can be compiled, synthesized, and packaged into evidence that is supplied on a timely and reliable basis to be of use during strategy processes.

Collective action has intrinsic value. Being part of a group and participating in meeting common objectives provide direct benefits to individuals. In addition, collective action has an instrumental value; it can help individuals, groups, and communities achieve common goals. In Ethiopia, a study found that one form of collective action, iddir, or burial societies, helped households in the study areas attenuate the impact of illness.