ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 4 July 2008 Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (SAKSS) A Guidebook for Practitioners Michael Johnson and Kathleen Flaherty     Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 4 July 2008 Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (SAKSS) A Guidebook for Practitioners Michael Johnson and Kathleen Flaherty ii    About ReSAKSS The Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) is an Africa-wide network of regional nodes supporting the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), in collaboration with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Africa-based centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to facilitate the implementation of the AU/NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The ReSAKSS nodes offer high-quality analyses to improve policymaking, track progress, document success, and derive lessons for the implementation of the CAADP agenda. ReSAKSS is jointly funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The nodes are implemented by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), in collaboration with regional and national partners. About the Working Paper series The goal of the ReSAKSS Working Paper series is to provide timely access to preliminary research and data analysis results that relate directly to strengthening ongoing discussions and critical commentaries on the future direction of African agriculture and rural development. The series undergoes a standard peer-review process involving one reviewer either from within the ReSAKSS network of partners or from an external organization. It is expected that most of the working papers eventually will be published in some other form and that their content may be revised further. For more information, contact: Coordinator Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System c/o International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1002 Telephone: +1 202 862 5667 Facsimile: +1 202 467 4439 E-mail: resakss-africa@cgiar.org www.resakss.org iii    The authors The authors are researchers in the Development Strategies and Governance Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).     Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of a number of reviewers during the preparation of this guidebook. The contribution of many other researchers within and outside of IFPRI during the initial inception and later refinement of the SAKSS concept is well noted. In particular, the early thinking of Peter Hazell (while still serving as a Division Director at IFPRI), Jeff Hill (USAID, Bureau for Africa), and Stanley Wood (IFPRI), shaped many of the ideas inherent in this concept for Africa. The authors are indebted to them. In later years, Shenggen Fan (IFPRI) and the entire Development Strategy and Governance Division at IFPRI helped refine the concept as it moved from concept to application in many of the Division’s country support programs. The assistance and earlier writings of Danielle Resnick, and later those of Tsitsi Makombe, were also very helpful.                                         Johnson, M. and Flaherty, K. 2008. Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems: A Guidebook for Practitioners. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 4. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).      Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons  Attribution 3.0 License.     iv    Table of Contents     Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... iv  List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................. vi  Acronyms....................................................................................................................... vii  Preface: A Brief History of SAKSS ............................................................................... ix  Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1  Challenges and lessons of development planning and implementation .............................................. 1  Defining SAKSS ...................................................................................................................................... 2  Goals of SAKSS ...................................................................................................................................... 3  Drawing lessons from application ......................................................................................................... 4  Purpose of the Guidebook .................................................................................................................... 6  The Strategic Analysis Concept .................................................................................... 8  What are the economy‐wide options and trade‐offs for reaching high‐end development goals? ...... 9  How can development strategies be geographically targeted to address the diversity of  opportunities and challenges within a country?................................................................................. 11  How should resources be mobilized and allocated across the different economic sectors and  geographic regions? ............................................................................................................................ 13  How can the strategy be best designed and sequenced to improve the effectiveness of its  implementation?................................................................................................................................. 15  What has been the impact of policies and investments on outcomes? ............................................. 16  The Knowledge Support System Concept .................................................................. 20  Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................................... 20  Underlying principles and approaches ................................................................................................ 22  From Concept to Application: Establishing a Country SAKSS ................................ 27  Step One: Conducting stakeholder analysis and needs assessment ................................................... 28  Step Two: Formalizing an operational and governance structure ...................................................... 29  Step Three: Developing a collaborative strategic analysis agenda ..................................................... 32  Step Four: Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation system .............................................................. 33  Step Five: Developing a knowledge management and communication strategy ............................... 34  Step Five: Developing a capacity strengthening strategy ................................................................... 35  Step Six: Managing for results and drawing lessons ........................................................................... 35  From Concept to Application: Examples .................................................................... 41  Uganda ................................................................................................................................................ 41  Ethiopia ............................................................................................................................................... 42  Ghana .................................................................................................................................................. 43  Nigeria ................................................................................................................................................. 44  Rwanda ............................................................................................................................................... 46  Mozambique ....................................................................................................................................... 46  Africa‐wide efforts to support CAADP and regional strategy ............................................................. 47  Summary of early lessons learned ...................................................................................................... 49  Summary Conclusion ................................................................................................... 51  References ..................................................................................................................... 53  Appendix A: Tools for Analyzing Strategic Priorities and Impact ............................ 57  A.1 Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Model ........................................................................ 57  v    A.1.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 58  A.2 Economy-wide Multimarket (EMM) Model ................................................................................. 61  A.2.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 62  A.3 Int’l Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) ............... 65  A.3.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 66  A.4 Spatial Analysis of Development Options .................................................................................. 67  A.4.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 67  A.5 Econometric impact analysis of public investments .................................................................. 70  A.5.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 71  A.6 DREAM (Dynamic Research EvaluAtion for Management) .................................................... 80  A.6.1 Conceptual Framework and Methodology ................................................................................ 80  A.7 Selecting Indicators for a Monitoring and Evaluation System ................................................. 83  Appendix B: Terms of Reference of Country SAKSS Coordinator / Manager ........ 90  Appendix C: A Generic SAKSS Communication Strategy ........................................ 92  Appendix D: SAKSS Stakeholder and Partner Institutions and Organizations ...... 94  Appendix E: Glossary of Selected Terms ................................................................... 96  vi   List of Figures and Tables   Figure 3.1: The Structure of a SAKSS Knowledge Support System within the Strategy Process ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 4.1: Example of a SAKSS Program Work Breakdown Structure ........................ 37 Figure A.1: Overview of the Agents and Linkages Underlying a CGE Model ................ 59 Figure A.2: Government Spending and Poverty ............................................................ 71 Figure A.3: An Underlying Logical Framework of CAADP for M&E ............................... 89 Table 1.1 What SAKSS is and is not ................................................................................ 5 Table 4.1: Example of a Logical Framework for a SAKSS Program ............................. 38 Table A.1: Variables Required for Public Investment and Poverty Reduction Study ..... 78 vii   Acronyms AGORA Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture AKIS Agricultural Knowledge and Information System APSF Agricultural Policy Support Facility (Nigeria) ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa AU African Union CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CGE Computable General Equilibrium CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COMESA Common Market of East and Southern Africa CORAF/WECAR D West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development CSSP Country Strategy Support Program DFID Department for International Development (UK) DREAM Dynamic Research EvaluAtion for Management DSG Development Strategy and Governance ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EDRI Ethiopian Development Research Institute EMM Economywide Multimarket ESSP Ethiopia Strategy Support Program FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FMAWR Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources GIS Geographic Information Systems GSSP Ghana Strategy Support Program ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics ICT Information and Communication Technology IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IMPACT International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade IPAR Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (Rwanda) ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research IWMI International Water Management Institute M&E monitoring and evaluation MDGs Millennium Development Goals MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning NAC National Advisory Committee NARS National Agricultural Research System NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NSSP Nigeria Strategy Support Program OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OLS Ordinary Least Squares PMA Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper R&D research and development viii   RECs Regional Economic Communities REKSS Rural Economy Knowledge Support System ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SADC Southern African Development Community SAKSS Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SAM Social Accounting Matrix SCRIP Strategic Criteria for Rural Investments in Productivity SIDA Swedish Agency for International Development Cooperation SNV Netherlands Development Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development USSP Uganda Strategy Support Program WFP World Food Program (UN) WSM Water Simulation Model   ix   Preface: A Brief History of SAKSS   Originally, a Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) was defined as a system that provides timely, credible, and evidence-based knowledge and analysis to inform agricultural and rural development strategies. The SAKSS concept was conceived by researchers at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) based on its many years of providing key data analysis, policy research, and capacity strengthening to governments and donors in Africa as they formulated and implemented their development strategies. We offer a brief history of its inception here. Evolving out of a small IFPRI project in Uganda, the SAKSS concept was initially adopted in 2003 by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as a tool to support the design and implementation of the U.S. Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA). The SAKSS program helped USAID articulate its strategy and investment priorities within regional and select country programs. This program involved undertaking strategic analysis designed to fill knowledge gaps quickly, prioritize future investments, and provide guidance for monitoring and evaluation of impact (see Johnson et al. 2003). It did not take very long for the SAKSS concept and the results of analysis for IEHA to begin to generate interest among African governments and the broader development community. The launching of the ASARECA/IFPRI report (2004) played a key role, by illustrating how a logical series of analyses can contribute to the priority setting exercises of development strategy.1 The report came out at a time when African governments were increasingly being challenged, especially by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) process, to show evidence of how their chosen strategies would lead to growth and poverty reduction. The demands for greater evidence-based decisionmaking in Africa occurred during a period when IFPRI was also undergoing some structural changes of its own. In addition to the creation of a new research division on development strategies and governance, the institution moved towards greater decentralization with the setting up of country and regional program offices in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Within Africa, the application of the SAKSS concept quickly proved to be a constructive framework for launching new IFPRI country programs—later referred to as Country Strategy Support Programs (CSSPs). The CSSPs in Ethiopia, Ghana, Uganda, and Nigeria have since expanded on the original SAKSS concept to include a broader range of analyses and knowledge systems approaches. At the multi-country level, the SAKSS concept was also adopted as a framework to establish a regional information and knowledge support system for supporting the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Referred to as Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems (ReSAKSS), a node was set up in each of three African regional economic communities (Common Market of East and Southern Africa (COMESA), Southern African Development Community (SADC), and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)) under the guidance and cooperation of IFPRI and four other African-based CGIAR centers (International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), International Institute                                                              1 This report was later published as Omamo et al. 2006. x   of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and International Water Management Institute (IWMI)). Today, both the country and regional programs share the SAKSS principles of a) providing timely and credible analysis and data to policymakers and development practitioners to strengthen the evidence during deliberations about future investments and policies; b) promoting locally relevant research and analysis based on need; and c) working to strengthen local capacities for analysis and evidence-based dialogue. The country programs’ priorities are guided by national advisory committees while ReSAKSS nodes are guided by steering committees headed by each of the major regional economic communities. The committees are designed to represent key stakeholders from the government, universities, private sector, policy think-tanks, and donors at both the country and regional level. On the supply side, the programs bring together a collaborative mix of local and international teams of researchers, practitioners, and institutions to promote the sharing of data, expertise, and tools. As the demand for the establishment of a country SAKSS in many African countries continues to grow, especially in support of CAADP implementation, the need for IFPRI to prepare a guidebook on SAKSS has become critical. The target audience is initially the ReSAKSS nodes currently operating and tasked with setting up country SAKSS (whenever such demand exists) as part of their support to CAADP. However, the guidebook can also serve as a practical guide for any other non-governmental or governmental organization that wishes to set up similar systems. The guidebook primarily builds on the experience of IFPRI and its country support programs which have been in operation for at least one to three years. It also builds on the experience of the regional programs which have been in full operation for a lesser period of time. Both sets of programs offer a real-world opportunity to test the application of the SAKSS concept, draw comparative lessons, and guide future efforts at establishing similar systems elsewhere in Africa and the developing world. Moreover, as it is being applied in different countries (and regions) and under a different set of initial conditions, a review of experiences to date will also help improve our understanding of how such systems can become more effective at linking the suppliers of knowledge, the knowledge itself, and the users of knowledge during the design and implementation of strategies. 1   Introduction   More than 1 billion people worldwide are living in extreme poverty—meaning they earn less than US$1 per day—and many suffer from hunger and malnutrition. In developing countries, about 25 percent of children under the age of five are malnourished. Encouragingly, many developing countries have committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) including halving poverty and hunger by 2015. In Sub- Saharan Africa, where the problem is particularly acute, policymakers have been called on to allocate more resources and design strategies to accelerate agricultural growth in order to meet the poverty and hunger MDG. Their efforts are reflected in the poverty reduction and agricultural and rural development strategies being formulated by individual countries, and in regional development initiatives such as the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) of the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).   Challenges and lessons of development planning and implementation   The push for effective strategies to meet specific development goals has revived questions about the process of creating and implementing those strategies. Many past studies have documented the failure of planning for implementation (Brinkerhoff 1996; Crosby 1996; Killick 1976; Montjoy and O’Toole 1979; Wildavsky 1973). In particular, the inadequacies of central planning in the past have led to calls for strategy formulation that is evidence-based, decentralized, participatory, and accompanied by integrated monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, under the assumption that such mechanisms improve the implementation and outcome of a strategy. Strategies are now seen as “living” documents that allow adaptation to changing conditions in recognition of the non- linear and dynamic nature of the strategy design and implementation process. Many different variables can affect how well a strategy is implemented, including leadership, participation, prioritization, timing, and degree of organizational and process integration (Gijsbers et al. 2001). In addition to these factors, the availability of political, financial, and technical resources to implement the strategy must be taken into account during the strategy design process (Thomas and Grindle 1990). The complexity of these new strategies necessitates the use of evidence to accurately assess the choices available to a government and the tradeoffs inherent in any choice they make. To supply this evidence, the country must have a solid foundation of analytical capacity throughout its planning agencies and academic institutions. In addition, governments need policymakers who have the motivation and ability to demand and use the information (Omamo 2004). Knowledge systems can help bridge the distance between supply and demand by establishing effective mechanisms by which both sides can be more closely tied as part of ongoing dialogue and decisionmaking processes. These mechanisms effectively link suppliers and users of knowledge through the creation and use of knowledge products. Knowledge systems for informing strategy are lacking in many African countries. Data collection and analysis suffer from a shortage of attention and resources. Knowledge sharing is often minimal, with planning ministries operating in isolation, and uncoordinated ministries, research institutes, and statistical bureaus. Government 2   agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and development partners carry out parallel and overlapping processes of information gathering. Often development partners have more input into the strategy process than the national civil society does. The M&E frameworks of many strategies rarely deal with issues of causality and attribution between investments, policy changes, and outcomes. Knowledge itself is not value-neutral, as it reflects the power structure, discourse, and narratives of the institutions in which it is created. Recent studies on bridging research and policy highlight many of these gaps. One of the largest systematic evaluations of research-policy links in developing countries found that political context had the greatest effect on whether research influenced the policymaking process (Court and Young 2003). More open political systems and processes and strong demand from policymakers can increase the use of research, while opposing vested interests can limit its impact. Other important factors are the relevance and credibility of the research, the extent of external influences, and the type of knowledge systems in place to help link researchers and policymakers. These links, categorized as feedback, dialogue, and collaboration, are the basis for communication and involve perceptions of trust, legitimacy and participation. Networks and policy communities, both formal and informal, were found to improve such research and policy linkages. In particular, feedback loops among the stakeholders and throughout the design, implementation, and monitoring processes can help to identify problems and allow adjustments to be made if needed. Many factors ultimately influence the direction and effectiveness of a strategy design and its successful implementation. A strategy must rely on the best scientific and local knowledge available. It must be tailored to local conditions and needs, but must also embrace the interests of a diverse group of stakeholders. It must remain flexible and dynamic so as to accommodate refinements in its design and objectives over time as socioeconomic and political conditions change. It is a complex and daunting task indeed. The large capacity gap in Africa is especially challenging and exacerbates the already weak links between supply and demand of knowledge and information. For example, local universities rarely undertake research directly relevant to local decisionmaking needs. National institutions and agencies seldom have sufficient capacities and experience to provide the kinds of analysis and information needed to guide strategy formulation and implementation. The Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (SAKSS) framework and concept has been developed in response to these serious capacity gaps typically found in many African countries.   Defining SAKSS   SAKSS is defined as a collaborative network that acts as a mechanism by which relevant evidence is generated and utilized to inform agricultural and rural development strategy formulation and implementation. SAKSS brings together two important concepts – strategic analysis and knowledge support systems. Strategic analysis is an integrated framework of analysis that helps identify policy and investment options for achieving high-end development goals. This type of analysis can 3   guide a credible action plan of policy and investment priorities for the sectors that contribute to the achievement of desirable development outcomes (e.g. growth and poverty reduction). Such prioritization implies finding answers to a range of strategic questions such as: What is the role of agriculture in promoting overall economic growth and poverty reduction in the different stages of development given a country’s natural resource endowments? How should public resources be mobilized and allocated among different sectors, sub-sectors, and regions? Answers to these questions can help arm policymakers with useful evidence on the kinds of tradeoffs and outcomes associated with their policy and investment choices. The strategic analysis is carried out within the context of a knowledge support system which provides a dynamic network platform for serving the evidence needs of strategy formulation and implementation. This network includes individuals such as researchers, policymakers, and development practitioners and institutions such as government agencies, research institutes, development organizations, and private and civil society groups. These individuals and institutions are linked through collaborative strategic analysis, capacity strengthening, and dialogue. Through this network platform, 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. Goals of SAKSS   The overall goals of SAKSS are to:   Create networks of institutions and individuals who supply and use data and information. Bring strategic analysis to bear on identifying key investments, institutional mechanisms, and policy options, as well as the implementation of selected options. This includes harmonizing and generating standardized information for development planning and M&E, to be available as global public goods. Develop effective knowledge management systems that build upon existing data and information, analytical tools, accumulated knowledge, and African and international analytical capacity, in order to inform and guide future agricultural and rural development strategies. Build and strengthen national and regional capacities for policy analysis, monitoring and evaluation, and strategy formulation, and in the process, bridge the research and policy divide. The goals are intended to be broad and ambitious by design to allow sufficient flexibility of how programs that adopt such systems can evolve and adapt to local conditions while still maintaining their public goods nature. Therefore, how these hefty goals have been translated and adopted within each program on the ground, either as part of IFPRI’s country support programs (CSSPs) or as part of the multi-country Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) effort, has differed depending on local demand, existing institutional linkages and capacities for data and analysis, and level of interest and funding within each country. For example, at the multi-country level, 4   the ReSAKSS nodes have initially focused much of their attention on mobilizing networks of individuals and organizations within each of their regions. Through these networks, the nodes are helping to fill critical knowledge gaps, as well as bringing together a stock of knowledge, expertise, and tools, as countries begin to shape and align their agricultural strategies within the CAADP framework. The networks are in turn helping to strengthen local capacities to produce and apply credible evidence during policy dialogues about shaping future development priorities.   Drawing lessons from application   At the country level, SAKSS programs associated with IFPRI’s CSSPs have helped contribute to the increased awareness and confidence among African countries and their development partners of the important role of agriculture for growth and poverty reduction. This recognition is based on a range of SAKSS-type analyses that clearly show the significance of agriculture for achieving both growth and poverty reduction objectives (see, for example, Diao et al. 2007). Additionally, the work has helped draw attention to the need for expanding investments in rural roads, productivity improvements (especially for staple crops and livestock), and harmonization of trade, grades, and standards across borders (Johnson 2005). The question of how much SAKSS programs have been able to effectively maximize the link between suppliers and users of information and knowledge at either the country or regional level is more difficult to discern without a more structured and qualitative assessment.2 Some of the early lessons (reviewed in more detail in section 5) substantiate the evidence in the general literature on bridging the research and policy divide. The lessons provide a useful guide and benchmark upon which existing SAKSS programs can be evaluated and improved on in the future. These include:   The SAKSS framework should be flexible enough to adapt to and take into account local conditions in terms of the stage of development, the social and political context, institutional capacity, and the structure of the economy, as well as the effectiveness of existing knowledge systems in linking research evidence with the decisionmaking environment; Evidence-based policy research is most successfully translated into policies when demand for policy information comes from the policymakers themselves. Policymakers pay more attention to policy research results when they are timely and credible, easily accessible, when they are jointly generated with their own staff, and when they are convinced that their interests have been acknowledged by the researchers; Implementation of policy advice is enhanced when attention is paid to continuous policy dialogue with key policymakers, executive government officials, and parliamentarians. This offers the best way to impact or influence specific policies                                                              2 Several researchers at IFPRI have launched a comparative and qualitative analysis of existing country and regional SAKSS programs in order to draw useful lessons and guide future efforts to improve the links between suppliers and users of information, and ultimately impact on policies and strategies. Details of the study can be shared upon request. 5   or decisions even though it is often difficult to systematically trace how people have used the information that was generated and disseminated; Policy research and analysis capacity has to be built incrementally and sustainably, which means on-going support for key government policy agencies as well as encouragement of a think-tank culture for producing high quality, policy relevant research products; The information and analysis generated, analyzed, and communicated must be perceived by the end-user (local practitioners, analysts, government, private sector, and farming community) as salient and relevant to local knowledge, expectations, and needs. One important lesson derived from the experience of existing SAKSS programs and substantiated in the literature is the mechanism by which knowledge and information is generated and shared in order to effectively contribute to policy dialogue and decisionmaking. It must be a mechanism or process that is perceived as country-driven and country-owned. In other words, it is generally through locally derived mechanisms or processes that policy research and analysis has more effectively led to extensive policy dialogue, capacity building, and impact at the national level. It is not only the quality of analysis and research that matters, but the process by which it is generated and communicated. Drawing lessons from the application of the SAKSS concept is a useful research activity in its own right. Using a “learning-by-doing” approach, different approaches and mechanisms in which information and knowledge is generated, analyzed and communicated can be tested with respect to how well they inform and impact on different decisionmaking processes and environments. After all, the design and implementation of development strategies is a process, not a static and one time effort. Moreover, such processes involve local political and socio-economic realities that will vary widely across countries and thus require different approaches in how analytical and scientific evidence can come to bear on strategy formulation and implementation. To summarize, we provide a definition of what SAKSS is and is not in Table 1.1 below.   Table 1.1 What SAKSS is and is not What it is What it is NOT Overall A collaborative network that acts as a mechanism by which relevant evidence is generated and utilized to inform agricultural and rural development strategy formulation and implementation. It brings together two important concepts –strategic analysis and knowledge support systems. A silver bullet and a “one-size- fits-all” approach to informing the design and implementation of development strategy As a Strategic Analysis Approach An integrated framework of analysis that helps identify policy and investment options for achieving high-end development goals. The analysis uses a combination of tools, approaches and synthesis in a flexible manner in order to consider diverse local circumstances and needs with respect to: capacity A single integrated model, analytical framework, or a prepackaged and comprehensive tool box, for assessing investment and policy priorities for achieving 6   for generating and using analytical evidence; extent of data availability; existing knowledge gaps; national goals; and timing of the strategy design and implementation process. high-end development goals As a Knowledge Support System Provides a dynamic network platform for serving the evidence needs of strategy formulation and implementation. This network includes individuals such as researchers, policymakers, and development practitioners, and institutions such as government agencies, research institutes, development organizations, and private and civil society groups. Through this network platform, 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. These individuals and institutions are linked through collaborative strategic analysis, capacity strengthening, and dialogue. A top down development planning and monitoring and evaluation system to serve the interests of national governments and donors while promoting policy research and analysis as an end in itself Contribution to Research Provides an experimental and learning-by-doing environment for researchers interested in improving our understanding of how to make credible evidence and analysis come to bear during the process of designing and implementing development strategies, including the alternative approaches for strengthening these links under different circumstances. A single “how to” manual on bringing research to bear on the development and implementation of development strategy     Purpose of the Guidebook   The purpose of this guide is primarily to present a useful and practical guideline on how the SAKSS concept can be applied elsewhere at the country level based on these experiences to date. The need for such a guidebook has come about due to a growing demand for the kinds of applications offered by the SAKSS as many more countries express their wish to establish similar knowledge support systems. This demand is occurring at a rapid pace in Sub-Saharan Africa as countries are challenged with staying committed to shared development goals (e.g. achieving the MDG and CAADP goals). The endorsement of the SAKSS concept by NEPAD, African governments, the donor group of eight (G8), and other development partners has also fueled the demand. The establishment of the ReSAKSS nodes is one of the responses to this growing demand, to help to facilitate and guide the establishment of country SAKSS as an integral part of the CAADP agenda.   The guidebook is therefore intended to serve: Practitioners who are helping to set up country SAKSS nodes via the ReSAKSS nodes, African government and development partners who wish to use SAKSS for their evidence needs, and Policy analysts and researchers who wish to participate in such a network. 7     The guidebook has been organized around four principal areas. The first two sections review the SAKSS concept to provide a background definition of its objectives and underlying principles. The first section discusses the strategic analysis component which is intended to answer a logical and sequential set of questions that are typically asked during the process of formulating and implementing strategies. The corresponding methods and tools used to answer such questions are reviewed in more detail in the Appendix. The second section presents and discusses a broader framework for a knowledge support system that links producers and users of locally relevant data, information, and knowledge to inform and guide country and regional strategy. This system essentially combines the strategic analysis, other knowledge products, with various mechanisms to link them with the many actors on both the supply and demand side. The last two sections provide guidance on how to set up a country SAKSS program, drawing from the experience among existing programs. Finally, an appendix offers a series of economic tools useful for strategic analysis, including a terms of reference of a SAKSS program coordinator or manager, a communication strategy of a SAKSS program, and a glossary of the definition of terms. 8   The Strategic Analysis Concept3   In the context of SAKSS, strategic analysis is an integrated framework of analysis that helps identify investment and policy options for achieving high-end development goals. For most developing countries, the goals are economic growth and poverty reduction and targets might include a certain increase in average incomes or, as with CAADP, a 6 percent agricultural growth rate and 10 percent share of government spending in agriculture. The analysis is strategic so long as it is part of a broader framework to identify future development options for reaching these high-end development targets. The framework consists of a series of logically sequenced questions that help guide the analysis and lead to the identification and implementation of key investment and policy options for achieving national goals and targets. The sequence and types of analysis are not fixed, however. Different local contexts may require a different set of analyses. SAKSS has been primarily developed for countries with a large agricultural sector. Therefore it focuses on options that target rural development and smallholder agriculture as a source of economic growth and poverty reduction. In this chapter, we review some of the strategic level questions typically asked during the formulation and implementation of an agricultural and rural development strategy. Various economic tools and methodologies exist which can be used to analyze some of these questions further, with varying degrees of sophistication and known limitations. Which tools and approaches are used will not only depend on the question being asked but on many other important considerations such as: the availability of data and expertise, time to undertake the analysis, cost, access to analytical tools and economic models, and so forth. Appendix A summarizes these in more detail. Where there are already existing studies and sufficient evidence to draw from, new analysis may not be necessary.   The chapter is organized and sequenced around five goal-level questions, each with a corresponding series of follow up questions that help provide key evidence for informing the political process of designing and implementing a development strategy:4 1. What are the economy-wide options and trade-offs for reaching high-end development goals? 2. How can development strategies be targeted to address the diversity of opportunities and challenges within a country? 3. How should resources be mobilized and allocated across the different economic sectors and geographic regions? 4. How can the strategy be best designed and sequenced to improve the effectiveness of its implementation? 5. What has been the impact of policies and investments on outcomes?                                                              3 Section 2 is based on Johnson, M. and D. Resnick. 2004. “Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems for Rural Development Strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa.” DSGD Discussion Paper 14. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI. 4 The emphasis on political process is purposeful. Local stakeholders must be involved throughout the process of generating and disseminating results of analysis, not only in order to validate the assumptions and data in the analysis, but to ensure the questions being addressed by the analysis are timely, salient and relevant. This process is described further in the ‘knowledge support system’ component of a SAKSS in the next chapter. 9   Under each of these, we review: Why is this question important? What are some corresponding questions for strategy? What is needed to answer these questions? Are there applications to draw from?     What are the economy-wide options and trade-offs for reaching high-end development goals?   Why is this question important?   Most developing countries have set targets for achieving high-end development goals such as economic growth, poverty reduction and food security. From the outset, therefore, it is useful to first establish the country’s current situation and whether its trajectory will lead to the achievement of its goals. It should do so within the context of the country’s overall economy in order to highlight a broad set of strategic options and tradeoffs. This context is needed because policies at the macro level, such as trade and market liberalization, can have a profound impact on agriculture and the rural economy and can determine whether growth is pro-poor (Dorward et al. 2004). At the same time, policies that directly affect rural areas and agriculture can have an impact on the overall economy and in turn have feedback effects on the rural sector. By examining many of these policy options within the context of the broader economy, key relationships and welfare implications can be assessed in ways that lessen any potential adverse impacts on the poor. The economy-wide perspective, therefore, permits higher-level strategic questions to be posed for shaping an agriculture or rural development strategy within the context of overall national development goals, and thus provides the greatest strategic leverage to priority setting (Byerlee 2000). The potential role of agriculture and the rural economy can then be explored with respect to how it contributes to economy-wide growth and national development priorities (e.g. the MDGs) and ultimately informs national debates concerning broader development strategies such as the PRSP process. Within this normative mode of analysis, questions regarding the long-term distributional consequences of alternative investment and policy choices for meeting these targets can also be explored. Specific to rural sector strategies, sector-wide investment options can also be examined more closely, especially with regard to how they affect the incentives for rural agricultural production and commercialization.   What are some corresponding questions for strategy?   Exploring a country’s economy-wide options and tradeoffs for reaching high-end development goals introduces a series of strategic questions that require answers, such as: What is the current state of affairs or initial conditions with respect to development? Is the country on track to achieving its national growth and poverty goals? What are the contributions of different sectors to growth and poverty reduction? 10   What is the role of agriculture in the economy? Where agriculture is a key sector, what level of effort and performance is required to meet the overall growth and poverty reduction targets? What are the key sources of growth within agricultural sub-sectors and which ones are more likely to be pro-poor? Are there sufficient demand and market opportunities to absorb any rapid increases in supply within selected sub-sectors? What are the key constraints and/or bottlenecks for commercialization? Are there opportunities for leveraging regional growth dynamics through greater multi-country cooperation and economic integration?   What is needed to answer these questions?   In addition to a situation analysis of a country’s current status of development and progress towards achieving its national development goals, an economy-wide simulation can help to answer many of the strategic questions raised above. The Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model is well suited for this purpose. CGE models can help analyze the effects of policy shifts and alternative sector growth scenarios on overall economic growth and poverty reduction. It has the advantage of capturing both direct and indirect effects of policy changes on poverty and income distribution given a country’s overall economic structure. The effects are channeled through changes in employment, wages and relative prices while considering forward and backward linkages in the economy. Where data is limited and a CGE is not available, an economy-wide multimarket (EMM) model can be more suitable in its place (see Appendix A). Although less sophisticated, the model is actually better suited for answering questions specific to agriculture. It can treat the agricultural sector in more detail by incorporating useful market and trade linkages across various commodities and locations and by combining a system of demand and supply equations that allow for interactions across commodities. To partially maintain an economy-wide perspective, a non-agricultural sector can also be modeled to capture potential agricultural linkages with this sector. Are there existing applications to draw from?   A number of examples that apply this level of strategic and economy-wide analysis involve the work that has been undertaken by IFPRI researchers in a number of countries in Africa (e.g. Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Zambia and Malawi). In a recent study that uses a CGE model for Mozambique, Thurlow (2008) finds that current growth rates in agriculture will not be sufficient to meet the national goal of halving poverty by 2015. Model results conclude that additional growth driven by maize and other cereal crops has a larger impact on poverty reduction than similar growth in export- oriented crops. This impact occurs because yield improvements in food crops not only benefit households directly, by increasing incomes from agricultural production, but also by allowing farmers to diversify into higher-value crops. Cereals are already an 11   important sector in Mozambique and have strong growth-linkages to non-agriculture, which stimulates broader economy-wide growth and poverty reduction. How can development strategies be geographically targeted to address the diversity of opportunities and challenges within a country?   Why is this question important?   Many of the challenges and opportunities that national development strategies must negotiate are spatially heterogeneous. For example, access to markets, and the livelihoods that are enabled by such access, follow complex geographical patterns that may have implications for understanding untapped development potentials of different areas. Livelihood options and constraints are quite different for more remote and food insecure areas versus areas located in close proximity to large market centers. Interventions should be specifically targeted towards the unique characteristics of the area. Therefore, an important step in designing a development strategy is to quantify the extent and distribution of poverty and malnutrition across geographic areas and population groups (Babu and Per Pinstrup 1994). With the increasing availability of spatially disaggregated data and tools to understand those data, it is possible to map indicators of the micro-level comparative advantages of different development options. Agroclimatic endowment, access to markets, and population density are some of the more important dimensions of development potential. By seeing these spatially related conditions through an economic opportunity lens, assumptions can be made about how different development investments will impact the poor and how changing agricultural land uses may have environmental costs. Taken together, these conditions provide an enhanced picture of the costs and benefits of different investments, allowing better targeting towards the goals of sustainable growth, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. To enable such decision-support tools, there is a need to compile relevant, georeferenced and harmonized datasets with national coverage. In many countries, relevant data exist but are not often brought together for policy analysis. Furthermore, there is a need for analytical capacity (and knowledge of local conditions) to define geographic domains (or build other analytical frames) which reflect real constraints and opportunities for local development options. Cross-sectoral perspectives should also be considered when analyzing spatially disaggregated data. For example, environmental factors may play a role in affecting agricultural productivity in various regions of a country. The analysis could look at the potential externalities of increased productivity on the surrounding natural resources and assist in identifying “hot spots,” i.e., locations where the goals of economic development and natural resource conservation may be in competition with each other. What are some corresponding questions for strategy?   Taking on a spatial perspective helps target interventions. The typical questions to answer include: 12   What are the distribution and extent of income, poverty and malnutrition across different locations in the country? What kinds of opportunities and challenges affect rural economic livelihoods in different parts of the country? For agriculture, what are the key development domains based on agriculture potential, market access and population density? Which development domains offer the greatest potential for high investment impact among the key sub-sectors and economic activities identified as key sources of growth in the economy-wide analysis above? What kinds of interventions (infrastructure, R&D and extension, institutional, etc.) are needed to spur productivity and income growth among select domains? Among the poorest domains in terms of resource assets and livelihood options, what are the alternatives for poverty reduction and food security? What is needed to answer these questions?   Exploring answers to these questions requires sufficient access to spatially oriented data, including agro-climatic conditions, land-use, production, urban and markets centers, infrastructure, household consumption, and welfare. Useful tools that help to map out geographically referenced data include Geographic information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing (see Appendix A.4 for more details). What is often missing, however, is a more integrated role for spatial analysis to target public sector interventions. In addition to highlighting micro-level comparative advantages and thus livelihood options, the information can be integrated with economic behavioral and normative models to identify targeted investment and policy alternatives. Data limitations will most likely define the type and degree of disaggregation possible, especially when dealing with socio-economic data which is often not geo-referenced. It is therefore important to consider undertaking spatial analysis whenever the questions for strategy involve more micro-level level targeting and if the costs for doing so are not exorbitantly high. It must also complement other sector-wide, thematic (e.g. physical infrastructure and policy environment) or economy-wide level analysis to maintain a focus on ultimately achieving high-end national development goals. Finally, for spatial analysis to prove useful in guiding strategic policy decisions, there are a few important considerations: 1. There must be an effort to assemble spatial information from a variety of sources; 2. Cross-sectoral expertise must be brought to bear on the development of meaningful spatial analysis and information tools; 3. The means of disseminating spatially-based information to non-specialist users must be identified; and 4. Spatial information must find its way into existing government networks of information flow and mechanisms for inclusion in the strategic planning process. Are there applications to draw from? 13     A number of examples illustrate the usefulness and application of spatial analysis for targeting investments in agriculture. The study by Omamo et al. (2006) is especially noteworthy. Spatial analysis tools were used to map out key development domains for agricultural production, market access and population density across political boundaries in eastern and central Africa. This mapping was subsequently complemented by various economic analyses to assess future agricultural growth options and research priorities in the region. How should resources be mobilized and allocated across the different economic sectors and geographic regions?   Why is this question important?   An essential component of a development strategy is its plan for prioritizing investments and mobilizing resources. A strategy grounded in a country-specific context must be based on a thorough assessment of the public investment situation and potential to contribute to the development goals. Public investments can be thematic (e.g. roads, marketing institutions), sector-wide (e.g. research and extension, irrigation), and sub- sector specific (e.g. commodity-based research). All these investments affect rural poverty through many channels. For example, public investment in agricultural research, rural education and health, and infrastructure increases farmers’ income directly by increasing agricultural productivity and lowering transaction costs of both inputs and outputs, which in turn reduces rural poverty. Indirect impacts come from higher agricultural wages and improved nonfarm employment opportunities induced by growth in agricultural productivity and increases in market opportunities. Growth in agricultural output from rural investment often yields lower food prices, again helping the poor indirectly because they are often net buyers of food crops. Redistribution of land caused by higher agricultural growth also has important impacts on rural poverty. In addition to their productivity impact, public investments in rural education, health, and infrastructure directly promote rural wages, nonfarm employment, and migration, thereby reducing rural poverty. For example, improved infrastructure access will help farmers set up small nonfarm businesses in rural areas such as food processing and marketing enterprises, electronic repairs shops, transportation and trade, and restaurant services. A key underlying assumption is that public and private investments are complements (Anderson et al. 2006), so that an increase in public goods and accumulation of capital stock raises the productivity of all factors in agricultural production, which in turn leads to higher farm wages and incomes and poverty reduction. Investments in the rural sector not only contribute to growth, more employment opportunities, and higher wages in rural areas, but also help the development of the national economy by providing labor, human and physical capital, cheaper food, and markets for urban industrial and service development. This type of growth in the national economy can then help reduce poverty in both rural and urban sectors. Understanding these different effects provides useful policy insights to improve the effectiveness of government poverty reduction strategies. In particular, it provides information on how public investment can be used to strengthen links between poverty reduction channels to increase efficiency in targeting public resources on poverty 14   reduction. More efficient targeting has become increasingly important in an era of macroeconomic reforms in which governments are under pressure to reduce budgets. For examples of tools and approaches to measure the impact of investments, see Appendix A.5 and Benin et al. (forthcoming).   What are some corresponding questions for strategy?   The question of how resources should be mobilized and allocated across the different economic sectors and geographic regions is essentially answering a range of high-end questions that inform the design and evaluation of a development strategy, such as: What have been the trends of government expenditures by sector, and what have been the reasons for their changes? How has public investment been financed, and how has the burden of financing investment policy been distributed in society? What have been the returns to various types of government expenditures in terms of their growth, poverty reduction, and other human development effects? What level of effort in public spending is required to achieve targeted goals for agriculture and overall economic growth?   Analyzing these series of questions not only helps identify the kinds of public sector investments which offer the highest economic rate of return, but they also help assess the extent to which past investments have been efficient and effective (a topic covered in question 5 below). What is needed to answer these questions?   The type of questions addressed by this analysis requires sufficient sub-national data on the level and distribution of public sector expenditures and investments over time. It also requires household survey data on consumption, production, and welfare measures. Using econometric tools, the analysis draws upon the cross-sectional variation of the data to measure and attribute differences in these variables to the accumulated stock of past investments. Where time series data are also available on the same cross- sectional data, more detiled work can be done to determine the dynamics and lagged effects of public investments. When combined with independent estimates of the unit costs of different investments, cost/benefit ratios can also be calculated. Results from the econometric analysis can also be useful for estimating future growth requirements in public investments for generating desired income growth targets. Using elasticity estimates of the marginal impact of a percent change in the dollars invested in agriculture on a change in agricultural income, plus the marginal impact of a percent change in agricultural income on a change in poverty, one can estimate the level of resources required to achieve desired growth and poverty goals. Are there any applications to draw from?   15   The early work undertaken by Fan et al. (2004) for Uganda is a good example. Their study shows that the returns to past public investments were particularly high for agricultural research and development (R&D), rural feeder roads, and education. For every shilling invested in agricultural R&D, another 12.4 shilling was generated due to increased agricultural incomes. The recent study by Fan et al. (2008) uses elasticity estimates of this and other sources to estimate the level of resources required to achieve the CAADP goal of 6 percent agricultural growth.      How can the strategy be best designed and sequenced to improve the effectiveness of its implementation?   Why is this question important?   The success of development strategies depends not only on the appropriate policy choices, but also on the capacity for policy implementation. The performance and efficiency of the provision of public services and infrastructure and its outreach to the poor determines how effectively public investment contributes to pro-poor growth. For example, on the sequencing of public investments, an evaluation of lessons from India suggests that large rural infrastructure investments (roads, irrigation, and agricultural research and extension), including institutions (access to finance, regulatory environment), are fundamental prerequisites to development (Johnson et al. 2003, Doward et al. 2004). The challenge is ensuring that the scale of infrastructure investment is targeted to those areas where there are greater economic returns from investment. Another challenge is designing programs and policies that are more likely to be implemented effectively. An especially important step is to analyze the political and operational feasibility of implementing various policy options. However, this analysis is often the most neglected link. To determine whether evidence may be of use in designing interventions that are actually implemented, Omamo (2004) suggests a thorough diagnostic analysis, taking into consideration the kind of evidence, the political and social context of the research-policy nexus in which the evidence originated and would be employed, and the facilitative environment for implementation.   What are some corresponding questions for strategy?   How to design and sequence investment programs and policies that are effective is one of the most difficult and neglected areas for which answers to the following questions are least known:   Among the chosen portfolio of investments and policy priorities in a strategy, how should programs be designed, sequenced, and managed? What is the political and operational feasibility of implementing various policy options? What is the role for public versus private sector? What of public-private partnerships? 16   What are the key ingredients of success or failure based on past experience and lessons learned? What is needed to answer these questions?   To help answer some of these difficult questions, a review of best practice approaches and lessons learned can be particularly useful. This assessment would draw heavily on a country’s own experiences, and be supported by a thorough review of lessons learned elsewhere. At other times, a thorough diagnostic and feasibility analysis may be required. All must account for the existing capacities to facilitate and implement the chosen programs and policies, as well as the political and social environment within which they are going to be implemented. Are there applications to draw from?   A recent review of successes in Africa provides a rich source of experiences on what type of interventions have worked and been successful over the years (see Gabre- Madhin and Haggblade 2003 and Haggblade 2004). Among the case studies reviewed, the most successful interventions were found to be those related to: soil and water conservation, replication of proven commodity-specific breeding and processing successes (e.g. cassava), marketing and information systems, vertical supply chains to improve efficiency, and improving regional cooperation in trade and agricultural technology. Overall, the evidence from the successes reviewed suggests two fundamental prerequisites for sustained agricultural growth in Africa: good governance and sustained funding for agricultural research and extension.     What has been the impact of policies and investments on outcomes?   Why is this question important?   A critical part of any rural development strategy is the establishment of an M&E system to track progress, performance, and assess impact over time. Not only does M&E help justify resource investments and ensure accountability, it also helps inform what has (or has not) been working. As a result, strategies can either be adjusted or maintained depending on the progress towards achieving development targets. M&E plays an integral role in the strategy development process, which, if it is to be successful, has to be amenable to adjustments as lessons are learned during implementation. It therefore allows us to come full circle in following through the series of strategic questions for prioritizing investments and policies that will lead to the preferred development outcomes. We review these by looking at them from both an ex-post and ex-ante impact assessment perspective.   What are some corresponding questions for strategy?   17   The evaluation part of an M&E system is intended to answer the broader questions of impact, both from an ex-post and ex-ante perspective. The ex-post looks at the impact of past investments to answer questions such as:   Are investments on track to meet the MDGs of halving hunger and poverty by 2015? If not, what needs to be altered? What factors have shaped (positively and negatively) the level of impact achieved to date? How can the impact of these investments be traced to improvements in the diversity, productivity, and long-term viability of production systems, food processors, agro-industries, markets, and trade? How have these improvements affected incomes and the poverty status of rural and urban households? What was the distribution of these intermediate impacts, e.g. on smallholders, on equity, on gender, on other spillover impacts? However, a desirable M&E system is one that can encompass not only the assessment of impacts already realized (ex post analysis), but can also re-assess the likely magnitude and distribution of future impacts (ex ante analyses), particularly those likely to be achieved by key target dates ( e.g. 2015, as established by the MDG goals). By obtaining insights into what has influenced the realization of past impacts, and updating projections of future impact, a good M&E system can provide key information to guide decisions on adjustments to the scale and mix of investment priorities needed to keep a country’s development agenda on track. Future impacts can be derived from both the continuing effects of past investment, as well as the additional impact of new investments yet to be made. The questions that are typically associated with ex ante type analysis are:   What are the projected impacts (keeping track of those derived from past versus future investments) if investment activities proceed as planned? Are these projected impacts compatible with the goal and target impacts of the existing strategy? Could we obtain greater or better distributed impacts by reconfiguring current policies and investment portfolio? What are the different policies and types of investments that can lead to greater and more sustainable growth as well as greater and better distributed outcomes and impacts? What new targets can be set for implementing these new policies and investment portfolio for specified milestones in the future? What are the resources needed for implementing these policies investments to achieve the desired outcomes and impacts? 18     The expectation is that a country strategy should require the above questions to be posed and addressed on an annual basis, so as to monitor progress and refine operational targets for the coming years. Both past and future perspectives should encompass the overall strategy and investment cycle, i.e., against baseline conditions at the start and against target benchmarks at the time the strategy is expected to end. What is needed to answer these questions?   To begin with, a key element in the development of an M&E system is to select a series of indicators to monitor and assess progress of implementation over time. Details on how to select these indicators are provided in Appendix A.7.5 Here we only emphasize the broader criteria that the indicators adequately describe the chain of causality between inputs, outputs, and outcomes, or address questions such as:   What is the planned level of investments and effort for each selected type of intervention? What is the planned level of provision, use (adoption), and coverage for each selected type of intervention? What is the expected impact on the environment, assets, and activities that affect income growth? What is the targeted distribution of these impacts? What is the ultimate target of the higher-level goals – e.g. income growth, poverty, and hunger?   Once the indicators are known, M&E analysis can be undertaken using a combination of a simple descriptive assessment and a more sophisticated impact analysis. Simple descriptive narratives of trends among a set of key indicators—investment flows, output indictors (e.g. productivity), and outcomes (e.g. growth and poverty)—can help assess whether investments are having a desired impact in general. At best, this assessment helps to answer the question “have expectations in terms of achieving the growth and poverty- and hunger-reduction targets been met so far?” However, it does not answer the key hypotheses, “how effectively have different types of policies and investments impacted on the goals so far?” and “what factors have shaped the level of impact that has been achieved?” To fully answer these and the other questions raised above, more complex analyses using econometric and simulation models will be needed. These analyses involve isolating the measurement and attribution of impact over the life of the strategy’s program activities, both before and after, and with and without investments, while accounting for any windfall gains or losses due to confounding factors (e.g. a period of unseasonably good rains). Finally, because formal analytical methods have their known limitations and can only provide partial evaluations of projects that are amenable to a quantitative set of analyses and modeling techniques, complementary qualitative analysis will still be necessary to provide a more comprehensive assessment. Additionally, the periodic impact assessment of individual select projects can also be useful for examining more closely                                                              5 Also see IFAD (2002) for some practical guidelines. 19   whether project investments are directly impacting on the observed outcomes (either in terms of the level or distribution of impact). Here the question of attribution can be addressed more explicitly. Such studies would also help generate additional knowledge on important lessons learned, especially in revealing conditions under which successes occurred.   Details of the methods available have also been documented in Benin et al. (forthcoming), which discusses a variety of integrated approaches and tools for monitoring and analyzing the impact of public investments.   Are there applications to draw from?   Very little work has been done in developing comprehensive M&E systems of the nature described above, i.e., ones that are intrinsically linked to impact assessment. Inherent difficulties hinder the development of such systems, such as inadequate access to data to measure counterfactual information, poor knowledge of the chain of causality between inputs and outcomes, and the amount of time and cost involved in managing such systems. The ongoing work by IFPRI to develop a simple framework for CAADP is one attempt to develop such a system (see Appendix A.7). However, the system remains to be put to the test.     20   The Knowledge Support System Concept   A knowledge support system is defined as a dynamic network platform for serving the evidence needs of strategy formulation and implementation. This network includes individuals such as researchers, policymakers, and development practitioners and institutions such as government agencies, research institutes, development organizations, and private and civil society groups. These individuals and institutions are linked through collaborative research (strategic analysis in the case of SAKSS), capacity strengthening, and dialogue. Through this network platform, 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. Conceptual Framework   Strategic analysis is unlikely to be considered relevant and timely during the strategy process unless it is linked to stakeholder dialogue and decisions about future polices and strategies. The knowledge support system part of SAKSS is concerned about such linkages, ultimately bringing credible evidence to bear on policy and investment decisions. Many efforts to bridge the research-policy gap have focused on the links between researchers and policymakers, and the ways in which communication might be improved. For example, policymakers may typically depend on in-house research departments to provide evidence, while others rely on external consultants commissioned on an ad-hoc basis. Without a broad-based pool of resources to draw from, the knowledge produced by these methods may not satisfy the criteria of timeliness, relevance, legitimacy, and credibility. Knowledge systems, combining knowledge management and networks, can help smooth out the information flows between policymakers and both government and non-government researchers throughout the stages of the strategy process. The term “knowledge support systems” is derived from the more general concept of “knowledge systems.” Although the term knowledge system is often used ambiguously, encompassing a wide range of definitions, applications, and structural arrangements, it usually refers to the process of “effectively connecting those who know with those who need to know, and converting personal knowledge into organizational knowledge” (Creech and Willard 2001: 8). Therefore, how effectively these systems bring knowledge to bear during decisionmaking depends on how well individuals (both the actors who know and those who need to know) and the organizations they represent (e.g. research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, private organizations, and government agencies) are linked to promote dialogue around the knowledge products (i.e., information and results of research).6 Knowledge systems can come in various formats and are designed for different purposes. For example, large institutions engage in knowledge management to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. Extension and market information systems for farmers and entrepreneurs represent another type of knowledge system (e.g. the World Bank and FAO’s Agricultural Knowledge and Information System, or                                                              6 Cash et al. 2003 provide some useful real world examples. 21   AKIS). Other knowledge systems include Internet-based platforms for improving access by researchers and policymakers to high quality, relevant, and timely agricultural information (e.g. the Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture, or AGORA, which provides free or low-cost access to major scientific journals in agriculture and related sciences to public institutions in developing countries).   Regardless of the type of knowledge system, most depend on formal or informal networks with other individuals and institutions. Networks can be broadly understood to mean a combination of people and/or institutions that are usually dispersed over wide geographic areas but are connected through appropriate communication technologies. Indeed, formal networks have evolved rapidly with the emergence of information and communications technologies (ICTs), which have enabled more people to become engaged around shared interests or communities of practice regardless of geographic location. In the arena of international development, the rise in networks has also been driven by the awareness that development issues are highly complex and cannot be solved by narrow approaches, and by a belief that networks offer a better means for researchers to exchange ideas and interact with practitioners to impact public policy. However, networks do not necessarily operate effectively. Certain characteristics can improve or impede their ability to affect policy, including size, representation, quality, leadership, communication and ICT capabilities, organizational and management structure, and sustainability (Perkin and Court 2005). Knowledge networks vary immensely in terms of structure and goals. For example, the most common networks are passive and simply transfer knowledge to interested individuals through electronic or published media. Others only include individuals with expertise in a particular field. In contrast, formal knowledge networks consist of “… a group of expert institutions working together on a common concern, to strengthen each other’s research and communications capacity, to share knowledge bases, and develop solutions that meet the needs of target decision makers at the national and international levels” (Creech and Willard 2001: 19). Formal networks can be more productive and have greater potential to influence policies. SAKSS involves a formal network, but goes beyond a simple association of stakeholders and institutions, as it is designed to perform an integral support role within the strategy formulation and implementation process. Therefore, SAKSS employs a knowledge support system as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The supportive role emphasizes its unique structure which directly services the immediate needs of the actors and organizations involved in the process of formulating and implementing strategies. By providing a platform upon which information, data analysis, and knowledge can be compiled, synthesized, and packaged in a useful and timely fashion, SAKSS can both inform and become an integral part of the priority setting and review processes that are essential for managing development strategies over time. Within such a setting, the strategic analysis component emphasizes the strategic nature of the research demanded of policy analysts, to search for best-bet investment and policy options that can lead to the high- end goals sought after by a development strategy. Figure 3.1 shows SAKSS situated within the strategy process. This process is dynamic and non-linear with many feedback loops and influencing factors. Strategy formulation begins with leadership and governance. The political system and the choices made by country governments will determine the path taken during the next stages of the process, planning and implementation. M&E should be on-going throughout 22   implementation, allowing for adjustments along the way and impact assessment of the outcomes of the strategy. The lessons learned should then inform the next strategy. SAKSS brings together the stakeholders involved in the different stages of the strategy process through its strategic analysis, capacity strengthening, and dialogue activities. The types of activities that SAKSS will undertake will depend on where the country is in the strategy process.   Underlying principles and approaches   Within the framework of knowledge support systems described above, several principles have been distilled from both literature surveys and experiences to date with SAKSS, in terms of their usefulness for supporting development strategy. These principles in turn serve as useful guidelines for establishing a new country SAKSS program.   Participation/Collaboration   From the beginning, the set up of a country SAKSS program should be country-owned and driven and its processes participatory and transparent. Consequently, a continuous consultative process with key partners on both the supply and demand side is needed. This process must include organizing regular dialogue and workshops to bring together research and analytical teams, various stakeholders, and national policymakers to share information and ideas, agree on priorities, roles and responsibilities, and to plan activities of the program. The strategic analysis and any other knowledge management activities should be undertaken in a collaborative manner to promote local involvement and ownership. This collaborative approach demands that researchers share their choice of methodology and preliminary results at various stages throughout the process of undertaking the analysis. Only by facilitating such a continuous iterative process will the analysis and information generated remain accountable to the perspectives, concerns, and issues, of both researchers as suppliers and policymakers and their stakeholders as users (Cash et al. 2003).The involvement of stakeholders early in the research design process has been shown to increase the chances for policy impact (Court and Young 2003; Ryan and Garrett 2003; Wangwe 2005).   Flexibility   Given the general consensus that there is no “one-size-fits-all” development model, SAKSS should always remain flexible enough to adapt to different country conditions involving institutional capacity and political context, especially as it relates to the ongoing process of strategy design and implementation. Any research and analysis activities of SAKSS must be able to take into account the broader context underlying a country’s own unique development challenges and opportunities, such as natural resources and geography, stage of development and human welfare, underlying social and political conditions, and overall structure of the economy. These underlying conditions can vary widely across countries, even among neighboring countries. As described in section 5, SAKSS programs have been set up in countries with different initial conditions and expectations. Consequently, this has resulted in a varying sequence of analyses and knowledge systems approaches according to each country’s own unique demands and priorities. The structure of the programs and networks being established has also varied 23   depending on existing stock of institutional capacity, availability of information and knowledge, political context of government and donor relations, level and source of funding, and degree of awareness in the value of scientific evidence in influencing ongoing national dialogue and decision-making processes.   High level dialogue   Evidence-based policy research is most successfully translated into policies when demand for policy information comes from the policymakers themselves. Policymakers pay more attention to policy research results when they are jointly generated with their own staff and when they are convinced that their interests have been acknowledged by the researchers. Implementation of policy advice is enhanced when attention is paid to continuous policy dialogue with key policymakers, executive government officials, and parliamentarians. This dialogue offers the best way to impact or influence specific policies or decisions, even though it is often difficult to systematically trace how people have used the information that was generated and disseminated. The degree of proximity of outside research institutions to in-house policy analysis units (e.g. within legislative and executive branches of government) has been found to have an important effect on how well research results are communicated and received by policymakers (Ryan 1999). The existence of close, personal links between individuals (researchers and policymakers) can also be just as effective (Court and Young 2003; Timmer 1998). For example, in South Africa, there has been a sizeable overlap among policymakers and outside researchers, resulting in regular contact between the groups, and contributing to the effectiveness of linking research results with policy dialogue (Bhorat 2007; Court and Young 2003). A potential disadvantage is when too close a relationship marginalizes the contributions of other researchers and research institutions, limiting the diversity of views to which policymakers have access (Stone et al. 2001). SAKSS country programs share in this experience, as described in Section 5. Many of the programs that have witnessed greater success in translating results into national dialogue processes have been those that have either established strong links with key policymaking figures and/or with government agencies that have a high degree of proximity to such key figures. However, these programs maintained a careful balance to ensure research integrity was not sacrificed for political influence. To balance this relationship, the programs established formal networks that were transparent and had broad participation. The programs maintained a high degree of credibility and legitimacy by setting up a Steering Committee or national advisory group that represented a broad range of key stakeholders within the policymaking environment. Credibility and legitimacy   Knowledge systems and formal knowledge networks should be structured in a way that adheres to the same criteria for credibility and legitimacy that is applied to policy research (Cash et al. 2003). Knowledge networks are credible when the participants represent shared and common institutional mandates rather than personal research interests. The degree of credibility is only enhanced when membership is limited to those institutions with a strong reputation for their expertise and for their capacity to influence the policy process (Ryan and Garrett 2003). 24   When the network has a broader concentration, such as rural development, the issue of legitimacy also becomes increasingly challenging. Incorporating researchers from multiple disciplines rather than solely economics is one way of increasing the legitimacy of the network. Another way is to have closer links between foreign and local research institutions. Local institutions have the respect of the domestic policymaking community, can offer more local knowledge, be more cognizant to domestic policy concerns, and may also be viewed as being less ideologically driven as foreign institutions (Jayne et al. 1999; Wangwe 2005). On the other hand, foreign institutions can provide a basis for enhancing the credibility of the research, bringing in better access to international research resources and standards, as well as on-the-job learning, to strengthen domestic research capacity (Jayne et al. 1999). If sustained over the long-term, together with sufficient higher degree training, such efforts can go a long way in promoting and sustaining a think tank culture that effectively influences national dialogue and decisionmaking about future policies and strategies.   Sustainability   Policy research and analysis capacity have to be built incrementally and sustainably, which means on-going support for key government policy agencies as well as encouragement of a think-tank culture for producing high quality, policy relevant research products. Therefore, countries ultimately need to have ownership of SAKSS from the beginning to enable its principals and tools to become institutionalized within local government agencies and research institutions over time. To accomplish this, both in-country researchers (as suppliers) and stakeholders (as end-users) need to be actively engaged early on to commit to a long-term institutionalization process that involves knowledge synthesis and generation, compiling lessons from “learning by doing,” institutional arrangements or platform for linking research to policy, and human and institutional capacity strengthening. As Cash et al. (2003: 8090) point out, “strategies to promote such systems require a sufficiently long-term perspective that takes account of the generally slow impact of ideas on practice, the need to learn from field experience, and the time scales involved in enhancing human and institutional capital necessary for doing all these things.” Indeed, knowledge systems that have been the most successful in sustaining themselves over time started small. It is therefore essential that the system initially provides information around a narrow set of issues, especially those that have important and timely relevance within each region, and are consistent with development goals. They have also been more successful whenever sufficient attention has been given to strengthening the capacity of both suppliers and users to comprehend and value research-based evidence and policy analysis.   Capacity strengthening7   The SAKSS concept is founded on the recognition that many developing countries lack the capacity to generate reliable research-based information and analysis needed to inform and guide development strategies. Therefore, strengthening the capacity of countries to provide much needed credible information and knowledge systems for strategy development and implementation must be integral to the ongoing activities of a country SAKSS program. Without it, as pointed out earlier, the efforts of the program cannot be sustained beyond the life of the project. The core assumption is that as                                                              7 Earlier input provided by Suresh Babu on this topic is acknowledged. 25   relevant and timely information is increasingly provided from local sources to the policy dialogue and design of strategies in each region, a greater appreciation and reliance on empirical evidence would emerge and lead to sustained improvements in sector governance and policy impact over time. A SAKSS program, therefore, must play a catalytic role in developing a capacity strengthening strategy that promotes and improves the capacities of local partner institutions best placed to apply the SAKSS concept and among policymakers to use the results during dialogue and deliberations about future development priorities. There are at least two stages required to develop a capacity strengthening strategy. The first considers both the supply and demand side perspectives. On the supply side, this includes:   Initially assessing the distribution of research capacities, skills, and knowledge base across a variety of local institutions and organizations in each region. Identifying best placed partner institutions and individuals to collaborate with on SAKSS, in close consultation with country and regional stakeholder organizations Identifying potential areas for collaboration on SAKSS across partner institutions based on existing capacities and knowledge (data, analysis, and knowledge management) Outsourcing training needs to local academic institutions who can be quickly familiarized with sophisticated analytical tools, to help fill the demand for such skills among a pool of local students in higher education and practitioners.   On the demand side, this includes:   Assessing and identifying specific capacity needs of partner institutions and individuals (including academic institutions) with which a SAKSS program would be collaborating in order to fill gaps. This in turn will also help define the kinds of training, materials, and courses needed. Building awareness and capacity more generally among policymakers and policy analysts at country and regional level to better comprehend results of research and data analysis. In the second stage, training materials and courses will need to be developed to help transfer the applied tools and skills among local partner institutions and individuals on a needs basis. The contents of capacity strengthening should initially focus on existing tools and/or components of analysis being applied by a SAKSS program, such as: economy-wide modeling, spatial characterization of development domains, investment and policy analysis, and impact assessment. It is the partner institutions that will in turn take the lead over time in providing knowledge and the technical know-how. As noted earlier, the involvement of local universities to help with training is essential for improving and expanding the pool of local experts in the long run. 26   In order to enhance and sustain the core capacities at all levels of operation among local partner institutions/organizations, as a general principal, a three-pronged approach must be aimed at:   Individual-level capacities – by concentrating on increasing the skills of individuals to better manage the tasks at hand Organizational level capacities – by helping to promote improved resources and working environment of the organization to ensure that the trained individuals are capable of implementing their task; and Institutional capacity – by helping to promote a broad set of improved rules, governance structures and policies which otherwise hinder the effective utilization of the acquired capacity.     Figure 3.1: The Structure of a SAKSS Knowledge Support System within the Strategy Process                                                         Planning Implementation Leadership and Governance Monitoring & Evaluation SAKSS  Academic and Research Institutes Government Institutions (Ministries, NARS) Policymakers Other knowledge networks and information systems Development Partners Private Sector Civil Society 27   From Concept to Application: Establishing a Country SAKSS   The successful application of SAKSS depends on how well it adheres to several underlying principles and/or meets certain criteria, many of which were reviewed in the previous section.    Clear and stated demand: First and foremost, it must only be established whenever there has been a clear and stated demand for it. It is only under these circu