Report No. 41902-ET Ethiopia Agriculture and Rural Development Public Expenditure Review 1997/98 ­ 2005/06 February 2008 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit (AFTP2) Agriculture and Rural Development Unit (AFTAR) Africa Region Document of the World Bank CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency = Ethiopian Birr (ETB) U$1.00 = 9.24 ETB FISCAL YEAR July 8 ­ July 7 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Metric System ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADLI Agriculture Development Led Industrialization ARD Agricultural and Rural Development ATVETs Agricultural Technical Vocational Education and Training BoARD Bureaus of Agriculture and Rural Development CDD Community Driven Development CEM Country Economic Memorandum CPI Consumer Price Index DAs Development Agents EEA Ethiopian Economic Association EEPRI Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute EFY Ethiopian Fiscal Year EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research ESBD Economic Sector Budget Department FSP Food Security Program FTC Farmer Training Centers GDP Gross Domestic Product GOE Government of Ethiopia HLIs Higher Learning Institutes IGR Institutional and Governance Review IPFs Indicative Planning Figures JBAR Joint Budget and Aid Review M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEFF Medium-term Economic and Financial Framework MoARD Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development OAG Office of the Auditor General PA Peasants' Association PADETES Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System PASDEP Plan of Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty PEFA Public Expenditure and Finance Assessment PER Public Expenditure Review PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys PIP Public Investment Programs PPD Planning and Programming Department iii PSNP Productive Safety Net Project RARIs Regional Agricultural Research Institutes SA South-Asian SDPRP Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program SNNPR Southern Nations and Nationalities and People Region SSA Sub-Saharan African TVET Technical Vocational Education and Training UAP Universal Access Plan WOA Woreda Offices of Agriculture Vice President: Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Kenichi Ohashi Sector Manager: Kathie Krumm Task Team Leader: Paul Moreno-Lopez iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report has been possible thanks to the high-quality support provided by the authorities. The Bank team worked closely with a joint-committee of high-level Government officials. The counterpart team included the following members. From MoARD: Ato. Sitotaw Birhanu (Former Planning Administration and Finance Coordination Office Head), Wzro. Aster Stephanos (Head of Planning and Programming Department); Wzro. Mulu Mebet Melaku (Head of Women's Affairs Department); Ato. Alebachew Yimam (Planning and Programming Team Leader), Ato- Derege Mekonnen (Senior System Architect). From MoFED: Ato. Fantahun Belew (Macro Economic Policy and Management Department Head), Woz. Aster Haile Selassie (Consolidation and System Team Leader), Ato. Degu Lakew (Central Accounts Acting Department Head), Ato. Mesfin Cherenet (Former Regional Accounts Consolidating Team Leader), Woz. Assefu Gedlu (Macro Economic Policy and Management Senior Expert), Woz. Ikram Mohammed (Data Expert). From Oromia: Ato. Tolosa Gedefa (BoFED Head), Ato. Hailu Iffa (Former Deputy Head of BoFED), Ato Jabessa Tefera (Budget Department Head). From SNNPR: Ato. Getachew Hamusa (BoFED Head), Ato. Sahile Gebre (Disbursement Accounts and Control Division, Deputy Head of BoFED), Ato Kedru Abza (Accounts Department Head). From Amhara: Ato. Ahmed Abetew (Former BoFED Head), Ato. Girma Tesfaye (Deputy Head of BoFED), Ato Mekbib Alemu (Finance Department Head, Deputy Head of BoFED), Ato Tilahun (Budget Department Head), Ato. Zelalem Gashaw (Accounts Department Head). From Tigray: Ato. Abadi Zemu (BoFED Head), the Deputy Head of BoFED, the Budget Department Head, the Accounts Department Head, and two Data Experts. The report benefited from inputs provided by a number of Bank colleagues, including Derek Byerlee, Jeeva Perumalpillai-Essex, Laketch Mikael, Assaye Legesse, Eyerusalem Fasika, Yitbarek Tessema, and William Wiseman. Maria-Elena Ruiz Abril contributed with extensive gender analysis. Mesfin Girma provided excellent support to interpret expenditure data and classification. Woudase Abebe and Mikael Abebe (Consultants) provided relentless and high quality research assistance to set up the data base. A team of Consultants also contributed with pointed reviews of secondary sources and reports, including Ponniah Anandajayasereram, Terefe Adamefegu, Etnesh Beckle, and Abebaw Tezera. The Bank team was led by Paul Moreno- Lopez. The report benefited enormously from insights from Ishac Diwan, Karen Mcconnell Brooks, Kathie Krumm, and Peer-Reviewers Sushma Ganguly, Vinaya Swaroop, and Dina Umali- Deininger. Finally, the team extends large thanks to Jeni Klugman, Lead Economist, for her support on substantial issues and sharp editorial skills, which collectively with Jeeva Perumalpillai-Essex, Emily Kallaur, and Stephen D. Mink, helped improve the quality of the report. Senait Kassa and Senper Shimeles were also very helpful in finalizing the report. v TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION AND THE ARD FISCAL DATABASE.....................................................10 2. KEY FEATURES OF ARD PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ..........................................................14 2.1) An Overview of Major Programs.........................................................................................14 2.2) Trends in expenditure levels and composition.....................................................................22 3. PRIORITIZATION AND EXECUTION OF ARD EXPENDITURE....................................29 3.1) Alignment of Expenditure to ARD Priorities.......................................................................29 3.2) Budget Procedures and Execution .......................................................................................40 4. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................45 5. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................48 List of Boxes Box 1.1. ARD PER: Description of the database .......................................................................................12 Box 2.1. Success Stories in Improved Seed Adoption................................................................................21 List of Figures Figure 2.1. Expenditure changes in FSP....................................................................................................16 Figure 2.2. Distribution of expenditure on extension services....................................................................18 Figure 2.3. Farmers (millions) in extension packages, 1995-2001 (in Tigray, Oromiya, and SNNPR).....19 Figure 2.4. Distribution of expenditure in Research...................................................................................20 Figure 2.5. Varietal release over time.........................................................................................................21 Figure 2.6. PASDEP promises a major expenditure boost to ARD programs............................................28 Figure 3.1. PASDEP would bring a major expenditure boost to ARD programs.......................................30 Figure 3.2. Marked shifts and disparities in economic classification of ARD expenditure........................33 Figure 3.3. Concentrated shares of Regional ARD, but disparate in per capita terms................................34 Figure 3.4. Regions' expenditure priorities vary, with a focus on production-enhancing programs (in millions of birr, real terms) .........................................................................................................................35 Figure 3.5. Regional expenditure is recurrent-intensive, and the capital component is Treasury-financed (in millions of Birr, real terms)...................................................................................................................35 Figure 3.6. Regional variation in expenditure shares and input combinations ..........................................36 Figure 3.7. Gender equity in ARD expenditure? .......................................................................................38 Figure 3.8. A mixed performance of ARD budget execution across the board..........................................42 List of Tables Table 1.1. Ethiopia - Selective Foreign Financing of ARD programs vs. donor commitments (mil. US$)12 Table 2.1. ARD expenditure is comparatively large and growing fast.......................................................22 vii Table 2.2. Ethiopia ARD expenditure shares are comparatively larger by international standards............23 Table 2.3. ARD functional expenditure is heavily concentrated and variable............................................24 Table 2.4. Federal ­ Regional distribution reveals specialization by functions..........................................26 Table 3.1. Expenditure alignment: variable levels, shares, and growth rates .............................................31 Table 3.2. Generally low budget execution performance, by economic and administrative categories.....43 List of Annexes Annex 1A. Disaggregated Expenditure Data Base Annex 1B. Data Base Aggregated by Strategic Sectors Annex 1C. Relationship between Economic Categories Annex 1D. Expenditure in Agriculture Development ­ International Comparison Annex 2. Methodology for Estimating Missing Data Annex 3. Methodology for Reconciling Annual Changes in Expenditure Classification Annex 4. Methodology for Data Collection Annex 5. Description of the Database Annex 6. Selective Gender Analysis viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Agricultural and Rural Development (ARD) is a fundamental component of Ethiopia's economic growth and poverty reduction strategy. Among the poorest countries in the world, Ethiopia has an agricultural sector that accounts for 46 percent of national GDP and 90 percent of exports. It also accounts for 85 percent of employment, and 90 percent of the poor depend on the sector for their livelihood. 2. The agricultural development strategy under ADLI and SDPRP focused on enhancing the productive capacity of smallholder farmers, promoting crop diversification, shifting to a market- based system, ensuring food security at the household level and strengthening emergency responses, building up the fragile livelihoods of pastoral communities, and increasing rural water supply coverage. The series of policies put in place in the 1990s included a more supportive macro-economic framework, liberalized markets for agricultural products, and an extension and credit-led push on seed and fertilizer. Following the drought of 2002/03, the government increased its focus on safety nets, and the 2006 PASDEP emphasizes rural-urban linkages and the promotion of rural non-farm enterprises, with continued efforts to tackle vulnerability and food security. Promoting gender equality is a key component of the strategy. 3. Since 2004, agricultural growth has been strong. Based on official data, average increases in production can be attributed to both increased area under cultivation and productivity improvements in staple crops in pockets of the country. However, the overall assessment is that despite a decade of support, Ethiopian agriculture remains stubbornly low- input, low-value and subsistence oriented, and subject to frequent climatic shocks (Figure i.1). Figure i.1. Real Agriculture GDP Per Capita, 1962-2006 800 750 New 700 Government 650 r 600 Bir 550 500 450 Haile Selassie's 400 Reign Mengistu's Rule 350 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Series1 Trend Source: World Bank (2006c). 4. The primary objective of this report is to bring together public expenditure data on agriculture and rural development for the period 1996-2005. ARD was fairly broadly defined to encompass most programs designed to support rural economic growth, including roads, extension, irrigation, and so on. On this basis, we review the allocation and execution of public 1 expenditure. The review covers 14 ARD sectors which are aggregated into four major categories (see Table i.1). It was conducted with a strong multi-sector team, led by MoARD and MoFED, and included regional authorities directly linked to ARD programs and budget management. Table i.1. Public Spending on ARD by Sector and Theme, 2004/05 Sector millions ETB (current US$) Sector Oversight 219 (33) Productivity, of which 822 (124 ) Natural Resource and Environmental 263 (40 ) Management Extension and TVET 266 (40 ) Agricultural Marketing and Cooperatives 80 (12 ) Agricultural Research 214 (32 ) Improved Seed Development 0 Vulnerability and Food Security 2,747 (415 ) Infrastructure, of which 1,595 ( 241 ) Water Resource Management 521 (79 ) Rural Energy and Mining 19 (3 ) Federal Roads 767 (116 ) Small Scale Irrigation 42 (6 ) Rural Roads 150 (23 ) Rural Infrastructure 8 (1 ) Rural Water Supply 89 (13 ) 5. The review does not cover some key ARD issues. External financing for ARD programs is not comprehensively covered, as most donor financing passes through special accounts that are not included in the budget--only external financing data included in the budget are covered by this review. Therefore, the review does not examine large project-related special funds (such as those on food security programs financed by multilateral and bilateral donors, and a variety of large infrastructure projects), or off-budget activities mostly conducted by NGOs and bilateral donors. Social expenditures, particularly on health and education, although key to ARD, have not been included in the review, as they have been extensively covered in recent PERs and sector programs. 1. Expenditure levels and patterns, 2001/02 - 2005/06 6. Over the period 2001/02-2005/06, the share of ARD expenditure in total GDP increased from 3.7 to 6.6 percent. ARD expenditure averaged about 25 percent of total public expenditure--up from 15 percent in the earlier period--and about half of pro-poor expenditure. Real ARD expenditure grew the fastest among all items in the budget, by 21 percent on average per year. Federal institutions became the dominant spending channels, on average channeling 76 percent of total ARD expenditure during 2000/01-2005/06, up from 49 percent in the earlier period. 2 7. The spending is concentrated in four sectors, which absorbed about 77 percent of total ARD expenditure in recent years: Food Security, Roads, Extension, and Sector Oversight. Food security, absorbing 41 percent of the budget, is the largest program, and extensively supported by donor projects. Over the last two years alone, the GoE spent about US$736 million in support of this program, while the Productive Safety Net Program added about US$310 million (including locally-valued food aid in kind). 8. PASDEP plans an ambitious expansion of ARD programs, more than doubling over the next two years to about US$1.6 billion, tripling in the next three years, and reaching about US$2.9 billion by 2012-15. Ethiopia's relative public expenditure effort on agricultural development is already one of the highest among comparator countries in SSA and South Asia, even if absolute and per capita amounts are low (Table i.2). Table i.2. International comparison of core ARD expenditure date Ag.Exp./Ag. GDP Ag. Exp./Total Total Exp./GDP Ag. GDP/ GDP Ag.Exp. Per Exp Capita ($) ETHIOPIA 4.0 6.7 25.4 43.1 2.4 Sub-Saharan Africa Mozambique 2.2 2.2 27.4 29.0 2.3 Kenya 1.3 2.0 22.6 31.1 1.4 Tanzania 0.7 2.1 17.2 46.6 0.7 Uganda 0.6 1.4 19.7 43.5 1.0 South Asia Vietnam 4.8 6.0 23.2 24.7 4.6 Indonesia 0.2 0.2 19.2 32.0 13.2 Pakistan 1.0 1.2 19.1 26.0 1.2 Source: Authors' calculations based on data from various sources. 2. Alignment of expenditure patterns to ARD priorities 9. This review sought to assess public spending against the stated ARD priorities, and found that the composition of expenditure could be better aligned to PASDEP objectives. Expenditure on vulnerability- and food security-related programs dominated, followed by spending on building infrastructure and productivity-enhancing programs. We reviewed major strengths and weaknesses in these programs, the role of the regions, and the balance between capital and recurrent spending. a) Expenditure composition 10. Spending on ARD priorities increased substantially, with variations across key programs. Vulnerability and Food Security obtained the lion's share, with close to half of total ARD expenditure. While addressing the needs of the food insecure is critical in Ethiopia, a key emerging issue is the appropriate balance between interventions to strengthen the current agricultural livelihoods of food-insecure households, and support to a conducive environment for out-migration and diversification into non-farm activities. 3 11. Over the past five years, about 52 percent of total ARD expenditure has been directed to Infrastructure and Productivity programs. Spending on infrastructure, increasingly a federal responsibility, increased every year. Productivity expenditure, which is largely sustainable land management and small scale water resources development as well as dissemination of agricultural technology packages to small-holders, has become a predominantly regional responsibility. The shifts in federal and regional spending responsibilities underline the importance of coordination between federal and regional agencies. b) Overview of Major Programs Vulnerability 12. Vulnerability is pervasive in Ethiopia, given widespread poverty, a lack of formal insurance mechanisms, and the remoteness that characterizes much of rural life--but it is particularly severe in food insecure regions, where agro-climatic conditions and lack of market access make households particularly susceptible to downside shocks. Vulnerability creates self- perpetuating conditions of deprivation, since it makes farmers risk-averse, and thus less likely to adopt new technologies. This in turn undermines productivity growth. 13. The government is increasingly prioritizing the issue of vulnerability in its development strategy, and recognizes that the multi-dimensional nature of the problem implies a need for multiple policy instruments. Most visible is the Productive Safety Nets Program (PSNP). The PSNP, a multi-donor project established in 2005, shifted the approach from in-kind transfers financed through emergency-based appeals to predictable in-cash transfers, with multi-annual resources to finance small-scale productive public works. 14. Given the size of the program, there is a substantial premium on appropriate use of and returns to resources. Among the positive aspects of the program is high female participation, thanks to clearly defined guidelines and good targeting, especially for chronically food insecure female-headed households, and gender training for program officials and community leaders, which should be rolled out in all ARD programs. Another clear benefit has been the reforestation arising from tree planting activities. However there are some issues in the PSNP that require policy consideration, including: · Coverage and targeting: The PSNP aims to cover the entire chronically food insecure population, but in its first year of implementation, the PSNP was limited to focus on food insecure areas in the four large Regions (Amhara, Oromia, Tigray and SNNP), excluding pastoral communities. In 2005 the program covered about 4.8 million people, out of an estimated 8.29 million chronically food insecure. Some of these issues were tackled in the second year of implementation, as PSNP increased its coverage, including to pastoral areas. The needs of the remaining population were meant to be covered through emergency assistance, which cannot be verified due to insufficient information. Information about coverage and targeting under other food security interventions is lacking. · Mix of activities: overall, the relevance of expenditures for promoting HH food security can be clearly established. Some weaknesses are, however, observed, most significantly; 4 (a) the focus has been on agricultural production and little has been done to help HHs diversify into non agricultural activities, whereas the potential for agriculture in food insecure areas is low; and, (b) there has been considerable variation in the mix of activities from year to year without a proper understanding of the effectiveness of each intervention or effort to address weaknesses exhibited in initial implementation. · Timeliness of interventions: Timeliness has not always been maintained, thus reducing effectiveness. · Implementation capacity: Woreda capacity is limited and the resources provided under various food security interventions have tended to swamp whatever capacity exists. The program allocates few resources to strengthen this capacity. Recently (since the period of this review), however, efforts have been made to improve on implementation capacity ­ particularly through the productive safety nets program. Research and Extension 15. Effective research and extension services require appropriate knowledge, and access to new technology and incentives for its adoption, within a highly heterogeneous environment. The successful adoption of seed-fertilizer-water technology requires access to the technology itself (research and extension plus input marketing), access to financing for purchase of modern inputs, incentives to stimulate adoption including acceptable levels of risk, adequate access to markets and sufficient market demand. For the past three years the government has tried to provide packages of technology to suit the different agro-ecological zones of the country. 16. Extension agents used to manage the fertilizer supply-credit program and since 2001/02 responsibilities have shifted to farmer cooperatives, especially in the larger regions. The decentralization of advisory services to woredas is an important step, but greater exploration of alternative modes of delivering services to make them more responsive to farmers' needs could be further investigated. 17. Based on recent surveys, female access to extension services is relatively low. For instance, in the 2005 Citizen Report Card, 28 percent of women reported visits by DAs once a week in 2005, and one third had never been visited, compared to 50 and 11 percent of men, respectively. The high opportunity cost of their time, lower educational attainment, and lack of empowerment, along with cultural norms, may lower female demand for extension services. This is compounded by the lack of targets on female participation for DAs and low numbers of female DAs. Planning and delivering extension services and training may not be inclusive enough of married women farmers, who in fact are working together with their husbands on the field in the communal farmland, possibly contributing between 40 and 77 percent of agricultural labor, depending on the type of activity (see Annex 6). 18. MoARD has a Women's Affairs Department. Regional Bureaus also have Women's Desks with similar functions. Both could benefit from more resources, better integration in the decision making and planning processes at the Ministry, and efficient management and information systems. 5 c) The role of the regions 19. Overall, Federal exceeds Regional expenditure in ARD programs by more than three times. This apparent imbalance is largely explained by the fact that the Federal Government is responsible for facilitating the transfer of resources to the Regions which in turn are responsible for program allocation and implementation, and the fact that large Federal expenditures reflect Federal programs to develop large infrastructure for ARD in the Regions (e.g., TVET colleges). Nonetheless, Federal agencies run some key ARD programs, in terms of spending and program content, despite the policy emphasis on decentralization. For example, expenditures in research and extension are largely conducted by federal agencies even though many research stations depend on regional governments, and regional agricultural research institutes have been established to allow adaptation of new technologies to local conditions. More recently, since 2004/05, regions have accounted for more than half of spending on extension, a trend that could help to effectively recognize the heterogeneous environments and regional specialization needed to adjust to the local agro-climatic and market conditions. 20. Overall ARD expenditure for all Regions has slightly increased in real terms but its share in total ARD expenditure fell from 50 to around 21 percent. Regional ARD expenditure has been increasingly concentrated in Tigray (13 percent) and Oromia (56 percent), where real ARD expenditure per capita grew annually by 9 and 12 percent, respectively. 21. Regions tend to focus on productivity and infrastructure programs, but with varied patterns. For instance, the expenditure shares of infrastructure range from 18 percent for SNNPR to 38 percent for Oromia. As noted below, regional ARD expenditure tends to be wage-intensive. Empowering sub-national governments to effectively and efficiently achieve development objectives is a long and difficult process. There have been mixed results in Ethiopia, and among the challenges is the need to clarify expenditure assignments (for example with respect to research and extension services, and water resource management programs) and strengthen local governments' capital budgeting. As argued in the recent CEM, devolution of authority needs to be accompanied by greater accountability at sub-national levels (World Bank 2006c). In this context, a more detailed review of which ARD functions are best centralized and which are best placed in the sphere of regional governments may be warranted. d) Capital ­ recurrent expenditure composition 22. Overall, capital expenditure dominates ARD expenditure over recurrent expenditure, but with significant variability over time (coefficients of variation for recurrent shares by sector ranged from 15 to 86, while those for capital ranged from 0.8 to 191). 23. Over time, federal ARD programs have intensified capital expenditure, while the reverse is true for regional programs. This reflects the distribution of mandates, whereby federal institutions build the relevant infrastructure (such as TVET schools, research labs, etc.), and regions manage the programs. After completion of construction the buildings are transferred to 6 the Regions. The Treasury finances most ARD capital expenditure although contributions by sector and by the federal vs. regional level have varied substantially:1 · The increase in Vulnerability and Food Security expenditure was mostly for capital outlays, with O&M-dominated recurrent expenditure. · Infrastructure programs increased capital expenditure in the last 5 years, particularly in programs run by federal institutions. · Productivity expenditure has also been capital-intensive. 24. Within recurrent spending, ARD programs have shifted from O&M to being more wage- intensive over the last 5 years, but with differences by sector and level of government. 25. There is significant volatility in the composition of the expenditure. We estimated "expenditure input elasticities" at the national level and by sector, and the most sensitive expenditure combinations are those relating recurrent spending, particularly O&M, to capital. For instance, the elasticity of O&M to capital expenditure in infrastructure for 2001/02-2005/06 was 6.2, which means that with an increase of 10 percent in capital expenditure, O&M expenditure would increase by 62 percent, ceteris paribus. Most elasticities, by program and by period, were highly variable. This variability may signal expenditure management problems, but more investigation is needed. 3. Budgetary processes and performance 26. Ethiopia's budgetary institutions and procedures are well defined--although budgeting practices in ARD have changed frequently during the review period. There is a Medium-term Economic and Financial Framework, three-year indicative Public Investment Program, three- year Regional subsidy estimates, and an Annual Fiscal Plan including estimates of revenue, expenditure and financing for the upcoming budget year. The budget call establishes expenditure ceilings; main economic and financial constraints; guidelines for recurrent and capital budgets; procedures for budgeting external loans and assistance; price standards; and timetables and instructions for budget submission. MoARD prepares its budget based on unit costs, mid-year program reviews, and work plans. Final budget proposals are reconciled and further processed by MoFED, then submitted to the Cabinet and then Parliament for approval. 27. MoARD's budget execution is improving, but some obstacles persist. It is currently based on a 3-month rolling disbursement schedule and a physical plan for deliverables. Expenditure control, accounting, and monitoring are computerized, except foreign-financed elements, which are prepared manually. The latter, together with limited capacity at the local level and high staff turnover in regional and local administrations, has resulted in considerable delays in monthly reporting, with consequent delays in the release of budgeted funds for ARD programs, particularly at regional level. Often, regional bureaus implementing MoARD programs reallocate across line items, causing delays in funds releases, due to lengthy accounts-reconciliation. 1Over the last 5 years, out of foreign financing, about 74% was Loans and 26% Grants, on average, across ARD programs. Full Grant financing is devoted to Sector Oversight, Rural Roads, Rural Infrastructure Development, and Rural Water supply. 7 28. Monitoring and evaluation at MoARD is based on quarterly physical and financial reports that are transmitted to MoFED, and which influence the next year's budget. However, usually the reports are submitted late, due to lack of capacity and high staff turnover, particularly in regional offices; and weak communication between MoARD and the regional bureaus. The MoARD audit process involves its Audit Department, the Federal Office of the Auditor General (OAG), MOFED, and external auditors, although audit reports are not formally published. 29. Overall, from 2000/01-2004/05, ARD programs executed about 80 percent of budgets, 10 percentage points short of PEFA benchmarks.2 While food security programs have an almost 100 percent execution rate, infrastructure programs execute on average 70 percent of their budgets. Water Resource Management, Rural Energy, and Mining sectors at the federal level, and Rural Infrastructure Development and Rural Energy and Mining at the regional level, have the lowest rates of budget execution. Recurrent budget execution (90 percent) is consistently higher than capital (75 percent). Striking differences between Treasury and Foreign financing of capital expenditure are observed: only about 61.5 percent of budgeted Foreign financing is actually absorbed, compared to 86 percent of Treasury resources. 4. Conclusions 30. This study provides a first look at major trends in ARD expenditure, including the distribution of expenditure across functional and economic categories. Looking forward, the fiscal database compiled for the report will enable more in-depth analysis in a range of areas. For example, while the size of ARD expenditure is in keeping with its central role in the Government's development strategy, there are opportunities for more closely aligning expenditure at the sub-sector level with stated priorities, and for reviewing the federal-regional breakdown of expenditure responsibilities. 31. More broadly, several cross-cutting issues are raised that lie beyond the scope of this report. There is the underlying issue of how the ARD strategic objectives of increasing agriculture productivity and investment, encouraging adoption of new technologies, and building capacity can be best supported with public and private resources. Clearly, the public sector has an important role to play in delivering public goods (such as research and extension services, and rural roads), albeit with potential for participation by others including farmer organizations and private sector, under cost-recovery schemes that explicitly recognize that most of the peasants are low-income farmers. In other areas, infrastructure investment may be public or private (for example, in energy and irrigation)--and in cases of public provision, there is also the possibility of private sector management. 32. At the same time, growth will depend on government's role in ensuring that the investment climate is conducive to private investment and innovation. Even if the public sector's direct role in markets decreases, the development of private markets depends on whether the government can provide an appropriate regulatory environment, including provisions for grades and standards, food safety, biosafety, and environmental protection, all with revealed public goods characteristics. This requires striking a delicate balance between a pro-active state, 2A less than 10 percent deviation in actual expenditure compared to budgets is a key PEFA benchmark: www.pefa.org 8 and providing space for market and business formation. Adopting an experimental, pragmatic, locally-driven approach to problem solving, as envisioned by PASDEP, will be key (see also World Bank 2006c). The Government has already forged successful partnerships with the private sector, big and small, including in a variety of areas directly related to ARD sectors, such as the flower industry. These experiences indicate that further opportunities for innovation and experimentation in partnerships are available. Key findings and directions for further work include: · Allocations: Ethiopia's support to ARD in terms of financial resources has been strong, and is expected to expand significantly under the PASDEP. In 2005, Ethiopia spent about 25 percent of total public expenditure on ARD, or 50 percent of total expenditure on pro-poor programs, and absorbed 17 percent of agriculture GDP. However, year-to- year expenditure volatility within the ARD sector is high--improving predictability of ARD financing should be a priority. · Strengthening the role of regional and woreda governments would be important in the context of making ARD programs more responsive to local needs. ARD programs could be placed at the forefront of efforts to deepen decentralization during PASDEP. · The very substantial spending on vulnerability and food security is understandable--but requires review in the context of national objectives to accelerate growth, especially given the geographical focus of the program on areas with low growth potential. An in- depth review of inter-sector linkages (e.g. the Food Security Program with the ARD growth agenda) would be valuable, and could help inform some selective re-targeting of ARD expenditure and programs, in favor of higher-potential areas, and long-term growth and development priorities. For example the irrigation sub-sector needs to prioritize in terms of the relative focus on small scale vs. large scale irrigation, food staples vs. high value products, and public vs. private financing. · Management: Building program design capacity (e.g. for investment appraisal and technical feasibility analysis), and streamlining budgetary procedures (particularly at the regional and woreda levels), will be key to strengthening the planning and implementation of ARD programs. · Data and Monitoring: Current efforts to formally monitor the impact of ARD programs are sparse and somewhat ad hoc, revealing a need for much more data (at the lowest possible administrative level). Better data will enable monitoring of PASDEP and sectoral targets, and of spending efficiency, which in turn will strengthen transparency and accountability. Improving data on externally-financed expenditure is especially needed to complete the picture of ARD spending, and follow-up analyses of gender equity in ARD programs would be useful. 9 1. INTRODUCTION AND THE ARD FISCAL DATABASE 1.1 The Government's economic growth and poverty reduction strategy places foremost priority on agricultural growth and rural development (ARD). In Ethiopia, which is among the poorest countries in the world, the agricultural sector accounts for 46 percent of GDP, 90 percent of exports, 85 percent of employment, and provides livelihoods for 90 percent of the poor. ARD is at the core of the government's growth and poverty reduction strategy, through the Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy, the SDPRP for 2002-2005 and the PASDEP for 2006-2010. Agricultural growth is expected to stimulate overall economic growth by raising farm incomes, providing a market for non-farm products and inputs, supplying food and raw materials for agricultural-based manufacturing, and mobilizing savings to finance investments. 1.2 The policies put in place in the 1990s to support agricultural growth included a more supportive macroeconomic framework, liberalized markets for agricultural products, and a strong extension and credit-led push on agricultural intensification through use of modern inputs, especially seed and fertilizer. These early reforms boosted agricultural production, primarily in cereals, but the gains slowed in the first part of the 2000s, with large annual fluctuations in both production and prices. Since 2004, significant increases in agricultural production have been observed, although despite a decade of focus on agriculture and significant public support, Ethiopian agriculture largely remains low-input, low-value and subsistence oriented, and subject to frequent climatic shocks. 1.3 PASDEP indicates a shift in strategy toward market-driven diversification and commercialization, and increasing exports, with a greater focus on private sector investment, backed by ambitious public expenditure plans. Even a modest increase in the growth rate of per capita agricultural output from close to zero (currently) to 1 percent per annum could result in a sharp fall in rural poverty (World Bank, 2006). This would involve increased productivity in a range of sub-sectors and diversification within the sector through improved market connectivity and export growth. Expansion of irrigation and measures to reduce vulnerability and land degradation are needed. At the same time there is tremendous diversity within the sector and a need to adjust strategies accordingly, which needs to be reflected in the design of the interventions. 1.4 In keeping with the strategic emphasis on ARD, Government has devoted a large share of public resources to programs aimed at improving agriculture-related infrastructure, accelerating productivity growth, and reducing food insecurity and vulnerability. The main contribution of this review of ARD public expenditure is the establishment of a consistent database consolidating domestic ARD spending and foreign-financed capital expenditure that is included in the budget (Box 1.1). This enables a stocktaking of how much has actually been spent in supporting ARD programs, and how that support was distributed among functions, economic categories, and federal and regional institutions. This allows a preliminary analysis of how well- aligned expenditure was to ARD policies and priorities. This can help inform ongoing dialogue with the authorities in the context of the 2007 Country Economic Memorandum, the report on Policies for Pro-Poor Agricultural Growth, and the annual Joint Budget and Aid Review (JBAR). 10 1.5 The fiscal database covers 14 ARD sectors for the last 9 years (1997/98 to 2005/06), and is comprehensive for all levels of government (see Annex 1a-d and 4). The sectors are defined as described in Box 1.1. As there was no pre-existing template for the database, it was designed from scratch, taking into account multiple changes in budgetary and expenditure classification, with sufficient flexibility to accommodate entry and exit of programs, and with open windows for an automatic update of all figures when new expenditure information would become available. Data collection and database construction, including international comparisons, took place from February to October 2006 (see Annex 5). Several points should be noted about the available data: · For various sectors, such as roads, which do not normally have data disaggregated along rural-urban lines, it was necessary to determine which parts should be considered rural. These percentages were discussed and agreed with MoFED and MOARD. · Rural health and education programs are excluded, as past PERs and ongoing sector reviews have covered these issues at length. · Expenditure classification and methodologies for ARD data changed frequently. A full reconciliation exercise was conducted to harmonize data across the years and across programs and activities, with careful attention to entry and exit of programs and activities during the period covered. · For 2005/06, we project the full year by using actual expenditures through mid-year and the expenditure performance for the immediately preceding years. 1.6 For the purposes of the analysis, we distinguish two sub-periods: before and after 2000/01 (EFY 1993). This year was chosen since it marks a breaking point in overall expenditure patterns, particularly for ARD programs--it coincides with the deepening of the decentralization and devolution processes; implementation of ADLI and SDPRP I, with a significant increase in ARD public expenditure; and the severe drought, which prompted a major scaling-up of the Food Security Program. 1.7 It is important to note that this analysis does not include all external financing of ARD programs. This is a major shortcoming, but one which could not be overcome within the time and budget of this study. The database includes only foreign-financed capital expenditure recorded in the budget and expenditure reports. Budgets, however, do not include most of donor financing, as it flows through special accounts excluded from the budget, as part of donor procedures for project financing. To date, there are more than 350 special accounts linked to project financing by donors. Collecting figures for donor financing of ARD programs is also complicated by the fact that there is no uniformity in reporting of disbursements, by projects and by donors, and classification of transactions and fiscal year calendars vary widely. 1.8 As an illustration, Table 1.1 compares GoE officially-recorded expenditure figures financed by donors for specific ARD programs for the three most recent years, and commitments by donors in those programs for 2005, collected through a rapid survey. This comparison shows, in an indicative way only, how large the gap is between actual foreign-financed expenditure and donor commitments. In the most recent three-year period, the GoE reports that donors financed a total of about US$200 million for selected ARD programs (US$61 million excluding food 11 security), and donors report a commitment of about US$761 million (US$412 million excluding food security). Clearly, this comparison is to be interpreted with caution, because there are significant differences between yearly actual expenditures and commitments, which make the comparison weak. Table 1.1. Ethiopia - Selective Foreign Financing of ARD programs vs. donor commitments (mill. US$) Source: MoFED Source: Donors1 FY 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2005 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT 0.6 6.2 4.2 66.7 EXTENSION AND TVET 3.0 0.1 10.3 67.0 AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, CREDIT AND COOPERATIVES 0.0 0.0 0.9 200.5 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 10.9 15.9 9.1 78.0 FOOD SECURITY 41.8 9.7 88.1 349.4 Total foreign financing 56.3 31.9 112.7 761.5 (excluding food security) 14.5 22.2 24.6 412.1 1Donors represented in the Rural Economic Development/Food Security (RED/FS) Technical Working Group in DAG 1.9 The remainder of this report is structured as follows. Chapter II summarizes Government's ARD objectives and priorities, and deals with the main features of ARD public expenditure. Chapter III reviews the alignment of public expenditures against ARD priorities, and budget procedures and execution. Chapter IV concludes and articulates the main recommendations. Box 1.1. ARD PER: Description of the database 1. Sector Oversight: administrative expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Rural Development, and the Coffee and Tea Authority (merged into the MoARD since EFY1993); administration & general service expenditures of the Regional Bureaus, zonal departments and woreda offices of agriculture. These are not program-related expenditures, but expenditures for cross-cutting activities such as financial management, planning, procurement, overall oversight, etc., not linked to any specific program (personnel costs related to each program are attached to program expenditure, not to Sector Oversight). 2. Natural Resource and Environmental Management: all program expenditures from MoARD, including for activities such as Forestry, Wildlife, Soil and Land Use Development Program, Environmental Rehabilitation outside the Food Security Program and the Wildlife Conservation Organization, and 70 percent of expenditure from the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. Extension and TVET: expenditures by MoARD and BoARDs (Regional bureaus) in technical and vocational training and extension activities. 4. Agricultural Marketing and Cooperatives: expenditures in agricultural marketing agencies such as the livestock marketing authority, by Social Works Commission (Cooperatives), Regional Cooperative Promotion Desk/Bureaus and the Farmers' Cooperatives Coordination. 5. Agricultural Research: expenditure by Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (now the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research), Regional Agricultural Research Institutions and expenditures on research by MoARD and BoARDs. 6. Improved Seed Development: expenditures from the National Agricultural Inputs Agency, National Seed Industry Agency, and Agricultural Inputs Bureau. 7. Vulnerability and Food Security: expenditures on the Government's Food Security Program and relief activities with an ARD focus, by MoARD and BoARDs. Includes expenditure by offices such as the Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration at the federal level, the Offices of Food Security within some regions, and the food security program within MOARD. 8. Water Resource Management: 80 percent of general expenditures by the Ministry of Water Resource Development, and expenditure in full by the Ministry for irrigation and basin development; and 50 percent of National Meteorological Services expenditure. 9. Rural Energy and Mining: expenditures related to Rural Energy Development (Electrification) and the Regional Rural Energy Desk. Federal sources of spending include only 20 percent from the Ministry of Mines and Energy and 12 10 percent of Geological Surveys, and 20 percent of Ethiopian Electric Agency expenditure, to account for strictly rural electrification components. 10. Federal Roads: 50 percent of expenditures on federal road construction, from the Federal Roads Authority and Office of the Road Fund, assessed as the proportion of expenditure directly linked to rural development and benefiting the rural population. 11. Small Scale Irrigation: expenditure on irrigation schemes based at the household or cooperative level, by Regional authorities. 12. Rural Roads: expenditure on roads by Regional governments. 13. Other Rural Infrastructure Development: expenditure in rural infrastructure development on telecommunication, mills, rural technology, etc. Roads, irrigation, and energy are separate categories. 14. Rural Water Supply: Federal and Regional expenditure to ensure the provision of potable water to the rural population, and 85 percent of Regional Water Supply (Urban & Rural). 13 2. KEY FEATURES OFARD PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 2.1 Public expenditure on ARD aims to support the Government's overall objectives and priorities for the sector, as laid out in its ADLI strategy, and the SDPRP and the PASDEP. Under ADLI and the SDPRP, key components of the agricultural development strategy included: · Enhancing the productive capacity of smallholder farmers; · Promoting crop diversification; · Transitioning to a market-based agricultural system with private sector involvement; · Ensuring food security at the household level and strengthening emergency responses; · Building up fragile livelihoods of pastoral communities; and · Increasing rural water supply coverage to 31.4 percent. 2.2 The PASDEP aims to sustain 7 percent real annual growth in agriculture. It focuses on accelerating development toward a market-oriented agricultural system, and emphasizes rural- urban linkages and the promotion of rural non-farm enterprises, alongside continued efforts to tackle vulnerability and food insecurity. Promoting gender equality is also an important element of the strategy. 2.3 In the context of these overarching objectives, this chapter reviews key features of ARD programs and expenditure. To set the stage, it begins by summarizing the objectives, scope and effectiveness of selected ARD programs, based on a review of secondary sources. It then provides an overview of the functional breakdown of ARD expenditure, followed by a discussion of the respective roles of the federal versus regional governments, and the economic classification of expenditure. It concludes with a forward-looking discussion of projected ARD expenditure under the PASDEP. 2.1) An Overview of Major Programs 2.4 Ethiopia's ARD portfolio includes several major programs: · Broad food security interventions combining direct transfers with promotion of income- earning opportunities aim to tackle the severe food-deficit situation in Ethiopia. · Agricultural extension programs aim to accelerate adoption of improved technology (including via provision of inputs and credit), while agricultural research programs work to develop new productivity-enhancing technologies and promote more efficient use of resources. · Policies for water resources development emphasize the development of small-scale irrigation. Over the period 2002/03-2004/05, the GOE planned to develop irrigation on a total of 29,043 ha of new land, mostly through small-scale irrigation schemes. Under PASDEP construction of 24 large- and medium-scale irrigation schemes covering 322,630 ha have been planned; along with the feasibility study and design of 19 projects 14 covering an area of 229,149 ha; and pre-feasibility of seven others covering 117,116 hectares to serve both smallholder and commercial farming interests. · Sustainable land management is needed to address increasing soil erosion and falling land productivity. The land certification program in the four large regions is linked to land use requirements, and a watershed development program aims to protect farmers' user rights and facilitate transactions with private operators (enabling formal leasing, out- grower schemes, etc.). · In the water sector, an ambitious Universal Access Plan (UAP) has been established. To meet the MDGs, water coverage needs to increase from 31 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in 2015, meaning services would have to be extended to an additional 44 million people. Sanitation coverage would need to increase from 11.5 percent in 2002/03 to 57 percent in 2015. · The road sector development program is focused on rehabilitation and construction of new roads. It is a key part of the strategy to develop input and output markets, as well as to provide economic opportunities for the rural poor and reduce isolation of communities more generally. 2.5 We now turn to a more in-depth discussion of the food security and research and extension programs, which dominate the ARD portfolio. The results on effectiveness are only indicative, with tentative conclusions, and more impact evaluations are needed. Food Security Programs 2.6 The share of the Ethiopian population considered food insecure (both chronic and transient) rose from eight percent in 1975 to 16 percent in the drought year of 2003, and about 10.4 million food insecure people needed support (emergency appeals for 2006 were issued for 9.8 million people). Generally, over eight million people cannot meet their food needs even in normal seasons. The National Food Security Program (FSP), financed by substantial federal resources, seeks to provide food security for five million chronically food insecure people, and to support another 10 million who are affected by acute food shortages in drought years. The interventions include grants to the Regions to be used for enhanced agricultural production packages (seeds and fertilizer), small-scale irrigation and water harvesting, and voluntary resettlement out of food-insecure areas. 2.7 The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) includes a public works program to employ the affected population during difficult times in building roads and other infrastructure in exchange for cash payments. It also distributes free food to orphans, the elderly, the disabled, and others who cannot work. Established in 2005, the PSNP fundamentally changed the transfer scheme from in-kind transfers financed through emergency-based appeals, to predictable cash transfers in exchange for small-scale productive public works, financed on a multi-annual basis. The PSNP aims to improve access to agricultural land through voluntary resettlement, re- building eroded assets, raising the productivity of traditional agricultural activities, and promoting income diversification among food-insecure households. 15 2.8 The Federal FSP is very large (Figure 2.1). Annual real expenditure increased from Birr 0.2 billion over the period 1997/98-2000/01 to 1.9 billion from 2001/02-2004/05, while its share of total ARD expenditure increased from 7 to 28 percent, on average.3 A significant share of the expenditure goes to financing construction of local infrastructure. Figure 2.1. Expenditure changes in FSP 2.0 Billions Real Expenditure 100% 100% 80% 1.6 % of "Vulnerability and Food Security" 80% EFY 90-93 EFY 94-98 60% 1.2 FY 97/98- FY 01/02-05/06 % of ARD 60% 00/01 40% 0.8 40% Oromia 20% SNNPR 0.4 Amhara 0% 20% Tigray 97/98-00/01 01/02-05/06 97/98-00/01 01/02-05/06 97/98-00/01 01/02-05/06 0.0 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 0% National Federal Regional National Federal Regional 90-93 94-98 Source: Authors'calculations based on data from Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 2.9 Data for 2004/05 show that about one-third of FSP expenditure was used for resettlement, and the delivery of household packages accounted for half of expenditures. Addressing environmental degradation, which significantly constrains agricultural performance, is under- funded, based on the expenditure data. However donor funded programs such as PSNP and other projects such as MERET contribute significantly to watershed management. Efforts to rebuild productive assets are limited to donor-funded projects such as the WB/CIDA/Italian-funded Food Security Project or the WB-funded Emergency Drought Recovery Project. As in the case of other discrete projects funded by donors, these are limited in scope. 2.10 Studies are being carried out to measure the impact of food security interventions. but results were not available for this review. Some indications of room for improving effectiveness are apparent in the area of of coverage and targeting, the mix of activities, timeliness of delivery, and implementation capacity: · Coverage and targeting: Transfers comprise a large part of food security expenditure, and increasingly support rural livelihoods through the PSNP, which is designed to protect minimum consumption levels and to guard against further depletion of productive assets of food insecure households. It aims to cover the entire chronically food insecure population, but in its first year of implementation, the PSNP was limited to the four large Regions (Amhara, Oromia, Tigrai and SNNP), excluding pastoral communities. Furthermore, the number of beneficiaries in the four regions reached about 4.8 mil in 2005 and 7.2 mil in 2006, out of a current estimate of 8.29 million of chronically food insecure. Some of these issues were tackled in the second year of implementation, as PSNP increased its coverage, including to pastoral areas. The needs of the remaining population were meant to be covered through emergency assistance, which cannot be verified due to insufficient information. · PSNP targeting is done by communities, themselves identified as food insecure based on a history of food aid assistance in at least three years. Initial assessments of the program indicate that targeting has been fairly successful, although with errors of exclusion more serious than errors of inclusion. Coverage and targeting under other food security 3Resources from annual emergency appeal processes in response to shocks are not covered in the review. 16 interventions is less known due to information gaps. In general, different interventions are targeted to different communities and households. For instance, adoption of household packages--particularly those related to livestock--is closely related to watershed development, but both may not be delivered to the same beneficiaries. Access to credit for rebuilding assets often has limited impact without advisory services on new technologies and access to inputs that allows households to innovate and diversify into new activities. · Mix of activities: Food security encompasses a wide range of activities with a the focus on agricultural production which means that relatively little has been done to help households diversify into non-agricultural activities. Most interventions do contribute to strengthening household livelihood systems, either by protecting their existing asset base, helping to build productive assets (at both the household and community level, including environmental rehabilitation), or improving access to new land, credit and technologies that promote diversification of agricultural production. However, the impact of such interventions and their economic returns has not been reviewed. It appears that there has been considerable variation in the type of activities funded from year to year without a full understanding of the effectiveness of each intervention, or efforts to address weaknesses in implementation. Utilization of the federal food security budget line focused first on the development of community assets such as natural resource rehabilitation and water harvesting, then on resettlement, and more recently the attention has been on delivering household packages. Yet, many of these interventions must be sustained over the long term to yield results. · Timeliness of interventions: Effectiveness of food security expenditure depends on timely and properly-sequenced implementation, but there were some delays at the outset of the PSNP, raising questions on how the initial months of food shortages were weathered. Under the resettlement program, people were relocated before much of the preparatory work in the receiving areas was undertaken.4 Resources for rebuilding assets, usually livestock, under the WB/CIDA/Italian Food Security Project, have often been provided at a time when market prices for such assets have been at their highest. · Implementation capacity: Food security interventions are implemented by woreda food security task forces, mostly drawn from the woreda offices of agriculture. Woreda capacity is limited, however, and the resources provided under various food security interventions have tended to swamp whatever capacity exists. The program is currently allocating more resources to strengthen capacity. Agricultural Extension and Research Programs 2.11 Agricultural extension services provide demonstration and training on use of improved technology5 and offer farmers complete crop technology packages through provision of inputs 4According to a review by the FFSCB for EFY 1997, construction of water supply services, stores, access roads and distribution of farmland was still ongoing even as people moved during EFYs 1995 and 1996 EFY. 5Known as PADETES, the extension method involves individual, group and mass media approaches. Providing extension services to individual farmers through farm and home visits is common practice (EEA/EEPRI 2006). Demonstration plots and social and religious gatherings are also used to transmit extension services (Gebremedhin et al. 2005). 17 and credit. There are regular extension packages (mostly seed and fertilizer for cereal crops); minimum packages (emphasizing natural resources management with traditional crop management); and household packages (providing farm households a menu of technology packages for water harvesting, dairy, apiculture, and horticultural production). Almost four million households received extension services in 2000 (40 percent of the farming population), mostly through the food crop technology packages. This is a massive increase from the 32,000 covered in 1995. More recently, new entrants are 4-16 percent of total; the low entry rate is attributed to rationing and a focus on resource-endowed farmers. 2.12 Extension programs are designed at the federal level and implemented by regional and local authorities, although there are no clear regional strategies for effective implementation at the woreda level. Extension is in principle coordinated by regional governments with policy guidance from MoARD, and delivered by Development Agents (DAs) at the Peasant Association (PA) and Farmer Training Centers (FTC). DAs report to Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) at woreda level, which are supported by Zonal offices or by regional bureaus of agriculture. 2.13 Expenditure on extension is large (Figure 2.2),6 absorbing about twice as much of the budget as research. In the last five years, extension has represented about nine percent of annual ARD expenditure (however, this is a decline from the previous period). The recurrent share increased from 11 percent to 42 percent, as infrastructure investments were completed and more DAs were recruited. Figure 2.2. Distribution of expenditure on extension services Billions Real Expenditure 70 100% 0.40 EFY 90-93 60 Oromia 0.35 FY 97/98-00/01 50 80% SNNPR 0.30 EFY 94-98 40 Amhara FY 01/02-05/06 Tigray 0.25 30 % of "Productivity" 60% % of ARD 0.20 20 10 0.15 40% 0 0.10 97/98- 01/02- 97/98- 01/02- 97/98- 01/02- 20% 0.05 00/01 05/06 00/01 05/06 00/01 05/06 0.00 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 0% National Federal Regional National Federal Regional 90-93 94-98 Source: Authors'calculations based on data from Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 2.14 Inputs for extension services have improved in quantity and quality. The number of DAs in the field increased from 2,500 in 1995/96 to 15,000 in 2002/03, improving the DA:farmer ratio from 1:5,000 to 1:800. The target number of FTCs to be established are 18,000 by 2007/08 of which 7401 FTCs have been constructed so far, along with 25 Agricultural Technical, Vocational, Education and Training (ATVET) colleges, which aim to train 66,000 DAs by 2007/08. Technology packages are better adapted to Ethiopia's agro-ecological diversity to better support smallholder commercialization and market-led agricultural development. The commercial orientation of smallholder producers is being supported via provision of marketing information along with advisory services and computer training through FTCs. 6Extension information is a public good--the risks associated with agricultural production are too high to be born by private agents. Also, there is not a real market for extension, and access to information is often poorer in marginal areas without the DAs' services. They help enhance the income of the people on the periphery and assure the quality of agricultural inputs distributed. 18 2.15 Studies on effectiveness covering the early 2000's show mixed results, but the outlook is positive, and significant improvements in the recent past would need to be brought up.7 Key findings include: · The uptake of packages for major crops is surging, although the package menu could be more diverse, as most support goes to staple crops (Figure 2.3). A recent study showed, that for the years 1995-2001, 36 percent of households (sample: 4,425) took advantage of extension packages for cereals, against three percent for other crops and 14 percent for animal technology packages. In 2001-2005, out of total improved seed distribution, maize accounted for 35 percent, wheat 26 percent, teff 26 percent, and barley nine percent. Figure 2.3. Farmers (millions) in extension packages, 1995-2001 (in Tigray, Oromiya, and SNNPR) 4 (mill.) 3 ers 2 rmaF 1 No. 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Food Crop High Value Crops Livestock Post-Harvest NRM Total Source: Breth, 2004 · Adoption could increase if extension was intensified. Past studies indicate that participation is limited by lack of working capital and land. Despite better promotion, only about 25 percent of farmers used fertilizer in 2005, and just 3-4 percent of total cultivated area is under improved seed crops (although reuse could make it higher), with eight percent of households using improved seeds (survey results). Empirically, at least one visit from a DA increases crop income growth by 10-15 percent and reduces the likelihood of being poor by 10 percent--but DAs, with limited academic training and skills in communication, and distracted by non-extension activities, can only conduct a limited number of visits. · A significant proportion of farmers discontinue the use of fertilizer packages. About 25-30 percent of farmers that try fertilizer discontinue use, due to deficient technical and service delivery, logistic and financial shortages at woreda and PA levels, poor system organization/communication/management, asymmetric price changes (input price increases, produce price decreases), and recurrent droughts. · Inefficient use of fertilizer is problematic, and can result in income losses among farmers. For nearly 80 percent of farmers nationally, fertilizer is not profitable at the 7Attribution is difficult in impact and effectiveness evaluations of extension services, due to multiple interactions and selection bias (i.e. DAs work with larger and more progressive farmers, who are more likely to use modern technologies). There are three types of evaluation studies in Ethiopia: (i) simple indicators of adoption, (ii) econometric studies that relate adoption to household incomes, with self-selection bias, and (iii) farmer perception surveys. 19 margin, due to low technical efficiency caused by lack of information and education, and state-dominated input markets not delivering the right products and on time.8 · Some farmers still tend to sell products immediately after harvest for fear of post harvest loss, cash needs and a short credit payback period. More recently, the repayment period has been extended to 3-4 months after the harvest, which should help release financial pressures on farmers. Currently, many farmers sell their produce to farmer cooperatives, like cereal banks owned by the farming community, which then intervene in the market following price movements. 2.16 The agricultural research system9 aims to (i) develop appropriate agricultural technologies that enhance productivity and quality of crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry; (ii) popularize and scale up available and proven agricultural technologies; (iii) promote under- utilized and non-traditional resources; (iv) provide research-based recommendations on natural resources management; (v) tackle emerging challenges and build on emerging technologies; and (vi) build capacity and partnerships for agricultural research. 2.17 Expenditure on research is modest, and budget execution performance is low (Figure 2.4). In 2001/02-2005/06, it was only about 4 percent of total ARD expenditure. As a share of agricultural GDP (0.4 percent), Ethiopia spends less than the SSA average (0.85 percent), the developing country average (0.62 percent), and is much lower than Kenya, for example (2.7 percent in 2000). The average budget execution rate is only 69 percent, although it is higher at the regional level. More than 75 percent of federal expenditure on research goes to capital items, while regions spend evenly on recurrent and capital needs. Figure 2.4. Distribution of expenditure in Research 0.20 Billions Real Expenditure 30% 100% EFY 90-93 25% 0.16 % of "Productivity" FY 97/98-00/01 20% 80% EFY 94-98 15% 0.12 FY 01/02-05/06 60% 10% % of ARD Oromia 0.08 5% 40% SNNPR 0% Amhara 0.04 97/98- 01/02- 97/98- 01/02- 97/98- 01/02- 20% Tigray 00/01 05/06 00/01 05/06 00/01 05/06 0.00 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 90-93 94-98 0% National Federal Regional National Federal Regional 90-93 94-98 Source: Authors'calculations based on data from Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 2.18 The Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture Research (EIAR) has successfully produced new and improved technologies, with an average of over 40 varietal releases per year in the 2000s (Figure 2.5). The estimated returns to investment in research on maize and lentils were 29 percent and 44 percent, respectively, which are comparable to international estimates (although somewhat lower for maize). 8Studies consistently show the asymmetry that when they adopt packages, farmers make a small positive margin in a `normal rainfall year' and a significant loss in a poor rainfall year. 9The system includes the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), six Regional Agricultural Research Institutes (RARIs) in the larger regions, and five Higher Learning Institutes (HLIs), and is comprised of 30 research centers and sub-centers. 20 Figure 2.5. Varietal release over time 2.19 However, adoption rates have been Number disappointing: wheat adoption ranged from 42-80 120 percent, maize from 6-47 percent, pulses from 10- 100 79 percent, and sorghum from 6-23 percent (based 80 60 on 11 studies), though there have been some 40 impressive success stories (Box 2.1). Low adoption 20 is partly due to weak linkages between researchers, 0 extension services, and farmers. In response, EIAR 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2005 and Regional Agriculture Research Institutes Cereals Pulses Oil crops Roots & tubers Others (RARIs) have embarked on an ambitious program to develop `non-traditional' partnerships with the private sector and NGOs that could allow a rapid scaling up in adoption of new products. Box 2.1. Success Stories in Improved Seed Adoption Key success stories could provide pointers to improve adoption. Over the period 1986-2000, the average yield of maize increased from 1t/ha to 1.8t/ha. The adoption rates for improved maize in Oromiya, Amhara and SNNPR were 39 percent, 43 percent and 47 percent, respectively, with a 29 percent internal rate of return. Also, the 24 food and five export haricot bean varieties released in the last 25 years resulted in crop yields of 1.9 to 2.3 metric tons per hectare, three times more than conventional practices, with concomitant income gains to farmers. Partnerships with farmers' cooperative unions, the seed industry, importers, and exporters helped improve adoption, complemented by farmers' gaining access to credit and price guarantees, all of which led to successful export growth in terms of volume and value. Similar successes have been witnessed for potatoes, onions, lentils, durum wheat, finger millet, pyrethrum and soybean. Moreover, for some specific cereals (teff and wheat) the adoption of improved technologies made households less food insecure: a 1 percent change in the intensity of technology adoption increased the possibility of being food secure by 31 percent. 2.20 The challenge of providing access to new technology, and facilitating its adoption, is heightened by Ethiopia's highly heterogeneous soils and climates, and high rainfall variability (World Bank 2006c). The successful adoption of seed-fertilizer-water technology requires access to the technology itself (research and extension plus input marketing), access to financial resources for purchase of modern inputs, sufficient incentives to stimulate adoption (including risk management), adequate access to markets, and sufficient market demand. Hence the technology packages provided by the research/extension system are not very appropriate in heterogeneous rainfed areas, especially when they are tied to credit conditions. In such conditions, farmers require access to flexible and divisible technologies combined with the capacity to select and adapt practices appropriate to their particular field and seasonal conditions.10 2.21 Because of a standardized package approach, and inflexible input distribution systems (e.g., only two types of fertilizer, both in 50kg bags), in the past, farmers have had little opportunity to experiment, learn and adapt technologies to their own needs. And extension agents have been pre-occupied with management of the fertilizer supply-credit program (EEA 2006). Only recently has the need for advisory services more tailored to the local agro-ecological and economic/market circumstances, and to support the whole farm (including livestock and 10See for example, Byerlee and Hesse (1986) and Byerlee (1988). 21 non-staples production), been recognized. The decentralization of advisory services to the woreda level is an important step, but there is still reluctance to explore alternative modes of delivering services that would make them more responsive to farmers' needs. 2.22 Another key element in promoting growth in heterogeneous environments is encouraging regional specialization in light of local agro-climatic and market conditions, which could mean provision of specialized infrastructure and services. The government's agricultural strategy has embraced this approach through its commodity business plans, but this creates a tension between the government attempting to "pick winners" (and often failing), and providing infrastructure and a conducive business environment to stimulate private investment. In practice, public-private partnerships will be needed, but with the private sector playing a lead role. 2.2) Trends in expenditure levels and composition 2.23 Public expenditure on ARD programs is large and has grown significantly over time, from an average of 15 percent of total public expenditure in 1997/98-2000/01, to 25 percent in 2001/02-2005/06 (Table 2.1). The aggregate increase has been accompanied by significant changes in ARD expenditure composition. Meanwhile, government's pro-poor spending as a share of the total rose from 35 to 51 percent over the period, and ARD pro-poor expenditure has increased its share of total government expenditure, peaking at 31 percent in 2003/04. ARD expenditure's share in agricultural income doubled to 16 percent, while its share of total GDP increased from 3.7 to 6.6 percent. Federal institutions became the dominant ARD spending channels, channeling 76 percent of total ARD expenditure, on average, up from 49 percent in previous years. Table 2.1. ARD expenditure is comparatively large and growing fast FY 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 EFY 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 National Income and Macro-economic Aggregates GDP at market prices (millions of Birr) 53,157 57,256 63,924 65,689 62,665 68,144 83,891 96,676 113,611 Ag. GDP at market prices (millions of Birr) 25,535 25,567 28,595 27,909 24,324 27,593 35,407 42,126 49,239 Total GDP, constant prices (annual % change) -4.3 6.6 5.4 7.9 0.0 -3.1 12.3 8.7 5.3 GDP f.c., constant prices (annual % change) -4.4 6.9 5.3 7.4 -0.3 -3.3 11.1 8.8 5.2 Ag. GDP, constant prices (annual % change) -10.5 3.7 3.2 10.6 -2.1 -11.6 17.3 12.0 4.7 Overall Fiscal Deficit (% of GDP) -3.2 -7.5 -10.6 -5.5 -7.7 -7.0 -3.8 -4.9 -5.8 Inflation (CPI) 3.5% 4.8% 6.2% -5.2% -7.2% 15.1% 8.6% 6.8% 10.0% Rural inflation (rural-CPI) 1.9% 3.7% 3.8% -6.0% -7.5% 15.9% 9.3% 7.6% 9.0% Nominal exchange rate BIRR/US$ 6.9 7.5 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.9 Population ('000) 59,882 61,672 63,493 65,344 67,220 69,127 71,066 73,044 75,067 Public Expenditure Aggregates Total Expenditure (% of GDP) 20.5 25.6 27.1 25.3 28.0 30.1 24.5 25.7 25.8 Pro-Poor Expenditure (% of GDP) 8.3 8.9 7.6 8.9 11.8 12.6 12.1 14.5 16.1 ARD Expenditure (% of GDP) 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.8 7.0 5.7 7.5 7.3 5.6 ARD Expenditure (% of Ag. GDP) 6.9 9.0 7.8 8.9 17.9 14.0 17.8 16.7 12.9 Other Sectors Expenditure (% of GDP) 12.2 16.7 19.6 16.5 16.1 17.5 12.3 11.2 9.7 Total Expenditure, real (annual % change) 28.5 11.3 1.2 13.5 1.8 -7.9 13.1 7.5 Pro-Poor Expenditure, real (annual % change) 10.4 -10.7 27.2 37.2 0.7 9.0 28.8 18.7 ARD Expenditure, real (annual % change) 24.6 -8.8 17.4 89.7 -23.1 50.4 4.3 -17.6 Other Sectors Expenditure, real (annual % change) 40.8 23.0 -8.8 0.7 2.6 -20.1 -2.3 -7.1 Pro-Poor Expenditure (% of Tot. Exp.) 40.4 34.7 27.9 35.0 42.3 41.9 49.6 56.5 62.4 ARD Expenditure (% of Tot. Exp.) 16.3 15.7 12.9 15.3 26.4 19.5 31.2 28.6 21.6 Other Sectors Expenditure (% of Tot. Exp.) 59.6 65.3 72.1 65.0 57.7 58.1 50.4 43.5 37.6 Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development & IMF. 2.24 Among comparator countries, Ethiopia's ARD expenditure effort is one of the highest by almost all metrics. This comparison is based on core agricultural development (e.g. 22 excluding Vulnerability and Food Security and Infrastructure-related spending). Table 2.2 compares Ethiopia with a sample of SSA and several South Asian countries,11 and shows that Ethiopia spends relatively more than all countries in the sample except Viet-Nam. However, in per capita terms, Ethiopia (at about US$2.5) remains in the mid-range of this sample. Despite the strong relative effort, Ethiopia's key agriculture output indicators are not higher. Table 2.2. Ethiopia ARD expenditure shares are comparatively larger by international standards Ag.Exp./Ag. GDP Ag. Exp./Total Total Exp./GDP GDP growth rate Ag. GDP Ag. GDP/ GDP Ag.Exp. Per Exp growth rate Capita ($) ETHIOPIA 4.0 6.7 25.4 5.4 4.7 43.1 2.4 (1.3) (1.7) (3.2) (7.5) (14.3) (2.2) Sub-Saharan Afric 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mozambique 2.2 2.2 27.4 7.7 5.5 29.0 2.3 (0.6) (0.5) (3.0) (6.0) (12.0) (2.2) Kenya 1.3 2.0 22.6 2.7 2.5 31.1 1.4 (0.6) (0.8) (2.7) (2.7) (8.4) (2.7) Tanzania 0.7 2.1 17.2 6.1 4.8 46.6 0.7 (0.3) (1.0) (1.6) (0.8) (1.4) (1.1) Uganda 0.6 1.4 19.7 5.8 4.7 43.5 1.0 (0.2) (0.4) (4.9) (1.5) (1.5) (3.9) South Asia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vietnam 4.8 6.0 23.2 4.8 4.0 24.7 4.6 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (8.2) (0.9) (1.4) Indonesia 0.2 0.2 19.2 (4.7) 3.2 32.0 13.2 (0.3) (0.2) (2.1) (2.5) (1.0) (5.9) Pakistan 1.0 1.2 19.1 0.8 2.9 26.0 1.2 (0.2) (0.1) (1.5) (12.8) (4.4) (3.1) Note: Numbers in parenthesis are Standard Deviations of the first difference. Due to inconsistent data sets, the data used for the Agricultural Expenditure per capita calculations are the most recent available years for the respective countries. Source: Author's calculations based on data from PERs, LDB, various sources and periods ( Annex 1d) Functional Classification of ARD Expenditure 2.25 ARD expenditures are concentrated in a few categories (Table 2.3)--Vulnerability and Food Security, Federal and Regional Roads, Extension/TVET, and Sector Oversight typically absorb 77 percent of the total. The variability of functional shares, measured by the coefficient of variation, ranges from 17 percent for Federal Roads, to 158 percent for Improved Seed Development. The Food Security Program absorbs the largest share of ARD resources and grew tremendously over the review period, driven mostly by a federal special purpose grant for food security (FFSBL). The main instruments for external financing are the World Bank/CIDA/Italian Cooperation Food Security Project (WBFSP), the multi-donor Productive Safety Nets Program (PSNP), the EU direct budget support program for food security, and various other projects from donors (WFP, GTZ and USAID) and NGOs. In the last two years, the FFSBL absorbed about half of total ARD expenditure, or the equivalent of US$736 million (cumulative). In the same period, the PSNP alone disbursed the equivalent of about US$310 million (including locally- valued food aid in kind). However, there are no reconciled figures for total foreign-financed expenditure in food security programs, as donor projects usually use special accounts outside the budget to disburse funds. 11Comparative figures for a similar set of countries, processed for the WDR2008, deliver a very similar picture for Ethiopia relative to countries in the sample, thus confirming its comparatively large ARD expenditure effort. 23 Table 2.3. ARD functional expenditure is heavily concentrated and variable Sector Expenditure (mill. Sector Share of ARD Birr, Real) Expenditure (%) Avg. 97/98- Avg. 01/02- Avg. 97/98- FY 00/01 05/06 00/01 Avg. 01/02-05/06 EFY Avg. 90-93 Avg. 94-98 Avg. 90-93 Avg. 94-98 Total ARD 2,079 4,575 100 100 SECTOR OVERSIGHT 335 308 16 8 NAT. RES. AND ENV. MGMT. 35 145 2 3 EXTENSION AND TVET 406 388 19 8 AGRI. MKT., CREDIT AND COOPS. 26 181 1 6 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 103 185 5 4 IMPROVED SEED DEVELOPMENT 2 7 0 0 VULNERABILITY AND FOOD SECUR. 162 1,940 8 39 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 80 309 4 5 RURAL ENERGY AND MINING 75 21 4 0 FEDERAL ROADS 306 702 15 16 SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION 110 73 5 2 RURAL ROADS 308 208 15 5 RURAL INF. DEV. 32 13 2 0 RURAL WATER SUPPLY 101 96 5 2 Source: Authors calculation based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Federal and Regional Roles 2.26 ARD expenditure responsibilities between Federal and Regional agencies could be rebalanced and better aligned with the objective of deepening decentralization. PASDEP reports considerable progress under the SDPRP on a number of important aspects of decentralization, including decentralizing responsibility for agriculture and infrastructure, along with education and health, to the woreda level. Also, a draft fiscal decentralization strategy was developed, and regional constitutions have been revised to better reflect the division of power and reorganization of structures to enhance accountability at regional, woreda and kebele levels, implying a transfer of basic functions to woredas in most of the regional states. These accomplishments have been complemented by efforts to: expand the participation of the rural population in development; enhance the capacity of woreda officials; strengthen the organizational structure of the woreda administration; and deploy human resources from central/regional/zonal levels to woredas. 2.27 However, in some key areas, federal agencies dominate ARD institutions and programs (Table 2.4), and regional expenditure responsibilities have been diminished, as specific implementation responsibilities have been shifted to federal agencies. For example: · Infrastructure spending has increased steadily, and has become a predominantly federal responsibility (with the federal share reaching 72 percent on average in the last five years, compared to only 45 percent per year in the preceding period). Investment in infrastructure which is large scale and of national significance (e.g., construction of trunk 24 roads, medium and large scale irrigation, and rural energy) is federal, whereas regional governments finance small-scale infrastructure (e.g. rural roads, rural water supply and small-scale irrigation). Recently, federal spending on trunk roads, regional link roads and national water resources development has increased, while regional spending on rural roads and small scale irrigation has decreased. · Productivity-enhancing spending has increased, and became a predominantly regional responsibility only in 2005/06, when regions absorbed 57 percent of budgeted resources. More specifically, expenditure for agricultural research is largely conducted by federal agencies, while many research stations have been placed under regional Governments, and Regional Agricultural Research Institutes have been established to allow adaptation of new technologies to local conditions. MoARD undertakes the administration of the budget for the extension program and utilization is at the regional/woreda level. Since 1998/99 (and with the notable exception of 2004/05), 50-80 percent of spending in the sub-sector has been administered at the federal level for capital expenditure on ATVETs. Extension is in principle formulated and coordinated by regional governments and implemented by woreda offices of agriculture (WOAs). However, various studies (Alene and Hassan, 2003; Ashworth, 2005; Ayele et al., 2005; Bonger et al., 2004) suggest that extension programs are formulated at the federal level. In particular, the substantial investments in training (e.g., ATVETs, managed at the federal level) and generation of new technology packages are managed by the federal government. The relatively low spending on extension by regional governments also reflects serious capacity constraints, which affect implementation of extension activities (EEA/ EEPRI 2006). · Sector Oversight, absorbing about 7 percent of total ARD resources on average for the last 5 years, is clearly a regional responsibility, but the resources devoted to it have been slowly decreasing in real terms over time (from 18 percent of total ARD expenditure in 1997/98 to 6 percent in 2005/06). 2.28 PASDEP outlines ambitious plans to enhance the decentralization of powers and duties to the woreda level, alongside capacity building efforts. These plans would need to be backed by resource allocation for decentralized ARD programs, and viewed from the perspective of local governments' capacity, citizens' participation, and the distribution of responsibilities for design and implementation of ARD programs between the federal and local government. 25 Table 2.4. Federal ­ Regional distribution reveals specialization by functions Average 97/98- Average 01/02- FY 00/01 05/06 05/06 EFY Average 90-93 Average 94-98 98 SECTOR OVERSIGHT 335 308 287 Federal % Share 6 5 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT 35 145 152 Federal % Share 48 40 25 EXTENSION AND TVET 406 388 359 Federal % Share 67 50 50 AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, CREDIT AND COOPERATIVES 26 181 135 Federal % Share 17 37 13 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 103 185 168 Federal % Share 80 76 67 IMPROVED SEED DEVELOPMENT 2 7 0 Federal % Share 100 100 ... VULNERABILITY AND FOOD SECURITY 162 1,940 1940 Federal % Share 99 99 99 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 80 309 519 Federal % Share 100 100 100 RURAL ENERGY AND MINING 75 21 23 Federal % Share 97 81 82 FEDERAL ROADS 306 702 643 Federal % Share 100 100 100 SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION 110 73 37 Federal % Share 0 0 0 RURAL ROADS 308 208 157 Federal % Share 0 0 0 RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 32 13 0 Federal % Share 0 0 ... RURAL WATER SUPPLY 101 96 13 Federal % Share 0 0 0 Capital ­ Recurrent Shares 2.29 Capital expenditure, mostly Treasury financed, is predominant in ARD programs over recurrent expenditure12. (Figure 2.6, and Annex 1c-Table 21 for details). Highlights of a review of the economic distribution of ARD expenditure, using the capital/recurrent ratios, O&M/wages, and Treasury/Foreign financing, detailed in Annex 1c-Table 19, are: · ARD programs have increased capital expenditure, reflecting the expansion of infrastructure, but the recurrent-capital composition fluctuated markedly across sectors. The shift towards capital-intensive programs over the past five years reflects building of TVET colleges, farmer training centers, research stations (associated with the expansion of extension services), as well as roads and small scale irrigation. Ten sectors out of 14 are capital-intensive, for which the average capital share is 78 percent. However, the recurrent-capital composition varied over the past five years, possibly reflecting efforts to rebalance: the capital/recurrent ratio for capital-intensive sectors dropped from 6.3 to 3.5, and the recurrent/capital ratio for recurrent-intensive sectors fell 12ARD expenditure is the most capital-intensive budget category, with ratios of capital/recurrent for ARD at least 3 times higher than those for other sectors. 26 from 7.6 to 2.7. The average capital share of federal programs is 65 percent, whereas the recurrent share of regional programs is 59 percent. · Recurrent spending on ARD programs has emphasized wages over O&M over the last 5 years, but there is widespread variation by sector and by level of government. The ratio of wages/O&M rose from 0.8 to 1.4, signaling the faster increase of the wage bill in ARD programs, and all sectors except Vulnerability and Food Security became wage-intensive, with an average wage share in total recurrent expenditure of 63 percent. · Treasury largely and increasingly financed ARD capital expenditure, with variations by sector and by level of government. The ratio of Treasury/Foreign financing increased from 2.4 in 1997/98-2000/01 to 2.8 in 2001/02-2005/06. · The sectoral focus of foreign financing has changed: support to extension and TVET, water resources, rural energy and rural infrastructure diminished, in favour of research and federal roads. Expenditure trends show foreign financing being the double of Treasury financing for Federal ARD capital programs, and Treasury financing being four times higher than foreign financing for regional programs. · Over the last 5 years, on average, 75 percent of foreign financing for capital expenditure on ARD was comprised of loans, with the remainder in grant form. This reflects a significant shift away from loan financing (which was 85 percent). Loans mostly finance capital expenditure in Improved Seed Development (100 percent), Agricultural Research (98 percent), Rural Energy and Mining, Water Resource Management, Natural Resource and Environment Management (all at 87 percent); and Vulnerability and Food Security and Agricultural Marketing, Credit and Cooperatives (at 79 percent). Grants are directed to Sector Oversight, Rural Roads, Rural Infrastructure Development, and Rural Water supply. Looking Forward: ARD Expenditure in the PASDEP 2.30 The PASDEP foresees huge increases in ARD expenditure,13 as shown in Figure 2.7. Overall ARD expenditure is expected to more than double over the next two years, reaching about US$1.6 billion, and then to increase to about US$2.3 billion by the end of PASDEP. By 2014 it is projected to reach US$2.9 billion. This plan involves a major reallocation of ARD expenditure toward irrigation and water infrastructure projects, while expenditure on food security would remain constant. Expenditure on agriculture and natural resources would triple by the end of PASDEP period, mostly to finance physical infrastructure to support agricultural growth. 13Figures from PASDEP plans are reconciled with ARD categories at the most aggregate functional level, in order to obtain comparable dimensions. The same methodology applied to identify investment in infrastructure for ARD programs run by Federal agencies is applied to PASDEP aggregate figures, all in current Birr. 27 Figure 2.6. PASDEP promises a major expenditure boost to ARD programs 30,000 Millions ETB PERFORMANCE PASDEP PLANS 25,000 Total ARD 20,000 75% Irrigation/Hydro/Water Infrastructure Agric.& Ru.Dev't 15,000 Food Security 75% Roads 85% Water & 10,000 Sanitation 20% Power 5,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 21 21 RECURRENT (Bill. BIRR) CAPITAL (Bill. BIRR) 18 75% 18 PASDEP PLANS Irrigation/Hydro/Water Infrastructure PASDEP PLANS 15 Agric.& Ru.Dev't 15 12 12 75% Roads 9 9 Food Security 6 6 3 3 0 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 28 3. PRIORITIZATION AND EXECUTION OFARD EXPENDITURE 3.1 The rapid increase in overall ARD expenditure since 2001/02 reflects Government's efforts to align resources with the focus of its overall development strategy, Agriculture Development Led Industrialization (ADLI), and as laid out in PASDEP. This chapter reviews ARD expenditures in this light. For purposes of the analysis, ARD expenditures were grouped into four major areas: · Infrastructure: Rural infrastructure development; rural water supply; small-scale irrigation; rural roads; federal roads; rural energy and mining; and water resource management. · Productivity: Extension and TVET; agricultural research; natural resources and environmental management; agricultural marketing; credit and cooperatives; and improved seed development. · Vulnerability and Food Security: Relief/redistribution instruments for vulnerability and food security programs. · Oversight: Overall administrative costs for ARD programs. The chapter is structured as follows: it begins with a review of trends in the functional shares of expenditure over time, and then examines the capital-recurrent breakdown before proceeding to look at the relative roles of sub-national levels of government. It then discusses an analysis of gender equity in ARD expenditure. The latter part of the chapter is devoted to budgetary institutions and processes that govern and manage ARD spending, since this is a key determinant of observed fiscal patterns. 3.1) Alignment of Expenditure to ARD Priorities A major push on ARD spending with significant reallocations 3.2 Real public expenditure trends in 2001/02-2005/06 compared to 1997/98-2000/01 reveal a major push towards ARD. While overall real Government expenditure increased by 62 percent, ARD expenditure increased by 175 percent, resulting in an increase in the ARD budget share from 15 to 25 percent (Table 2.1 above and Annex 1b-Table 9).14 3.3 The increased ARD expenditure has benefited all ARD categories, but in particular Vulnerability and Food Security programs (Figure 3.1). Reducing vulnerability has become a top priority, as Government has dealt with the impact of recurring droughts--the share of the population considered "food insecure" rose to 16 percent in 2003. The average annual growth rate of real expenditures in this area increased from 58 percent in 1997/98-2000/01 to 160 percent in 2001/02-2005/06, and its share in ARD expenditures rose to 41 percent (peaking at 51 percent in 2004/05). 14Annex 1b, Table 9 shows expenditure in real terms and in current US$. The bias arising from comparing totals for 5 years against 4 years is corrected by weighting the share of ARD expenditure in total expenditure. 29 Figure 3.1. PASDEP would bring a major expenditure boost to ARD programs 1.4 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE VULNERABILITY AND FOOD SECURITY Bill. Constant BIRR 1.2 Bill. Constant BIRR Federal 1.0 2.5 0.8 0.6 2.0 0.4 0.2 INFRASTRUCTURE Regional 0.0 1.5 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 1.0PRODUCTIVITY 1.0 PRODUCTIVITY Bill. Constant BIRR 0.8 Federal 0.6 0.5 OVERSIGHT 0.4 0.0 0.2 Regional 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 0.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 3.4 There has been an increase in spending on large infrastructure. Expenditure on major irrigation, federal roads, and market development (Table 3.1) also increased, but at a slower pace than spending on food security. However, there seems to have been some decrease in spending on small scale irrigation, rural roads, rural infrastructure development, and rural water supply and oversight, mostly executed by regional administrations. Oversight actually fell in real terms by -4 percent, while the other programs fell by -17 percent (annual averages) in the last 5 years. 3.5 In the past five years, 52 percent of total ARD expenditure supported Infrastructure and Productivity programs. Infrastructure expenditures increased by 40 percent and productivity-enhancing expenditures by 58 percent over the preceding period. Infrastructure was primarily a federal responsibility, whereas productivity-enhancing expenditure was becoming a predominantly regional responsibility. The latter grew unevenly, as reflected in the spikes in 1998/99 and 2001/02 (Figure 3.1), and then declined in real terms. 3.6 It appears that expenditures could better match ARD strategy. The ARD strategy for enhancing productivity has emphasized sustainable land management and small-scale water resources development, as well as dissemination of agricultural technology packages to small holders. However the latter dominates expenditures in this area, particularly through the public extension program (which accounted for 44 percent of productivity expenditure in the last five years), and expenditure for small-scale irrigation has dropped since 2003/04 to less than half the level in the earlier period. Yet under PASDEP, small-scale irrigation is considered a key strategic area, and it is envisioned that efforts in this area will increase, and be complemented by medium- and large-scale irrigation. Similarly, investment in trunk roads and regional link roads (federal roads) dominates infrastructure development expenditure to support market development, while 30 expenditure on rural roads for rural connectivity has been declining, and spending on the development of market institutions (with the exception of cooperatives) is negligible. 3.7 To ensure accountability, it is important that public investments are undertaken by the appropriate level of Government based on their mandates for service delivery. For example, given the diversity of agro-ecological conditions in Ethiopia, regions should be provided with the resources and responsibility to drive the extension and research agenda, while the review of current expenditures suggests that the federal government is driving these efforts. Table 3.1. Expenditure alignment: variable levels, shares, and growth rates % Growth Rates of the Expenditure in the four areas of % Shares of the expenditure in expenditure in the four areas of ARD in REAL TERMS (in the four areas of ARD in REAL ARD in REAL TERMS (in millions) TERMS (in millions) millions) Average 97/98- Average 01/02- Average 97/98- Average 2001/02- Average 97/98- Average 01/02- FY 00/01 05/06 00/01 2005/06 00/01 05/06 Average 1990- Average 1994- EFY 1993 1998 Average 90-93 Average 94-98 Average 90-93 Average 94-98 VULNERABILITY AND FOOD SECURITY 162 1,940 8% 41% 41% 162% Federal 161 1,926 99% 99% 43% 162% Regional 1 14 1% 1% -28% 368% INFRASTRUCTURE 1,012 1,421 49% 32% 7% 4% Federal 458 1,027 45% 72% 15% 17% Regional 553 393 55% 28% 1% -18% PRODUCTIVITY 572 906 27% 20% 30% 12% Federal 399 543 67% 58% 76% 5% Regional 173 363 33% 42% -7% 27% OVERSIGHT 335 308 16% 7% 9% -4% Federal 19 16 6% 5% 3% -9% Regional 315 293 94% 95% 9% -3% A major push toward capital expenditure, with large differences across categories 3.8 The economic classification of ARD expenditure reveals marked shifts and disparities in expenditure across ARD priority programs. This topic is presented in detail in Annex 1b, but highlights are as follows: · The overall increase in capital expenditure is primarily due to spending on Vulnerability and Food Security programs. · Infrastructure expenditure is more focused on capital than in the past, especially in federal programs (Figure 3.2). Total capital expenditure in infrastructure exceeds recurrent expenditure by ten times, and is mostly financed from Treasury sources. Foreign financing declined after a sustained increase until 2003/04, particularly for transport infrastructure. Real expenditure on O&M has declined by 16 percent per year, on average, which could well affect future maintenance. · Productivity expenditure has been intensive in capital, but will likely require increased recurrent expenditure in the future (Figure 3.2). In the last couple of years there has been intensive capital expenditure on TVET schools, research labs, agricultural universities and the like. The federal government was in charge of building the infrastructure and then transferred it to the regions for management and operations. This meant an increase, on average, of 84 percent in productivity- enhancing capital expenditure, translating to a 6 percent growth rate in real capital 31 expenditure for the past 5 years, on an annual average basis. Regional governments' recurrent expenditure increased by an annual average of 44 percent in real terms, with wages and O&M growing by 57 percent and 37 percent, respectively. This growth trend in regional recurrent expenditure is expected to continue as infrastructure projects reach completion. 3.9 As capital intensity has increased in ARD programs, expenditure elasticities have changed drastically at the national level. "Elasticity" here refers to the degree to which real expenditure for one economic category changes in reaction to changes in another; e.g. how O&M expenditure changes in response to changes in capital expenditure.15 A matrix of elasticities, calculated on the basis of historical expenditure patterns was estimated (see Annex 1c, Tables 15-18). For instance, the average elasticity of O&M to capital real expenditure for 2001/02- 2005/06 is 6.2, meaning that one would expect an increase of 10 percent in real ARD capital expenditure to be associated with an increase of 62 percent in O&M expenditure. The most sensitive expenditure combinations are those linking recurrent spending (especially O&M spending) to capital spending, and particularly at the regional level. 3.10 There have been pronounced changes by sector in the elasticity of ARD expenditure.16 For instance, the elasticity of federal recurrent to capital expenditure in Water and Resource Management in the last 5 years has been (on average) 3 times that of the preceding period, while the elasticity for federal roads spending has almost halved. These changes suggest a dynamism in ARD expenditure allocation, but may also raise questions about the cost-effectiveness of ARD programs, and potential coordination failures across programs and/or levels of government. 3.11 The variability in shares could be a symptom of problems in budget execution. These could be related to limited capacity, delays in reporting expenditure, high staff turnover, discretionary reallocations, and/or bottlenecks in implementation. However a much more detailed analysis would be required to fully explain the observed differences between the federal vs. regional level and across different spending categories. 15The elasticity measure used here is the symmetric midpoint formula elasticity. 16Comparing the elasticities of recurrent to capital in 20001/02-2005/06 to 1998/99-2000/01, not only the mean- elasticities have changed for all 14 ARD sectors, but also the sign and size of the slope of their linear trends, particularly in infrastructure and productivity sectors. 32 Figure 3.2. Marked shifts and disparities in economic classification of ARD expenditure 1.5 INFRASTRUCTURE 1.5 PRODUCTIVITY Bill. Constant BIRR Bill. Constant BIRR 1.3 1.3 CAPITAL 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 CAPITAL 0.5 C0.5 RECURRENT 0.3 0.3 RECURRENT 0.0 0.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 0.3 INFRASTRUCTURE 0.3 PRODUCTIVITY Bill. Constant BIRR Bill. Constant BIRR WAGES 0.2 0.2 0.1 WAGES 0.1 O&M O&M 0.0 0.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 1.0 INFRASTRUCTURE 1.0 PRODUCTIVITY TREASURY Bill. Constant BIRR Bill. Constant BIRR 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 FOREIGN TREASURY 0.4 0.4 FOREIGN 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Trends in Regional ARD expenditure 3.12 This section focuses on regional real expenditure for the 4 major regions (Oromia, Amhara, SNNPR, and Tigray) using region-specific CPIs (2001/02=100). It covers the period 2001/02-2005/06, which coincides with the period of deepening decentralization. References to all 11 regions are included as needed. 3.13 In contrast to strikingly large increases in ARD expenditure at the federal level, regional ARD spending has increased only moderately (and with most of the increase benefiting the 4 largest regions). Real ARD expenditure allocations for all 11 regions have increased only slightly, from an annual average of Birr 1 billion in 1997/98-2000/01 to Birr 1.1 billion in 2001/02-2005/06. Federal institutions, in contrast, increased their ARD allocations from Birr 1 billion to Birr 3.5 billion per year, partly because of the Federal Food Security Program (FSP). Excluding the FSP, real federal ARD expenditure doubled, from Birr 0.87 33 billion to Birr 1.6 billion. In the process, the regional share in total ARD expenditure decreased from 50 percent to around 21 percent (54 to 40 percent without FSP), and the 4 major regions increased their spending share in total regional ARD from 78 percent to 86 percent (78 to 83 percent without FSP). 3.14 Among the major regions, Tigray and Oromia have the highest levels of regional ARD expenditure per capita (Figure 3.3). The sharp increase in Tigray's share of expenditure (from 8 to 13 percent over the period shown) and Oromia's share (from 47 to 56 percent) represented a 9 percent and 1.2 percent growth rate in their real ARD expenditure per capita, respectively. In turn, the decrease in SNNPR's share (from 10 to 3 percent) and Amhara (from 13 to 11 percent) involved an annual decline of 17 percent and 4 percent in real ARD expenditure per capita, respectively. Figure 3.3. Concentrated shares of Regional ARD, but disparate in per capita terms 100% 30 TIGRAY TIGRAY 80% 25 SNNPR 20 OROMIA 60% AMHARA 15 AMHARA 40% 10 20% RELATIVE OROMIA EXPENDITURE SNNPR EXPENDITURE 5 PER-CAPITA SHARES (constant Birr) 0% 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98 3.15 Regional spending primarily supports productivity and infrastructure programs, but with marked variation across regions. In fact, regions expanded their expenditure share in Productivity (for research and extension) in recent years, following the early lead of SNNPR, and contracted the infrastructure share (Figure 3.4). There is, however, a high degree of variation in terms of how regions allocate resources to these programs. For instance, the infrastructure expenditure shares range from 18 percent for SNNPR to 38 percent for Oromia, on average, and expenditure on productivity ranges from 30 percent in Amhara to 51 percent in SNNPR. 34 Figure 3.4. Regions' expenditure priorities vary, with a focus on production-enhancing programs (in millions of birr, real terms) 250 OROMIA AMHARA 200 150 100 50 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98 250 SNNPR TIGRAY VULN. & FS 200 INFRASTRUCTURE PRODUCTIVITY 150 OVERSIGHT 100 50 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98 3.16 Regions spend about twice as much on recurrent items as on capital, and within recurrent expenditure the wage bill absorbs double that of O&M (Figure 3.5). Regional capital spending is largely financed by Treasury's block grant transfers. Figure 3.5. Regional expenditure is recurrent-intensive, and the capital component is Treasury- financed (in millions of Birr, real terms) 300 RECURRENT WAGES O&M TIGRAY 250 AMHARA OROMIA 200 SNNPR 150 100 50 0 300 CAPITAL TREASURY FOREIGN 250 200 150 100 50 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98 3.17 The regional variation in the functional breakdown of expenditure (Figure 3.6) combined with the economic breakdown reveals important changes in regional expenditure over the last 5 years, albeit without a discernable pattern. Expenditure input combinations and their resulting elasticities vary significantly: for the O&M-capital spending combination, a 10 percent increase in capital spending is associated with as little as a 2 percent increase in O&M for Amhara, and as 35 high as an 84 percent increase in Tigray. Or, for recurrent-capital elasticities, a 10 percent increase in capital spending would require a 1 percent increase in recurrent spending for Amhara, or a 143 percent increase for SNNPR. Figure 3.6. Regional variation in expenditure shares and input combinations TIGRAY 14 R/K 0.5 SNNPR W/O&M AMHARA T/F OROMIA 12 SHARES O&M/K 0.4 ELASTICITIES 10 0.3 8 6 0.2 4 0.1 2 0.0 0 VULN. & FS INFRASTRUCTURE PRODUCTIVITY OVERSIGHT TIGRAY AMHARA OROMIA SNNPR 3.18 As this section has shown, ARD expenditure responsibilities remain centralized, with federal expenditure more than 3 times that of the regions--this has important policy implications. If ARD programs are large and have proven inter-regional spillovers, they should be kept as vertical programs under the federal government. Vulnerability and Food Security programs are the most likely to meet this criterion, and maintaining federal responsibility for them would be consistent with one of the most important functions of central governments, namely income redistribution in the form of assistance to the poor and vulnerable. However, as argued before, the sub-components of the FSP require an accurate knowledge of, and high level of sensitivity to, regional and local circumstances. This is presumably the strength of regional administrations. 3.19 In general, if federal administrations manage the expenditure on programs that are implemented at the rural/regional level, accountability lines for expenditure decisions may be weak. The priority is not as much as identifying who does what but rather what is done, and how well it is done.17 The quality and quantity of outcomes in fact depend on the clarity of expenditure assignments by functional, economic, and administrative categories. This involves clarifying how programs are designed and implemented, and how well expenditures are managed at all levels of government. Whether the regions are effectively and efficiently accountable for ARD expenditure decision-making is an issue which requires a much deeper analysis than possible in this review, and raises questions about the responsiveness of different levels of government to the needs of their constituencies, and the incentives for responsible fiscal decision-making.18 3.20 Hence within a decentralized framework there is a need to clarify which ARD functions should remain with the federal government and which are best placed with regional governments. Empowering sub-national governments to effectively and efficiently 17This is a lesson, for instance, from an extensive review of expenditure assignments in decentralization in Latin America. Bird (2004). 18Coates, W. E. (1999). 36 achieve development objectives is a long and difficult process.19 A recent set of studies for the Institutional and Governance Review (IGR) process, summarized in World Bank (2006), report mixed results over the last 5 years. Two of the challenges identified are precisely related to expenditures, namely the need to clarify expenditure assignments and strengthen local governments' budgeting of capital expenditure. The IGR also shows that further devolution of authority needs to be preceded by increased accountability at sub-national levels. At the same time the report reveals significant progress: (i) there is strong political will from the highest levels to empower woredas and the `grass-roots' through decentralization; (ii) budget transfers to woredas in the form of unconditional bloc grants have been implemented fully; (iii) sub-national administrations have indeed been transformed to align with woreda-level empowerment; and (iv) there have been major commitments to invest in the capacity needed to make the decentralized system work. 3.21 Provision of basic services is reported to have improved in education, health and safe drinking water, but provision of rural development services needs improvement. Furthermore, a pilot Citizens Report Card (covering 3,300 households in Afar, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray) shows that people are less likely to be satisfied with agricultural extension services than with water, sanitation, and health programs (48 percent of households are dissatisfied and 30 percent are partially satisfied with extension programs). This may reflect the fact that the overall impact of extension programs has been mixed (see below). Quality appears to have improved, but less than in other sectors. Gender equity in ARD expenditure 3.22 Addressing gender issues in ARD would increase the efficiency of public expenditure and help fight poverty in rural areas. Issues include ensuring adequate support services for married female farmers and female-headed farmer households, and empowering women at the level of intra-household dynamics through a supportive enabling environment. These cross- cutting issues are relevant to Agricultural Extension, Technical Vocational Education and Training, and Food Security programs, which are discussed here in turn (see Annex 6). 3.23 Women's access to extension services is low, and demand and supply factors may keep it so. In the 2005 Citizen Report Card, just 28 percent of women reported that they had been visited once a week by DAs, compared to 50 percent of men, and 32 percent of women said they had never been visited by a DA (versus only 11 percent of men). In 1999, only 9 percent of women participated in extension services (Figure 3.7a).20 The high opportunity cost of their time, lower level of education, lack of empowerment, and cultural norms may lower women's demand for extension services. This is compounded by the lack of guidelines and targets provided to DAs relating to female participation. Furthermore, low numbers of female DAs (about 12 percent of DAs were women in 2004/05) discourage women's use of extension services.21 In 19See, for instance, World Bank, (2001 and 2000). 20This is according to the Agricultural Census Survey, where the household is the unit of analysis, so the 9 percent may refer to female heads of household. 2001 Agricultural Survey Data cited in Ethiopia National Action Plan for Gender, p.3. 21Studies for Zimbabwe, Mali, and other SSA countries show an increase in women's access to services when female agents deliver extension services. Saito, K., and Weidemann, J., (1990). 37 addition, female enrollment ratios in agricultural colleges are low (12 percent of females vs. 88 percent of males in the three grades in 2005) and drop outs are high (45 percent of all female students dropped out in 2003-2005), yielding only 9 percent female graduates in 2005. Limited involvement from users in the design of extension services may also hinder female participation.22 3.24 Extension services are not sufficiently inclusive of married female farmers. Extension programs assume that men cultivate land, while women work in horticulture and manage small livestock and income-generating projects, and adjust the extension packages accordingly. In reality, married female farmers work along with their husbands,23 contributing between 40 and 77 percent of agricultural labor, depending on the type of activity.24 But their access to extension is not commensurate, resulting in costly capacity underutilization, especially considering that female plots are likely to be highly productive.25 Married female farmers receive loans, and training for small ruminants, small-scale income generation projects, family planning, nutrition, HIV/AIDS, etc. However, this appears insufficient. With no evidence on training trickle down, women should receive extension services along with their partners. Furthermore, for comparison purposes, female-headed households receive credit for inputs, and training for crop production, livestock, and horticulture, not necessarily accessible to married female farmers. Reducing gender gaps in provision of extension services leads to increased output. Research in Kenya, for example, showed that if women receive the same level of agricultural inputs as men, their output value increases by 22 percent; and in Burkina Faso, similar access to fertilizer and labor by men and women farmers would increase agricultural output between 10 and 20 percent.26 Figure 3.7. Gender equity in ARD expenditure? a) Gender-based ineffifiencies in agriculture in Ethiopia b) Real Safety Net Expenditure by sex 2004/05 c) Other Food Security real expenditure by sex 2004/05 100% 140 40 9% 80% 39% 120 9 100 47 30 60% 80 44 91% 40% 20 60 61% 28 11 20% 40 79 26 61 10 4 6 0% 20 30 8 7 9 Labor contribution to Access to Extension Services 0 0 Agriculture Amhara Tigray SNNP Amhara SNNP Oromiya Tigray Male Female Million Birr Million Birr Male Female Male Female Source: Labor Force Survey, 1999 and CSA, 2001 and Regional Food Security Bureaus Notes: (1) OFS data do not include information on the other food secrity project funded by the federal government, and the European Union. (2) Gender disaggregated data on Safety Nets beneficiaries for Oromiya were unavailable. (3) Data for Safety Nets in Amhara region refer to Public Works only (4) Data refer to individual beneficiaries (5) Data access to extension services correspond to 2001; Data on labor contribution to Agriculture correspond to 1999 22 International evidence shows a positive correlation between users' participation in design and planning of extension services and female final access to the services. World Bank (2007). 23 87 percent of males and 72 percent of females in agricultural households work full time in agriculture according to the 2001-2002 Agricultural Sample Enumeration. Aredo, D.(1989). 24 Ethiopia's Labor Force Survey puts women's participation in agriculture in 1999 at 39.09 percent. Additionally, studies carried out by Ethiopia's Agricultural Research Organization in 1997 and 1998 in Amhara, SNNP, and Tigray show that females contribute between 55 and 58 percent of the labor for crop production, and 77 percent of the labor for livestock production. EARO, (2000). 25 Saito, K., 1994. 26 IFPRI, (2005), and Saito, K., (1994) 38 3.25 Turning to the Food Security Program, successful targeting of women led to high participation. Women represent 46 percent of safety net beneficiaries in Tigray, 42 percent in SNNP, and 37 percent in Amhara (Figure 3.7b). Women beneficiaries outnumber men in other food security projects in Tigray, accounting for 53 percent; they represent 44 percent of beneficiaries in Oromiya, 33 percent in SNNP and 25 in Amhara (Figure 3.7c). Food Security Programs and Safety Nets beneficiaries are about 62 percent men and 38 percent women, representing fairly effective targeting, defined by clear guidelines and specific targets, especially for chronically food insecure female-headed households.27 Under the other food security projects, the female beneficiary target is 30 percent, and women are expected to be members of program management committees in kebeles and woredas. Appropriate gender-training is provided to program officials and community leaders, along with gender and communication experts in each region, and most of the regions monitor progress through gender-disaggregated statistics. 3.26 Intra-household differences could be taken into account to enhance the role of women in food security. International experience shows that to maximize the impact of female participation in Food Security Programs, more focus is needed on intra-household dynamics and inequities.28 The FSP assumes that benefits to the head of the household will benefit all household members, but there are in fact strong asymmetries. In public works, while the head of the household receives the transfers, commonly the wife/wives and other household members carry out the actual work. Also, cases of mishandling of benefits by male recipients--e.g. selling the food--have already been reported to program officials. The Participatory Poverty Assessment illustrates these issues: men have absolute control of decisions and income management in 75 percent of households interviewed. Other studies show, for instance, that agricultural shocks in rural Ethiopia affect women disproportionately, as evidenced by drops in their Body Mass Index.29 Moreover, evidence suggests that increasing the share of household assets managed by women increases household expenditure on children's education.30 3.27 Finally, capacity building efforts to address gender issues in public policy over the last decade should be fully implemented in ARD programs and policies. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has had a Women's Affairs Department since 1994 to mainstream gender in all programs, and Regional Bureaus have Women's Desks with similar functions. This is a remarkable achievement that should be backed with resources, better integration in the decision making and planning processes at the Ministry, and efficient management and information systems. 27The program allows for the possibility of sponsoring childcare facilities, it establishes shorter shifts for women in public works to acknowledge their reproductive burden, and it has special provisions for pregnant and lactating mothers. Also, public works are allowed in laborless female-headed households' private properties, and priority is given to public works which reduce women's regular work burden. 28Ezemenari, K., Chaudhury, N., and Owens, J., (2002) 29Dercon and Krishnan (2000) 30Quisumbing, R., and Maluccio, J., (2000) 39 3.2) Budget Procedures and Execution Budgetary institutions and processes: a review of performance 3.28 We now turn to a discussion of budget institutions and procedures for ARD programs in Ethiopia to lay the groundwork for the analysis of budget execution that follows. In general, budgetary institutions and procedures are clearly defined. A Planning Cycle precedes the Budget Cycle. It includes preparation of: (i) the Medium-term Economic and Financial Framework (MEFF), which provides a rolling 3-year macroeconomic framework, with indicative budget envelopes; (ii) the Public Investment Programs (PIP), consistent with three- year Indicative Planning Figures (IPFs) and macro priorities, with objectives prioritized by ongoing, approved, and planned projects (once approved, the PIP becomes the framework for the next fiscal year's capital budget preparation); (iii) the Regional Subsidy 3-year estimates, based on a Parliament-approved formula; and (iv) the Annual Fiscal Plan, including estimates of revenue, expenditure and financing for the upcoming budget year. The Budget Cycle begins by end-January, and involves budget preparation, review/approval, execution, evaluation and auditing. 3.29 MOARD Budget Preparation and Approval. In ARD programs, budgeting practices have tended to change frequently during the review period, and the level of technical sophistication is improving. MOARD initiates its budget process early in October, compiling information on unit costs, mid-year program reviews, and work plan development. By early February, after Parliament approves the budget envelope, MOFED issues a budget call (containing budget ceilings for expenditure and type of financing) to MOARD to finalize its budget request. At MOARD, the Planning and Programming Department (PPD) prepares the budget. MOARD's 29 cost centers and 18 project centers must submit their annual budget requests to the PPD, based on performance over the last six months. The PPD checks gaps vis-à- vis budget ceilings,31 consolidates the Ministry's budget, and submits it to MOFED by end March. The MOFED Budget Department compiles all budget requests, and verifies that proposals are aligned to government policies and priorities. MOFED and MOARD interact, if needed, to clarify any issues, and by end-April, MOFED and MOARD Ministers conduct hearings to finalize the budget. Upon agreement, MOFED transmits the recommended budget for approval to the Council of Ministers and the Office of the Prime Minister, who seeks Parliamentary approval, with a July 7 deadline. 3.30 MOARD Budget Execution and Reporting. Upon Parliamentary approval of the budget, MOARD's cost/project centers are expected to submit action plans (financial and physical) for the budget year. During budget execution, MOARD prepares a 3-month rolling disbursement schedule and a physical plan for projected deliverables. MOARD submits the financial plan only to Accounts Department of MOFED, which cross-checks it on monthly basis with the annual action plan, before instructing the National Bank of Ethiopia to feed MOARD's account. Disbursements are currently controlled under a monthly zero-balance system. 31The past practice of establishing ex-ante ceilings for centers was suspended this year, to `promote innovation in budget preparation', thus making budget requests less credible. 40 3.31 MOARD uses computer software to control, account for, and monitor domestically- financed expenditure. The system tracks neither foreign-financed capital expenditure, nor regional expenditures, which are prepared manually. This has resulted in considerable delays in monthly reporting, which in turn cause considerable delays in releasing the next tranche of budgeted funds for ARD programs, as MoFED stops releasing funds to MoARD unless monthly reports are submitted. This is particularly a problem for regional programs. Reporting delays are caused by limited capacity at local level and high staff turnover at various levels of regional and local administrations. Often, regional bureaus/offices implementing MOARD programs conduct arbitrary expenditure reallocations between budget line items, causing additional delays in the release of funds, due to lengthy accounts-reconciliation. These delays help explain the weak budget execution performance recorded across ARD programs in general, as reported in the next section. 3.32 Reallocation of resources among budget lines is allowed. Proclamation No. 57/1996 allows transfers from recurrent to capital budgets conditional on approval by the Council of Ministers, but reallocations from capital to recurrent are prohibited. MOFED can empower ministries to shift funds within major recurrent items and from one capital project to another, and it is currently preparing a new directive to consolidate the delegation to ministries to operate budget transfers. In practice MOARD does not access this option, as the request process is inefficient and lengthy, without timely results. 3.33 MOARD Monitoring and Evaluation. MOARD prepares quarterly physical and financial reports for recurrent and capital budget implementation, which are transmitted to the Economic Sector Budget Department (ESBD) of MOFED, which monitors and evaluates budgeted programs. The ESBD uses the physical report to assess strengths and weaknesses in program implementation, with implications for the next year's budget. ESBD also conducts periodic field visits to assess implementation progress. Effective program monitoring and evaluation depends on the timeliness of the reports. Usually the reports are submitted late, due to lack of capacity and high staff turnover, particularly in regional departments/offices; and weak communication between MOARD and regional bureaus/offices. The ESBD produces an annual M&E report and distributes it to the relevant departments at MOFED and MOARD, but no longer sends it to the Office of the Prime Minister. Dissemination of M&E reports to policymakers helps them check relative effectiveness of different programs. 3.34 MOARD Auditing. The MOARD audit process involves its own Audit Department, the Federal Office of the Auditor General (OAG), MOFED, and external auditors. MOARD conducts only financial audits. Recently, MOFED transferred the ex-post audit duty to MOARD for recurrent and domestically financed capital items, to avoid duplication of tasks and reduce MOFED's lag in auditing reports. The Audit Department is currently auditing the FY05/06 accounts for high expenditure programs, and audits for FY03/04 and FY04/05 will follow. In a given fiscal year, the Department must audit at least 50 percent of MOARD programs. MOARD does not audit regionally-implemented programs, such as the FSP or TVET, despite the fact that their budgets are federal, due to weak reporting. External auditors audit foreign-financed capital expenditure in a timely manner (the FY05/06 audit is now being finalized). MOARD audit reports are not published formally, but an internal report is sent to the Minister and various 41 departments at MOARD and MOFED. Audit reports for external loans and assistance are circulated to donors by the external auditors. OAG presents its audit reports to Parliament. Budget execution performance: better execution, which could still improve 3.35 Budget execution performance is measured by the ratio of actual to budgeted expenditure, on an annual basis. Internationally-accepted benchmarks include a 10 percent deviation in actual expenditure compared to budgeted (this threshold was established for the PEFA indicators); and low and stable relative mean deviations (the average of the absolute values of the deviations around the mean) of the ratio of actual to budgeted expenditure. In this review, both are weighted by annual real expenditure in functional, economic, and administrative categories, to capture the effects of changes in these categories on budget execution performance. The four broad categories of expenditure are maintained, to continue reviewing the alignment of ARD expenditure with ARD priorities. 3.36 Budget execution performance in ARD programs is generally low and variable across administrative, functional, and economic categories. On average, nationally, ARD programs execute about 80 percent of budgeted amounts, or 10 percentage points short of PEFA benchmarks. Some improvement took place as the budget execution rate at the national level increased from an average of 78 percent over the period 1997/98-2000/01 to 81 percent from 2001/02-2004/05.32 However, this increase was entirely due to an almost 100 percent execution rate for Vulnerability and Food Security programs. Most of the other functional categories actually lowered their average budget execution ratios (Figure 3.8 and Table 3.2). Figure 3.8. A mixed performance of ARD budget execution across the board 100% 140% TOTAL ARD 90% NATIONAL 120% 80% 100% 70% 60% 80% 50% 60% 40% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Vulnerability and Infrastructure Productivity Oversight NATIONAL FEDERAL REGIONAL Food Security 140% 140% FEDERAL REGIONAL 120% 120% 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% Vulnerability and Infrastructure Productivity Oversight Vulnerability and Infrastructure Productivity Oversight Food Security Food Security 32 Budget execution is analysed for the period 1997/98 ­ 2004/05, one year short of the period covered in this review. The reason is that for 2005/06, expenditure for most items is estimated, and therefore not reflecting actual performance. 42 Table 3.2. Generally low budget execution performance, by economic and administrative categories FY 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 MEAN - DEVIATION EFY 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 90-93 94-97 NATIONAL TOTAL ARD 83 86 72 71 80 79 85 82 6 2 Recurrent 107 93 66 93 95 94 96 92 12 1 Wages 94 91 96 93 90 94 94 83 2 4 O&M 128 94 53 93 97 95 96 96 19 1 Capital 75 84 77 63 71 73 78 78 6 3 Treasury 86 79 96 82 74 88 93 88 5 6 Foreign 51 90 63 47 69 59 61 55 14 4 Loan 69 121 98 57 80 66 70 64 23 5 Grant 24 39 9 25 30 45 32 37 8 5 FEDERAL TOTAL ARD 80 90 63 68 80 74 84 84 10 3 Recurrent 142 94 48 90 95 94 98 98 25 2 Wages 98 95 95 81 86 88 83 87 6 2 O&M 169 93 43 92 96 95 99 99 35 2 Capital 69 90 74 63 72 69 78 79 8 4 Treasury 93 94 84 77 66 79 92 91 6 9 Foreign 52 88 70 56 74 63 64 58 12 4 Loan 65 120 110 65 82 66 71 65 25 6 Grant 32 36 6 33 36 53 38 43 10 6 REGIONAL TOTAL ARD 84 82 89 76 80 91 86 74 4 6 Recurrent 95 92 96 95 94 95 91 82 1 4 Wages 94 90 96 95 90 95 96 82 2 5 O&M 100 96 94 94 100 94 80 82 2 8 Capital 79 77 83 64 68 86 80 64 6 9 Treasury 83 74 103 86 84 107 95 75 8 11 Foreign 45 100 25 5 7 22 8 3 29 6 Loan 89 129 28 1 2 48 6 5 47 16 Grant 0 61 22 8 9 11 8 3 19 3 Note: All data for 1997/98 untill 2003/04 are actual expenditures as reported by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Regional expenditure data for 2004/05 and 2005/06 is only for the four main regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR). The Federal and Regional data for 2005/06 are Bank Staff estimates. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 3.37 In the aggregate, federal and regional budget execution performance is mixed. Regions perform better than the federal government, but with more variability. The aggregate regional performance, at 83 percent, is consistently higher than federal, which improved to 81 percent, reflecting strong performance in Vulnerability and Food Security (see below). Federal execution ratios stabilized considerably reflecting institutional changes at the federal level. The mean deviation fell from 10 percent to 3 percent in the two periods of comparison. Regional ones increased their mean deviations from 4 percent to 6 percent, reflecting adjustments to expenditure patterns over the period, and slow progress in rolling over institutional reforms for better budget management. 3.38 However, looking at the disaggregated functional categories, execution performance of all ARD programs except Vulnerability and Food Security has worsened, although most also reduced their variance. Execution at the functional level, comparing 2001/02-2004/05 to 1997/98-2000/01, is as follows: · An almost full budget execution in Federal Vulnerability and Food Security backed the massive scaling-up of resources for the program. · Infrastructure programs had deteriorating budget execution ratios (decrease from 92 percent to 70 percent), but the ratios stabilized (their mean deviations dropped from 17 percent to 4 percent). Federal programs dropped by 24 percentage points in budget execution (from 86 to 62 percent) and regional programs dropped by 21 percentage points (from 97 to 76 percent), reflecting the changing nature of federal-regional responsibilities and allocation of resources, and widespread planning and institutional 43 capacity constraints that prevented better absorption of increased resources. The most prominent drops occurred in the Water Resource Management and Rural Energy and Mining sectors at the federal level, and Rural Infrastructure Development and Rural Energy and Mining at the regional level. · Productivity programs also deteriorated in terms of execution performance, which fell from 92 percent to 76 percent, although they more than halved their variance. In this case, regional gains from 80 to 84 percent (mostly in Research and Natural Resource and Environment Management sectors)--reflecting the increased regional capacity in disbursing recurrent expenditure--compensated for a decrease from 104 percent to 72 percent at the federal level (mostly in extension, TVET, and Improved Seed Development programs--reflecting implementation bottlenecks). · Oversight budget execution dropped from 95 percent to 88 percent, representing a decrease in the more variable regional ratios (which fell from 97 to 89 percent), though regional ratios remain stronger than federal ratios (which fell from 81 to 78 percent). This reflects adjustment difficulties as regions increased their role in managing ARD programs. 3.39 Recurrent budget execution is consistently higher than capital, and in this regard federal performance is higher and more stable than regional. In particular: · Recurrent categories improved and stabilized well within the international benchmark of 90 percent, thanks to performance gains in O&M at the federal level. This offset worsening budgetary performance on wage payments, as ARD institutions increased their staffs (e.g., DAs). · Capital programs consistently execute about 75 percent of budgeted resources, far lower than international PEFA benchmarks, although federal stability gains compensated for increased regional variance in execution ratios. · There are striking differences between Treasury and Foreign financing. Only about 61.5 percent of budgeted Foreign financing is actually absorbed, compared to 86 percent of Treasury resources, with a dismal proportion for regional capital programs. Realised grant financing was only 36 percent of budgeted at the national level. Foreign financing execution ratios were not only the lowest but also the most variable year-to-year. 3.40 During the review of budgetary processes, ARD institutions suggested that greater flexibility to reallocate resources within the budget year was needed. On the other hand, the results reported here may signal that significant improvements are required in budget implementation procedures and practices. 44 4. CONCLUSIONS 4.1 This study, the first of its kind in reviewing ARD expenditure in Ethiopia, has revealed the main trends in ARD expenditure, and initiated an analysis of how well expenditures align with the government's stated policies and priorities. The fiscal database that has been established will now allow further analysis, which is needed in a range of areas. 4.2 An underlying issue is how the ARD strategic objectives can be best supported with public and private resources, and how objectives and instruments can adapt best to emerging positive developments in ARD. PASDEP acknowledges that agriculture in Ethiopia is caught in a low input-low output trap, due in part to low levels of investment, low application of technology, and low capacity. The solutions will need to be locally-driven, and supported by appropriate government actions and development partners, in the context of experimentation, innovation, and learning by doing as envisaged by the PASDEP. 4.3 Another cross-cutting issue, not addressed in this report, is the appropriate role of the state in the provision of ARD public goods and services. There is a delicate balance between a proactive state and providing space for market and business formation in agriculture and rural development, and the agenda is complex. There are some goods and services which are clearly public in nature, albeit with potential for cooperatives and private sector participation, potentially under cost-recovery schemes that take into account the low level of income of farmers, including: research, extension (e.g., contract farming arrangements), seed development (with opportunities for farmer/private sector joint arrangements), and rural infrastructure (roads). Also, while public investment (or combination of public and private) could cover water resource management, irrigation, and energy infrastructure, the private sector could operate the services. Government has played an important role in promoting private investment and competition in production and markets (e.g., floriculture), and the Commodity Exchange is a test of private- public partnership that should make markets more competitive. 4.4 The development of private markets depends on public provision of an appropriate regulatory environment, including provisions for grades and standards, food safety, biosafety, and environmental protection, all with revealed public goods characteristics. The Government has already embarked on successful partnerships with the private sector, big and small, and in a variety of areas directly related to ARD sectors, such as the flower industry. These experiences illustrate the opportunities for innovation and experimentation. 4.5 We turn now to summarise some conclusions from the data analysis and review of secondary sources. In this context it is also possible to highlight possible directions for further work. Allocations · Ethiopia's support to ARD in terms of financial resources has been strong, and is expected to expand significantly under the PASDEP. In 2005, Ethiopia spent about 25 percent of total public expenditure on ARD, or 50 percent of total expenditure on pro-poor programs, and absorbed 17 percent of agriculture GDP. 45 · There is significant variation over time: nine sectors out of the 14 either doubled or halved their respective shares in total ARD expenditure in the sub-periods under review (1997/98- 2000/01 versus 2001/02-2005/06). For example, rural roads dropped from 15 to 5 percent, Extension and TVET dropped from 19 to 8 percent, and Agriculture Marketing and Credit and Cooperatives rose from 1 to 6 percent. · The very substantial spending on vulnerability and food security is understandable--but requires review in the context of national objectives to accelerate growth, especially given the geographical focus of the program on low potential areas. An in-depth review of intra- sectoral linkages (e.g. FSP with ARD growth agenda keeping in mind the contribution that addressing vulnerability has for growth) would be valuable. · There is a need to ensure greater interaction and synergies between extension and research to achieve gains in effectiveness and efficiency and ensure growth. In addition both research and extension should be based on the needs of the farmers and their potential. · The regional and woreda role in ARD could be further enhanced. During the review period, federal rather than regional agencies channeled the increases in ARD budgets. A more demand-driven approach, closer to actual geo-ecological and socioeconomic realities, would involve sub-national governments playing a much more decisive role than is the case presently. Ethiopia is already engaged in a massive effort in public sector re-engineering, with ambitious plans to improve budget formulation and execution, across federal, regional and woreda level. This is the strongest platform for improvements in the fiscal management of ARD programs. The devolution of power to regional states and then to the aims to improve accountability, responsibility and flexibility in service delivery and increase local participation in democratic decision making. ARD programs could be placed at the forefront of piloting and efforts to deepen decentralization during PASDEP. · A more detailed review of the balance of priorities is warranted. There is the underlying question about the relative focus between low and high potential areas--and the need to complement broad based efforts with high return interventions (see World Bank 2006c). Authorities could focus more on how to invest resources more strategically to achieve the highest economic returns and social payoff to public investments. An example is the irrigation system, which needs to make choices in terms of priorities: small scale vs. large scale, food staples vs. high value products, and public vs. private financing. · Given the large number of female-headed agricultural households and women's participation in the agricultural labor force, it is essential that gender issues are mainstreamed into Government programs. Follow-up analyses of the gender-equity impact of ARD programs would be useful. Management · Program design capacity could be strengthened--including with respect to investment appraisal and technical feasibility analysis across the board--leading to a disciplined choice of provision of core public goods and services to support ARD. · Improving and streamlining budgetary procedures and practices, especially at regional and woreda levels, together with transparency and robust accountability, would help ensure an efficient channeling of resources. 46 Data and Monitoring · More generally, greater efforts are needed to conduct comprehensive evaluations of effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of ARD programs. There is a need to strengthen the tools and mechanisms to assess with robust data whether PASDEP and sectoral targets are being reached. Existing efforts to formally check for effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of ARD programs are sparse and somewhat ad hoc. Among activities which could be pursued in a well-designed system could be a representative survey of beneficiaries and service delivery, and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS). · Improved data reflecting the composition of expenditure at the lowest level possible of each program, and through time, would allow estimates of the true costs of delivering public ARD goods and services, along with resource tracking. · Much better data on external financing is needed to provide a comprehensive picture of ARD expenditure. 47 5. REFERENCES Abate, T., (2006). Focusing on Agricultural Research to Address Development Needs in Ethiopia 2006-2010 and Beyond. A paper presented at the conference on Scaling up and Scaling out, 9- 11, May 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Amhara National Regional State, Food Security Programme Coordination Office (2003/04) Annual Report Food Security Programme Implementation. Bahirdar, August 1996. Amhara National Regional State, Food Security Programme Coordination and Disaster Prevention Office. (2005a), Annual Performance Report of World Bank-Assisted Food Security Project (Cr. 3646 ET), (8th July 2004 -7th July 2005). Addis Ababa. July 2005. Amhara National Regional State, Food Security Programm Coordination and DPP Office (2005b). Annual Report for 1997 EFY. Bahirdar July 1997 EC. Amhara National Regional State (2004/05c), 1997 EFY Annual Budget, Bahirdar September 1997 EC Anandajayasekeram, P., Rukumi, M., and Mekuria , M. (2002). Why has impact assessment research not made more of a difference? Lessons from Eastern and Southern Africa. A paper presented at the International conference on Impact of Agricultural Research and Development: Why has Impact Assessment Research not made more of a difference? San Jose, Costa Rica , February 2002. Anderson, J. R., Herdt, R. W. and Scobie, G. M. (1988). Science and food: The CGIAR and its partners. Washington, D.C.: World Bank for the CGIAR. Alene, A. D. and. Hassan, R. M. (2003). Measuring the impact of Ethiopia's new extension program on the productive efficiency of farmers Paper selected for presentation at the 25th international conference of agricultural Economists, Durban, South Africa. Aredo, D. (1989), "The Gender Division of Labor in Ethiopian Agriculture: A review of Case Studies", in Proceedings of the Workshop on Problems and Prospects of Rural Development in Ethiopia, Institute of Development Research: Addis Ababa. December 1989. Ashworth, V. (2005). The challenges of change for agricultural extension in Ethiopia, Consultancy report, New Zealand. Ayele, A., Alemu, D. and Kelemework, F. (2005). The provisions of rural services in Ethiopia: characterization impacts and farmers priorities Draft unpublished paper. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Behailu, M., Abdulkedir, M., Mezgebu, A., and Yasin, M.,(2004) Community Based Irrigation Management in the Tekeze Basin: Impact Assessment case study on three small-scale irrigation schemes (micro dams Oromia Irrigation Development Authority: Stallholders Modern Irrigation Schemes Evaluation Report, (2000) 48 Beintema, N, M. and Solomon, M., (2003). AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE. ASTI Country Brief No. 9 · October 2003. Bekele, A., and Beshir, B., (2005). Adopting improved Haricot Bean varieties in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, 2005, EARO. Beyene, H., Verkuijl, H., and Mwangi, W., (1998). Farmers' seed sources and management of bread wheat in the Wolmera Wereda, Ethiopia. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT and IAR. Bird, R. (2004) "Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Latin America: Policy Design and Policy Outcomes"; Inter-American Development Bank, Sustainable Development Department, Washington, D.C.). Bonger, T., Ayele,G., and Kuma,T. (2004). Agricultural Extension, Adoption and Diffusion in Ethiopia. EDRI ­ research report I, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Breth, S.A, (ed.), (2004). From subsistence to sustainable agriculture in Africa. Sasakawa Africa Association. Mexico Carlsson, F., Kohlin, G., Mekonnen, A., and Yesuf, M. (2005). Are agricultural extension packages what Ethiopian farmers want? A stated preference analysis Working paper in Economics no. 172 Department of Economics, Goteborg University, Sweden. Central Statistical Authority (CSA) (2005). Farm Management Practices (Private Peasant holdings, Meher Season), Volume III, No 331, Ethiopia. Coates, W. E. (1999), "An essay on Fiscal Federalism", Journal of Economic Literature, Sept 1999.; 37, 3 pp.1120-1149. Dadi, L., Regassa, S., Fikre, A., and Mitiku, D. (2005). Adoption of chickpea varieties in the central highlands of Ethiopia. EARO Research report 62. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Degu, G., Mwangi, W., Verkuijl, H., Wondimu, A., (2000). An Assessment of the Adoption of seed and fertilizer packages and the Role of Credit in Smallholder maize production in Sidama and North Omo zones, Ethiopia, (EARO & CIMYT). Demeke, M., Ferede, T., Assefa, B., Alemu, D., Assefa, M., (2004) Smallholder Vegetable and Pepper production in Ethiopia: A case study in Meki, Ziway, Awassa and Meskano Areas Demel, T. (2002). Evolution and strategic plan of agricultural research in Ethiopia. Paper presented at the second committee of directors retreat of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Kigali, September 30­May 4. 49 Dercon and Krishnan, (2000), "Gender and Risk in the Design of Social Protection Interventions", Social Safety Net Primer Series, December 2002, Washington DC: World Bank Institute; quoted in Ezemenari, K., Chaudhury, N., and Owens, J., 2002 Dercon, S., Gilligan, D., Hoddinott, J. and Woldehanna, T. (2006). The impact of roads and agricultural extension on crop income, consumption and poverty in fifteen Ethiopian villages. ESSP Policy Conference Brief No. 5, June 2006. Development Research Institute (EDRI) (2006) Water harvesting and Irrigation: Impacts on access and livelihood outcomes Ethiopian EARO, Ethiopian Agricultural Research organization (2000), "Institutionalizing Gender Planning in Agricultural Technology, Generation and Transfer Process" EARO: Addis Ababa. (EARO) Ethiopian Agricultural Research organization (2004). The Ethiopian agricultural Research System, Suggested modalities for institutional collaboration. EARO-AORI-JICA Cooperation (2004). Farmer Research Group (FRG): Concept and Practices, Proceeding of a workshop, 20-21, October, 2004. MARC, Melkassa FRG project. EDRI (Ethiopian Development Research Institute). (2004). Agricultural extension, adoption, diffusion and socio economic impact in the four regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya and the SNNP) of Ethiopia Preliminary study report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EEA/EEPRI (Ethiopian Economic Association/ Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute). (2006). Evaluation of the Ethiopian Agricultural Extension with particular emphasis on the participatory demonstration and training extension system (PADETES). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ellis, F. and Woldehanna T. (2005) Ethiopian Participatory Poverty Assessment 2004-05 Paper version that will be published by MoFED, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Eradso, L.,(2005) Small-scale Irrigation Dams, Agricultural Production and Health: Theory and Evidence from Ethiopia, The World Bank, Ezemenari, K., Chaudhury, N., and Owens, J., (2002), "Gender and Risk in the Design of Social Protection Interventions", Social Safety Net Primer Series, December 2002, Washington DC: World Bank Institute. European Delegation (2005), Final Report, Mid-term review of the 2002 EC food Security Programme in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, December 2005. FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission to Ethiopia (2005), Special Report 28 January, 2005. FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission to Ethiopia (2006), Special Report 24 February, 2006. 50 Fan, S., Nyange, D., and Rao, N. (2004a). Public Investment and poverty Reduction in Tanzania: Evidence from Household Survey data, IFPRI Development Strategy and Governance Division, Memo Fan, S., Zhang, X., and Rao, N. (2004b). Public Expenditure, Growth and Poverty Reduction in Rural Uganda, DSG Discussion Paper No. 4, IFPRI Development Strategy and Governance Division. Ferede, S., Ayele, G., and Teklewold, H.,(2003). Impact of Technology on Household Food Security in Tef and Wheat farming systems of Moretna-Jiru Wereda, Research Report No. 48, EARO. Food Security Coordination Bureau (2003) Report on the end users evaluation in Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya and SNNP Regions. Addis Ababa, June 2003 Food Security Coordination Bureau. (2005/06), Review Report, 1997 EFY Food Security Programme Implementation. (Amharic Version), September, 2006 Food Security Coordination Bureau (2006), Food Security Programme, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Addis Ababa, May 2006 Forum for Social Study. (2006), Understanding the Dynamics of Resettlement in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, January 2006. Gebremedhin, B., Hoekstra D., and Tegegn, A. 2005. Commercialization of Ethiopian Agriculture: Extension Service from Input Supplier to Knowledge broker Paper presented at Tigray Agricultural Technology Exhibition and Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Getinet, G., and Tadesse, G. (1999). The national agricultural research system of Ethiopia. In The national agricultural research systems in the West Asia and North Africa region, ed. J. Casas, M. Solh, and H.Hafez. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA, FAO, AARINENA, and CIHEAM. HAULLEVILLE, A.,. (2003), Management Support to the EC Food Security Progrmme, Ethiopia, Final Report: May 2003. http://www.ethiopians.com/Main_FSS_Paper1.htm: Water Resource Development in Ethiopia IFAD (2005a) SCP II Appraisal Report: Main Report and Appendices, IFAD (2005b) Project Evaluation SCP II-Interim Evaluation: Federal Democratic, Republic of Ethiopia IFPRI, (2005), "Women, Still the Key to Food and Nutrition Security", Washington DC: IFPRI, 51 Kassa, B. (2003). Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: the case of PADETES. Journal of Social Development in Africa. January 2003, Vol. 18 (1). Kassa, H. (2005). Historical development and current challenges of agricultural extension with particular emphasis on Ethiopia. Working Paper No. 2/05 EEA/Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan. Kidanu, S., Alemu, B., Regassa, S., and Asefa, S., (2005). Adoption and impact assessment of improved crop varieties at watershed scale through GIS integration in Gimbichu District, DZARC. Kotu, B., Verkuijl, H., Mwangi, W., and Tanner, D., (2000). Adoption of improved Wheat Technologies in Adaba and Dodola Weredas of the Bale highlands, Ethiopia, (EARO & CIMMYT). McGuire, S. (2005). Getting Genes: Rethinking Seed System Analysis and reform for Sorghum in Ethiopia, Research School for Resource Studies and Development, Wageningen University, The Netherlands MDCG. (2005), An Overview of Rainwater Harvesting Initiatives for Improving Household Food Security in Ethiopia: Addis Ababa. March 2005. Mills, L., (2004), Final Evalution Report, Evaluation of the Water Harvesting Schemes Component of the EC Funded Programmes (IFSP 1998 & IFSP 2000 Tigray Regional State), Addis Ababa March 2004 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2004), Productive Safety Net Programme, Program Implementation Manual: Addis Ababa, August 2004. (MoARD) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2004), Food Security Project (Cr.3646) 2003/04 Annual performance Report: Addis Ababa. October 2004. (MoARD) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Food security Coordination Bureau. (2005), Food Security Project (Cr. 3646ET IDA, TF 51169 Italy & TF 52696 CIDA) Annual Work Plan and Budget For 2005/06 (1998 Ethiopian Fiscal Year): Addis Ababa. August 2006. (MoARD) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Food security Coordination Bureau. (2006a), Food Security Project (IDA Cr. 3646ET, CIDA & Italian Grant) 2004/05 Fiscal Year, Annual Project Performance Report: Addis Ababa. January 2006. 52 (MoARD) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Food security Coordination Bureau. (2006b), Food Security Project (IDA Cr. 3646ET, CIDA & Italian TF51169) 2005/06 Fiscal Year, Second Quarter Performance Report: Addis Ababa. March 2006. (MoARD) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Food Security Coordination Bureau. (2006c), Financial and Physical Report of the 2005 Activities, The productive Safety Net Program: Addis Ababa. March 2006. MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development).(2006d). Study on Improving the Efficiency of Input Market. Final Report Vol.1, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. MoFED: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (2001/02 report) (MoRD) Ministry of Rural Development. (2003a), Food Security Project (Cr.3646) 2003 Annual Progress Report, (October 2002-July 7, 2003): Addis Ababa. July 2003. (MoRD) Ministry of Rural Development (2003b), Evaluation report on financial utilization of the offices under the Ministry. Addis Ababa, August 2003 Moges Shiferaw (2004).A key for sustainable management of rainwater resources Mohammed, I. (2004). Extension experiences in Ethiopia. Paper presented at MoARD planning workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Oromiya Food Security Programme Coordination Office (2004). EFY 1996 Implementation Report, EC 2002 Targeted Budget Support Food Security Programme. Addis Ababa August 2004. Oromia National Regional State, Bureau of Finance & Economic Development (2005) Evaluation Report on Small scale Irrigation Projects constructed Up to the Year 1994 E.C, January1997 E.C Pardey, P. G., and Beintema, N. M. (2001). Slow magic: Agricultural R&D a century after Mendel. IFPRI Food Policy Report. Washington, D.C. Part v: irrigated horticulture and potable water(working paper) Quisumbing, R., and Maluccio, J., (2000), "Intra-household allocation and gender relations: new empirical evidence from four developing countries", FCND Discussion Paper No. 84, IFPRI. Washington DC Regassa, S., Dadi, L., Mitiku, D., Fikre A., and Aw-Hasan A.,(2006). Impact of Research and Technologies in Selected Lentil Growing Areas of Ehiopa, Research Report No. 67, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). Roseboom, J., and Pardey, P. G. (1994). Statistical brief on the national agricultural research system of Ethiopia . Statistical Brief No. 7. The Hague: ISNAR. 53 Saito, K., and Weidemann, J., (1990), "Extension for Women's Farmers in Africa", World Bank Discussion Paper No. 103, Washington DC: World Bank. Saito, K., (1994), "Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa", World Bank Discussion Paper No. 230, Washington DC: The World Bank. Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (2004/05a), Regional Food Security Strategy, Awassa, September 1997 EC. Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Food Security and Pastoral Development Office (2004/05b) Annual Report for 1997 EFY. Awassa, June 1997 EC. Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Food Security and Pastoral Development Office (2004/05c) Annual Budget plan for 1998 EFY. Awassa, August 1997 EC. Sultan., S., and Slater, R., /DFID (2005), Graduation and Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme, Addis Ababa. May, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (2000). Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: Context and State of the Art, Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group (IARG) TAC Secretariat, Proceeding of Workshop organized by the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the technical Advisory Committee, FAO Rome. The EC TA team at Oromiya Food Security and DPP Commission, (2005) MoU 2002 Food Security Programme in Ethiopia/Oromiya Region, Annual Report for EFY 1997, Addis Ababa, August 2005. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2002a), Food Security Strategy: Addis Ababa. March 2002. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2002b), Food Security Project Implementation Manual, Addis Ababa October 2002 The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2003), Voluntary Resettlement Programme. Addis Ababa, November 2003 The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, (2004/05) Three years Strategic Plan for Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, August 1997 EC The New Coalition For Food Security in Ethiopia (2003), Food Security Programme Volume I Addis Ababa November 2003. Thirtle, C., Lin, L., and Piesse, J. (2001). The Impact of Research Led Agricultural Productivity Growth on Poverty Reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, UK. 54 Thirtle, C., Lin, L., and Piesse, J. (2003). The Impact of Research Led Agricultural Productivity Growth on Poverty Reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. World Development 31 (12): 1959-1975. World Bank (2003). World development indicators 2003. Washington, D.C. CDROM. Tiruneh, A. (1989), "Women in the Food System: a Case from Bale Region"; in Proceedings of the Workshop on Problems and Prospects of Rural Development in Ethiopia, Institute of Development Research: Addis Ababa. December 1989. World Bank, (2000), "Decentralization and the challenge of hard budget constraints. Reaping the benefits of decentralization requires mitigating its potential costs", PREM Note 41, July 2000. World Bank, (2001), " Decentralization and governance: does decentralization improve public service delivery?", PREM Note 55, June 2001. World Bank, (2005), "Well Being and Poverty in Ethiopia ­ The Role of Agriculture and Agency", Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Africa Region, July 18, 2005 (AFTP2); Washington D.C. World Bank (2006a),"ETHIOPIA -- DECENTRALIZATION, DELIVERY AND ACCOUNTABILITY", Draft, Washington D.C. World Bank, (2006b); "ETHIOPIA: Policies for Pro-Poor Agricultural Growth", Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Africa Region, Draft, June 30, 2006. World Bank, (2006c); "ETHIOPIA: Accelerating Equitable Growth", Country Economic Memorandum, Part I and II, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Africa Region, Draft, June 30, 2006. World Bank. (2006d). Rural Public Expenditure Review , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. World Bank (2007), "Buenas Prácticas de la Incorporación de Género en los Proyectos Financiados por el Banco Mundial en Centroamérica", forthcoming. Wubeneh, N, and Sanders, John, H. (2004). Farm ­ Level Adoption of Sorghum Technologies in Tigray, Ethiopia. Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA Yohannes T., (2006), Guideline for Revolving Fund Management, Food Security Programme, Addis Ababa, May 2006. Zegeye, T., Tadesse, B., and Tesfaye S., (2001a). Determinants of High Yielding Maize technology Adoption: Empirical Evidence, Research Report No.38, EARO. 55 Zegeye, T., and Tesfaye. S. (2001b). Determinants of adoption of technologies and inorganic fertilizer in Southern Ethiopia. EARO research report No.39, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Zegeye, T., and Haileye, A., (2001c). Adoption of improved maize technologies and Inorganic Fertilizer in North-western Ethiopia, Research Report No. 40, EARO 2001). Zegeye, T., Tadesse, B.,and Tesfaye S., (2001d). Adoption of High Yield Maize Technologies in major Maize Growing Regions of Ethiopia, Research Report No. 41, EARO. Zegeye, T., (2001e). The impact Technology Development and Transfer: The case of maize in Ethiopia, Research Report No. 42, EARO. Zegeye, T., Taye, G., Tanner,D., Verkuijl, H., Agidie A., and Mwangi W.,(2001f). Adoption of improved Bread Wheat varieties and inorganic Fertilizer by small-scale farmers in Yelmana Densa and Farta Districts of Northwestern Ethiopia (EARO and CIMYT). 56 Team. Bank Team. Team. World Team. Bank Bank the millions). by Bank World (in rld World the ns). ssified Wo the by millions). Team the by (in millio recla by (in Bank Team ARD of classified reclassified re D Team World Bank the reclassified AR Bank sectors ARD of by World the ARD of of the World for sectors sectors by the the by reclassified GDP sectors the in the in ARD for reclassified of ARD reclassified Agricultural GDP expenditures of sectors of of expenditures ARD the of nominal for sectors nominal the sectors USD percentagea percentagea the the for in in as as the for in relationships expenditures expenditures expenditures expenditures relationships Base expenditures Data nominal real nominal nominal nominal vertical horizontal the the the the the the the of of of of of of of Contents Expenditure of table table table table table table table Table Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Disaggregated Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1A: Annex $ VALUES US in Relationship GDP Relationship VALUES Exp Ag. GDP 1A Contents 64 of of of of1 NOMINAL REAL ARD % % Vertical Horizontal ANNEX Table Page 698 410 413 240 153 87 371 861 1 219 158 117 61 25 63 517 270 189 81 247 157 90 195 175 54 121 91 11 6,372 1,108 5,264 3,720 1,544 1998 2005/06 624 286 241 151 90 54 34 343 61 43 84 282 229 45 348 278 204 74 70 69 1 104 78 51 28 62 62 7,032 2,286 1,662 4,745 3,672 1,074 1997 2004/05 651 323 293 195 99 03 92 134 110 74 61 23 18 5 732 252 185 67 479 453 26 58 50 31 19 8 008 6,308 2,618 1,967 3,690 2,376 1,314 1996 2003/04 590 802 408 408 277 131 119 76 54 23 42 33 01 540 155 105 49 385 332 53 54 25 16 9 82 32 3,861 1,392 2,469 1,380 1,089 1995 2002/03 22 millions) 482 894 401 401 283 118 95 60 28 35 26 229 74 25 49 155 136 19 581 47 33 14 535 825 4,365 1,996 1,514 2,369 1,475 1994 (in 2001/02 890 396 494 961 630 413 413 267 147 38 24 10 43 14 11 379 65 12 53 314 78 236 39 35 24 11 2,481 1,591 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 840 365 474 740 648 345 345 250 95 31 16 5 11 15 11 520 57 13 43 463 68 395 31 31 21 10 2,228 1,389 1992 1999/00 NATIONAL 641 330 311 853 808 341 341 232 109 39 24 7 711 15 15 0439 608 46 11 35 562 104 457 18 18 11 7 2,302 1,661 1991 1998/99 Nominal1 000000 000000 000000125 5 9 7 8 0004 0004758 0000 568 314 254 932 263 310 310 231 79 37 14 23 13 10 216 30 24 186 123 62 23 23 15 Table 1,764 1,196 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. Expenditure WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL AND NATIONAL NATIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1A 64 NATIONAL RES. MKT., 1 of2 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. ANNEX Table Page 242 96 71 52 146 67 79 38 42 14 765 746 24 61 722 549 173 33 11 22 15 2,788 2,750 1,985 1998 2005/06 279 86 60 62 193 56 137 93 84 680 19 21 661 480 181 25 7 18 13 3,588 1,426 1,387 2,162 2,078 1997 2004/05 217 67 47 02 151 57 94 73 360 286 19 21 267 63 204 28 11 17 15 3,137 1,723 1,686 1,414 1,054 1996 2003/04 222 61 44 71 161 49 4000 1000 0000 112 940 516 31 504 424 157 267 131 20 11 111 55 56 34 21 21 21 1995 2002/03 165 41 30 11 124 59 64 03 92 12 51 349 13 336 152 18 89778 134 44 90 10 4 4 01257 1,574 1,225 1,211 1994 2001/02 173 32 23 140 70 71 219 182 175 37 19 18 93 19 11 74 34 40 91 86 17 69 1993 2000/01 105 28 21 77 43 33 9 9 0 265 256 249 33 13 20 11 9 60 57 25 31 1992 1999/00 88 25 17 63 53 10 108 97 91 11 11 0 107 17 95 90 22 68 86 83 21 62 1991 1998/99 70 20 14 6879 50 48 2 1323 132313000 011111000 021301000 0000 000081000 0000 98 92 5677 86 6 6 0 99 19 87889 11 80 36 44 77 33356 222349746 112233424 74 56 18 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 1 of3 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL ANNEX Table Page 924 18 21 906 525 381 53 52 37 15 1 1 226 28 12 7 0 0 0 198 198 19 19 19 1998 2005/06 15 01 987 376 610 55 50 34 16 4 4 196 26 61 10 171 171 11 11 11 116 116 116 1,001 1997 2004/05 888 12 876 254 622 70 57 39 18 13 13 223 23 61 7 200 200 19 19 19 193 193 193 1996 2003/04 836 11 825 267 559 115 91 45 46 24 24 268 14 8 6 255 250 29 29 26 163 163 163 1995 2002/03 615 11 604 203 400 124 86 33 52 38 38 303 26 51 11 277 277 14 14 10 72 72 70 1994 2001/02 422 13 409 223 186 182 80 26 53 102 102 335 17 8 317 317 16 16 8 78 78 78 1993 2000/01 8 331 323 162 161 144 62 27 35 82 82 274 19 14 255 247 17 17 12 5843000 71 71 71 0021000 1992 1999/00 7 299 292 148 144 64 43 25 18 21 21 344 18 9 326 318 58 58 13 45 140 140 127 12 1991 1998/99 8 4455667 433854557 239 231 134 97 78 31 21 10 47 46 100000000 340 18 7959 10 088005000 322 322 43 000000000 000000000 000000000 43 15 28 000000000 000000000 000000000 0 133 133 133 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY ROADS Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 1 of4 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL ANNEX Table Page 168 114 54 15 15 11 56 10 46 21 43 261 25 12 4 235 146 90 26 91 11 4,982 4,814 3,278 1,536 1998 2005/06 114 17 17 64 11 290 12 278 422 45 21 21 71 4 0 0 0 11 5,813 1,537 1,424 4,276 3,206 1,070 1997 2004/05 112 28 28 01 18 26 15 11 6 5 407 31 51 6 376 356 20 8 22 008 4,928 1,848 1,735 3,081 1,777 1,303 1996 2003/04 656 91 565 849 18 18 13 48 14 6853 34 42 01 356 27 41 31 329 299 30 29 62 32 2,558 1,902 1,054 1995 2002/03 92 71 420 16 16 11 31 18 11 13 161 46 81 115 100 15 millions) 540 335 825 3,264 1,380 1,287 1,884 1,464 1994 (in 2001/02 323 63 260 997 379 618 23 23 16 21 11 10 293 35 72 257 25 3 232 1,319 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 375 63 313 860 254 607 22 22 16 15 8 7 416 34 52 382 15 4 367 1,236 1992 1999/00 FEDERAL 196 52 144 966 257 708 18 18 13 17 9 9 455 20 221 435 12 1 14373697 424 1,162 Nominal 1991 1998/99 1a 556755 000000000 000000000 000000000 7 544477777 3537 9 79374 10439 8 5898 3 111141255 912132342 0000 00005322 0000 678 182 47 135 496 278 218 20 20 15 16 80 72 16 55 10 10 Table 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure MGMT. AND RECURRENT CAPITAL TVET ARD ENV. FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL AND FEDERAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 FEDERAL RES. MKT., 1 of5 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. ANNEX Table Page 162 44 32 11 118 40 79 19 31 6 765 746 24 61 722 549 173 27 21 14 2,766 2,747 1,982 1998 2005/06 211 40 31 8 172 34 137 22 84 680 19 21 661 480 181 22 16 12 3,559 1,398 1,377 2,161 2,077 1997 2004/05 162 41 31 01 121 30 90 42 360 286 19 21 267 63 204 21 16 14 3,103 1,691 1,667 1,412 1,051 1996 2003/04 174 41 30 11 134 25 4000 1000 0000 108 938 514 11 503 424 157 267 131 20 11 111 55 56 25 19 19 1995 2002/03 137 34 25 103 39 64 03 92 12 51 349 13 336 152 18 89778 134 44 90 9 4 4 01257 1,574 1,225 1,210 1994 2001/02 153 29 20 125 54 71 219 182 175 37 19 18 93 19 11 74 34 40 89 85 16 69 1993 2000/01 90 27 20 63 30 33 9 9 0 265 256 249 33 13 20 11 9 58 55 24 31 1992 1999/00 69 23 16 46 36 10 107 97 91 10 10 0 107 17 95 90 22 68 85 83 21 62 1991 1998/99 46 15 12 48799 30 29 2 1323 132313000 011111000 021301000 0000 000081000 0000 95 92 5677 86 3 3 0 99 19 87889 11 80 36 44 73 223455566 112233344 111222222 71 53 18 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 1 of6 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL ANNEX Table Page 924 18 21 906 525 381 1998 2005/06 15 01 987 376 610 1,001 1997 2004/05 888 12 876 254 622 1996 2003/04 836 11 825 267 559 1995 2002/03 615 11 604 203 400 1994 2001/02 422 13 409 223 186 1993 2000/01 8 331 323 162 161 1992 1999/00 7 299 292 148 144 1991 1998/99 8 4455667 433854557 239 231 134 97 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign SCALE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 1 of7 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL ANNEX Table Page 8 940 584 356 450 442 397 225 148 77 371 861 163 148 011 8 15 31 256 244 861 76 12 12 0 169 168 49 1 1 119 1,391 1998 2005/06 3 749 511 239 469 466 269 223 145 78 54 34 53 49 63 33 5 5 326 257 781 70 70 69 1 93 70 46 24 42 42 1,219 1997 2004/05 770 539 232 610 599 10 295 265 185 80 03 92 108 95 76 81 12 21 324 221 071 51 103 97 6 50 45 29 16 1,380 1996 2003/04 736 499 237 566 531 35 390 390 272 118 71 63 74 62 9 9 184 127 19 36 56 33 23 25 23 15 7 1,302 1995 2002/03 616 390 227 485 474 11 384 384 278 107 64 42 12 112 22 22 68 28 22 40 36 4 millions) 41 40 29 10 1,101 (in 1994 2001/02 567 333 234 594 582 12 391 391 260 131 16 12 7 4 86 30 25 57 53 4 36 33 23 10 1,161 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 993 464 302 162 528 487 42 324 324 244 80 16 9 8 8 103 22 18 81 52 28 27 27 20 7 1992 1999/00 REGIONAL 445 278 167 696 596 100 323 323 227 96 21 15 21 6 153 26 24 127 93 34 17 17 11 7 1,140 1991 Nominal 1998/99 1b 387 267 120 700 654 46 291 291 226 64 000000 000000 000000125 22 7 1316 6 15 6684 900000102 136 22 23457 20 7 114 107 13 13 7 6 0004225 0004225 000000000 Table 1,086 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL AND REGIONAL REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1A 64 REGIONAL RES. MKT., 1 of8 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. ANNEX Table Page 80 25 83 41 28 27 22 91 11 8 1998 2005/06 68 64 82 71 22 22 92 82 71 11 1997 2004/05 56 62 61 01 30 27 43 23 31 91 1996 2003/04 48 02 41 27 24 1995 2002/03 28 20 20 1994 2001/02 19 16 16 1993 2000/01 14 13 13 1992 1999/00 19 17 17 1991 1998/99 24 42148 21135 210136 20 20 000004301 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 300002 000002 000001 000001 300000213 300000213 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 412229736 101117615 100116413 100001202 301102121 301102121 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 1 of9 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL ANNEX Table Page 53 52 37 15 1 1 226 28 12 7 0 0 0 198 198 19 19 19 1998 2005/06 55 50 34 16 4 4 196 26 61 10 171 171 11 11 11 116 116 116 1997 2004/05 70 57 39 18 13 13 223 23 61 7 200 200 19 19 19 193 193 193 1996 2003/04 115 91 45 46 24 24 268 14 8 6 255 250 29 29 26 163 163 163 1995 2002/03 124 86 33 52 38 38 303 26 51 11 277 277 14 14 10 72 72 70 1994 2001/02 182 80 26 53 102 102 335 17 8 317 317 16 16 8 78 78 78 1993 2000/01 144 62 27 35 82 82 274 19 14 255 247 17 17 12 5843000 71 71 71 0021000 1992 1999/00 64 43 25 18 21 21 344 18 9 326 318 58 58 13 45 140 140 127 12 1991 1998/99 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 78 31 21 10 47 46 100000000 340 18 7959 10 088005000 322 322 43 000000000 000000000 000000000 43 15 28 000000000 000000000 000000000 0 133 133 133 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY ROADS Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 1A 64 SCALE ROADS INF. WATER of 1 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital 10 FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL ANNEX Table Page 771 486 286 287 167 106 61 021 711 152 110 18 8 42 17 52 359 188 131 56 172 109 62 135 122 38 84 31 8 143.70 20,524 4,435 3,663 2,589 1,074 1998 2005/06 478 822 219 184 116 69 53 33 263 47 33 42 216 175 14 266 213 156 57 53 53 1 80 60 39 21 02 02 130.60 18,799 5,384 1,751 1,273 3,634 2,811 1997 2004/05 1990) EFY 532 264 240 159 81 42 42 109 90 16 91 19 15 598 206 152 55 392 371 21 47 41 26 15 6 005 122.23 16,552 5,161 2,142 1,609 3,019 1,944 1,075 1996 2003/04 97/98, =FY 524 713 968 362 362 246 116 106 68 84 02 38 29 479 137 94 44 342 295 47 48 22 14 8 52 12 112.54 17,630 3,430 1,237 2,194 1,226 1995 base 2002/03 (Year 493 914 410 410 289 120 97 61 92 32 36 27 234 75 26 50 159 139 20 594 48 34 14 645 045 97.81 16,921 4,463 2,041 1,548 2,422 1,508 CPI 1994 2001/02 Overall 844 375 469 912 597 392 392 253 139 36 22 33 13 10 359 61 12 50 298 74 224 37 34 23 10 by 105.43 15,399 2,353 1,509 1993 2000/01 deflated 755 328 427 666 583 311 311 225 86 28 15 01 14 10 467 51 12 39 416 61 355 28 28 19 9 111.22 15,590 2,004 1,249 1992 1999/00 millions) (in 612 315 296 814 771 326 326 221 104 37 23 611 14 14 043994 580 44 10 34 536 100 437 17 17 11 7 104.77 14,009 2,197 1,585 1991 1998/99 568 314 254 932 263 310 310 231 79 000000 000000 000000123 37 14 5759 9 23 13 10 216 30 7 24 186 123 62 23 23 8 15 0003 0003746 0000 Expenditures 100.00 10,799 1,764 1,196 1990 1997/98 FY EFY NATIONAL Real2 COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure Table Overall RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND CPI ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 Expenditure NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL AND CREDIT of AND 2 NATIONAL NATIONAL OVERSIGHT 11 GoE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign NATIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 168 67 49 71 102 47 55 26 61 10 532 519 17 11 502 382 120 23 15 11 1,940 1,914 1,381 1998 2005/06 214 66 46 02 148 43 105 03 64 521 15 9 506 368 138 19 14 10 2,747 1,092 1,062 1,655 1,591 1997 2004/05 178 55 38 61 123 47 77 03 862 295 234 16 01 218 52 167 23 957 14 13 2,566 1,410 1,379 1,157 1996 2003/04 197 54 39 51 143 44 99 3000 1000 0000 835 459 11 448 376 139 237 116 18 01 98 49 50 30 11 19 19 1995 2002/03 169 42 31 21 126 61 66 13 92 12 51 357 13 344 155 18 01 88656 137 45 92 11 4 4 01145 1,609 1,253 1,238 1994 2001/02 164 30 22 133 66 67 208 173 166 35 18 17 89 18 11 70 33 38 86 81 16 66 1993 2000/01 94 25 19 69 39 30 8 8 0 238 230 224 29 11 18 10 9 54 51 23 28 1992 1999/00 84 24 16 60 51 10 103 93 87 10 10 0 102 16 94 86 21 65 82 79 20 59 1991 1998/99 70 20 14 6879 50 48 2 1323 132312000 001111000 021301000 0000 000081000 0000 98 92 5667 86 6 6 0 99 19 8777 11 80 36 44 77 33356 222348635 111233323 74 56 18 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 2 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 12 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 643 13 631 365 265 37 36 26 10 1 1 157 20 41 0 0 0 138 138 13 13 13 1998 2005/06 767 11 755 288 467 42 38 26 12 3 3 150 20 21 8 8 8 131 131 89 89 89 1997 2004/05 727 10 716 208 509 58 46 32 15 11 11 182 19 31 163 163 15 15 15 158 158 158 1996 2003/04 743 10 733 237 497 102 81 40 41 21 21 238 12 7 5685 226 222 25 25 23 145 145 144 1995 2002/03 629 11 617 208 409 126 88 34 54 38 38 310 27 51 21 283 283 15 15 11 74 74 71 1994 2001/02 400 13 388 212 176 172 76 25 51 97 97 318 17 8 301 301 15 15 8 74 74 74 1993 2000/01 7 298 290 145 145 130 56 24 31 74 74 246 17 21 229 222 15 15 10 5742000 64 64 64 0030000 1992 1999/00 6 286 279 142 137 61 41 23 17 20 20 329 17 9 311 303 55 55 12 43 133 133 121 12 1991 1998/99 8 435566678 433854445 239 231 134 97 78 31 21 10 47 46 100000000 340 18 7859 01 087004000 322 322 43 000000000 000000000 000000000 43 15 28 000000000 000000000 000000000 0 133 133 133 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 2 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 13 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 117 79 38 11 10 7 39 7 32 8 42 181 17 41 3 164 101 62 18 31 3,467 3,350 2,281 1,069 1998 2005/06 87 819 13 13 9 9 222 213 271 14 16 16 31 3 0 0 0 8 4,451 1,177 1,090 3,274 2,455 1997 2004/05 1990) EFY 92 23 23 15 21 12 9 5 333 25 31 3 308 291 17 6 22 005 4,032 1,512 1,420 2,520 1,454 1,066 1996 2003/04 97/98, =FY 583 81 502 754 936 16 16 12 42 12 6642 30 12 316 24 31 21 292 266 26 26 32 12 2,273 1,690 1995 base 2002/03 (Year 95 430 17 17 11 32 18 11 13 165 47 91 81 118 102 15 552 545 045 3,337 1,411 1,316 1,927 1,497 CPI 1994 2001/02 Overall 306 60 246 945 359 586 21 21 15 20 11 10 277 33 62 244 24 3 220 by 1,252 1993 2000/01 deflated 338 57 281 774 228 546 19 19 14 14 7 7 374 31 32 344 14 3 330 1,111 1992 1999/00 millions) (in 187 50 137 922 246 676 17 17 12 17 9 8 434 19 121 415 11 1 13372575 404 1,109 1991 1998/99 678 182 47 135 496 278 218 20 20 555655853 15 000000000 000000000 000000000 16 7 544477655 3437 9 78375 1043994 80 8 5887 3 72 16 55 10 10 101141243 912132332 0000 000052227 0000 Expenditures 1990 1997/98 FY EFY FEDERAL Real 2a COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Table Expenditure MGMT. AND RECURRENT CAPITAL TVET ARD ENV. 1A 64 FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL of AND 2 FEDERAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 14 FEDERAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 113 30 23 82 28 55 13 9 4 532 519 17 11 502 382 120 19 15 10 1,925 1,912 1,379 1998 2005/06 162 31 24 131 26 105 71 64 521 15 9 506 368 138 17 12 9 2,725 1,071 1,054 1,654 1,590 1997 2004/05 132 33 25 868 99 25 74 02 860 295 234 16 01 218 52 167 17 13 12 2,538 1,383 1,363 1,155 1996 2003/04 155 36 26 01 119 22 96 3000 1000 0000 833 457 01 447 376 139 237 116 18 01 98 49 50 22 17 17 1995 2002/03 140 34 25 106 40 66 13 92 12 51 357 13 344 155 18 01 88656 137 45 92 9 4 4 01145 1,609 1,252 1,238 1994 2001/02 145 27 19 118 51 67 208 173 166 35 18 17 89 18 11 70 33 38 85 81 15 66 1993 2000/01 81 24 18 57 27 30 8 8 0 238 230 224 29 11 18 10 9 52 50 22 28 1992 1999/00 66 22 15 44 34 10 102 93 87 10 10 0 102 16 94 86 21 65 81 79 20 59 1991 1998/99 46 15 12 47689 30 29 2 1323 132312000 001111000 021301000 0000 000081000 0000 95 92 5667 86 3 3 0 99 19 8777 11 80 36 44 73 223455444 111233333 111222121 71 53 18 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 2 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 15 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 643 13 631 365 265 1998 2005/06 767 11 755 288 467 1997 2004/05 727 10 716 208 509 1996 2003/04 743 10 733 237 497 1995 2002/03 629 11 617 208 409 1994 2001/02 400 13 388 212 176 1993 2000/01 7 298 290 145 145 1992 1999/00 6 286 279 142 137 1991 1998/99 8 435566678 433854445 239 231 134 97 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 2 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 16 SCALE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 5 968 654 407 248 313 308 277 156 103 53 021 711 114 103 77 6 11 178 170 711 53 8 8 0 118 117 34 38 1 1 1998 2005/06 3 933 574 391 183 359 357 206 171 111 60 53 33 41 37 82 02 3 39 250 196 341 53 53 53 1 71 53 35 81 81 81 1997 2004/05 1990) EFY 9 630 441 189 499 490 241 217 151 66 42 42 88 78 55 31 10 01 265 181 931 42 84 80 5 41 36 24 31 1,129 1996 2003/04 97/98, =FY 654 443 211 503 472 31 346 346 242 105 63 56 14 42 8 8 163 113 18 32 50 29 21 22 20 14 6 1,157 base 1995 2002/03 (Year 630 399 232 496 485 11 393 393 284 109 65 43 22 112 22 22 69 29 22 41 36 4 42 41 30 11 CPI 1,126 1994 2001/02 Overall 538 316 222 564 552 11 371 371 247 124 16 12 7 4 82 28 24 54 50 4 34 31 22 by 1,101 1993 2000/01 deflated 892 417 272 146 475 438 37 291 291 220 72 15 8 7 7 93 20 17 73 47 26 24 24 18 1992 1999/00 millions) (in 424 265 159 664 569 95 308 308 217 92 20 14 21 6 146 25 23 121 89 32 16 16 10 1,088 1991 1998/99 000000 000000 000000123 7 1315 6 6674 900000002 22447 7 7 6679 0003224 0003224 000000000 387 267 120 700 654 46 291 291 226 64 22 15 136 22 20 114 107 13 13 Expenditures 1,086 1990 1997/98 FY EFY REGIONAL Real 2b COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND Table ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL of AND 2 REGIONAL REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 17 REGIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 56 63 72 9 19 19 51 31 7 1998 2005/06 52 53 22 31 17 17 22 22 31 86 1997 2004/05 46 12 31 25 22 82 62 01 61 1996 2003/04 42 81 31 24 21 1995 2002/03 29 21 21 1994 2001/02 18 15 15 1993 2000/01 13 12 12 1992 1999/00 18 17 17 1991 1998/99 24 42138 21135 2101358 20 20 000003301 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 300002 000002 000001 000001 300000212 300000212 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 412228624 100116513 100115302 100001201 301102111 301102111 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 2 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 18 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 37 36 26 10 1 1 157 20 41 0 0 0 138 138 13 13 13 1998 2005/06 42 38 26 12 3 3 150 20 21 8 8 8 131 131 89 89 89 1997 2004/05 58 46 32 15 11 11 182 19 31 163 163 15 15 15 158 158 158 1996 2003/04 102 81 40 41 21 21 238 12 7 5685 226 222 25 25 23 145 145 144 1995 2002/03 126 88 34 54 38 38 310 27 51 21 283 283 15 15 11 74 74 71 1994 2001/02 172 76 25 51 97 97 318 17 8 301 301 15 15 8 74 74 74 1993 2000/01 130 56 24 31 74 74 246 17 21 229 222 15 15 10 5742000 64 64 64 0030000 1992 1999/00 61 41 23 17 20 20 329 17 9 311 303 55 55 12 43 133 133 121 12 1991 1998/99 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 78 31 21 10 47 46 100000000 340 18 7859 01 087004000 322 322 43 000000000 000000000 000000000 43 15 28 000000000 000000000 000000000 0 133 133 133 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 2 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 19 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 8.7 734 128 80 47 606 429 178 48 28 18 10 02 91 52 81 31 7 3 60 13 22 28 18 01 22 02 41 3,397.81 1998 2005/06 8.7 813 264 72 192 548 424 124 33 28 17 10 04 7 33 62 40 23 42 8 8 21 2,837.27 1997 2004/05 8.6 732 304 75 228 428 276 152 37 34 23 11 61 31 85 92 12 56 53 2,346.86 1996 2003/04 8.6 450 162 69 93 288 161 127 48 48 32 15 41 63 81 21 45 39 67 3132 3001 $) 2,311.78 1995 2002/03 US 8.5 511 234 56 177 277 105 173 47 47 33 14 11 27 18 16 2630 86 36 26 millions 1,936.99 1994 2001/02 (in 8.3 298 107 48 59 191 115 76 50 50 32 18 46 38 9 28 1,949.47 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 8.1 273 103 45 58 170 91 80 42 42 31 12 64 57 8 49 2,128.12 1992 1999/00 NATIONAL 7.5 307 85 44 41 221 114 108 45 45 31 15 81 75 14 61 1,954.13 1991 1998/99 Nominal3 6.9 256 83 46 37 174 135 38 45 45 34 11 00000035 00000035 000000001 5545 232379 11113695 121243425 3222453 2211342 201011164 31 46789 11213 355666899 27 18 9 3245 32445369 113342466 21112123 0000 000011131 0000 Table 1,569.14 1990 1997/98 FY EFY prices COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure market RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 BIRR, Expenditure NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL AND CREDIT of US AND 3 NATIONAL NATIONAL OVERSIGHT 20 GoE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign NATIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 28 11 17 9 4 2 321 713 922 88 86 83 36 02 1998 2005/06 32 01 22 61 415 165 160 052 042 01 79 76 65 12 1997 2004/05 25 17 11 364 200 196 461 221 24 33 31 42 1996 2003/04 26 19 31 110 60 59 94 81 13 15 13 7 1995 2002/03 19 14 184 143 142 14 93 18 16 11 14334 03223 1994 2001/02 21 17 26 22 21 11 9 11 10 1993 2000/01 13 9 33 31 31 4 2 7 7 1992 1999/00 12 8 14 13 12 14 12 11 11 1991 1998/99 10 3334578 223345578 111112233 7 775876768 01498 000030000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000030000 000010000 000020000 14 13 111121453 13 1114 11121 0002 14 322222223 111111112 211111111 12 5314567 6915 11 000111111 000001101 000000000 11 833202222 384800011 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 3 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 21 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 107 104 60 44 6 6 26 23 23 2 2 2 1998 2005/06 116 114 44 71 6 6 23 20 20 13 13 13 1997 2004/05 103 102 29 72 8 7 26 23 23 22 22 22 1996 2003/04 97 96 31 65 13 11 31 30 29 19 19 19 1995 2002/03 72 71 24 47 14 10 43210 43210 36 32 32 8 8 8 1994 2001/02 51 49 27 22 22 10 12 12 40 38 38 9 9 9 1993 2000/01 41 40 20 20 18 8 10 10 34 31 30 9 9 9 1992 1999/00 40 39 20 19 8 6 3 3 46 43 42 19 19 17 1991 1998/99 35 111211122 101111111 100111111 34 19 14 11 5 333345444 124665222 7 7 000000000 49 322232333 111121222 212111111 47 47 011001000 682223210 000000000 000000000 000000000 682223210 221113210 461100000 19 000000000 000000000 000000000 19 19 020000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 3 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 22 SCALE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 574 19 31 6 6 5 1 555 378 177 30 27 71 01 1998 2005/06 672 178 31 165 494 370 124 43 23 62 2 0 0 1997 2004/05 572 214 31 201 357 206 151 47 44 14 1996 2003/04 298 76 11 66 222 99 123 41 38 53 3113 3002 3001 $) 1995 2002/03 US 382 161 11 151 221 49 171 19 13 21 2320 36 26 26 millions 1994 2001/02 (in 158 39 31 120 45 74 35 31 28 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 152 46 38 106 31 74 51 47 45 1992 1999/00 FEDERAL 155 26 19 129 34 94 61 58 56 1991 1998/99 Nominal 3a 98 26 7788 20 72 40 32 323322322 323322322 111111111 222212211 000000000 000000000 000000000 2223463 111122211 111111111 010111110 1111241 1101131 001011164 12 134453423 111122222 023332200 10 2223 8 1000 100010111 000000011 100000000 0000 000010001 0000 Table 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure MGMT. AND RECURRENT CAPITAL TVET ARD ENV. 1A 64 FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL of 3 FEDERAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 23 FEDERAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 19 14 9 2 1 319 613 822 88 86 83 36 02 1998 2005/06 24 20 61 411 162 159 052 042 01 79 76 65 12 1997 2004/05 19 14 01 360 196 193 461 221 24 33 31 42 1996 2003/04 20 16 31 109 60 59 94 81 13 15 13 7 1995 2002/03 16 12 184 143 142 14 93 18 16 11 13233 02222 1994 2001/02 18 15 26 22 21 11 9 11 10 1993 2000/01 11 8 33 31 31 4 2 7 7 1992 1999/00 9 6 14 13 12 14 12 11 11 1991 1998/99 7 233345555 222233444 111111111 4 454653445 01498 000030000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000030000 000010000 000020000 14 13 111121332 13 0114 01121 0002 14 322222223 111111112 211111111 12 5314567 6915 11 000111111 000000000 000000000 10 833202212 384800011 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 3 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 24 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 107 104 60 44 1998 2005/06 116 114 44 71 1997 2004/05 103 102 29 72 1996 2003/04 97 96 31 65 1995 2002/03 72 71 24 47 1994 2001/02 51 49 27 22 1993 2000/01 41 40 20 20 1992 1999/00 40 39 20 19 1991 1998/99 35 111211122 101111111 100111111 34 19 14 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 3 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 25 SCALE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 160 108 67 41 52 51 46 26 17 9 02 91 91 71 31 29 82 91 1 91 91 41 1998 2005/06 141 87 59 28 54 54 31 26 17 9 6 6 38 03 22 8 81 11 1997 2004/05 160 89 62 27 71 69 34 31 21 9 21 11 38 62 02 12 11 1996 2003/04 152 86 58 28 66 62 45 45 32 4 21 51 11 7 $) 1995 2002/03 US 129 72 46 27 57 55 45 45 33 21 8 5 millions 1994 2001/02 (in 139 68 40 28 71 70 47 47 31 61 10 7 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 122 57 37 20 65 60 5114101 40 40 30 01 13 10 6644 1992 1999/00 REGIONAL 152 59 37 22 93 79 13 43 43 30 311 20 17 12 1991 1998/99 Nominal 3b 158 56 39 17 102 95 7 42 42 33 9 00000035 00000035 000000001 332278 121157 00012584 121122314 211031112 111031111 100000000 20 34343 00011 332334689 17 16 153013100 2234536 22345358 112332356 11111123 000000130 000000130 000000000 1990 Table 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL of 3 REGIONAL REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O AND Treasury Foreign Wages M&O CREDIT Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 26 REGIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 1998 2005/06 1997 2004/05 1996 2003/04 1995 2002/03 1994 2001/02 1993 2000/01 1992 1999/00 1991 1998/99 432236689 100012356 000012234 000001122 322223333 322223333 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000433 000000432 000000121 000000211 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 100001101 000001101 000001000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 of 3 Wages M&O SEED Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign 27 RESOURCE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 6 6 26 23 23 2 2 2 1998 2005/06 6 6 23 20 20 13 13 13 1997 2004/05 8 7 26 23 23 22 22 22 1996 2003/04 13 11 31 30 29 19 19 19 1995 2002/03 14 10 43210 43210 36 32 32 8 8 8 1994 2001/02 22 10 12 12 40 38 38 9 9 9 1993 2000/01 18 8 10 10 34 31 30 9 9 9 1992 1999/00 8 6 3 3 46 43 42 19 19 17 1991 1998/99 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 000000000 11 5 333345444 124665222 7 7 000000000 49 322232333 111121222 212111111 47 47 011001000 682223210 000000000 000000000 000000000 682223210 221113210 461100000 19 000000000 000000000 000000000 19 19 020000000 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 of ROADS 3 Wages M&O DEV. Treasury Foreign 28 SCALE Wages M&O Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages M&O Treasury Foreign INF. Wages M&O Treasury Foreign WATER Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 12.9 2.3 1.4 0.8 10.7 7.6 3.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 49,239 1998 2005/06 16.7 5.4 1.5 3.9 11.3 8.7 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 42,126 1997 2004/05 17.8 7.4 1.8 5.6 10.4 6.7 3.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 35,407 1996 2003/04 14.0 5.0 2.1 2.9 8.9 5.0 3.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 GDP 27,593 1995 2002/03 17.9 8.2 2.0 6.2 9.7 3.7 6.1 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Agricultural 24,324 1994 2001/02 of % as 8.9 3.2 1.4 1.8 5.7 3.4 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27,909 1993 2000/01 7.8 2.9 1.3 1.7 4.9 2.6 2.3 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expenditures 28,595 1992 1999/00 9.0 2.5 1.3 1.2 6.5 3.3 3.2 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.4 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NATIONAL 25,567 1991 1998/99 Nominal4 6.9 2.2 1.2 1.0 4.7 3.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25,535 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY prices COOPS. market WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure BIRR RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 64 CREDIT 1A AgGDP, NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL AND of AND 4 NATIONAL NATIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 29 Total NATIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 4.0 1.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 3.4 0.1 3.3 5.1 4.9 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 4.9 0.1 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.9 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 6.5 5.0 0.1 5.0 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 1993 2000/01 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 1992 1999/00 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 1991 1998/99 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 64 1A SEED of 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 30 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.9 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1997 2004/05 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1996 2003/04 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1995 2002/03 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1994 2001/02 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1993 2000/01 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1992 1999/00 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 64 1A DEV. of ROADS 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 31 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 10.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 9.8 6.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 13.8 3.6 0.3 3.4 10.2 7.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 13.9 5.2 0.3 4.9 8.7 5.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 9.3 2.4 0.3 2.0 6.9 3.1 3.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 GDP 1995 2002/03 13.4 5.7 0.4 5.3 7.7 1.7 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 Agricultural 1994 2001/02 of % as 4.7 1.2 0.2 0.9 3.6 1.4 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 4.3 1.3 0.2 1.1 3.0 0.9 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expenditures 1992 1999/00 4.5 0.8 0.2 0.6 3.8 1.0 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FEDERAL 1991 1998/99 Nominal 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.5 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4a 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure MGMT. AND RECURRENT CAPITAL TVET ARD ENV. 64 CREDIT 1A FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL AND of AND 4 FEDERAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 32 FEDERAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 4.0 1.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 3.3 0.1 3.3 5.1 4.9 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 4.8 0.1 4.7 4.0 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.9 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 6.5 5.0 0.1 5.0 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 1993 2000/01 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 1992 1999/00 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 1991 1998/99 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 64 1A SEED of 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 33 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 64 1A DEV. of ROADS 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 34 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 2.9 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1997 2004/05 3.9 2.2 1.5 0.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 4.7 2.7 1.8 0.9 2.1 1.9 0.1 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GDP 1995 2002/03 4.5 2.5 1.6 0.9 2.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agricultural 1994 2001/02 of % as 4.2 2.0 1.2 0.8 2.1 2.1 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 3.5 1.6 1.1 0.6 1.8 1.7 0.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 4.5 1.7 1.1 0.7 2.7 2.3 0.4 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 REGIONAL 1991 1998/99 Nominal 4.3 1.5 1.0 0.5 2.7 2.6 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4b 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 64 CREDIT 1A REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL AND of AND 4 REGIONAL REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 35 REGIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 64 1A SEED of 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 36 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 64 1A DEV. of ROADS 4 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 37 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 5.6 1.0 0.6 0.4 4.6 3.3 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 113,611 1998 2005/06 7.3 2.4 0.6 1.7 4.9 3.8 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96,676 1997 2004/05 7.5 3.1 0.8 2.3 4.4 2.8 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83,891 1996 2003/04 5.7 2.0 0.9 1.2 3.6 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68,144 1995 2002/03 GDP of 7.0 3.2 0.8 2.4 3.8 1.4 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 % 62,665 1994 as 2001/02 3.8 1.4 0.6 0.8 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65,689 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 3.5 1.3 0.6 0.7 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63,924 1992 1999/00 NATIONAL 4.0 1.1 0.6 0.5 2.9 1.5 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57,256 1991 1998/99 Nominal5 Table 3.3 1.1 0.6 0.5 2.2 1.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53,157 1990 1997/98 FY EFY prices market COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN ETB Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 million CREDIT of NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL AND AND 5 38 GDP, NATIONAL NATIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign NATIONAL RES. MKT., ANNEX Table Page Total TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.5 0.0 1.4 2.2 2.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.1 0.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1993 2000/01 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1991 1998/99 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 39 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1997 2004/05 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1996 2003/04 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1995 2002/03 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of ROADS 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 40 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 4.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.2 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 6.0 1.6 0.1 1.5 4.4 3.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 5.9 2.2 0.1 2.1 3.7 2.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 3.8 1.0 0.1 0.8 2.8 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 GDP of 5.2 2.2 0.1 2.1 3.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 % 1994 as 2001/02 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 FEDERAL 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 1.7 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nominal 1991 1998/99 5a Table 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure MGMT. AND RECURRENT CAPITAL TVET ARD ENV. 1A 64 CREDIT of FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL AND AND 5 FEDERAL FEDERAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 41 FEDERAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.4 0.0 1.4 2.2 2.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1993 2000/01 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1991 1998/99 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 42 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of ROADS 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 43 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 1.9 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 GDP of 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % as 1994 2001/02 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 REGIONAL 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nominal 1991 1998/99 5b Table 2.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY COOPS. WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN Expenditure RECURRENT CAPITAL MGMT. AND ARD TVET ENV. 1A 64 CREDIT of REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL REGIONAL AND AND 5 REGIONAL REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 44 REGIONAL RES. MKT., TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page TOTAL TOTAL Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 45 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of ROADS 5 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 46 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 6.5 21.6 21.9 21.2 3.3 4.5 0.3 3.4 14.2 16.7 10.0 1.2 0.7 2.3 8.1 24.3 27.0 19.7 4.7 4.2 5.8 3.1 15.8 7.7 29.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 3.8 8.6 10.1 6.1 2.8 1.8 5.1 1998 2005/06 4.1 10.5 24.2 5.4 1.0 1.2 0.2 4.9 2.7 6.9 1.1 5.9 6.2 5.0 4.9 12.2 32.7 4.5 1.5 1.9 0.1 1.5 3.4 8.1 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.0 4.0 3.7 9.6 1.6 4.1 1.5 12.8 1997 2004/05 5.1 11.2 29.9 5.0 0.8 1.2 0.1 2.1 4.2 11.4 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 11.6 9.6 28.5 3.4 13.0 19.1 2.0 0.9 1.9 4.8 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 3.4 2.5 7.2 1.0 4.1 2.4 7.1 totals 1996 2003/04 10.6 29.3 47.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.5 9.1 2.8 1.7 2.4 0.9 14.0 11.1 17.9 6.1 15.6 24.1 4.9 1.4 1.8 2.7 1.1 1.1 0.3 2.2 5.7 4.4 7.4 2.1 6.5 3.6 10.3 respective 1995 2002/03 the of 9.2 20.1 58.7 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.0 5.8 2.1 1.5 2.9 0.6 5.2 3.7 5.2 3.2 6.6 15.2 1.3 13.3 2.3 6.9 0.9 22.6 0.7 35.8 3.8 2.1 6.2 0.7 5.2 6.6 4.4 share 1994 2001/02 % as 16.7 46.5 67.4 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 0.9 1.1 0.5 15.3 7.3 3.1 10.6 19.7 8.1 37.4 1.6 4.0 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 7.0 3.6 5.8 1.8 8.8 7.2 11.2 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 15.5 41.1 68.5 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.7 23.3 6.7 3.6 9.2 33.3 9.1 61.0 1.4 3.7 5.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.3 5.7 1.5 5.5 5.9 5.1 1992 1999/00 NATIONAL 14.8 53.2 70.2 35.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.7 2.2 5.4 0.9 1.7 0.0 26.4 7.2 3.2 11.4 33.8 12.2 56.6 0.8 2.9 3.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.9 5.1 2.6 3.8 6.2 1.3 of 1991 1998/99 17.6 54.6 73.7 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.5 1.7 3.4 2.0 1.4 4.0 12.2 5.4 2.2 9.3 15.5 13.2 23.7 1.3 4.1 2.7 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.4 4.5 2.2 4.2 5.2 0.7 Relationship 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Vertical6 Table COOPS. MGMT. AND TVET RESEARCH ENV. 1A 64 AND CREDIT of AND 6 OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 47 RES. MKT., Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.7 3.4 3.4 3.5 52.2 53.4 49.5 11.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 13.7 14.8 11.2 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 14.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 17.2 14.1 24.7 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 62.4 6.2 83.5 45.6 56.6 7.8 9.7 0.8 2.0 0.4 13.9 13.1 16.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 14.2 0.6 1.6 0.3 20.8 10.3 56.8 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.7 65.8 5.7 85.7 38.3 44.3 27.4 4.5 0.7 1.9 0.4 7.2 2.7 15.5 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 14.1 0.5 1.1 0.3 23.7 10.7 47.3 1996 2003/04 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 24.3 37.1 2.1 62.8 17.2 11.3 24.5 3.4 1.5 1.9 1.1 4.5 4.0 5.1 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 0.1 21.7 0.8 1.1 0.6 33.4 19.3 51.3 1995 2002/03 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.9 1.4 36.1 61.4 3.1 80.0 14.7 1.4 22.8 3.5 0.9 1.9 0.5 5.7 4.9 6.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 14.1 0.6 1.2 0.4 25.5 22.7 27.1 1994 2001/02 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 20.5 1.8 35.4 2.3 2.0 2.8 3.8 2.2 2.0 2.3 4.7 3.6 6.3 3.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 5.4 1.7 11.0 17.0 1.5 1.2 1.7 25.7 23.2 29.5 1993 2000/01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 30.4 1.9 52.4 0.7 1.2 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 4.1 3.4 4.9 14.9 1.0 1.4 0.6 23.3 21.8 24.9 1992 1999/00 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 15.1 1.8 29.3 0.6 1.2 0.0 4.6 2.6 2.3 2.9 5.4 2.6 8.5 3.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 5.0 2.5 7.7 13.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 17.6 17.4 17.8 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 16.1 1.7 33.9 0.5 0.6 0.0 5.6 3.3 2.4 4.4 6.7 3.9 16.9 4.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.2 6.0 6.8 13.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 19.3 14.4 36.7 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of ROADS 6 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 48 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 0.8 4.6 5.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.5 3.0 1.8 3.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.8 2.2 5.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.8 1.1 2.5 0.6 3.6 4.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.2 0.0 1997 2004/05 1.1 2.2 6.0 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.0 3.5 0.9 2.4 0.4 5.4 8.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 8.1 0.0 1996 2003/04 3.0 6.6 7.7 5.7 1.0 1.7 0.0 6.9 1.0 1.3 0.7 10.3 18.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.9 0.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 11.8 0.0 1995 2002/03 2.8 4.3 6.9 3.5 1.6 4.2 0.0 6.9 1.3 3.1 0.7 11.7 31.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 7.8 0.2 1994 2001/02 7.3 9.0 6.7 10.8 6.4 10.6 0.0 13.5 2.0 2.4 1.6 20.0 33.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 8.1 0.0 1993 2000/01 6.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 5.9 11.1 0.0 12.3 2.3 1.5 2.8 18.4 33.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.6 0.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 9.6 0.0 1992 1999/00 2.8 6.7 7.4 5.8 1.3 2.5 0.0 15.0 2.9 2.7 3.0 19.6 37.2 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.5 5.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 14.9 1.5 1991 1998/99 4.4 5.5 6.7 3.9 3.9 4.9 0.4 19.3 3.1 2.3 4.1 26.9 34.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.6 10.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 14.2 0.1 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of 6 49 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 78.2 0.3 9.0 3.9 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.8 5.8 5.9 1.0 0.4 2.2 5.2 15.0 18.3 7.9 4.9 4.4 5.8 0.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 3.3 26.1 28.6 20.8 2.5 1.2 5.1 1998 2005/06 82.7 0.3 1.1 5.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.8 6.2 0.4 6.5 7.0 5.0 0.4 1.4 15.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 4.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.6 2.6 27.7 0.6 4.0 1.1 12.8 1997 2004/05 slatot 78.1 0.6 1.5 8.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 6.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 8.3 1.7 13.6 0.9 12.2 20.0 1.6 0.2 0.3 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.3 2.2 27.6 0.6 3.9 1.7 6.9 1996 2003/04 veti ecp 66.3 0.7 2.8 5.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.1 8.2 1.1 1.8 2.8 0.9 13.9 4.2 15.9 2.3 17.3 35.2 2.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.3 2.2 6.8 6.2 32.6 1.9 7.0 3.0 10.3 rese 1995 2002/03 thfo arehs 74.8 0.5 1.2 5.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 7.3 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 4.9 3.3 19.9 2.1 6.1 23.8 1.0 16.5 0.5 4.4 0.2 28.3 1.2 36.1 4.2 2.4 26.9 0.7 5.5 9.3 4.4 1994 2001/02 % as ures 53.2 1.7 7.0 10.4 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.5 6.9 2.6 1.0 1.8 0.5 22.2 10.9 12.4 10.5 25.8 6.7 37.5 0.2 0.9 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 8.8 31.7 3.3 12.5 14.2 11.5 dit 1993 2000/01 enpxE 55.5 1.8 5.8 9.4 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.0 7.0 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.7 33.7 9.1 14.7 8.0 44.4 6.0 60.5 0.3 1.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.2 31.8 2.3 7.3 11.8 5.5 1992 1999/00 FEDERALfo 50.5 1.6 9.2 9.6 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 4.6 8.4 3.2 0.9 3.3 0.0 39.2 10.0 15.5 8.1 45.1 4.5 59.8 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 11.8 29.6 5.3 4.8 13.9 1.4 1991 hip 1998/99 onstialeRl 38.4 2.9 10.9 10.7 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.0 9.7 2.0 1.7 2.6 0.6 11.8 4.5 11.0 2.3 14.4 5.8 25.4 1.5 5.6 2.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 8.4 25.1 2.7 6.1 10.3 0.8 1990 1997/98 cati FY EFY erVa6e blaT COOPS. Expenditure MGMT. AND TVET RESEARCH ARD ENV. 1A 64 AND CREDIT of AND 6 OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 50 FEDERAL RES. MKT., Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5 11.3 11.5 10.8 57.1 60.5 49.8 15.0 14.2 13.9 14.7 15.0 16.7 11.3 0.5 3.6 3.4 3.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 18.6 10.8 10.2 12.3 18.8 16.0 24.8 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.2 91.0 19.1 96.7 50.5 64.8 7.8 11.7 1.2 10.9 0.5 15.5 15.0 16.9 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 17.2 0.9 8.5 0.3 23.1 11.7 57.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.0 91.5 21.6 96.0 45.8 59.1 27.7 5.8 1.0 10.7 0.4 8.7 3.5 15.6 0.4 0.3 2.9 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.1 18.0 0.7 6.5 0.3 28.4 14.3 47.7 1996 2003/04 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 36.7 78.4 12.5 89.0 22.3 18.4 25.3 5.1 3.1 12.4 1.6 5.8 6.5 5.3 1.0 0.8 3.5 0.4 1.0 2.2 0.1 32.7 1.6 6.9 0.8 43.4 31.4 53.0 1995 2002/03 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.0 1.5 1.9 1.4 48.2 88.8 15.7 94.0 18.5 3.0 23.0 4.7 1.3 10.2 0.6 7.1 10.5 6.2 0.3 0.4 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.0 18.8 0.8 6.2 0.4 32.0 48.4 27.3 1994 2001/02 0.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 56.5 11.6 67.4 3.7 5.1 2.8 7.1 5.9 12.3 4.4 7.5 9.1 6.4 6.8 1.3 3.7 0.7 8.5 4.2 11.2 32.0 4.1 7.7 3.2 41.0 58.9 30.0 1993 2000/01 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 68.1 10.9 79.6 1.1 3.6 0.0 2.6 3.4 12.6 1.5 2.3 4.2 1.6 4.7 0.8 2.6 0.4 6.4 9.4 5.2 26.8 2.2 8.2 1.0 37.5 63.7 26.6 1992 1999/00 0.2 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 49.4 11.3 63.3 1.0 3.9 0.0 9.2 8.4 14.2 6.3 9.4 8.6 9.6 7.3 1.2 2.7 0.7 8.6 8.1 8.8 25.8 3.4 6.7 2.2 30.3 57.7 20.3 1991 1998/99 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 50.4 11.6 63.8 0.6 1.1 0.0 14.6 10.3 16.4 8.2 16.2 12.9 20.4 10.8 0.9 2.3 0.4 14.4 19.1 8.3 35.3 4.4 9.5 2.7 46.5 48.2 44.4 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of ROADS 6 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 51 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of 6 52 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 21.8 28.6 23.9 25.3 21.5 38.4 38.0 58.5 11.7 15.7 18.9 10.6 3.4 2.9 30.4 18.4 26.0 28.7 21.5 2.6 2.6 0.0 12.1 17.9 8.4 33.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.7 5.5 6.6 3.8 6.2 6.1 11.1 1998 2005/06 17.3 22.0 29.8 28.4 32.8 9.7 9.2 71.5 4.4 6.5 7.1 5.3 1.0 1.0 0.0 26.8 34.3 36.6 29.2 14.9 14.8 28.5 7.7 9.3 9.0 9.9 5.0 5.1 0.0 5.5 6.1 5.6 7.3 4.6 4.7 0.0 1997 2004/05 slatot 21.9 21.4 34.4 34.3 34.8 4.8 4.8 6.5 7.8 12.4 12.5 12.1 2.0 2.0 5.2 23.5 28.7 31.6 22.1 16.9 16.2 57.1 3.6 5.8 5.4 6.7 0.9 0.9 0.0 4.1 3.4 3.0 4.3 4.9 4.5 31.3 1996 2003/04 veti ecp rese 33.7 29.9 53.0 54.5 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 8.5 9.3 6.8 1.5 1.6 0.0 14.1 17.3 18.2 15.3 10.0 6.2 66.7 1.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 3.6 2.7 2.8 2.5 4.8 4.5 10.2 1995 2002/03 thfo arehs 25.2 34.9 62.4 71.3 47.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 6.9 5.4 9.3 4.5 4.5 1.3 6.2 4.6 1.7 9.5 8.2 7.5 40.5 3.7 6.4 7.5 4.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 4.2 4.3 0.0 1994 % 2001/02 as ures 46.8 33.6 68.9 78.2 55.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.2 1.7 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 7.4 5.2 1.4 10.7 9.5 9.1 31.8 3.1 5.7 6.9 4.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.9 0.3 2.7 2.7 0.0 dit 1993 2000/01 enpxE 44.5 32.6 69.7 80.8 49.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.3 4.8 1.5 1.6 0.0 10.4 4.8 1.3 11.4 15.3 10.8 68.3 2.7 5.8 6.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.6 2.8 0.0 1992 1999/00 REGIONALfo 49.5 28.3 72.6 81.6 57.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.3 1.0 7.2 0.9 1.1 0.0 13.4 5.9 0.9 14.2 18.2 15.6 33.9 1.5 3.9 3.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.5 2.9 0.0 1991 1998/99 hip 1990 onstialeRl 61.6 26.7 75.2 84.8 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.3 5.1 2.1 0.9 19.9 12.5 5.7 0.6 17.1 16.3 16.3 15.8 1.2 3.3 2.6 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 0.9 1.6 2.8 3.0 0.0 1997/98 cati FY erV EFY 6be blaT COOPS. Expenditure MGMT. AND ARD TVET RESEARCH ENV. 1A 64 AND CREDIT of AND 6 OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 53 REGIONAL RES. MKT., Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page Total SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 3.4 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.2 2.4 8.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED of ROADS 6 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 54 RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 3.8 5.5 6.3 4.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 16.2 3.0 3.5 2.1 43.9 44.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.0 1998 2005/06 4.5 6.7 6.8 6.5 0.9 1.0 0.0 16.1 3.4 3.1 4.2 36.4 36.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.4 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.6 24.8 0.0 1997 2004/05 5.1 7.4 7.2 7.8 2.2 2.2 0.0 16.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 32.8 33.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.2 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.7 32.3 0.0 1996 2003/04 8.8 12.4 9.1 19.4 4.2 4.4 0.0 20.6 1.8 1.6 2.4 44.9 47.0 13.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.8 8.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 30.6 1.5 1995 2002/03 11.2 13.9 8.6 23.2 7.8 7.9 0.0 27.6 4.3 3.9 5.0 57.2 58.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.2 35.1 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.7 23.1 1994 2001/02 15.7 14.1 7.9 22.7 17.2 17.5 0.0 28.8 3.1 2.8 3.4 53.4 54.5 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.4 65.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.4 0.0 1993 2000/01 14.5 13.3 9.0 21.5 15.6 16.9 0.0 27.6 4.1 1.8 8.4 48.3 50.7 19.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.4 12.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 14.6 0.0 1992 1999/00 5.6 9.6 8.8 10.9 3.0 3.5 0.0 30.2 4.1 3.2 5.6 46.9 53.3 8.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 2.1 45.3 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 21.4 12.5 1991 1998/99 7.1 8.0 7.9 8.4 6.7 7.0 2.0 31.3 4.6 2.7 8.7 46.0 49.2 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.3 61.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 20.3 0.8 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY 1A 64 DEV. of 6 55 SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 58.1 63.7 21.1 41.9 97.4 2.6 72.1 74.1 25.9 27.9 40.6 59.4 52.2 70.0 30.0 47.8 63.7 36.3 90.1 30.8 69.2 9.9 59.5 40.5 39.6 74.0 26.0 60.4 45.7 54.3 1998 2005/06 84.1 62.8 31.3 15.9 94.7 5.3 17.8 70.7 29.3 82.2 81.0 19.0 79.9 73.4 26.6 20.1 98.6 1.4 75.3 64.8 35.2 24.7 0.0 100.0 30.7 69.9 30.1 69.3 28.9 71.1 1997 2004/05 90.8 66.4 30.5 9.2 97.7 2.3 82.5 67.3 32.7 17.5 76.6 23.4 34.5 73.5 26.5 65.5 94.5 5.5 86.8 62.3 37.7 13.2 0.0 100.0 30.7 70.3 29.7 69.3 37.9 62.1 1996 2003/04 totals 100.0 67.9 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 70.6 29.4 35.7 76.8 23.2 28.6 68.2 31.8 71.4 86.2 13.8 47.3 63.7 36.3 52.7 17.0 83.0 27.4 72.1 27.9 72.6 30.5 69.5 1995 2002/03 sectors' the of 100.0 70.7 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.3 46.6 53.4 36.7 74.7 25.3 32.2 33.9 66.1 67.8 87.5 12.5 8.0 71.1 28.9 92.0 1.2 98.8 25.0 72.6 27.4 75.0 47.9 52.1 1994 2001/02 share % as 100.0 64.5 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.6 41.9 58.1 37.4 77.5 22.5 17.1 19.0 81.0 82.9 24.9 75.1 90.7 68.8 31.2 9.3 0.0 100.0 18.6 71.5 28.5 81.4 49.6 50.4 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 100.0 72.4 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 32.1 67.9 48.5 72.3 27.7 10.9 23.3 76.7 89.1 14.6 85.4 100.0 68.3 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.9 26.1 73.3 56.6 43.4 1992 1999/00 NATIONAL of 100.0 68.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 30.1 69.9 38.4 0.0 7.6 100.0 23.3 76.7 92.4 18.6 81.4 100.0 61.3 38.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 67.3 32.7 71.7 83.8 16.2 1991 1998/99 Relationship 100.0 74.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.4 37.3 62.7 62.6 55.1 44.9 14.1 22.5 77.5 85.9 66.3 33.7 100.0 36.1 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.7 28.3 71.9 96.6 3.4 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Horizontal7 Table COOPS. MGMT. AND TVET RESEARCH ENV. AND CREDIT 1A 64 AND of OVERSIGHT 7 56 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RES. MKT., Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 62.4 37.6 98.6 72.2 27.8 3.2 66.4 33.6 96.8 76.0 24.0 32.5 61.2 38.8 67.5 68.8 31.2 2.0 63.4 36.6 98.0 57.9 42.1 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.8 2.7 97.3 60.2 96.1 3.9 2.8 64.9 35.1 97.2 72.7 27.3 27.1 62.7 37.3 72.9 74.1 25.9 1.5 66.4 33.6 98.5 38.2 61.8 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 2.2 97.8 45.1 74.5 25.5 6.6 63.6 36.4 93.4 23.6 76.4 38.5 66.9 33.1 61.5 89.5 10.5 1.4 58.2 41.8 98.6 29.0 71.0 1996 2003/04 74.9 51.8 48.2 25.1 0.0 100.0 54.9 2.4 97.6 45.1 37.0 63.0 15.4 55.5 44.5 84.6 49.4 50.6 36.2 72.8 27.2 63.8 97.4 2.6 1.3 58.5 41.5 98.7 32.3 67.7 1995 2002/03 4.2 60.7 39.3 95.8 28.2 71.8 77.8 1.2 98.8 22.2 3.6 96.4 11.6 53.4 46.6 88.4 32.7 67.3 60.6 59.9 40.1 39.4 93.6 6.4 1.8 51.8 48.2 98.2 33.7 66.3 1994 2001/02 100.0 17.6 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2 4.0 96.0 16.8 52.2 47.8 20.5 40.6 59.4 79.5 46.4 53.6 5.7 59.1 40.9 94.3 19.5 80.5 3.1 37.0 63.0 96.9 54.6 45.4 1993 2000/01 100.0 28.2 71.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.5 2.7 97.3 3.5 0.0 100.0 38.5 63.2 36.8 61.5 52.8 47.2 5.6 53.1 46.9 94.4 44.4 55.6 2.5 63.3 36.7 97.5 50.0 50.0 1992 1999/00 100.0 19.1 80.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.2 6.1 93.9 9.8 0.0 100.0 15.5 45.1 54.9 84.5 24.4 75.6 3.3 57.3 42.7 96.7 25.2 74.8 2.2 52.1 47.9 97.8 50.8 49.2 1991 1998/99 100.0 55.9 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.9 5.9 94.1 6.1 99.6 0.4 18.9 40.8 59.2 81.1 44.7 55.3 3.7 59.7 40.3 96.3 75.8 24.2 3.4 54.9 45.1 96.6 58.1 41.9 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED ROADS of 7 57 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 97.4 71.5 28.5 2.6 0.0 100.0 12.5 73.5 26.5 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1998 2005/06 91.9 68.8 31.2 8.1 0.0 100.0 13.1 60.6 39.4 86.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1997 2004/05 80.8 68.2 31.8 19.2 0.0 100.0 10.3 69.4 30.6 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1996 2003/04 79.5 49.8 50.2 20.5 0.0 5.1 100.0 58.3 41.7 94.9 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 90.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 0.3 1995 2002/03 69.6 39.0 61.0 30.4 0.0 8.7 100.0 57.3 42.7 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 73.7 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 96.6 3.4 1994 2001/02 43.8 33.2 66.8 56.2 0.0 5.2 100.0 53.9 46.1 94.8 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 51.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1993 2000/01 42.9 43.9 56.1 57.1 0.0 6.9 100.0 28.9 71.1 93.1 96.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 69.5 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1992 1999/00 67.0 57.6 42.4 33.0 0.0 5.3 100.0 48.6 51.4 94.7 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 21.7 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 91.1 8.9 1991 1998/99 40.0 67.9 32.1 60.0 98.0 2.0 5.2 40.9 59.1 94.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 35.2 64.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 0.3 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. 1A 64 of 7 SCALE 58 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 99.6 29.6 70.4 0.4 0.0 100.0 17.6 67.2 32.8 82.4 26.1 73.9 9.6 82.9 17.1 90.4 61.9 38.1 28.2 67.4 32.6 71.8 57.9 42.1 27.0 74.2 25.8 73.0 33.6 66.4 1998 2005/06 100.0 34.5 65.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 57.6 42.4 95.8 80.7 19.3 100.0 79.9 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.6 53.2 46.8 19.4 0.0 100.0 18.9 78.9 21.1 81.1 19.9 80.1 1997 2004/05 100.0 35.6 64.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 46.9 53.1 42.9 55.7 44.3 7.6 49.3 50.7 92.4 94.6 5.4 71.6 40.1 59.9 28.4 0.0 100.0 25.2 76.0 24.0 74.8 25.2 74.8 1996 2003/04 totals 100.0 28.3 71.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 53.9 46.1 71.2 71.0 29.0 7.7 52.6 47.4 92.3 91.0 9.0 9.1 27.0 73.0 90.9 10.5 89.5 23.3 72.9 27.1 76.7 18.9 81.1 1995 2002/03 sectors' the 100.0 32.6 67.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.4 38.0 62.0 42.6 34.1 65.9 28.3 40.4 59.6 71.7 86.9 13.1 1.3 57.0 43.0 98.7 0.9 of 99.1 24.5 74.0 26.0 75.5 37.6 62.4 1994 2001/02 share % as 100.0 29.1 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.5 38.8 61.2 47.5 68.7 31.3 12.0 22.2 77.8 88.0 9.9 90.1 100.0 49.2 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 70.2 29.8 81.4 43.1 56.9 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 100.0 27.4 72.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.3 58.3 41.7 49.7 43.5 56.5 8.2 27.0 73.0 91.8 4.0 96.0 100.0 31.3 68.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 73.8 26.2 70.0 47.4 52.6 1992 1999/00 FEDERAL of 100.0 27.8 72.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 48.9 51.1 48.7 0.0 4.3 100.0 41.1 58.9 95.7 2.7 97.3 100.0 48.3 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 67.0 33.0 66.5 77.7 22.3 1991 1998/99 Relationship 100.0 25.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.8 62.3 37.7 54.2 83.5 16.5 10.3 62.5 37.5 89.7 22.7 77.3 100.0 12.8 87.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.6 76.5 23.5 66.4 94.3 5.7 1990 1997/98 Horizontal FY EFY 7a Table COOPS. MGMT. AND TVET RESEARCH ENV. AND CREDIT 1A 64 AND of OVERSIGHT 7 59 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RES. MKT., Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 68.9 31.1 99.3 72.2 27.8 3.2 66.4 33.6 96.8 76.0 24.0 22.2 65.4 34.6 77.8 67.1 32.9 2.0 63.4 36.6 98.0 57.9 42.1 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 1.5 98.5 60.7 96.1 3.9 2.8 64.9 35.1 97.2 72.7 27.3 25.8 64.6 35.4 74.2 71.5 28.5 1.5 66.4 33.6 98.5 38.2 61.8 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.5 1.4 98.6 45.5 74.5 25.5 6.6 63.6 36.4 93.4 23.6 76.4 23.4 66.1 33.9 76.6 88.9 11.1 1.4 58.2 41.8 98.6 29.0 71.0 1996 2003/04 74.9 51.8 48.2 25.1 0.0 100.0 54.8 2.2 97.8 45.2 37.0 63.0 15.4 55.5 44.5 84.6 49.4 50.6 21.8 59.5 40.5 78.2 97.1 2.9 1.3 58.5 41.5 98.7 32.3 67.7 1995 2002/03 4.2 60.7 39.3 95.8 28.2 71.8 77.8 1.2 98.8 22.2 3.6 96.4 11.6 53.4 46.6 88.4 32.7 67.3 55.3 57.4 42.6 44.7 93.3 6.7 1.8 51.8 48.2 98.2 33.7 66.3 1994 2001/02 100.0 17.6 82.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.2 4.0 96.0 16.8 52.2 47.8 20.5 40.6 59.4 79.5 46.4 53.6 4.7 56.1 43.9 95.3 18.8 81.2 3.1 37.0 63.0 96.9 54.6 45.4 1993 2000/01 100.0 28.2 71.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.5 2.7 97.3 3.5 0.0 100.0 38.5 63.2 36.8 61.5 52.8 47.2 4.9 57.9 42.1 95.1 43.3 56.7 2.5 63.3 36.7 97.5 50.0 50.0 1992 1999/00 100.0 19.1 80.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.6 6.1 93.9 9.4 0.0 100.0 15.5 45.1 54.9 84.5 24.4 75.6 2.8 59.8 40.2 97.2 25.0 75.0 2.2 52.1 47.9 97.8 50.8 49.2 1991 1998/99 100.0 55.9 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.8 5.9 94.1 3.2 99.2 0.8 18.9 40.8 59.2 81.1 44.7 55.3 2.3 64.8 35.2 97.7 74.7 25.3 3.4 54.9 45.1 96.6 58.1 41.9 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED ROADS of 7 60 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. 1A 64 of 7 SCALE 61 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 56.5 65.9 34.1 43.5 97.4 2.6 90.7 74.5 25.5 9.3 84.5 15.5 95.5 68.7 31.3 4.5 0.0 100.0 99.6 29.2 70.8 0.4 0.0 100.0 65.1 73.8 26.2 34.9 96.9 3.1 1998 2005/06 83.1 65.0 35.0 16.9 94.7 5.3 91.5 74.0 26.0 8.5 0.0 100.0 78.6 72.8 27.2 21.4 98.6 1.4 74.7 66.2 33.8 25.3 0.0 100.0 67.7 62.0 38.0 32.3 0.0 100.0 1997 2004/05 90.0 69.7 30.3 10.0 97.7 2.3 88.6 70.5 29.5 11.4 95.6 4.4 68.2 76.9 23.1 31.8 94.2 5.8 89.1 65.1 34.9 10.9 0.0 100.0 46.4 61.5 38.5 53.6 89.1 10.9 1996 2003/04 totals 100.0 69.7 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.0 74.3 25.7 12.0 0.0 100.0 69.2 71.6 28.4 30.8 58.4 41.6 91.7 67.9 32.1 8.3 0.0 100.0 42.3 70.4 29.6 57.7 86.9 13.1 1995 2002/03 sectors' the of 100.0 72.3 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.1 50.3 49.7 33.9 99.3 0.7 41.3 23.4 76.6 58.7 89.2 10.8 96.2 73.6 26.4 3.8 0.0 100.0 27.6 66.3 33.7 72.4 0.0 100.0 1994 2001/02 share % as 100.0 66.6 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.8 44.7 55.3 24.2 0.0 100.0 34.4 15.2 84.8 65.6 93.4 6.6 89.9 70.6 29.4 10.1 0.0 100.0 18.0 82.7 17.3 82.0 0.0 100.0 1993 2000/01 Expenditures 100.0 75.4 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.6 9.2 90.8 47.4 0.0 100.0 21.7 17.6 82.4 78.3 64.9 35.1 100.0 73.2 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 79.9 20.1 94.0 0.0 100.0 1992 1999/00 REGIONAL of 100.0 70.3 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.2 18.8 81.2 29.8 0.0 100.0 17.2 9.9 90.1 82.8 73.3 26.7 100.0 62.1 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 71.1 28.9 90.4 0.0 100.0 1991 1998/99 Relationship 100.0 77.9 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 10.4 89.6 68.7 38.6 61.4 16.3 7.7 92.3 83.7 93.7 6.3 100.0 54.5 45.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 54.6 45.4 82.4 0.0 100.0 1990 1997/98 Horizontal FY EFY 7b Table COOPS. MGMT. AND TVET RESEARCH ENV. AND CREDIT 1A 64 AND of OVERSIGHT 7 62 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RES. MKT., Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.1 55.9 44.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 80.3 55.9 44.1 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1998 2005/06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 61.8 38.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 38.0 52.2 47.8 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1997 2004/05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.3 39.9 60.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 85.0 67.7 32.3 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1996 2003/04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 57.3 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.8 83.4 16.6 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 70.4 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.9 68.1 31.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 71.2 28.8 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 26.9 73.1 69.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1992 1999/00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 66.4 44.0 56.0 33.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1991 1998/99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 27.5 52.4 47.6 72.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY SECURITY FOOD MINING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND AND 1A 64 SEED ROADS of 7 63 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL 97.4 71.5 28.5 2.6 0.0 100.0 12.5 73.5 26.5 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1998 2005/06 91.9 68.8 31.2 8.1 0.0 100.0 13.1 60.6 39.4 86.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1997 2004/05 80.8 68.2 31.8 19.2 0.0 100.0 10.3 69.4 30.6 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1996 2003/04 79.5 49.8 50.2 20.5 0.0 5.1 100.0 58.3 41.7 94.9 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 90.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 0.3 1995 2002/03 69.6 39.0 61.0 30.4 0.0 8.7 100.0 57.3 42.7 91.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 73.7 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 96.6 3.4 1994 2001/02 43.8 33.2 66.8 56.2 0.0 5.2 100.0 53.9 46.1 94.8 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 51.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1993 2000/01 42.9 43.9 56.1 57.1 0.0 6.9 100.0 28.9 71.1 93.1 96.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 69.5 30.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1992 1999/00 67.0 57.6 42.4 33.0 0.0 5.3 100.0 48.6 51.4 94.7 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 21.7 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 91.1 8.9 1991 1998/99 40.0 67.9 32.1 60.0 98.0 2.0 5.2 40.9 59.1 94.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 35.2 64.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 0.3 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. 1A 64 of 7 SCALE 64 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL Team. the Bank by Team.k rs, Bank World sectors, Productivity secto sectors, groups. Ban World het ARD by ARD reclassified the of ARD main World of by ofs four Agriculture the sectors, groups for by groups group into reclassified ARD Goods reclassified main4 of main4 main4 sectors sectors, the reclassified the the groups in ARD Public sectors, ARD for of sectors, ARD GDP main4 regarding Growth, of the ARD groups categorizing Management of for expenditures 2), Cooperative groups & main4 Agricultural GDP expenditures Agriculture groups Annex main4 the of of nominal for the in Security Credit Environment main4 the for$ share share nominal for Dev. for as as for Food Mining and the US Sectors (Located Management and and TVET Dev. for terms Supply Infrastructure Irrigation Marketing, Research table and Seed real nominal relationships Resource Roads Resources in Energy scale Roads Infrastructure Water Oversight in expenditures expenditures relationships Strategic by Security, expenditure summary following. Vulnerability Water Rural Federal Small Rural Rural Rural G Naturalo Extension Agricultural Agricultural Improved Sector nominal Team. nominal vertical Team. horizontal Team. s Food the Pr expenditures the the the the main and of nominal expenditures Security of of of of Bank of of Bank of Bank Aggregated the Content of table table table table table of Base Food Agriculture table table Agriculture World World World composed for the the the Data Table version and for Vulnerability Oversight. are by Team. by by 1B: Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary are: Goods Oversight: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: Bank 13: 14: Sector groups Annex Compressed These and The Vulnerability Infrastructure Public Sector Table Table Table Team. Table reclassified Table World Table reclassified Table reclassified $ VALUES US in Relationship 1B GDP Contents 22 Relationship VALUES of of1 Exp Ag. GDP of of NOMINAL REAL ARD % % Vertical Horizontal ANNEX Table Page 38 24 14 765 132 91 41 561 698 430 268 474 260 213 413 240 153 87 5 173 168 2,788 2,750 1,985 2,000 1,868 1,307 1,172 1998 2005/06 39 84 116 76 40 796 503 358 145 571 379 192 286 241 151 90 45 43 2 3,588 1,426 1,387 2,162 2,078 2,084 1,967 1,172 1,074 1997 2004/05 37 360 122 81 41 758 827 479 338 142 661 536 125 323 293 195 99 30 29 1 3,137 1,723 1,686 1,414 1,054 1,708 1,586 1,140 1996 ETB) 2003/04 940 516 13 504 424 157 267 148 80 68 804 624 937 320 221 99 0 0 0 618 419 198 408 408 277 131 millions 1,576 1,427 1995 (in 2002/03 15 349 13 336 147 67 80 0 0 0 646 497 223 117 106 877 236 641 401 401 283 118 sectors 1,574 1,225 1,211 1,291 1,143 1,100 1994 2001/02 ARD of 7 219 182 175 37 19 18 135 52 83 779 302 632 159 70 89 0 0 0 472 163 310 413 413 267 147 1,216 1,082 groups 1993 2000/01 main4 7 9 9 0 265 256 249 930 105 48 57 825 609 216 688 134 61 73 555 122 433 345 345 250 95 0 0 0 the 1992 for 1999/00 108 97 6 91 11 11 0 87 46 41 670 341 756 116 46 69 0 0 0 640 172 468 341 341 232 109 1,098 1,011 1991 1998/99 Expenditure 98 92 5 86 6 6 0 78 42 36 930 742 189 347 88 35 53 259 184 75 310 310 231 79 0 0 0 1,009 Nominal8 1990 1997/98 FY Expenditure Table EFY Security NATIONAL Food and Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 8a 1B 22 8 of2 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 19 13 6 765 48 31 17 561 504 86 65 21 418 208 210 15 15 4 11 0 0 0 2,766 2,747 1,982 1,697 1,649 1,088 1998 2005/06 22 84 39 26 14 868 796 533 82 60 22 451 260 191 17 17 6 11 0 0 0 3,559 1,398 1,377 2,161 2,077 1,703 1,664 1997 2004/05 24 360 36 23 14 331 827 602 92 55 37 510 395 116 28 28 10 18 0 0 0 3,103 1,691 1,667 1,412 1,051 1,195 1,159 1996 2003/04 938 514 11 503 424 157 267 992 36 21 16 956 340 615 610 87 54 34 523 352 171 18 18 5 13 0 0 0 1995 2002/03 15 349 13 336 776 33 18 16 742 251 491 899 105 55 51 793 157 637 16 16 5 11 0 0 0 1,574 1,225 1,210 1994 2001/02 7 219 182 175 37 19 18 604 37 15 22 568 273 294 473 81 34 47 392 86 306 23 23 7 16 0 0 0 1993 2000/01 7 9 9 0 265 256 249 422 24 15 9 398 196 202 527 75 35 39 453 48 404 22 22 6 16 0 0 0 1992 1999/00 107 97 6 91 10 10 0 491 26 12 13 466 191 275 545 56 29 27 490 56 434 18 18 5 13 0 0 0 1991 1998/99 95 92 5 86 3 3 0 411 28 13 15 382 223 159 152 42 23 19 110 52 58 20 20 5 15 0 0 0 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Expenditure Security FEDERAL Food and Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 8b 1B 22 8 of3 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 22 19 11 8 3 3 0 303 84 60 24 0 219 219 668 612 366 247 55 52 3 397 225 148 77 5 173 168 1998 2005/06 29 28 17 11 1 1 0 380 77 51 26 0 1 304 304 541 421 298 123 120 119 269 223 145 78 45 43 2 1997 2004/05 34 32 13 19 2 2 0 512 86 59 27 0 427 427 538 387 282 105 151 141 10 295 265 185 80 30 29 1 1996 2003/04 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 584 112 59 53 8 472 464 327 232 167 65 94 67 27 0 0 0 390 390 272 118 1995 2002/03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 515 114 50 64 6 401 395 201 118 62 56 83 79 4 0 0 0 384 384 278 107 1994 2001/02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 612 98 37 62 8 514 506 158 78 36 42 80 76 4 0 0 0 391 391 260 131 1993 2000/01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 508 81 33 49 426 413 13 161 59 25 34 102 74 28 324 324 244 80 0 0 0 1992 1999/00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 606 61 34 28 545 479 66 211 60 17 43 150 117 34 323 323 227 96 0 0 0 1991 1998/99 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 598 50 29 21 548 519 29 195 46 12 34 149 132 16 291 291 226 64 0 0 0 1990 1997/98 FY Expenditure EFY Security REGIONAL Food and Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 8c 1B 22 8 of4 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 26 61 10 EFY 532 92 64 28 909 391 816 486 300 187 330 181 148 287 167 106 61 021 711 1,940 1,914 1,381 1,392 1,300 1998 2005/06 143.7 97/98, 03 64 89 58 30 =FY 897 609 822 385 274 111 437 290 147 219 184 116 69 53 33 2,747 1,092 1,062 1,655 1,591 1,595 1,506 base 1997 2004/05 130.6 (Year 03 862 295 100 66 33 620 677 933 392 276 116 541 438 103 264 240 159 81 42 42 2,566 1,410 1,379 1,157 1,397 1,297 CPI 1996 2003/04 122.2 Overallyb 835 459 11 448 376 139 237 132 71 61 714 554 833 284 196 88 549 373 176 362 362 246 116 1,400 1,268 1995 2002/03 112.5 deflated 51 357 13 344 151 69 82 661 508 228 120 108 896 241 656 410 410 289 120 1,609 1,253 1,238 1,320 1,169 1,125 1994 97.8 2001/02 sectors, 208 173 166 35 18 17 128 49 79 739 287 599 151 67 85 ARD 448 154 294 392 392 253 139 1,154 1,026 ofsp 1993 2000/01 105.4 roug 8 8 0 238 230 224 836 94 43 52 741 548 194 619 120 55 66 499 110 389 311 311 225 86 main4 1992 1999/00 111.2 the 103 93 87 10 10 0 83 44 39 964 639 325 721 111 44 66 611 165 446 326 326 221 104 for 1,048 1991 1998/99 104.8 ETB) 98 92 5667 86 6 6 0 78 42 36 930 742 189 347 88 35 53 259 184 75 310 310 231 79 000000 000000 000000123 1,009 millions 1990 100 1997/98 (in FY EFY endituresp Ex =EFY1990) Security base Food (Year NATIONAL and 1B 22 Real9 Overall Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 9 of5 CPI Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 13 4 532 33 22 2 757 391 351 60 45 15 291 145 146 11 10 7 1,925 1,912 1,379 1,181 1,148 1998 2005/06 791 64 30 20 01 665 609 408 63 46 17 346 199 146 13 13 9 2,725 1,071 1,054 1,654 1,590 1,304 1,274 1997 2004/05 , 02 860 295 978 30 18 11 948 271 677 493 75 45 30 417 323 95 23 23 15 2,538 1,383 1,363 1,155 1996 sectors 2003/04 ARD 833 457 01 447 376 139 237 881 32 18 41 849 302 547 542 77 48 30 465 313 152 16 16 12 ofsp 1995 2002/03 roug 51 357 13 344 793 34 18 61 759 257 502 919 108 56 52 811 160 651 17 17 11 1,609 1,252 1,238 main4 1994 2001/02 the for 208 173 166 35 18 17 573 35 14 01 539 259 279 449 77 32 45 372 82 290 21 21 15 ETB) 1993 2000/01 8 8 0 238 230 224 379 21 13 82 358 176 182 474 67 32 35 407 43 364 19 19 14 millions (in 1992 1999/00 102 93 87 10 10 0 469 24 12 3 445 183 262 520 53 28 25 467 53 414 17 17 12 endituresp 1991 1998/99 Ex 95 92 5667 86 3 3 0 411 28 13 511 382 223 159 152 42 23 19 110 52 58 20 20 555655853 15 000000000 000000000 000000000 1990 FEDERAL 1997/98 Real FY EFY 9a Table Security Food and Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1B 22 9 of6 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page 51 31 211 59 42 17 152 152 465 426 254 172 39 36 277 156 103 53 021 711 1998 2005/06 22 22 371 291 59 39 20 232 232 414 322 228 94 92 91 206 171 111 60 53 33 1997 2004/05 , 82 62 01 6861 419 70 48 22 349 349 440 317 231 86 124 115 241 217 151 66 42 42 sectors 1996 2003/04 ARD 519 99 52 47 419 412 291 207 148 58 84 60 48122 ofsp 346 346 242 105 1995 2002/03 roug 527 116 51 66 410 404 206 120 64 57 85 81 5 393 393 284 109 main4 1994 2001/02 the for 581 93 35 58 487 480 150 74 34 40 76 73 4 371 371 247 124 ETB) 1993 2000/01 456 73 30 44 383 371 28670001 145 53 23 30 92 66 26 291 291 220 72 millions (in 1992 1999/00 579 59 32 26 520 457 63 201 58 17 41 144 111 32 308 308 217 92 endituresp 1991 Ex 1998/99 300002 000002 000001 000001 300000212 300000212 000000000 598 50 29 21 548 519 29 195 46 12 34 149 132 16 291 291 226 64 000000 000000 000000123 1990 1997/98 REGIONAL Real FY EFY 9b Table Security Food and Wages M&O Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1B 22 9 of7 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital ANNEX Table Page 4.4 2.7 1.6 321.2 316.8 228.7 88.1 230.4 15.2 10.5 4.7 215.2 150.5 64.7 135.0 80.5 49.6 30.9 54.6 30.0 24.6 47.5 27.6 17.6 10.0 19.9 19.4 0.5 1998 8.68 2005/06 4.5 9.7 414.6 164.8 160.3 249.8 240.1 240.8 13.4 8.8 4.6 227.4 135.4 91.9 124.1 58.1 41.3 16.8 66.0 43.8 22.2 33.1 27.8 17.5 10.4 5.2 5.0 0.3 1997 8.65 2004/05 4.3 363.9 199.9 195.6 164.0 122.2 41.8 198.1 14.2 9.4 4.7 183.9 87.9 96.0 132.3 55.6 39.2 16.4 76.7 62.2 14.5 37.4 34.0 22.6 11.4 3.4 3.3 0.1 1996 8.62 2003/04 sectors ARD 109.5 60.2 1.5 58.7 49.4 18.2 31.1 183.6 17.3 9.3 8.0 166.3 93.7 72.7 109.2 37.2 25.7 11.5 72.0 48.9 23.1 47.5 47.5 32.3 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 of 1995 8.58 2002/03 groups 1.7 184.2 143.4 141.7 40.8 1.5 39.4 151.0 17.2 7.9 9.3 133.8 75.6 58.2 128.7 26.1 13.7 12.4 102.6 27.6 75.0 46.9 46.9 33.1 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 main4 1994 8.54 2001/02 the for $) 26.3 21.9 0.9 21.0 4.4 2.3 2.1 146.1 16.2 6.2 10.0 129.9 93.6 36.3 75.9 19.1 8.4 10.7 56.7 19.5 37.2 49.6 49.6 32.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 US 1993 8.33 2000/01 millions 32.5 31.4 0.8 30.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 5.8 7.0 7.4 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (in 114.1 12.9 101.2 74.8 26.4 84.5 16.4 68.1 15.0 53.1 42.4 42.4 30.7 11.7 1992 8.15 1999/00 14.3 12.9 0.8 12.1 1.4 1.4 0.0 6.1 5.5 6.2 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Expenditures $) 146.1 11.6 134.5 89.2 45.3 100.6 15.4 85.2 23.0 62.3 45.4 45.4 30.9 14.5 1991 7.51 US 1998/99 National millions 14.2 13.3 0.8 12.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 146.6 11.4 6.1 5.3 135.2 107.8 27.4 50.4 12.8 5.1 7.7 37.7 26.8 10.9 45.1 45.1 33.6 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 (in 1990 6.88 Nominal 1997/98 10 FY EFY Table Expenditures Rate Security NATIONAL Food and Exchange Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 10a Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital 1B 22 Table 10 of8 ANNEX Table Page 2.2 1.5 0.7 318.6 316.5 228.4 88.1 5.5 3.6 1.9 195.5 190.0 125.3 64.7 58.1 9.9 7.5 2.4 48.2 24.0 24.2 1.7 1.7 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 2005/06 2.5 9.7 4.5 3.0 1.6 411.3 161.6 159.1 249.7 240.0 196.8 192.3 100.4 91.9 61.7 9.5 7.0 2.5 52.2 30.1 22.1 2.0 2.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1997 2004/05 2.8 359.9 196.1 193.3 163.8 121.9 41.8 4.2 2.6 1.6 138.7 134.4 38.4 96.0 69.9 10.7 6.4 4.3 59.2 45.8 13.4 3.3 3.3 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1996 2003/04 109.3 59.9 1.3 58.6 49.4 18.2 31.1 4.2 2.4 1.8 115.6 111.3 39.6 71.7 71.1 10.1 6.2 3.9 61.0 41.0 19.9 2.1 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 1.7 184.2 143.4 141.7 40.8 1.5 39.4 90.8 3.9 2.1 1.8 86.8 29.4 57.5 105.2 12.3 6.4 5.9 92.9 18.4 74.5 1.9 1.9 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 26.3 21.9 0.9 21.0 4.4 2.3 2.1 72.6 4.4 1.8 2.6 68.2 32.8 35.4 56.8 9.8 4.1 5.6 47.1 10.3 36.8 2.7 2.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 32.5 31.4 0.8 30.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 51.8 2.9 1.8 1.1 48.9 24.1 24.8 64.7 9.2 4.3 4.8 55.6 5.9 49.6 2.7 2.7 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 14.3 12.9 0.8 12.1 1.3 1.3 0.0 65.4 3.4 1.6 1.8 62.0 25.5 36.6 72.6 7.4 3.9 3.5 65.2 7.4 57.7 2.4 2.4 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 $) 1991 1998/99 US millions 13.7 13.3 0.8 12.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 59.7 4.1 1.9 2.2 55.6 32.5 23.1 22.1 6.1 3.4 2.7 16.0 7.6 8.5 2.9 2.9 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1990 (in 1997/98 FY EFY Expenditures Security FEDERAL Food and Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 10b Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital 1B 22 Table 10 of9 ANNEX Table Page 2.5 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 34.9 9.7 6.9 2.8 25.2 25.2 0.0 76.9 70.6 42.1 28.4 6.4 6.0 0.4 45.8 25.9 17.1 8.8 19.9 19.4 0.5 1998 2005/06 3.3 3.2 2.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 44.0 8.9 5.8 3.0 35.1 35.1 0.0 62.5 48.6 34.4 14.3 13.8 13.7 0.1 31.0 25.8 16.8 9.0 5.2 5.0 0.3 1997 2004/05 4.0 3.7 1.5 2.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 59.4 9.9 6.8 3.1 49.5 49.5 0.0 62.4 44.9 32.7 12.2 17.5 16.4 1.1 34.2 30.8 21.4 9.3 3.4 3.3 0.1 1996 2003/04 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.0 13.0 6.9 6.1 55.0 54.0 0.9 38.1 27.1 19.5 7.6 11.0 7.9 3.2 45.4 45.4 31.7 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1995 2002/03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 13.3 5.8 7.5 47.0 46.2 0.7 23.5 13.8 7.3 6.5 9.8 9.2 0.5 45.0 45.0 32.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1994 2001/02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.5 11.8 4.4 7.4 61.7 60.7 1.0 19.0 9.4 4.3 5.1 9.6 9.2 0.5 46.9 46.9 31.2 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.3 10.0 4.0 6.0 52.3 50.7 1.6 19.8 7.2 3.1 4.1 12.5 9.0 3.5 39.7 39.7 30.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1992 1999/00 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 80.7 8.2 4.5 3.7 72.5 63.7 8.8 28.0 8.0 2.3 5.7 20.0 15.5 4.5 43.0 43.0 30.2 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 $) 1991 US 1998/99 millions 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 86.9 7.3 4.2 3.0 79.6 75.4 4.3 28.3 6.7 1.7 5.0 21.6 19.2 2.4 42.2 42.2 32.9 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 (in 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Expenditures Security REGIONAL Food and Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Oversight Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 10c Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Sector Recurrent Capital 1B 22 Table 10 of 10 ANNEX Table Page 5.66 0.08 0.05 0.03 5.58 4.03 1.55 4.06 0.27 0.19 0.08 3.79 2.65 1.14 2.38 1.42 0.87 0.54 0.96 0.53 0.43 0.84 0.49 0.31 0.18 0.35 0.34 0.01 1998 2005/06 49238.85 8.52 3.39 0.09 3.29 5.13 4.93 0.20 4.95 0.28 0.18 0.09 4.67 2.78 1.89 2.55 1.19 0.85 0.34 1.36 0.90 0.46 0.68 0.57 0.36 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.01 1997 2004/05 42126.41 8.86 4.87 0.10 4.76 3.99 2.98 1.02 4.82 0.34 0.23 0.12 4.48 2.14 2.34 3.22 1.35 0.95 0.40 1.87 1.51 0.35 0.91 0.83 0.55 0.28 0.08 0.08 0.00 sectors, 1996 2003/04 35406.61 ARD of 3.41 1.87 0.05 1.83 1.54 0.57 0.97 5.71 0.54 0.29 0.25 5.17 2.91 2.26 3.40 1.16 0.80 0.36 2.24 1.52 0.72 1.48 1.48 1.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 groups 27593.50 main4 6.47 5.04 0.06 4.98 1.43 0.05 1.38 5.31 0.61 0.28 0.33 4.70 2.66 2.04 4.52 0.92 0.48 0.44 3.60 0.97 2.64 1.65 1.65 1.16 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 the 24324.00 for 0.78 0.65 0.03 0.63 0.13 0.07 0.06 4.36 0.48 0.18 0.30 3.88 2.79 1.08 2.26 0.57 0.25 0.32 1.69 0.58 1.11 1.48 1.48 0.96 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 GDP 1993 2000/01 27908.77 0.93 0.89 0.02 0.87 0.03 0.03 0.00 3.25 0.37 0.17 0.20 2.88 2.13 0.75 2.41 0.47 0.21 0.26 1.94 0.43 1.51 1.21 1.21 0.87 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 Agricultural 1999/00 28594.62 of % 0.42 0.38 0.02 0.36 0.04 0.04 0.00 4.29 0.34 0.18 0.16 3.95 2.62 1.33 2.96 0.45 0.18 0.27 2.50 0.67 1.83 1.33 1.33 0.91 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 as 1991 1998/99 25567.15 0.38 0.36 0.02 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.00 3.95 0.31 0.16 0.14 3.64 2.91 0.74 1.36 0.34 0.14 0.21 1.01 0.72 0.29 1.22 1.22 0.91 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 Expenditures 1997/98 25534.82 FY EFY Nominal prices 11 Expenditures market Security Table BIRR National Food mln. and 1B 22 Nominal 11 of Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 11 AgGDP, 11a Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight ANNEX Table Page Total Table 5.62 0.04 0.03 0.01 5.58 4.03 1.55 3.45 0.10 0.06 0.03 3.35 2.21 1.14 1.02 0.17 0.13 0.04 0.85 0.42 0.43 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1998 2005/06 49238.85 8.45 3.32 0.05 3.27 5.13 4.93 0.20 4.04 0.09 0.06 0.03 3.95 2.06 1.89 1.27 0.20 0.14 0.05 1.07 0.62 0.45 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 42126.41 8.76 4.78 0.07 4.71 3.99 2.97 1.02 3.38 0.10 0.06 0.04 3.27 0.94 2.34 1.70 0.26 0.16 0.10 1.44 1.11 0.33 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 35406.61 3.40 1.86 0.04 1.82 1.54 0.57 0.97 3.59 0.13 0.08 0.06 3.46 1.23 2.23 2.21 0.32 0.19 0.12 1.90 1.28 0.62 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 27593.50 6.47 5.04 0.06 4.98 1.43 0.05 1.38 3.19 0.14 0.07 0.06 3.05 1.03 2.02 3.70 0.43 0.23 0.21 3.26 0.64 2.62 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 24324.00 0.78 0.65 0.03 0.63 0.13 0.07 0.06 2.17 0.13 0.05 0.08 2.03 0.98 1.05 1.70 0.29 0.12 0.17 1.41 0.31 1.10 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 27908.77 0.93 0.89 0.02 0.87 0.03 0.03 0.00 1.48 0.08 0.05 0.03 1.39 0.69 0.71 1.84 0.26 0.12 0.14 1.58 0.17 1.41 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 28594.62 0.42 0.38 0.02 0.36 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.92 0.10 0.05 0.05 1.82 0.75 1.07 2.13 0.22 0.11 0.10 1.92 0.22 1.70 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 25567.15 0.37 0.36 0.02 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.61 0.11 0.05 0.06 1.50 0.87 0.62 0.60 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.43 0.20 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 25534.82 FY EFY prices Expenditures market Security BIRR FEDERAL Food mln. and 1B 22 Nominal 11 of Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 12 AgGDP, 11b Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight ANNEX Table Page Total Table 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.62 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.00 1.36 1.24 0.74 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.81 0.46 0.30 0.16 0.35 0.34 0.01 1998 2005/06 49238.85 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.72 0.72 0.00 1.28 1.00 0.71 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.64 0.53 0.34 0.19 0.11 0.10 0.01 1997 2004/05 42126.41 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.45 0.24 0.17 0.08 1.21 1.21 0.00 1.52 1.09 0.80 0.30 0.43 0.40 0.03 0.83 0.75 0.52 0.23 0.08 0.08 0.00 1996 2003/04 35406.61 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.12 0.41 0.21 0.19 1.71 1.68 0.03 1.18 0.84 0.61 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.10 1.41 1.41 0.99 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 27593.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.12 0.47 0.20 0.26 1.65 1.62 0.03 0.83 0.48 0.26 0.23 0.34 0.32 0.02 1.58 1.58 1.14 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 24324.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.35 0.13 0.22 1.84 1.81 0.03 0.57 0.28 0.13 0.15 0.29 0.27 0.01 1.40 1.40 0.93 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 27908.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.28 0.11 0.17 1.49 1.44 0.05 0.56 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.36 0.26 0.10 1.13 1.13 0.85 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 28594.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.24 0.13 0.11 2.13 1.87 0.26 0.82 0.24 0.07 0.17 0.59 0.46 0.13 1.26 1.26 0.89 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 25567.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.34 0.20 0.11 0.08 2.15 2.03 0.12 0.76 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.58 0.52 0.06 1.14 1.14 0.89 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 25534.82 FY EFY Expenditures prices market Security BIRR REGIONAL Food mln. and 1B 22 11 of Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 13 AgGDP, 11c Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight ANNEX Table Page Total Table 2.45 0.03 0.02 0.01 2.42 1.75 0.67 1.76 0.12 0.08 0.04 1.64 1.15 0.49 1.03 0.61 0.38 0.24 0.42 0.23 0.19 0.36 0.21 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.00 1998 113,611 2005/06 3.71 1.48 0.04 1.44 2.24 2.15 0.09 2.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 2.04 1.21 0.82 1.11 0.52 0.37 0.15 0.59 0.39 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.16 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.00 96,676 1997 2004/05 3.74 2.05 0.04 2.01 1.69 1.26 0.43 2.04 0.15 0.10 0.05 1.89 0.90 0.99 1.36 0.57 0.40 0.17 0.79 0.64 0.15 0.38 0.35 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.00 sectors, 83,891 1996 2003/04 ARD of 1.38 0.76 0.02 0.74 0.62 0.23 0.39 2.31 0.22 0.12 0.10 2.09 1.18 0.92 1.38 0.47 0.32 0.15 0.91 0.62 0.29 0.60 0.60 0.41 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 68,144 1995 groups 2002/03 main4 2.51 1.96 0.02 1.93 0.56 0.02 0.54 2.06 0.23 0.11 0.13 1.82 1.03 0.79 1.76 0.36 0.19 0.17 1.40 0.38 1.02 0.64 0.64 0.45 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,665 1994 the 2001/02 for 0.33 0.28 0.01 0.27 0.06 0.03 0.03 1.85 0.21 0.08 0.13 1.65 1.19 0.46 0.96 0.24 0.11 0.14 0.72 0.25 0.47 0.63 0.63 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 65,689 GDP 1993 2000/01 Overall 0.41 0.40 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.45 0.16 0.07 0.09 1.29 0.95 0.34 1.08 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.87 0.19 0.68 0.54 0.54 0.39 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 of 63,924 1992 % 1999/00 as 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.92 0.15 0.08 0.07 1.76 1.17 0.59 1.32 0.20 0.08 0.12 1.12 0.30 0.82 0.60 0.60 0.41 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 57,256 1991 1998/99 Expenditures 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.90 0.15 0.08 0.07 1.75 1.40 0.35 0.65 0.17 0.07 0.10 0.49 0.35 0.14 0.58 0.58 0.44 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 53,157 1990 1997/98 Expenditures Nominal FY 12 EFY prices Security Table NATIONAL Food market and BIRR 1B 22 Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 12 of 12a 14 GDP, Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight Total Table ANNEX Table Page 2.43 0.02 0.01 0.01 2.42 1.74 0.67 1.49 0.04 0.03 0.01 1.45 0.96 0.49 0.44 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1998 2005/06 3.68 1.45 0.02 1.42 2.23 2.15 0.09 1.76 0.04 0.03 0.01 1.72 0.90 0.82 0.55 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.47 0.27 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 3.70 2.02 0.03 1.99 1.68 1.25 0.43 1.42 0.04 0.03 0.02 1.38 0.40 0.99 0.72 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.61 0.47 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 1.38 0.75 0.02 0.74 0.62 0.23 0.39 1.46 0.05 0.03 0.02 1.40 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.77 0.52 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 2.51 1.95 0.02 1.93 0.56 0.02 0.54 1.24 0.05 0.03 0.02 1.18 0.40 0.78 1.43 0.17 0.09 0.08 1.27 0.25 1.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 0.33 0.28 0.01 0.27 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.92 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.86 0.42 0.45 0.72 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.60 0.13 0.47 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 0.41 0.40 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.66 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.62 0.31 0.32 0.83 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.71 0.08 0.63 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.86 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.81 0.33 0.48 0.95 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.86 0.10 0.76 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.77 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.72 0.42 0.30 0.29 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 Expenditures FY EFY Security FEDERAL Food and 1B 22 Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 12 of 12b 15 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight Table ANNEX Table Page 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.59 0.54 0.32 0.22 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.35 0.20 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.00 1998 2005/06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.56 0.44 0.31 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.00 1997 2004/05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.64 0.46 0.34 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.35 0.32 0.22 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.00 1996 2003/04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.69 0.68 0.01 0.48 0.34 0.25 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.57 0.57 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.64 0.63 0.01 0.32 0.19 0.10 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.61 0.61 0.44 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.15 0.06 0.09 0.78 0.77 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.67 0.65 0.02 0.25 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.12 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.38 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.95 0.84 0.12 0.37 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.26 0.20 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.12 0.09 0.05 0.04 1.03 0.98 0.06 0.37 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.28 0.25 0.03 0.55 0.55 0.43 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 Expenditures FY EFY Security REGIONAL Food and 1B 22 Nominal Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 12 of 12c 16 Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Vulnerability Infrastructure Productivity Oversight Table ANNEX Table Page 43.75 3.42 3.38 3.47 52.24 53.36 49.54 31.39 11.94 13.09 9.97 35.48 35.12 36.36 18.39 63.02 61.66 65.32 9.00 7.00 13.81 6.47 21.63 21.86 21.24 3.28 4.52 0.29 1998 2005/06 51.03 62.39 6.25 83.47 45.55 56.59 7.80 29.63 5.08 12.22 2.39 41.46 31.92 74.10 15.28 22.00 57.32 8.74 12.03 10.32 17.88 4.07 10.53 24.20 5.39 0.96 1.17 0.22 1997 2004/05 sectors ARD 49.73 65.82 5.69 85.72 38.32 44.33 27.43 27.07 4.66 12.49 2.07 42.97 31.90 62.98 18.08 18.31 51.89 7.20 17.92 22.55 9.54 5.12 11.20 29.92 5.01 0.80 1.21 0.05 of 1996 2003/04 groups 24.35 37.09 2.12 62.81 17.16 11.34 24.53 40.81 10.64 13.53 8.52 57.82 58.26 57.26 24.28 22.96 37.39 12.34 25.02 30.40 18.21 10.57 29.31 46.96 16.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 main4 1995 2002/03 the for 36.06 61.38 3.06 79.96 14.72 1.41 22.80 29.57 7.38 13.98 5.27 48.26 72.24 33.72 25.20 11.17 24.25 7.01 37.01 26.35 43.48 9.18 20.07 58.70 7.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 totals 2001/02 8.83 20.48 1.85 35.42 2.31 2.00 2.79 49.04 15.14 13.02 16.83 68.00 81.09 48.02 25.47 17.92 17.73 18.07 29.69 16.91 49.19 16.66 46.46 67.40 29.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 respective 1993 2000/01 the of 11.89 30.45 1.88 52.44 0.67 1.25 0.00 41.72 12.50 13.02 12.11 59.38 82.27 33.24 30.89 15.91 16.61 15.38 39.95 16.49 66.76 15.50 41.14 68.50 20.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 share 1992 % 1999/00 as 4.67 15.14 1.80 29.33 0.64 1.24 0.00 47.68 13.59 13.94 13.21 60.83 78.54 42.14 32.83 18.07 14.05 22.35 38.53 20.22 57.86 14.81 53.20 70.21 35.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 Expenditures of Expenditures 5.53 16.11 1.72 33.85 0.50 0.64 0.01 57.20 13.80 13.42 14.26 77.83 79.58 71.62 19.68 15.47 11.13 20.83 21.68 19.78 28.38 17.60 54.62 73.73 31.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 Relationship FY EFY NATIONAL of Vertical 13 Security Table Relationship Food and Vertical Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1B 22 13a 13 of 17 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 55.52 11.28 11.50 10.83 57.06 60.47 49.79 34.06 28.56 27.51 30.76 34.25 33.18 36.54 10.12 51.20 57.07 38.95 8.68 6.35 13.67 0.30 8.95 3.92 19.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1998 2005/06 61.22 90.96 19.06 96.70 50.53 64.79 7.82 29.30 2.56 22.62 0.96 38.91 27.09 74.33 9.18 5.34 53.01 1.54 10.55 8.12 17.85 0.30 1.14 5.32 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 62.95 91.52 21.58 96.04 45.82 59.15 27.65 24.25 1.97 20.14 0.80 37.62 18.65 63.48 12.22 4.99 49.40 2.12 16.56 22.20 8.86 0.57 1.52 8.88 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 36.66 78.43 12.54 89.00 22.27 18.44 25.35 38.77 5.54 22.82 2.77 50.23 40.07 58.41 23.85 13.27 58.98 5.93 27.50 41.48 16.24 0.71 2.76 5.66 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 48.21 88.77 15.70 94.02 18.51 2.99 22.97 23.76 2.43 19.34 1.21 39.38 59.71 33.54 27.54 7.63 59.27 3.92 42.11 37.30 43.49 0.49 1.17 5.69 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 16.60 56.48 11.57 67.40 3.69 5.07 2.84 45.80 11.32 23.75 8.30 56.97 72.20 47.63 35.88 25.19 54.25 18.12 39.34 22.73 49.52 1.72 7.01 10.43 6.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 21.43 68.09 10.91 79.60 1.07 3.64 0.00 34.14 6.27 23.44 2.82 46.30 77.29 33.35 42.67 19.87 56.23 12.55 52.62 19.07 66.65 1.75 5.77 9.43 5.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 9.22 49.43 11.34 63.27 1.05 3.93 0.00 42.30 13.06 23.65 9.21 48.24 74.34 38.77 46.93 28.31 55.40 18.46 50.71 21.73 61.23 1.55 9.20 9.61 9.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 Expenditures 13.96 50.41 11.57 63.83 0.62 1.09 0.01 60.65 15.68 28.21 11.35 77.12 80.23 73.14 22.47 23.01 49.56 13.84 22.27 18.68 26.85 2.92 10.90 10.65 10.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 FY EFY FEDERAL of Security Relationship Food and Vertical Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1B 22 13b 13 of 18 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 1.58 2.01 1.81 2.35 0.68 0.69 0.00 21.81 8.97 10.29 6.80 48.64 49.49 0.00 48.03 65.13 62.56 69.35 12.32 11.81 41.48 28.58 23.89 25.35 21.51 38.37 38.02 58.52 1998 2005/06 2.38 3.75 3.40 4.50 0.19 0.19 0.00 31.21 10.25 9.91 10.99 64.64 65.11 0.00 44.37 56.19 58.28 51.72 25.51 25.48 28.53 22.04 29.80 28.41 32.80 9.66 9.22 71.47 1997 2004/05 2.50 4.17 2.38 8.33 0.38 0.38 0.00 37.14 11.12 10.89 11.66 70.01 71.23 0.00 39.00 50.26 52.41 45.25 24.77 23.57 93.51 21.37 34.45 34.31 34.75 4.85 4.82 6.49 1996 2003/04 0.15 0.27 0.23 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.81 15.18 11.84 22.23 83.32 87.31 23.07 25.10 31.59 33.47 27.62 16.68 12.69 76.93 29.93 52.96 54.47 49.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.78 18.46 12.71 28.34 82.80 83.36 58.19 18.26 19.10 15.95 24.53 17.20 16.64 41.81 34.92 62.38 71.28 47.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.71 17.31 10.99 26.28 86.50 86.87 68.16 13.64 13.78 10.80 18.01 13.50 13.13 31.84 33.65 68.91 78.21 55.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.14 17.54 10.85 30.04 80.68 84.86 31.69 16.23 12.71 8.37 20.83 19.32 15.14 68.31 32.63 69.74 80.78 49.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.00 53.16 13.82 12.11 16.66 78.31 80.36 66.10 18.48 13.56 6.27 25.72 21.62 19.56 33.90 28.32 72.63 81.62 57.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 1998/99 Expenditures 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.44 0.00 55.05 12.91 10.84 17.56 78.33 79.30 64.36 17.94 11.93 4.41 28.73 21.26 20.25 35.64 26.75 75.16 84.75 53.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 1997/98 FY EFY REGIONAL of Security Relationship Food and Vertical Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 1B 22 13c 13 of 19 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 1.36 62.39 37.61 98.64 72.19 27.81 6.61 69.07 30.93 93.39 69.95 30.05 59.60 61.63 38.37 40.40 54.99 45.01 58.11 63.65 36.35 41.89 97.38 2.62 1998 2005/06 39.76 2.73 97.27 60.24 96.13 3.87 5.57 65.71 34.29 94.43 59.57 40.43 46.84 71.11 28.89 53.16 66.38 33.62 84.14 62.75 37.25 15.86 94.73 5.27 sectors 1997 2004/05 ARD of 54.92 2.15 97.85 45.08 74.51 25.49 7.15 66.57 33.43 92.85 47.81 52.19 42.03 70.46 29.54 57.97 81.04 18.96 90.85 66.40 33.60 9.15 97.70 2.30 1996 2003/04 groups main4 54.93 2.42 97.58 45.07 36.95 63.05 9.40 53.87 46.13 90.60 56.32 43.68 34.09 69.02 30.98 65.91 67.91 32.09 100.00 67.89 32.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 the 1995 2002/03 of each 77.84 1.21 98.79 22.16 3.61 96.39 11.41 45.81 54.19 88.59 56.51 43.49 20.28 52.44 47.56 79.72 26.88 73.12 100.00 70.66 29.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 for 1994 2001/02 total the 83.21 4.01 95.99 16.79 52.21 47.79 11.07 38.27 61.73 88.93 72.04 27.96 25.23 44.02 55.98 74.77 34.41 65.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 64.53 35.47 of 1993 2000/01 share % 96.51 2.68 97.32 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 as 100.00 11.29 45.29 54.71 88.71 73.86 26.14 19.41 45.40 54.60 80.59 22.00 78.00 100.00 72.42 27.58 1992 1999/00 90.17 6.12 93.88 9.83 0.00 7.93 100.00 52.90 47.10 92.07 66.30 33.70 15.33 40.08 59.92 84.67 26.94 73.06 100.00 68.03 31.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 Expenditures Expenditures 1991 of 1998/99 93.89 5.90 94.10 6.11 99.58 0.42 7.77 53.70 46.30 92.23 79.74 20.26 25.33 39.70 60.30 74.67 71.17 28.83 100.00 74.54 25.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 NATIONAL 1997/98 of Relationship FY EFY Horizontal Relationship Security 14 Food and Table Horizontal 1B 22 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 14 of 14a 20 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 0.68 68.92 31.08 99.32 72.16 27.84 2.83 65.13 34.87 97.17 65.96 34.04 17.06 75.36 24.64 82.94 49.79 50.21 99.58 29.59 70.41 0.42 0.00 100.00 1998 2005/06 39.29 1.55 98.45 60.71 96.13 3.87 2.31 65.39 34.61 97.69 52.19 47.81 15.40 73.25 26.75 84.60 57.67 42.33 100.00 34.53 65.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 54.50 1.43 98.57 45.50 74.47 25.53 3.05 62.08 37.92 96.95 28.60 71.40 15.32 60.13 39.87 84.68 77.35 22.65 100.00 35.58 64.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 54.83 2.21 97.79 45.17 36.95 63.05 3.66 56.98 43.02 96.34 35.60 64.40 14.26 61.49 38.51 85.74 67.29 32.71 100.00 28.32 71.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 77.84 1.19 98.81 22.16 3.61 96.39 4.32 53.43 46.57 95.68 33.83 66.17 11.72 52.04 47.96 88.28 19.76 80.24 100.00 32.57 67.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 83.21 4.01 95.99 16.79 52.21 47.79 6.05 41.03 58.97 93.95 48.16 51.84 17.17 42.13 57.87 82.83 21.96 78.04 100.00 29.07 70.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 96.51 2.68 97.32 3.49 0.00 5.58 100.00 62.60 37.40 94.42 49.21 50.79 14.14 47.40 52.60 85.86 10.68 89.32 100.00 27.36 72.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 90.56 6.12 93.88 9.44 0.00 5.22 100.00 48.28 51.72 94.78 41.05 58.95 10.19 52.19 47.81 89.81 11.42 88.58 100.00 27.84 72.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 Expenditures 1998/99 96.77 5.90 94.10 3.23 99.18 0.82 6.93 46.22 53.78 93.07 58.39 41.61 27.46 55.32 44.68 72.54 47.09 52.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 FEDERAL 100.00 25.09 74.91 1990 1997/98 of FY EFY Relationship Security Food and Horizontal 1B 22 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 14 of 14b 21 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page 86.13 55.86 44.14 13.87 0.00 100.00 27.81 71.31 28.69 72.19 0.00 100.00 91.70 59.70 40.30 8.30 94.22 5.78 56.54 65.93 34.07 43.46 97.38 2.62 1998 2005/06 96.94 61.81 38.19 3.06 0.00 100.00 20.20 65.88 34.12 79.80 0.00 100.00 77.85 70.70 29.30 22.15 99.20 0.80 83.11 64.96 35.04 16.89 94.73 5.27 1997 2004/05 93.33 39.93 60.07 6.67 0.00 100.00 16.72 68.48 31.52 83.28 0.00 100.00 71.94 72.93 27.07 28.06 93.51 6.49 89.98 69.66 30.34 10.02 97.70 2.30 1996 2003/04 100.00 57.28 42.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.15 52.86 47.14 80.85 98.28 1.72 71.11 71.84 28.16 28.89 71.34 28.66 100.00 69.73 30.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 2002/03 100.00 70.37 29.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.08 43.57 56.43 77.92 98.45 1.55 58.55 52.80 47.20 41.45 94.65 5.35 100.00 72.26 27.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 1994 2001/02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.03 37.24 62.76 83.97 98.43 1.57 49.35 45.98 54.02 50.65 95.30 4.70 100.00 66.58 33.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 1993 2000/01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.05 40.28 59.72 83.95 96.91 3.09 36.64 42.86 57.14 63.36 72.20 27.80 100.00 75.43 24.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 1999/00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 10.14 54.82 45.18 89.86 87.89 12.11 28.61 28.92 71.08 71.39 77.50 22.50 100.00 70.28 29.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 Expenditures 1991 1998/99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.35 100.00 100.00 57.97 42.03 91.65 94.63 5.37 23.67 25.54 74.46 76.33 89.05 10.95 100.00 77.91 22.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 REGIONAL 1997/98 of FY EFY Relationship Security Food and Horizontal 1B 22 Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign 14 of 14c 22 Vulnerability Recurrent Capital Infrastructure Recurrent Capital Productivity Recurrent Capital Oversight Recurrent Capital Table ANNEX Table Page Team levels. levels. Bank ld regional egionalr Wor nda and the levels.l levels. by federal federal expenditure regiona regional of reclassified and national, national, and at at ARD in ARD federal federal of categories sectors national, expenditures expenditures groups national, the economic at real real at for main4 various capital level, the in the expenditures and for maintenance expenditures with real & real levels NATIONAL the capital maintenance foreign at & expenditure and operations Regional and the Categories and of and REPORT recurrent operations wages treasury classifications Federal THE Economic distribution OF3 between between between between economic National, between at TABLE Regional for Contents elasticities elasticities elasticities elasticities between and Ratios of Relationship Table Annual Annual Annual Annual Ratios: Federal Annual Extension 1C: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19 20: 21: 22: Annex Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Distribution 1C Contents 24 of of1 Extended3 Recurrent-Capital O&M-Capital Wages-O&M Treasury-Foreign RATIOS FED.REG Table ANNEX Table Page 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.8 0.0 13.2 16.4 3.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 13.5 16.4 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.2 5.0 2.7 0.1 0.0 1998 ... ... 2005/06 7.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.1 15.5 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 3.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.8 1.7 7.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 1.3 2.0 3.7 0.2 0.2 1997 ... ... 2004/05 2.0 0.4 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 2.8 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.6 2.8 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.7 24.6 9.0 0.3 0.9 1.3 1996 2003/04 1.7 0.8 0.4 2.0 0.3 17.2 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 17.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 5.8 5.1 4.8 0.7 0.1 3.4 1995 2002/03 levels 1.0 0.3 0.2 6.2 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 7.8 1.6 0.5 0.4 2.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.4 2.6 0.3 0.2 7.8 1994 2001/02 Regional and 18.5 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.8 1.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 5.7 2.2 1.1 0.1 Federal 1993 ... ... ... 2000/01 National, at 13.3 0.6 0.4 4.4 0.3 0.2 3.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 2.6 0.4 5.7 0.3 0.2 3.4 4.0 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 1992 ... ... ... ... ... 1999/00 expenditures 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.3 3.2 0.6 1.0 0.0 2.5 2.8 1.2 0.8 2.2 4.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 real 1991 ............... ... ... ........................ ........................ ..................... ... ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ............... ... ........................ ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1998/99 capital and 1990 1997/98 recurrent FY EFY between SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY R-K COOPS. COOPS. R-K COOPS. elasticities R-K FOOD FOOD FOOD MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY Annual DEV. DEV. DEV. Responsiveness AND CREDIT SEED AND CREDIT SEED Responsiveness AND CREDIT SEED AND ROADS Responsiveness AND ROADS AND ROADS 15: OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER RES. MKT., RES. MKT., RES. MKT., 1C 24 Table NATIONAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL FEDERAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL REGIONAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 15 of2 ANNEX Table Page 1.0 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.3 13.5 10.6 3.5 1.2 0.1 7.6 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 13.8 10.6 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 2.2 3.0 2.6 0.1 7.6 1998 ... ... 2005/06 4.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.1 12.2 2.4 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.4 2.4 3.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.3 7.0 3.1 0.2 1.3 levels. 1997 ... ... 2004/05 Regional 2.0 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 1.5 0.4 0.1 2.1 0.3 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.3 3.1 2.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 and 61.4 9.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 1996 2003/04 Federal 8.3 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.4 17.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.5 3.5 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.4 17.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.4 1.8 3.8 4.1 0.4 0.5 3.5 National, 1995 2002/03 at 1.0 0.0 0.1 5.5 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 6.7 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 4.1 0.4 0.1 6.7 1994 expenditures 2001/02 real 11.9 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.8 3.4 1.8 1.7 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.0 3.4 0.1 1.2 0.2 5.2 0.5 1.8 1.7 capital 1993 ... ... ... 2000/01 and 14.1 0.6 1.3 4.5 0.5 0.4 3.4 0.5 1.0 2.2 3.6 0.5 5.9 0.5 0.3 3.4 3.3 0.6 3.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 1992 ... ... ... ... ... maintenance 1999/00 & 1.2 0.4 1.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.9 0.7 4.4 8.8 0.8 1.9 0.0 3.5 4.1 0.9 0.7 1.7 6.6 0.5 0.7 4.4 1991 ............... ... ... ........................ ........................ ..................... ... ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ............... ... ........................ ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ operations 1998/99 between 1990 1997/98 elasticities FY EFY Annual SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY 16: O&M-K COOPS. COOPS. O&M-K COOPS. O&M-K FOOD AND MINING FOOD AND MINING FOOD MINING MGMT. Table MANAGEMENT MGMT. MANAGEMENT MGMT. AND MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. DEV. DEV. Responsiveness AND CREDIT SEED AND CREDIT SEED Responsiveness AND CREDIT SEED AND ROADS Responsiveness AND ROADS AND ROADS OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER RES. MKT., RES. MKT., RES. MKT., NATIONAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL FEDERAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL REGIONAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 1C 24 16 of3 ANNEX Table Page 0.7 1.2 21.5 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.5 2.3 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.0 64.6 0.0 0.6 1.7 1.1 0.2 0.5 1998 ... ... 2005/06 2.0 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.4 1.4 1.7 0.9 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.0 4.7 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.7 3.2 0.8 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.4 1.3 0.9 0.3 1997 ... ... 2004/05 evels.l 1.2 0.6 2.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.3 4.6 2.3 1.0 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.3 4.6 Regional 115.0 1996 and 2003/04 Federal 5.1 1.0 8.7 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.8 5.3 0.1 0.6 1.0 4.6 0.1 0.5 2.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.1 4.1 1.6 4.5 1.5 1.2 0.8 1.8 0.6 1.0 1995 2002/03 National, at 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.6 5.2 1.3 0.5 0.9 12.3 1.3 2.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.3 0.6 1.1 1.1 5.4 1.9 0.5 1.0 0.7 5.2 1.3 9699.1 1994 2001/02 expenditures real 0.2 2.5 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.2 2.1 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 19.0 0.5 0.6 1.1 8.0 0.1 1.2 1993 ... 2000/01 maintenance & 0.1 0.8 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.1 1.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 2.4 0.1 2.4 1.1 11.1 0.6 1.3 0.1 1.8 1992 ... 1999/00 operations and 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 5.3 0.3 1.7 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 5.3 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.1 1.9 3.7 6.6 0.5 1.3 0.2 1.1 523.6 wages 1991 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1998/99 between 1990 elasticities 1997/98 FY Annual EFY 17: Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Table SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY O&M COOPS. O&M COOPS. O&M COOPS. FOOD AND MINING FOOD AND MINING FOOD MINING Wages/ MGMT. MANAGEMENT MGMT. Wages/ MANAGEMENT Wages/ MGMT. AND MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY Sectors AND CREDIT DEV. DEV. SEED Sectors AND CREDIT DEV. Sectors SEED AND CREDIT SEED AND ROADS AND ROADS AND ROADS ARD OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT ARD RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER ARD OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER RES. MKT., RES. MKT., RES. MKT., National SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL Federal SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL Regional SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 1C 24 17 of4 ANNEX Table Page 1.2 3.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1998 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2005/06 3.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.5 8.1 0.3 3.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.2 3.0 0.5 0.3 1.0 1997 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2004/05 levels. 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 6.7 0.1 0.4 5.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1996 ... ... Regional 2003/04 and 3.0 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.8 4.5 0.1 2.2 0.7 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.5 Federal 2002/03 1995 0.9 0.4 0.3 4.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 National, at 1994 2001/02 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 expenditures 1993 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2000/01 real 0.2 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.9 0.1 0.3 Foreign 1992 ... ... ... ..................... ... ... ... ... ..................... and 1999/00 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.9 0.2 4.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Treasury 1991 ............... ... ... ........................ ... ... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .................. ........................ ............ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1998/99 between 1990 elasticities 1997/98 FY Annual EFY 18: Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Table SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY COOPS. COOPS. COOPS. FOOD AND MINING FOOD AND MINING FOOD MINING Treasury/Foreign MGMT. MANAGEMENT MGMT. Treasury/Foreign MANAGEMENT Treasury/Foreign MGMT. AND MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY AND ENV. IRRIGATION SUPPLY Sectors AND CREDIT DEV. DEV. SEED Sectors AND CREDIT DEV. Sectors SEED AND CREDIT SEED AND ROADS AND ROADS AND ROADS ARD OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER OVERSIGHT ARD RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER ARD OVERSIGHT RESOURCE ENERGY SCALE ROADS INFR. WATER RES. MKT., RES. MKT., RES. MKT., National SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL Federal SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL Regional SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 1C 24 18 of5 ANNEX Table Page 1.39 1.75 37.19 2.59 2.85 0.68 1.09 2.34 1.75 9.10 0.44 1.47 0.66 2.84 0.84 0.01 1.66 2.60 0.03 1.98 3.17 0.48 1.58 2.21 1998 2005/06 5.31 1.68 17.97 0.22 2.41 4.26 3.98 2.76 72.16 3.05 1.84 0.44 2.32 0.41 0.66 0.03 24.82 0.03 1.85 2.66 0.37 1.68 2.86 1997 2004/05 9.92 1.98 42.43 4.71 2.06 3.27 0.53 2.77 17.25 6.56 1.65 0.44 2.37 0.61 1.22 0.02 2.92 0.07 1.75 0.31 0.63 2.02 8.55 1996 2003/04 2.11 1.80 2.41 3.31 0.40 2.14 6.27 0.90 1.75 0.20 0.38 2.58 0.44 2.98 1.08 1.22 0.02 0.59 0.18 1.25 0.98 0.57 2.68 37.10 level 1995 2002/03 2.41 1.72 0.87 2.95 0.47 0.51 7.00 0.09 2.46 0.01 0.33 2.65 0.92 0.04 1.55 0.39 3.51 0.01 0.04 0.13 1.15 0.49 1.54 1.49 NATIONAL 14.53 1994 the 2001/02 at 1.82 1.67 0.72 3.44 0.21 0.23 0.33 9.72 2.21 0.23 2.51 0.98 0.21 4.96 0.04 1.09 0.26 0.68 0.87 0.06 1.45 0.24 1993 2000/01 classifications 2.63 1.06 0.47 2.60 0.12 0.30 0.17 2.16 0.37 2.84 1.31 0.39 economic 27.65 0.03 0.63 1.72 1.12 0.06 1.13 0.80 1992 1999/00 various 2.13 1.61 0.43 0.08 0.30 0.23 1.59 0.39 2.06 5.18 0.24 9.17 0.07 0.18 0.82 0.32 0.03 1.34 0.34 between 1991 1998/99 RATIOS 2.93 0.60 0.59 1.23 0.16 0.29 1.97 0.56 0.39 2.54 19 28.12 1.27 15.38 0.06 0.23 0.69 0.81 0.04 1.48 3.14 237.19 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY SECURITY COOPS. FOOD MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND ENV. AND CREDIT SEED AND OVERSIGHT Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RESOURCE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ENERGY Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RES. MKT., Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 1C 24 19 SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL of6 ANNEX Table Page 0.02 1.73 1.38 37.79 2.51 0.14 2.77 0.00 1998 2005/06 0.01 1.97 0.62 11.28 2.21 0.15 1.54 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 0.01 1.39 0.41 4.22 2.14 0.11 2.27 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 0.01 1.41 0.48 3.88 0.99 0.05 1.40 52.05 0.00 9.16 0.00 317.34 1995 2002/03 0.02 1.07 0.51 2.28 0.64 0.10 1.34 0.00 2.80 0.00 28.34 1994 2001/02 0.03 0.59 1.20 0.78 0.50 0.05 1.17 0.00 1.04 0.00 1,071.17 1993 2000/01 0.03 1.73 1.00 0.75 0.78 0.07 0.41 30.42 0.00 2.28 0.00 1992 1999/00 0.02 1.09 1.03 2.03 1.36 0.06 0.94 38.41 0.00 0.28 0.00 10.20 1991 1998/99 0.03 1.22 1.39 0.67 2.11 49.42 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.00 345.14 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign SCALE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign INF. Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign WATER Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 1C 24 19 FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL of7 ANNEX Table Page 0.42 0.21 2.05 0.35 0.11 4.85 1.62 0.39 2.07 1.37 0.37 2.87 0.51 0.01 2.22 2.59 0.03 1.98 3.17 0.29 1.89 2.04 239.49 1998 2005/06 0.53 0.04 1.36 4.18 3.98 4.15 1.13 0.23 3.74 0.25 0.65 0.02 24.81 0.03 1.85 2.66 0.35 1.82 2.51 1997 2004/05 0.55 1.33 0.88 1.26 0.08 0.97 17.53 2.52 0.67 0.34 3.17 0.34 1.20 0.01 2.92 0.07 1.75 0.31 0.31 1.95 7.98 1996 2003/04 0.40 0.40 1.17 2.44 0.08 1.11 10.14 0.10 0.37 0.12 0.30 2.69 0.23 2.98 1.08 1.21 0.02 0.59 0.18 1.25 0.98 0.28 1.47 33.24 level 1995 2002/03 FEDERAL 0.48 1.35 0.61 0.52 0.40 0.68 6.64 0.01 1.33 0.01 0.32 2.85 0.60 0.04 1.55 0.39 3.51 0.01 0.04 0.13 1.15 0.49 1.24 1.35 13.84 the 1994 2001/02 at 0.41 1.10 0.63 2.20 0.14 0.29 0.11 0.97 0.23 2.35 0.76 0.21 4.96 0.04 1.09 0.26 0.68 0.87 0.05 1.28 0.23 1993 2000/01 classifications economic 0.38 1.01 1.40 0.77 0.09 0.37 0.04 0.45 0.43 2.81 0.90 0.39 27.65 0.03 0.63 1.72 1.12 0.05 1.38 0.76 1992 1999/00 various 0.39 1.05 0.96 0.05 0.70 0.03 0.93 0.50 2.03 3.48 0.24 9.59 0.07 0.18 0.82 0.32 0.03 1.49 0.33 between 1991 1998/99 RATIOS 0.34 0.84 1.65 5.08 0.11 1.67 0.29 0.15 0.51 3.25 19a 16.60 1.27 29.98 0.06 0.23 0.69 0.81 0.02 1.84 2.96 121.17 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY SECURITY COOPS. FOOD MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND ENV. AND CREDIT SEED AND OVERSIGHT Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RESOURCE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ENERGY Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RES. MKT., Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 1C 24 19 SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL of8 ANNEX Table Page 0.02 1.73 1.38 1998 2005/06 0.01 1.97 0.62 1997 2004/05 0.01 1.39 0.41 1996 2003/04 0.01 1.41 0.48 1995 2002/03 0.02 1.07 0.51 1994 2001/02 0.03 0.59 1.20 1993 2000/01 0.03 1.73 1.00 1992 1999/00 0.02 1.09 1.03 1991 1998/99 0.03 1.22 1.39 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign SCALE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign INF. Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign WATER Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 1C 24 19 FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL of9 ANNEX Table Page 1.30 1.94 37.17 9.76 2.92 5.46 21.03 2.20 0.41 1.86 2.81 226.55 31.46 6.21 1.27 4.07 1.27 1998 2005/06 4.92 1.85 17.97 10.77 2.84 3.67 2.68 72.16 2.96 1.96 2.10 1.63 31.69 1.62 0.61 1.09 1997 2004/05 8.98 2.30 42.43 7.78 2.39 21.66 2.14 3.33 16.27 8.21 1.86 0.87 1.59 8.14 13.98 0.66 5.67 2.09 1996 2003/04 2.30 7.34 2.89 2.25 2.52 1.40 11.04 2.12 0.73 2.38 6.63 1.34 3.13 5.02 level 1995 2002/03 REGIONAL 2.61 1.95 1.01 0.70 0.31 8.24 151.69 25.34 2.79 0.38 1.97 2.37 8.02 2.14 1994 the 2001/02 at 1.99 3.14 0.81 0.52 0.18 14.04 8.91 2.40 0.22 4.78 1.33 2.47 1993 2000/01 classifications 3.07 1.11 0.10 0.28 0.21 1.85 2.73 0.06 3.97 0.45 0.37 economic 1992 1999/00 various 2.36 2.35 0.23 0.21 0.11 2.74 1.64 0.11 2.46 0.00 1.98 0.79 between 1991 1998/99 RATIOS 3.53 0.46 0.12 0.63 0.19 0.08 14.85 1.20 0.21 1.20 0.00 0.38 1.10 19b 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY SECURITY COOPS. FOOD MGMT. AND MINING MANAGEMENT TVET RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND AND ENV. AND CREDIT SEED AND OVERSIGHT Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RESOURCE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ENERGY Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign RES. MKT., 1C 24 Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 19 of SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY WATER RURAL 10 ANNEX Table Page 37.79 2.51 0.14 2.77 0.00 1998 2005/06 11.28 2.21 0.15 1.54 0.00 0.00 1997 2004/05 4.22 2.14 0.11 2.27 0.00 0.00 1996 2003/04 3.88 0.99 0.05 1.40 52.05 0.00 9.16 0.00 317.34 1995 2002/03 2.28 0.64 0.10 1.34 0.00 2.80 0.00 28.34 1994 2001/02 0.78 0.50 0.05 1.17 0.00 1.04 0.00 1,071.17 1993 2000/01 0.75 0.78 0.07 0.41 30.42 0.00 2.28 0.00 1992 1999/00 2.03 1.36 0.06 0.94 38.41 0.00 0.28 0.00 10.20 1991 1998/99 0.67 2.11 49.42 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.00 345.14 1990 1997/98 FY EFY IRRIGATION SUPPLY DEV. ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign SCALE Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign ROADS Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign INF. Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign WATER Wages/O&M Treasury/Foreign 1C 24 Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital Recurrent/Capital 19 of FEDERAL SMALL RURAL RURAL RURAL 11 ANNEX Table Page 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 01/02-05/06 1,940 848 1,092 1,421 113 1,308 906 355 551 308 273 Avg. 94-98 98 05/06 1,940 99% 1% 26 50% 50% 1,914 100% 0% 1,392 85% 15% 92 36% 64% 1,300 88% 12% 816 43% 57% 486 12% 88% 330 88% 12% 287 4% 96% 167 6% 94% 0% 100% 97 04/05 2,747 99% 1% 1,092 98% 2% 1,655 100% 0% 1,595 82% 18% 89 34% 66% 1,506 85% 15% 822 50% 50% 385 16% 84% 437 79% 21% 219 6% 94% 184 7% 93% 0% 100% 96 03/04 2,566 99% 1% 1,410 98% 2% 1,157 100% 0% 1,397 70% 30% 100 30% 70% 1,297 73% 27% 933 53% 47% 392 19% 81% 541 77% 23% 264 9% 91% 240 10% 90% 0% 100% 95 02/03 835 100% 0% 459 100% 0% 376 100% 0% 1,400 63% 37% 132 25% 75% 1,268 67% 33% 833 65% 35% 284 27% 73% 549 85% 15% 362 4% 96% 362 4% 96% 0% 0% ARD of groups 94 01/02 60% 40% 151 23% 77% 65% 35% 82% 18% 228 47% 53% 896 90% 10% 410 4% 96% 410 4% 96% 0% 0% main4 1,609 100% 0% 1,253 100% 0% 357 100% 0% 1,320 1,169 1,125 the in with 162 1 0 147 1 0 15 1 0 0 1 96 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 97/98-00/01 1,012 916 572 117 454 335 335 Avg. 90-93 expenditure 93 00/01 208 35 TOTAL 100% 0% 173 100% 0% 100% 0% 1,154 50% 50% 128 27% 73% 1,026 52% 48% 599 75% 25% 151 51% 49% 448 83% 17% 392 5% 95% 392 5% 95% 0% 0% the of 92 99/00 238 100% 0% 230 100% 0% 8 100% 0% 836 45% 55% 94 22% 78% 741 48% 52% 619 77% 23% 120 56% 44% 499 82% 18% 311 6% 94% 311 6% 94% 0% 0% distribution 20 Table 91 98/99 103 100% 0% 93 100% 0% 10 96% 4% 1,048 45% 55% 83 29% 71% 964 46% 54% 721 72% 28% 111 48% 52% 611 77% 23% 326 5% 95% 326 5% 95% 0% 0% 90 97/98 98 97% 3% 92 100% 0% 6 00000001231 51% 49% 1,009 41% 59% 78 36% 64% 930 41% 59% 347 44% 56% 88 48% 52% 259 43% 57% 310 6% 94% 310 6% 94% 0% 0% FY EFY SECURITY FOOD AND 21 Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional VULNERABILITY Recurrent Capital INFRASTRUCTURE Recurrent Capital PRODUCTIVITY Recurrent Capital OVERSIGHT Recurrent Capital and 1C 24 20 of 12 ANNEX Table Page 12 1 0 827 1 0 66 0 1 47 0 1 233 0 1 122 0 1 63 0 1 53 0 1 Avg. 94-98 98 05/06 61 55% 35% 10 41% 59% 64 34% 66% 28 41% 59% 300 15% 85% 187 8% 92% 021 3% 97% 711 12% 88% 97 04/05 03 55% 28% 1,062 99% 1% 58 34% 66% 30 34% 66% 274 17% 83% 111 15% 85% 53 4% 96% 33 13% 87% 96 03/04 03 65% 52% 1,379 99% 1% 66 28% 72% 33 34% 66% 276 16% 84% 116 26% 74% 42 5% 95% 42 18% 82% ARD 95 02/03 11 91% 7% 448 0% 71 26% 74% 61 23% 77% 196 24% 76% 88 34% 66% 2% 98% 10% 90% of 100% groups main4 94 01/02 51 98% 1% 1,238 100% 0% 69 27% 73% 82 20% 80% 120 47% 53% 108 48% 52% 2% 98% 9% 91% the in with 1 0 141 1 0 44 0 1 51 0 1 50 1 0 67 0 1 0 1 0 1 expenditure Avg. 90-93 93 00/01 100% 0% 166 100% 0% 49 29% 71% 79 26% 74% 67 49% 51% 85 53% 47% 2% 98% 11% 89% RECURRENT the of 92 99/00 100% 0% 224 100% 0% 43 31% 69% 52 15% 85% 55 58% 42% 66 54% 46% 2% 98% 17% 83% distribution 20a Table 91 98/99 100% 0% 87 100% 0% 44 27% 73% 39 32% 68% 44 62% 38% 66 38% 62% 2% 98% 12% 88% 90 56676 97/98 100% 0% 86 100% 0% 42 0000000 0000000 31% 69% 36 42% 58% 35 66% 34% 53 35% 65% 2% 98% 19% 81% FY EFY SECURITY FOOD AND 21 Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional VULNERABILITY Wages O&M INFRASTRUCTURE Wages O&M PRODUCTIVITY Wages O&M OVERSIGHT Wages O&M and 1C 24 20 of 13 ANNEX Table Page 797 1 0 294 1 0 760 1 0 548 1 0 305 1 0 246 1 0 0 1 0 1 Avg. 94-98 98 05/06 1,381 100% 0% 532 100% 0% 909 83% 17% 391 100% 0% 181 80% 20% 148 98% 2% 0% 100% 0% 100% 97 04/05 1,591 100% 0% 64 100% 0% 897 74% 26% 609 100% 0% 290 69% 31% 147 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 96 03/04 862 100% 0% 295 100% 0% 620 44% 56% 677 100% 0% 438 74% 26% 103 92% 8% 0% 100% 0% 100% 95 139 0% 237 0% 714 554 1% 373 176 0% 0% 0% 0% ARD 02/03 100% 100% 42% 58% 99% 84% 16% 86% 16% of groups main4 94 01/02 13 100% 0% 344 100% 0% 661 39% 61% 508 99% 1% 241 67% 33% 656 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% the in with 11 1 0 4 1 0 667 0 1 249 1 0 153 0 1 301 1 0 0 0 0 0 Avg. 90-93 expenditure 93 00/01 18 17 CAPITAL 100% 0% 100% 0% 739 35% 65% 287 97% 3% 154 53% 47% 294 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% the of 92 8 99/00 100% 0% 0 0% 0% 548 32% 68% 194 94% 6% 110 40% 60% 389 93% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% distribution 20b Table 91 98/99 10 96% 4% 0 0% 0% 639 29% 71% 325 81% 19% 165 32% 68% 446 93% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90 6 0 97/98 51% 49% 100% 0% 742 00000000000 00000000000 30% 70% 189 84% 16% 184 28% 72% 75 78% 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% FY EFY SECURITY FOOD AND 21 Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional Federal Regional VULNERABILITY Treasury Foreign INFRASTRUCTURE Treasury Foreign PRODUCTIVITY Treasury Foreign OVERSIGHT Treasury Foreign and 1C 24 20 of 14 ANNEX Table Page 72.6 1.7 2.6 14.1 2.2 2.3 0.7 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.8 37.2 2.2 2.6 145.0 34.4 1.9 1.9 4.9 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1998 1998 2005/06 2005/06 1.5 0.0 24.8 16.9 1.9 1.5 1.1 2.5 2.0 0.2 1.7 18.0 1.5 0.0 24.8 42.4 1.9 1.1 5.5 2.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 1997 1997 2004/05 2004/05 0.8 0.0 2.9 13.0 2.0 0.9 1.4 2.4 4.3 0.1 2.0 42.4 0.8 0.0 2.9 31.8 1.6 0.4 5.5 1.5 3.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 1996 1996 2003/04 2003/04 0.8 0.0 0.6 9.6 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.2 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 26.3 1.3 0.6 6.0 1.6 2.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1995 1995 level 2002/03 2002/03 level 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.8 1.3 3.9 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 22.2 1.1 0.5 7.5 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 NATIONAL FEDERAL 1994 the 2001/02 the 1994 2001/02 at at 0.2 0.0 1.1 8.0 0.6 2.6 3.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1 15.5 0.7 0.9 4.8 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 1993 classifications 2000/01 classifications 1993 2000/01 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.8 2.8 4.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 6.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 economic economic 16.9 1992 1992 1999/00 various various 1999/00 between 0.1 0.1 0.0 11.6 1.1 2.0 5.5 0.7 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 between 0.1 0.1 0.0 18.2 0.9 0.7 8.8 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1991 1991 1998/99 RATIOS RATIOS 1998/99 21 21a 0.1 0.1 Table 237.2 11.9 1.2 3.9 2.9 0.7 2.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 Table 121.2 13.4 0.9 1.4 2.6 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 1990 1990 1997/98 1997/98 FY FY EFY EFY Security Security Food Food and and WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN 21 Vulnerability CAPITAL/RECURRENT Infrastructure CAPITAL/RECURRENT Productivity CAPITAL/RECURRENT Oversight CAPITAL/RECURRENT Vulnerability CAPITAL/RECURRENT Infrastructure CAPITAL/RECURRENT Productivity CAPITAL/RECURRENT Oversight CAPITAL/RECURRENT and 1C 24 20 of 15 ANNEX Table Page 0.2 1.3 0.0 2.6 2.5 0.0 0.1 1.5 16.3 0.8 1.9 37.2 1998 2005/06 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.0 1.9 0.0 0.3 2.4 0.2 1.9 124.4 18.0 1997 2004/05 0.1 0.7 0.0 5.0 2.2 0.0 0.4 2.7 14.4 0.1 2.3 42.4 1996 2003/04 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.2 1.1 57.1 0.4 2.6 2.5 0.0 2.3 0.0 1995 level 2002/03 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.5 0.8 63.7 0.7 1.1 17.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 REGIONAL 1994 the 2001/02 at 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.6 62.7 1.0 0.9 20.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 Development. 1993 classifications 2000/01 conomicE and economic 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.7 31.4 1.7 0.8 2.6 0.0 3.1 0.0 SNNPR). Finance and 1992 of various 1999/00 Oromia Ministry between 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 1.2 7.3 2.5 0.4 3.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 the by Amhara, 1991 Development. 1998/99 RATIOS reported (Tigray, as 21b 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 1.4 17.6 3.2 0.3 8.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 regions Economic figures and Table main 1990 1997/98 four Finance expenditure the of for estimates. FY EFY actual only are is Staff Ministry the Bank 2003/04 2005/06 are from and data untill 2005/06 on 2004/05 for Security based 1997/98 for data Food years data and the Regional calculations for and WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN WAGES/O&M TREASURY/FOREIGN data 21 expenditure Authors' All Vulnerability CAPITAL/RECURRENT Infrastructure CAPITAL/RECURRENT Productivity CAPITAL/RECURRENT Oversight CAPITAL/RECURRENT Federal and Note: Regional The Source: 1C 24 20 of 16 ANNEX Table Page Reg. 968 654 407 248 313 308 5 277 156 103 53 021 711 114 103 77 62 11 2 178 071 711 35 8 8 0 1998 2005/06 7 0 0 7 5 2 3 Fed. 3,467 117 79 38 11 10 3 39 23 42 3,350 2,281 1,069 181 71 41 164 101 62 Reg. 933 574 391 183 359 357 3 206 171 111 60 53 33 41 37 82 01 3 389 0 250 691 341 35 53 53 1 1997 2004/05 Fed. 87 4,451 1,177 1,090 3,274 2,455 819 13 13 5 9 0 0 222 9 5 4 312 271 14 16 61 31 3 0 0 0 2 Reg. 1,129 630 441 189 499 490 9 241 217 151 66 42 42 88 78 55 32 01 01 265 181 931 84 80 5 1996 2003/04 Fed. 92 23 23 8 15 21 12 6 6 34 4,032 1,512 1,420 2,520 1,454 1,066 333 52 31 308 291 17 21 Reg. 1,157 654 443 211 503 472 31 346 346 242 105 63 56 14 41 89 85 163 311 18 50 29 21 mill.) 1995 2002/03 583 502 754 936 5 7 6 4 23 Fed. 81 16 16 12 42 12 03 12 316 31 26 Birr 2,273 1,690 292 266 21 Reg. 630 399 232 496 485 11 393 393 284 109 65 43 22 12 22 22 69 92 7 41 36 4 (constant 1,126 1994 2001/02 ARD of Fed. 95 72 82 3,337 1,411 1,316 1,927 430 17 17 5 11 32 18 11 31 1,497 165 91 118 102 15 sectors 538 316 222 564 552 371 371 247 124 4 84 42 4 Reg. 11 16 12 82 54 50 14 1,101 the 1993 2000/01 for 32 62 Fed. 1,252 306 60 246 945 359 586 21 21 6 15 20 11 01 277 244 24 220 Shares 03 72 Reg. 892 417 272 146 475 438 37 291 291 220 72 15 8 93 73 47 26 1992 Regional 1999/00 Fed. 57 19 19 5 14 14 7 3777 12 31 14 and 1,111 338 281 774 228 546 374 344 330 53 32 Federal Reg. 1,088 424 265 159 664 569 95 308 308 217 92 20 14 21 146 121 89 32 22. 1991 1998/99 92 12 Table Fed. 1,109 187 50 137 922 246 676 17 17 5 12 17 9 8677 434 415 11 404 Reg. 1,086 387 267 120 700 654 46 291 291 226 64 22 7 51 136 212 012 114 107 7 1990 1997/98 Fed. 678 182 47 135 496 278 218 20 20 5 15 0000000000000 0000000000000 000000000000010203 16 7 514341457 364 9 768637745 19004030909040 80 8 52828474 3 72 16 55 FY EFY MGMT. TVET ENV. AND Expenditure WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN AND RECURRENT CAPITAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ARD RES. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Total TOTAL TOTAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION 1C 24 22 of 17 ANNEX Table Page 6 7 Reg. 118 117 34 38 1 56 19 19 1 15 13 6 2 2 0 1998 2005/06 5 3 2 71 03 32 89 97 4 Fed. 18 31 113 82 28 55 13 1,925 1,912 1,379 235 Reg. 71 53 35 81 81 81 52 53 22 31 17 17 0 22 22 31 8 1 1 0 1997 2004/05 8 7 4 3 13 42 Fed. 162 131 26 105 71 46 2,725 1,071 1,054 1,654 1,590 Reg. 41 36 24 31 46 13 32 25 22 3 28 26 01 16 2 2 0 1996 2003/04 6 5 2 32 51 Fed. 132 99 25 74 02 2,538 1,383 1,363 1,155 860 592 Reg. 22 20 14 2242 0000050 42 83 32 5886 24 21 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 mill.) 1995 2002/03 2 1 263 Fed. 26 32 12 155 613 612 01 119 22 96 833 457 01 447 376 139 732 Birr Reg. 42 41 30 11 2 0 29 8 5 21 21 0 030000000 010000000 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (constant 1994 2001/02 ARD of Fed. 552 7 4 545 045 140 43 52 106 40 66 13 92 12 51 1,609 1,252 1,238 357 13 443 sectors 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 34 31 22 18 15 15 14 the 1993 2000/01 for 3 3 1 Fed. 145 72 91 118 51 67 208 173 166 35 18 71 Shares Reg. 24 24 18 13 1 1 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 Regional 1999/00 3 3 1 Fed. 81 42 81 57 27 30 238 230 224 8 8 and Federal Reg. 16 16 10 18 2 1 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. 1991 1998/99 1 1 0 Table Fed. 66 22 51 44 34 10 102 93 87 10 10 Reg. 13 13 7 24 4 2 20 20 0 3 0 0 3 3 1990 1997/98 Fed. 10 10 1 961627193 00000003 000000035222242 00000000 46 51 21 4271608193 30 29 2 10302030 103020301020000000 000010101010000000 002010300010000000 00000000 000000008010000000 00000000 95 92 50606070 86 3 3 000000 FY EFY SEC. COOPS. FOOD AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND CREDIT SEED MKT., Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY 1C 24 22 of 18 ANNEX Table Page 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 37 6 6 0 1998 2005/06 Fed. 519 17 11 502 382 120 19 15 10 643 31 631 365 265 0 03 02 01 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 42 8 6 2 1997 2004/05 Fed. 521 15 506 368 138 17 12 9 767 11 755 288 467 0 03 02 01 0301 0301 0 0 090 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 58 6 2 5 11 11 1996 2003/04 Fed. 234 16 01 218 52 167 17 13 12 727 01 716 208 509 0 04 03 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Reg. 102 12 12 Contd. 1995 2002/03 mill.) Fed. 116 18 01 98 49 50 22 17 17 743 01 733 237 497 0 08 04 04 0 0 Birr 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 4 Reg. 126 83 83 (constant 1994 2001/02 Fed. 155 18 01 137 45 92 9 4 4 629 11 617 208 409 0 08 03 05 0 0 ARD of 0 0 08080605060 0 0 0 2 1 1 00010104050 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 1 Reg. 172 79 79 sectors 14 1993 2000/01 the Fed. 89 18 11 70 33 38 85 81 15 66 400 31 388 212 176 0 07 02 05 0 0 for 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 1 Shares Reg. 130 47 47 1992 1999/00 9 0 05 02 03 0 0 Regional Fed. 29 11 18 10 52 50 22 82 298 290 145 145 and 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 61 1 3 7 02 02 Federal 1991 1998/99 22. Fed. 102 16 86 21 65 81 79 20 95 286 279 142 137 0 04 02 01 0 0 Table 0 0 09040 0 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 78 1 1 0 74 64 1990 1997/98 Fed. 99 19 80707070 11 80 36 44 73 212030415156454143 111010213135333032 111010202021122011 71 53 81 239 806070 403050506060607080 403030805040404050 231 134 97 0 03 02 01 0 0 010000000000000000 FY EFY MINING MANAGEMENT AND IRRIGATION ROADS RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL 1C 24 22 of 19 ANNEX Table Page 0 Reg. 157 41 138 138 13 13 13 1998 2005/06 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. 0 Reg. 150 21 131 131 89 89 89 1997 2004/05 0 02 0 0 0 0800 0800 0800 0 0 0 Fed. 9 Reg. 182 31 163 163 51 51 51 158 158 158 1996 2003/04 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. 2 Reg. 238 226 222 52 52 32 145 145 144 Contd. 1995 2002/03 mill.) 0 01 070 05060805 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. Birr 7 Reg. 310 51 21 283 283 51 51 11 74 74 71 (constant 1994 2001/02 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. ARD of 7 Reg. 318 301 301 51 51 74 74 74 sectors 14 1993 2000/01 the 0 01 080 0 0 0 0 080 0 0 0 Fed. for 7 Shares Reg. 246 21 229 222 51 51 01 64 64 64 1992 1999/00 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 05070402000000 0 0 0 00000300000000 Regional Fed. and 7 Reg. 329 311 303 55 55 21 34 133 133 121 21 Federal 1991 1998/99 22. 0 01 090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. Table 8 Reg. 340 01 322 322 34 34 51 82 133 133 133 1990 1997/98 0 01 070805090 0 0 0 000807000004000000 0 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 0 0 000 Fed. FY EFY SUPPLY DEV. ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital RURAL RURAL RURAL 1C 24 22 of 20 ANNEX Table Page Reg. 22 85 84 87 9 12 1 6 94 7 88 001 001 001 75 94 94 92 25 52 6 50 91 89 95 5 7 0 1998 2005/06 6 6 8 9 5 Fed. 78 15 16 13 91 88 99 49 6 39 12 0 0 0 25 75 48 94 50 11 95 93 100 Reg. 17 33 82 14 10 13 0 4 93 6 87 001 001 001 16 80 84 71 2 2 0 94 92 92 94 100 100 100 1997 2004/05 Fed. 83 67 18 86 90 87 100 69 7 49 13 0 0 0 84 20 16 29 98 98 100 6 8 8 6 0 0 0 Reg. 22 29 83 12 17 25 1 1 90 5 82 001 001 001 81 87 91 78 52 65 10 44 88 92 76 22 21 23 1996 2003/04 Fed. 78 71 17 88 83 75 99 99 10 59 18 19 13 9 22 48 35 90 56 12 8 24 78 79 77 Reg. 34 53 85 30 23 38 3 6 96 8 90 60 82 86 72 20 26 0 34 82 86 74 15 10 44 mill.) 1995 2002/03 Birr Fed. 66 47 15 70 77 62 97 49 4 29 10 40 18 14 28 80 74 100 66 18 14 26 85 90 56 (constant Reg. 25 31 81 15 20 53 1 6 96 8 91 67 70 76 66 62 83 2 30 38 26 44 26 26 22 ARD 1994 2001/02 of Fed. 75 69 19 85 80 47 99 49 4 29 9 33 30 24 34 38 17 98 70 62 74 56 74 74 78 sectors 14 Reg. 47 64 84 47 37 61 2 5 95 8 89 43 53 56 50 28 36 0 23 46 37 48 18 68 2 the 1993 for 2000/01 Fed. 53 36 16 53 63 39 98 59 5 29 11 57 47 44 50 72 64 100 77 54 63 52 82 32 98 Shares % Reg. 45 55 83 34 38 66 6 4 94 8 83 52 53 15 71 51 70 0 20 39 30 42 17 77 7 1992 1999/00 Regional Fed. 55 45 17 66 62 34 94 69 6 29 17 48 47 85 29 49 30 100 80 61 70 58 83 23 93 and Reg. 50 69 84 54 42 70 12 5 95 8 88 55 62 39 72 43 43 0 25 57 24 67 23 89 7 Federal 22. 1991 1998/99 Fed. 50 31 16 46 58 30 88 59 5 29 12 45 38 61 28 57 57 0 75 43 76 33 77 11 93 Table Reg. 62 68 85 47 59 70 17 4 94 8 81 58 48 13 69 63 44 87 63 73 25 87 61 87 12 1990 1997/98 Fed. 38 32 15 53 41 30 83 69 6 29 19 0000000000000 0000000000000 0000000000000 42 52 87 31 37 56 13 37 27 75 13 39 13 88 FY EFY MGMT. TVET ENV. AND Expenditure WAGES O&M TREASURY FOREIGN AND RECURRENT CAPITAL OVERSIGHT Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ARD RES. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Total TOTAL TOTAL SECTOR NAT. EXTENSION 1C 24 22 of 21 ANNEX Table Page 7 Reg. 96 91 89 4 6 0 33 54 54 5 19 40 1 1 50 45 59 0 0 0 1998 2005/06 38 4 9 2 55 Fed. 69 49 001 67 46 46 81 60 99 99 50 55 41 100 100 001 01 Reg. 89 91 5 29 29 24 53 47 74 11 39 0 1 2 45 1 0 0 0 1997 2004/05 09 Fed. 11 9 58 8 8 76 47 53 36 89 61 100 99 98 55 99 100 100 001 71 Reg. 89 93 21 17 17 26 39 34 13 20 47 4 1 2 35 1 0 0 0 1996 2003/04 38 Fed. 11 7 88 92 92 74 61 66 95 80 53 96 99 98 65 99 100 100 001 61 Reg. 90 96 91 7 34 00000 21 33 32 54 17 49 3 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Contd. 1995 2002/03 mill.) Fed. 445 10 4 17 39 75 001 79 67 68 53 83 51 97 001 001 001 001 001 001 100 100 91 100 100 100 001 Birr 7 Reg. 85 88 72 0 42 0 17 19 17 36 16 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 (constant 1994 2001/02 3 ARD Fed. 15 12 37 001 67 001 83 81 83 727 84 66 100 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 100 100 98 100 100 100 001 of 62 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sectors Reg. 299 92 94 001 001 11 11 13 11 23 14 1993 the 2000/01 8 8 6 48 Fed. 89 89 87 39 89 77 100 001 001 001 001 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 for Shares 8 Reg. 88 95 51 14 3 3 2 18 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 1992 1999/00 28 Fed. 12 5 57 86 97 97 89 82 69 100 001 001 001 001 100 100 100 100 100 100 Regional and Reg. 419 94 95 229 22 7 8 7 28 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1991 1998/99 22.Federal 6 6 5 8 Fed. 78 93 92 3 72 67 100 001 001 001 001 100 100 100 100 96 96 Table 6 Reg. 56 84 0 35 22 17 59 40 41 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 49 49 00000 1990 1997/98 Fed. 454 44 16 046 0000000 0000000 00000000 65 78 83 536 60 59 100 001 001 001 001 00000000 00000000 00000000 97 100 100 100 51 51 001 FY EFY SEC. COOPS. FOOD AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND CREDIT SEED MKT., Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital AGRI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVED VULNERABILITY 1C 24 22 of 22 ANNEX Table Page 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 18 44 0 50 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 1998 2005/06 Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 82 56 04 50 95 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 11 15 36 19 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 1997 2004/05 Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 85 71 81 91 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 24 54 58 53 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 1996 2003/04 Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 76 46 55 47 94 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 27 56 44 34 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 Contd. 1995 2002/03 mill.) Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 73 44 66 66 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Birr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reg. 16 23 63 18 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 (constant 1994 2001/02 ARD Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 84 77 42 82 96 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sectors Reg. 20 14 100 100 100 100 100 100 14 1993 2000/01 the Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 80 627 86 99 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 for Shares 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Reg. 15 8 24 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 % 1992 1999/00 Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 85 2 76 98 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regional and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Reg. 16 29 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 Federal 1991 1998/99 22. Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 84 81 79 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000 Table 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Reg. 42 78 49 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 1990 1997/98 Fed. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 58 336 51 96 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FY EFY MINING MANAGEMENT AND IRRIGATION ROADS RESOURCE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign ENERGY Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Wages O&M Treasury Foreign SCALE Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital WATER RURAL FEDERAL SMALL 1C 24 22 of 23 ANNEX Table Page Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 100 1998 2005/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1997 2004/05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1996 2003/04 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 000000 Fed. Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 1995 2002/03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contd. Fed. mill.) Birr Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 1994 2001/02 (constant 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. ARD of Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 sectors 14 1993 the 2000/01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for Fed. Shares % Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 1992 Regional 1999/00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 Fed. and Federal Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 22. 1991 Table 1998/99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fed. Reg. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 001 100 100 100 001 1990 1997/98 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 000000000000000000 0 0 0 Fed. FY EFY SUPPLY DEV. ROADS Wages O&M Treasury Foreign INF. Wages O&M Treasury Foreign WATER Wages O&M Treasury Foreign Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital RURAL RURAL RURAL 1C 24 22 of 24 ANNEX Table Page ountriesc Asian South and Sub-Saharan Comparison comparator Countries International­ selected the Expenditures) with Comparator Security Development and Ethiopia Food and Ethiopia compare Agriculture on to in set Contents table Countries: of Countries: Vulnerability Data Expenditure Table Saharan Asian Summary Detailed 1D: 23: (including Sub- Mozambique Kenya Tanzania Uganda Zambia South Vietnam Indonesia Pakistan 24: Annex Table Table SA SA SSA, SSA, Ethi, Ethi, % 1D Contents 9 Data in of of1 Shares Detailed ANNEX Table Page ANNEX 1D Table 23 Page 2 of 9 Table 23: Summary table to compare Ethiopia with the selected comparator Sub-Saharan and South Asian countries (including Vulnerability and Food Security Expenditures) Ag.Exp./Ag. GDP Ag. Total GDP Ag. GDP Ag. GDP/ Exp./Total Exp./GDP growth growth GDP Exp rate rate ETHIOPIA 7.9 13.1 25.4 4.3 4.7 43.1 (4.1) (6.8) (3.2) (7.5) (14.3) (2.2) Sub-Saharan Africa 0.0 Mozambique 2.2 2.2 27.4 7.7 5.5 29.0 (0.6) (0.5) (3.0) (6.0) (12.0) (2.2) Kenya 1.3 2.0 22.6 2.7 2.5 31.1 (0.6) (0.8) (2.7) (2.7) (8.4) (2.7) Tanzania 0.7 2.1 17.2 6.1 4.8 46.6 (0.3) (1.0) (1.6) (0.8) (1.4) (1.1) Uganda 0.6 1.4 19.7 5.8 4.7 43.5 (0.2) (0.4) (4.9) (1.5) (1.5) (3.9) Zambia 0.0 0.0 28.9 4.5 3.1 19.1 (0.0) (0.0) (2.0) (1.2) (4.8) (2.9) South Asia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vietnam 4.8 6.0 23.2 4.8 4.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 (1.1) (8.2) (0.9) (1.4) Indonesia 0.2 0.2 19.2 (4.7) 3.2 32.0 (0.3) (0.2) (2.1) (2.5) (1.0) (5.9) Pakistan 1.0 1.2 19.1 0.8 2.9 26.0 (0.2) (0.1) (1.5) (12.8) (4.4) (3.1) Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the following sources.Ethiopia : Ministry of Finance and Economic Dev., Kenya: Kenya Public Expenditure Review 2004, Mozambique: Public Expenditure Review (Phase 2: Sectoral Expenditures, 2003), Tanzania: Public expenditure Review (October 2001) and Public expenditure Review FY03,Uganda: Public Expenditure Review: Report on the Progress and Challenges of Budget Reforms (Septermber 23, 2002) and Public Expenditure Review 2003, Zambia: Public Expenditure Review: Public Expenditure Growth and Poverty Allocation: Synthesis (December 2001) and Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review (South Africa Region 2003), Pakistan: Public expenditure Management: Strategic issues and Reform Agenda (2004),Vietnam: Managing PublicExpenditure for Poverty Reduction and Growth (In two volumes), Indonesia: Public Expenditure Review for Indonesia, 2001. East Asia Environment and Social Development Unit (EAESD) Discussion Paper Series (June 2001). Note: Numbers in parenthesis are Standard Deviations of the first difference. Within each group of countries, the values are ordered from highest to lowest agriculture expenditure as share of agricultural GDP. The rest of the data is the data is from LDB database. 9 734 924 142 141 137 144 139 75 12 63 29,492 6,372 20,524 4,435 4,579 34,697 8,022 24,146 5,583 5,764 3,398 3,997 113,611 80,267 13,089 103,566 73,598 11,932 49,239 35,946 5,673 1998 2005/06 9 813 994 127 126 123 131 128 73 12 61 24,551 7,032 18,799 5,384 5,509 28,131 8,598 21,540 6,584 6,736 2,837 3,251 96,676 76,227 11,173 88,342 69,976 10,209 42,126 34,326 4,868 1997 2004/05 732 865 120 119 116 122 119 71 11 60 20,232 6,308 16,552 5,161 5,316 22,835 7,460 18,681 6,103 6,287 2,347 2,649 83,891 70,105 9,731 76,499 64,308 8,874 35,407 30,651 4,107 1996 2003/04 450 568 109 109 106 113 109 69 11 58 19,840 3,861 17,630 3,430 3,558 20,466 4,877 18,185 4,334 4,494 2,312 2,385 68,144 62,427 7,940 62,911 57,905 7,330 27,593 26,127 3,215 1995 2002/03 511 638 97 97 82 98 94 67 10 57 16,550 4,365 16,921 4,463 4,663 18,844 5,449 19,266 5,572 5,821 1,937 2,205 62,665 64,421 7,334 57,859 59,880 6,772 24,324 29,554 2,847 1994 2001/02 298 418 102 102 92 105 101 65 10 55 COUNTRIES 16,235 2,481 15,399 2,353 2,451 19,244 3,483 18,254 3,304 3,441 1,949 2,311 65,689 64,427 7,888 60,985 60,083 7,323 27,909 30,199 3,351 1993 2000/01 COMPARISON 273 378 107 107 105 111 108 63 9 54 17,340 2,228 15,590 2,004 2,069 19,052 3,078 17,130 2,767 2,858 2,128 2,338 63,924 59,695 7,845 59,941 55,953 7,356 28,595 27,304 3,509 1992 1999/00 INTERNATIONAL 307 356 101 101 97 105 104 62 9 53 AND 14,677 2,302 14,009 2,197 2,220 15,045 2,674 14,360 2,552 2,578 1,954 2,003 57,256 56,654 7,623 53,745 53,152 7,156 25,567 26,467 3,404 1991 1998/99 ETHIOPIA FOR 7888999 256 310 100 100 100 100 100 60 9 51 DATA 10,799 1,764 10,799 1,764 1,764 11,619 2,137 11,619 2,137 2,137 1,569 1,688 53,157 53,157 7,724 49,734 49,734 7,227 25,535 25,535 3,710 24 1990 1997/98 Table FY EFY terms terms terms terms nominal nominal in nominal nominal in in in BIRR/US$), BIRR/US$), BIRR/US$), Overall Overall Rural BIRR/US$), Rate Rate 1990) CPI Overall Overall CPI CPI CPI Rate Rate base=EFY1990) =EFY CPI CPI Rural (Unavailable) by by by Exchange by by by Exchange (Year base terms terms Exchange Exchange deflated deflated using using base=EFY1990) BUDGET terms terms deflated prices (Year deflated deflated deflated using using (Year nominal nominal price) terms, terms, terms, in in prices nominal nominal terms, terms, terms, (converted (converted prices REVISED in in & BIRR BIRR constant constant constant (converted (converted US$ US$ (Current CONSTANT prices prices =EFY1990) =EFY1990) prices BIRR BIRR constant constant constant US$ US$ prices cost prices =EFY1990) base BIRR/US$ market CONSTANT base =EFY1990) =EFY1990) Millions) Budget, Budget, Budget, Budget, Budget, Budget, Budget, market base market CONSTANT Rate in market factor costBIRR market (Year (year base BIRR BIRR US$ base (Year (Data EXPENDITURE expenditure, expenditure, expenditure, expenditure, expenditure, Revised Revised Revised Revised Revised expenditure, expenditure, Revised Revised BIRR BIRR US$ BIRR factor US$ (Year Deflator (Year Deflator Exchange Population GoE ARD GoE ARD ARD GoE ARD GoE ARD ARD GoE ARD GoE ARD GDP, GDP, GDP, GDP, GDP, GDP, AgGDP, AgGDP, AgGDP, Deflator f.c. Population 1D Population 9 Overall Rural 24 of3 ETHIOPIA ACTUAL Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total GDP Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total PRICES GDP GDP AgGDP CPI CPI Nominal POPULATION Overall Urban Rural ANNEX Table Page 13,458 2,692 5,139 1,891 3,472 1,118 1,839 36,865 12,288 18,901 9,698 8,266 1998 2005/06 75 37 47 28 28 28 12,031 2,406 4,364 1,796 2,881 1,114 1,876 1,344 1,344 1,344 52,687 10,537 17,977 6,630 12,111 8,712 7,257 1997 2004/05 105 35 38 44 24 26 26 10,236 2,047 3,444 1,458 2,305 1,581 1,448 1,137 1,137 1,137 45,556 9,111 16,088 5,912 11,311 6,822 5,423 1996 2003/04 84 28 32 26 26 57 28 32 9,490 1,898 3,502 1,288 1,916 1,444 1,339 3,218 1,609 2,136 1,082 40,694 8,139 15,036 4,786 10,291 6,255 4,327 1995 2002/03 140 35 67 25 24 24 55 27 27 8,174 1,635 2,908 1,226 1,513 1,370 1,156 2,937 1,468 1,843 1,093 36,601 7,320 13,192 4,092 9,772 5,848 3,697 1994 2001/02 165 41 100 24 29 12 861 47 23 33 7,916 1,583 2,955 1,187 1,452 1,156 1,167 2,457 1,228 1,596 35,515 7,103 13,059 3,697 9,441 5,681 3,637 1993 2000/01 127 25 71 20 24 12 381 190 50 330 7,271 1,454 2,320 1,004 1,459 1,484 1,004 1,488 1,488 1,488 34,726 6,945 12,705 3,778 9,079 5,926 3,238 1992 1999/00 984 919 45 15 37 7 422 211 57 365 7,000 1,400 2,808 1,215 1,074 1,385 1,385 1,385 34,648 6,930 12,896 3,985 8,638 5,999 3,131 1991 1998/99 837 989 34 11 26 8 000 371 186 29 342 7,265 1,453 3,214 1,151 1,073 1,456 1,456 1,456 36,172 7,234 14,093 3,874 8,383 6,585 3,237 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Set database Data Set LDB Data Rahi's Set Data Rahi's database Intranet Source: LDB Rahi's Source: Source: terms website) Source: Intranet terms terms millions) nominal Mozambique) IMF in in in Source: for terms nominal nominal (Data US$ in PER annex in prices nominal US$ US$ ARD in market Countries expenditure, (from statisticala US$ Budget, US$ EXPENDITURE Sum Average Sum Average (from Sum Average Sum Average Sum Average 1D expenditure, 'ARD' Budget, 'ARD' GDP, 9 24 of4 Sub-Saharan ACTUAL Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia GDP Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia ANNEX Table Page 799 768 108 94 180 98 78 171 17,471 10,358 4,585 4,830 3,355 4,728 3,640 1998 2005/06 803 731 112 107 102 95 89 168 104 95 83 96 77 167 50,043 10,009 16,751 6,489 12,705 9,774 4,325 15,823 3,165 4,583 1,504 5,658 3,275 15,242 3,048 4,591 1,676 4,778 3,467 1997 2004/05 855 710 100 99 98 95 74 132 95 84 80 106 61 143 186 154 189 126 124 340 47,571 9,514 16,294 6,025 11,877 9,259 4,115 15,080 3,016 4,359 1,403 5,484 2,979 14,672 2,934 4,559 1,571 4,535 3,298 1996 2003/04 892 681 91 96 85 92 71 111 89 83 73 99 60 132 168 138 167 126 120 288 45,025 9,005 15,617 5,605 11,132 8,767 3,904 14,444 2,889 4,339 1,366 5,010 2,836 14,039 2,808 4,494 1,450 4,280 3,134 1995 2002/03 824 648 86 87 79 94 70 100 82 76 69 98 54 114 149 125 148 121 111 237 42,896 8,579 15,197 5,195 10,392 8,398 3,714 13,630 2,726 4,296 1,269 4,640 2,600 13,542 2,708 4,384 1,329 4,115 3,064 1994 2001/02 795 660 87 86 77 97 72 101 84 78 68 99 64 108 135 123 126 120 112 194 41,114 8,223 15,137 4,803 9,690 7,888 3,595 13,799 2,760 4,640 1,165 4,329 2,870 13,274 2,655 4,546 1,199 3,920 2,949 1993 2000/01 765 677 90 88 89 100 79 94 87 88 81 102 72 95 123 116 116 114 109 160 38,813 7,763 14,502 4,247 9,121 7,516 3,428 13,479 2,696 4,693 1,107 4,108 2,806 12,438 2,488 4,134 1,096 3,716 2,814 1992 1999/00 800 667 93 89 96 100 84 95 92 89 90 101 78 101 110 106 103 108 106 127 37,684 7,537 14,415 4,166 8,678 7,115 3,309 13,398 2,680 4,668 1,286 3,912 2,732 12,350 2,470 4,187 1,235 3,595 2,665 1991 1998/99 684 606 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 36,172 7,234 14,093 3,874 8,383 6,585 3,237 12,885 2,577 4,402 1,276 3,753 2,770 11,657 2,331 3,910 1,170 3,452 2,519 1990 1997/98 FY EFY 2006) (April database database database 1990) LDB Central LDB LDB WDI =EFY & Intranet base Intranet Intranet GDF base=EFY1990) (Year Source: (Year Source: Source: Source: prices 1990) ) prices 1990) 1990 prices =EFY =EFY base =EFY market CONSTANT base base CONSTANT (year US$ US$ (Year US$ (Year Sum Average Sum Average Sum Average Average Deflator Average Average 1D GDP, AgGDP, AgGDP, Deflator 9 Overall 24 of5 Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Total Regional Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia PRICES GDP Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia AgGDP Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia CPI Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia ANNEX Table Page 136 35 20 39 30 12 0 0 1998 2005/06 133 34 20 38 29 12 0 0 1997 2004/05 130 34 19 38 28 11 28 14 14 68 20 12 24 24 1996 2003/04 127 33 19 37 27 11 27 13 13 67 20 12 24 24 1995 2002/03 124 32 19 36 26 11 26 12 12 66 20 12 24 23 1994 2001/02 121 31 18 35 25 11 25 12 12 65 20 12 24 22 1993 2000/01 118 30 18 35 24 11 24 11 11 64 20 12 24 21 1992 1999/00 115 30 18 34 24 10 23 10 11 63 20 12 23 21 1991 1998/99 112 29 17 33 23 10 22 10 5566677 10 3333333 4444444 62 19 12 23 20 7777777 1990 1997/98 FY EFY 2006) 2006) (April (April Central Central WDI WDI & & GDF GDF Source: Source: Population Sum Sum Sum Population Population 1D 9 24 of6 POPULATION Overall Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Urban Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia Rural Regional Kenya Mozambique Tanzania Uganda Zambia ANNEX Table Page 535 750,016 250,005 494,431 233,164 22,420 3,018 421,321 835,838 302,646 125,478 701,733 233,911 531,750 98,935 71,049 1,702 1,263,962 1998 2005/06 440 709,562 177,390 423,209 213,029 53,105 20,218 2,817 385,678 770,541 275,762 110,732 676,437 225,479 508,551 96,636 71,250 1,608 1,157,035 1997 2004/05 792 372 615,528 123,106 349,048 191,244 47,415 16,606 11,214 604,368 691,163 257,641 96,115 45,210 4,884 2,452 440,560 492,437 92,298 70,657 36,747 4,668 1,642 1996 2003/04 3,021,840 1,931,710 2,202,798 1,510,659 775 380 536,267 107,253 305,304 161,882 43,897 15,211 9,973 520,425 600,615 238,525 82,350 39,672 4,349 2,099 432,412 495,860 90,204 72,866 36,112 4,521 1,696 1995 2002/03 2,602,123 1,640,962 2,162,060 1,467,018 724 323 995 178 469,542 93,908 274,496 139,292 33,899 13,417 8,438 2,985 2,807 453,873 508,881 200,111 71,485 35,058 4,083 1,819 414,813 496,166 97,755 76,209 35,466 4,202 1,747 1994 2001/02 2,269,367 1,453,831 2,074,063 1,368,467 603 352 321 107 175 147 419,365 83,873 236,559 129,224 33,287 12,330 7,965 413,896 476,349 164,145 71,496 32,685 3,787 1,762 392,993 489,206 109,391 71,518 33,176 4,090 1,608 1993 2000/01 2,069,480 1,324,805 1,964,966 1,261,674 541 350 173 58 28 146 384,940 76,988 204,254 124,491 35,448 13,706 7,041 385,073 457,371 165,020 73,321 31,173 3,656 1,735 369,695 460,801 100,934 67,215 30,443 3,808 1,459 1992 1999/00 1,925,365 1,198,480 1,848,473 1,189,080 1 480 255 377 162 360 350,577 70,115 181,837 119,682 29,418 13,772 5,868 1,131 352,381 446,968 140,001 62,974 28,684 3,526 1,454 353,014 436,439 108,075 71,994 29,013 3,358 1,556 1991 1998/99 1,761,904 1,083,278 1,765,071 1,119,550 0 418 268 768 256 159 330 294,593 58,919 152,021 105,532 16,786 14,618 5,635 323,626 413,825 95,446 62,192 27,210 3,120 1,285 338,003 410,744 156,048 67,842 27,861 2,996 1,529 1990 1997/98 1,618,130 1,019,459 1,690,013 1,027,518 FY EFY set data 1998) FY Rahi's working) 1990/ LDB Source: Sources: terms base=EFY (Year terms millions) nominal in in prices nominal US$, prices (Data in working) US$ market CONSTANT LDB Countries expenditure US$ US$ EXPENDITURE Sum Average Sum Average Sum Average Sum Average Asian 1D expenditure, 'ARD' PDR (Sources: GDP, GDP, 9 PDR PDR 24 of7 South ACTUAL Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Laos GDP Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao ANNEX Table Page 931 146 122 191 125 139 146 122 191 125 139 214,983 71,661 148,160 42,201 24,623 1,296 163,176 54,392 121,368 22,126 19,683 1998 2005/06 898 141 120 187 117 140 141 120 187 117 140 204,400 68,133 141,777 40,254 22,368 1,256 158,897 52,966 118,292 21,544 19,061 1997 2004/05 869 129 118 115 189 113 111 97 131 129 118 115 189 113 111 97 131 455,776 91,155 253,199 133,127 39,651 19,963 9,837 1,517 1,138 377,210 75,442 214,222 115,407 20,957 17,738 8,886 1,563 1996 2003/04 840 122 102 110 189 104 104 91 120 122 102 110 189 104 104 91 120 396,396 79,279 206,209 125,189 37,968 18,088 8,943 1,445 1,007 361,801 72,360 201,526 114,192 20,139 17,359 8,586 1,594 1995 2002/03 907 822 112 100 101 166 94 97 93 110 112 100 101 166 94 97 93 110 357,010 71,402 196,195 104,916 32,099 15,725 8,075 1,316 345,051 69,010 196,610 104,186 19,302 16,667 8,286 1,420 1994 2001/02 895 791 105 98 96 137 98 96 88 113 105 98 96 137 98 96 88 113 344,000 68,800 187,458 107,047 25,663 16,236 7,596 1,286 346,379 69,276 191,069 112,007 18,698 16,650 7,954 1,461 1993 2000/01 905 762 108 96 97 143 105 99 92 119 108 96 97 143 105 99 92 119 331,556 66,311 177,764 102,546 25,746 17,852 7,648 1,314 333,963 66,793 185,865 105,389 17,965 17,021 7,724 1,422 1992 1999/00 776 726 110 97 101 156 99 99 101 107 110 97 101 156 99 99 101 107 332,949 66,590 175,737 106,609 27,458 15,850 7,296 1,447 328,072 65,614 181,509 105,506 17,633 16,043 7,382 1,439 1991 1998/99 675 675 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 321,754 64,351 176,565 105,179 17,259 15,737 7,014 1,388 321,754 64,351 176,565 105,179 17,259 15,737 7,014 1,388 1990 1997/98 FY EFY working) working) LDB LDB Sources: Sources: 1998) year=1998) 1998) FY (Base FY 1990/ 1990/ EF prices prices = EF = base market constant base (Year US$ US$ (Year Sum Average Sum Average Average Deflator Average 1D AgGDP, AgGDP, 9 PDR PDR Deflator PDR PDR 24 of8 Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao Total Regional Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao PRICES GDP Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao AgGDP Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao ANNEX Table Page 0 159 84 14 6 2,664 1,313 1,107 1998 2005/06 0 156 83 14 6 2,637 1,304 1,093 1997 2004/05 131 104 127 177 128 118 107 434 218 152 82 14 997 513 308 102 52 22 783 772 116 100 61 11 2,828 1,296 1,080 1996 2003/04 123 100 122 166 119 109 101 394 215 148 81 13 969 498 301 98 51 21 791 763 117 98 60 11 2,798 1,288 1,064 1995 2002/03 119 99 118 156 116 106 100 340 212 145 80 13 940 482 295 94 49 20 798 754 118 96 60 11 2,766 1,280 1,049 1994 2001/02 113 99 113 139 112 102 98 309 209 141 79 13 912 467 288 90 47 20 805 745 119 94 60 11 2,734 1,272 1,032 1993 2000/01 109 99 109 125 109 102 98 286 206 138 79 13 885 452 281 87 46 19 811 735 120 92 59 11 2,701 1,263 1,016 1992 1999/00 106 99 105 120 104 104 101 229 999 204 135 78 12 857 437 274 83 44 19 816 725 121 91 59 10 2,669 1,254 1991 1998/99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 982 201 132 77 12 5555666 829 422 267 79 43 18 2222233 1111111 820 715 122 89 59 10 4444445 2,633 1,242 1990 1997/98 FY EFY Database Central WDI & GDF Source: Database) FY1998) Central 1990/ WDI & EFY = GDF base (Source: (Year Average Population Sum Sum Sum Population Population 1D 9 Overall PDR PDR PDR PDR 24 of9 CPI Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao POPULATION Overall Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao Urban Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao Rural Regional China India Indonesia Pakistan Vietnam Cambodia Lao ANNEX Table Page ANNEX 2 Page 1 of 2 Annex 2: Methodology for Estimating Missing Data -EFY 1998 1.1 There is only Budget data for Federal and Regional categories. Expenditure data has been estimated based on budget execution performance in EFY1997 (budget execution is in fact the percentage of expenditure over budget, for each item). This method assumes that budget execution performance in EFY98 will be at least as good as in EFY97, and that the efficiency gains in the administration will be at least preserved. It is also assumed that any supplementary efficiency gain may have been neutralized by the institutional and social disturbances arising from the political crisis, following the May elections. The steps followed to obtain the estimates are: 1.2 The budget execution percentages for all items (Federal and Regional) for EFY97, corresponding to the original data from MoFED, are calculated in a separate table. This table is located adjacent to the corresponding table with original data from MoFED for EFY98, which in fact contains only Budget data. · The budget execution percentages are applied to the corresponding budgeted lines EFY 1998, resulting in an estimated expenditure for EFY98, item by item. Two types of particular cases were treated: · For (budget and expenditure) items from EFY97 that did not appear in EFY98, the budget execution percentages were simply not used. · For new (budget) items from EFY98, which did not exist in EFY97, the closest category was chosen from EFY97, and its budget execution percentage was applied to the new item. This method assumed that the agencies executing the budget for the said closest items in EFY97 were going to execute the budget for EFY98 for the new items, preserving the same performance. 1.3 The estimated expenditure figures were then linked to the Summary Table, with a red-highlight to indicate they are estimates. -Overall regional data for EFY 1997 and 1998 1.4 For overall Regional data for EFY97 and EFY98, there was data only for the four big regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR). To maintain consistency ANNEX 2 Page 2 of 2 with the preceding years and analyze data for the 11 regions for all the years in the series, it was decided to extrapolate the EFY97-98 data for the 4 regions to an estimate for the 11 regions, for all items. The method used is as follows: · The share of the 4 big regions in the total 11 regions was calculated for all budget and expenditure items, for EFY90-96, period for which the data set was complete (Folder: M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA BASE\DATA FOR CHAPTERS. Workbook: `Comparison of 4 regions to 11 regions'). It was clearly observed that virtually for all items, the share of the 4 regions had an increasing trend (rather than a stable or decreasing trend). · It was assumed that the share of the 4 regions was going to be at least as that in EFY96, the last year of full data set. · The shares of the 4 regions for EFY96 was then applied to all budget and expenditure items for Regional expenditure (by dividing the level of expenditure by the percentage share) (Folder: M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA BASE\DATA FOR ANALYSIS. Workbook: "Table to convert 4 to 11"). The result is the estimated Regional expenditure and budget for the 11 regions. · The complete estimated data for EFY97-98 were then linked to the Linked Summary Table file, and red - highlighted to indicate the values are estimates. 1.5 The share percentages section of the `Table to convert 4 regions to 11' has some undetermined values, highlighted in the table. These undetermined values are expected because no data for all eleven regions, for those ARD programs in EFY 1996 implies there will be no data for the four big regions as well. However, the undetermined values render undetermined values in the estimates section, resulting in undetermined estimates in the linked summary file. To avoid such results the undetermined values in the estimates section of the conversion table are replaced with a zero value. 1.6 The estimates that have been replaced with a zero value have been highlighted in the converting table of the conversion file. Those highlighted in green indicate four regions values that were zero for 1997 and 1998, and would convert into zero for eleven regions as well, regardless of what the shares percentage in the first table was. The zeros highlighted in yellow, indicate instances where the four regions data for 1997 and 1998 was not equal to zero but since the shares percentage for 1996 is undetermined, is defined as zero. The relative share of these budget and expenditure figures does not amount to 1% of the total for the section. Hence the decision not to try an estimate an eleven regions value for these programs, but enter zero to remove the indeterminate message from their respective cells. Bank Bank Bank Bank World World World World Re-classification) the the the the Bank into into into into (World totals included included included included reported governments governments as check were were were were to taken. taken. that that that development that Expenditure was regional regional reports, been Classification 1994, 1994, 1994, rural 1994, ARD has of and EFY EFY EFY EFY various . various the 1994 the areas expenditure sub-components expenditure by by 1994. for the percentagea Expenditure EFY whole in agriculture publications ARD. from in publications publications the on publications ARD. ARD. used orfst used EFY items, national for which in in Changes budget budget budget budget descriptors gedubt the total which for descriptors budgets for from calculated for item Annual expenditures expenditures and and Lines MoFED MoFED MoFED MoFED Lines items expenditures expenditures the the the the codes recurrenrie capital entered codes of of of -PER: expenditure recurrent capital recurrent of capital thfo their of an Reconciling ARD different descriptors descriptors: expenditure for elements federal elements federal elements regional elements different onsti regional shows the the show for show for show for show for indicate to to to to preparae preparations MoFED. arrow Showing th Showing the Classification expenditure Expenditure by Methodology ngi Arrows dotted 3: MoFED. Contents Mapping classification Mapping classification Mapping classification Mapping classification Details d ur Details during Revised Original by Original reported Solid The of Annex Table Map. Map. Map. Map. Details Details Rec. Cap. Rec. Cap. Rec. Cap. 3 21 of1 Federal Federal Regional Regional Regional Regional 1994 1994 ANNEX Page 1994 1994 1994 1994 ANNEX 3 Page 2 of 21 World Bank Classification for MoFED Classification for Federal Recurrent Exp. Federal Recurrent Exp CODE DESCRIPTION SECTOR OVERSIGHT 211 Ministry of Agriculture MOA -- Adm. & Gen. Services 211/9/11 Adm. & Gen. Services Ministry of Rural Development -- Admin & Gen Services 222 Ministry of Rural Development 222/0/01 Adm. & Gen Service COFFEE & TEA AUTH: Adm & Gen. Services 215 Coffee and Tea Authority 215/4/05 Adm. & Gen Service NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MOA: Forestry and Wildlife 211 Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture: forestry and wildlife 211/1/01 Forestry and Wildlife Ministry of Agriculture: wildlife development 211/1/02 Wildlife Devt Institute of biodiversity 214 Institute of BioDiversity Environmental Protection Authority 219 Environmental Protection 70% of Adm. & Gen Service 219/0/01 Adm. & Gen Service MOA: Other Natural Resources Departments EXTENSION MOA: Animal & Fisheries Res, incl national insemination center 211 Ministry of Agriculture Animal & Fisheries Res, 211/2/03 Animal & Fisheries Res National Insemination Center 211/3/04 National Insemination Center MOA: Agricultural Extension 211 Ministry of Agriculture Extension department 211/4/05 Agricultural Extension Crops development (including grains, horticulture, coffee,....) 211/5/06 Crops Development COFFEE & TEA AUTH: Coffee Development 215 Coffee and Tea Authority Development and Project Coord. Department 215/1/01 Development and Project Coord. Dep 50% of planning and programming Dep 215/2/02 Planning and Programming Dept EDUCATION (AGRICULTURAL TVETS) 211 Ministry of Agriculture Yekatit 25 Cooperatives Institute 211/6/07 Yekatit 25 Cooperatives Institute Agarfa Multi-Purpose Agr. Dev. Agent Tr. C 211/7/08 Agarfa Multi-Purpose Agr. Dev. Agent Tr. C Boqoji Home Economics Training Center 211/8/09 Boqoji Home Economics Training Center Agricutural Skill and Techn Educatin Program 211/8/10 Agricultural Skill and Techn. Edu. Prog Others AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NFIA 212 National Fertilizer Ind. Agency COFFEE & TEA AUTH: coffee marketing 215 Coffee and Tea Authority Coffee/tea inspection and trade control 215/3/03 Coffee and Tea Insp. & Trade Cont. Dept. Coffee/tea quality control and liquoring 215/3/04 Coffee and Tea Quality Cont. & Liquoring C. 50% of planning and programming Dep 215/2/02 Planning and Programming Dept LIVESTOCK MARKETING AUTHORITY 221 Livestock Marketing Authority Admin and General Services 221/3/03 Adm. & Gen Service Market Research and Promotion Department 221/1/01 Market Research and Promotion Dept Quality Improvement and Regulatory Department 221/2/02 Quality Improvement & Regulatory Dep MOA: Agricultural Marketing Departments Agricultural inputs Coffee, spices, ... Livestock Horticulture, .... Quality control Cooperatives Commission ANNEX 3 Page 3 of 21 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EARO- 213 Ethiopian Agri. Research Org. EARO -- Adm. & Gen Service 213/0/01 Adm. & Gen Service Research Centers 213/0/02 Research Center Other research institutions Alamaya University IMPROVED SEED DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL PLANT SEED AGENCY 218 National Plant Seed Adm. & Gen Service 218/3/04 Adm. & Gen Service Seed Quality Control & Certification 218/1/01 SeedQuality Control & Certification Dep Ethiopian Seed Enterprise Vulnerability and Food Security MOA: Food Security Coordination Bureau Federal Special Purpose Grant for Food Security 360 Relief and Rehabilitation Food Aid (DPPC) 362 Food Security Reserve Administration Relief and Rehabilitation 361 Relief and Rehabilitation Relief and Rehabilitation( Assistance) 360 Relief and Rehabilitation (Assistance) Productive Safety Nets STATE FARMS LARGE SCALE IRRIGATION 216 Ministry of Water 80% of MOWRD 216/8/10 Adm. & Gen Service 216/6/07 Hydrology Dept. 216/7/09 Water Rights Admin. 216/1/02 Awash Basin Water 216/2/03 Water Supply & Sewage Service Dep 216/3/04 Design Dept. 216/3/05 Contract Admin. 216/5/06 Trans-Boundary Rivers Study Dept. 216/6/08 Computer and GIS Service 216/1/01 River Basin Dev. Study Department Irrigation and works 217 National Meteorological Services Agency 50% National Meteorology Services Agency 217/3/07 Adm. & Gen Service 217/1/01 Technical Services 217/1/02 Met. Zonal Coord. Office 217/2/03 Met. Analysis & Forecasting Dep. 217/2/04 Deve. Met. Dept. 217/2/05 Data mang. & Dissemination Dep. 217/3/06 Met. Research & Studies Dep. RURAL ENERGY 241 Ministry of Mines and Energy Eth Rural Energy Dev. & Promo. C. 241/4/04 Eth Rural Energy Dev. & Promo. C. Other 241/4/05 Adm. & Gen Service 20% Ministry of Mines and Energy 241/1/01 Mines Operation Dept 241/2/02 Energy Operations 241/3/03 Petroleum Operations 242 Geological Surveys of Ethiopia 242/1/01 Regional Geology and Survey 10% Ethiopian Geological Survey 242/2/02 Geothermal Dept. 242/3/03 Geophysics Dept 242/4/04 Economic Minerals Exp. & Evalu. Dep. 242/5/05 Central Geological Dep. 242/5/06 Cartography and Surveying Services 242/5/07 Drilling Dep. FEDERAL ROADS 50% Ethiopian Road Authority 273 Ethiopian Road Authority 50% Office of the Road Fund Adm. 274 Office of Road Fund Adm. ANNEX 3 Page 4 of 21 World Bank Classification for Federal Capital Exp MoFED Classification for Federal Capital Exp. SECTOR OVERSIGHT CODE DESCRIPTION NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 211 Ministry of Agriculture MOA: Forestry, wildlife and soil 211 / 1 Forestry, Wildlife & Soil Institute of biodiversity 214 Institute of Bio Diversity Environmental Protection Authority MOA: Other Natural Resources Departments EXTENSION 211 Ministry of Agriculture MOA: Animal & Fisheries Res, incl national insemination center 211 / 12 Animal and Fishery MOA: Agricultural Extension COFFEE & TEA AUTH: Coffee Development 215 Coffee Development EDUCATION (AGRICULTURAL TVETS) 211 Ministry of Agriculture 211 / 8 Technical Education & Training Pro. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NFIA 212 National Fertilizer Coffee Marketing Livestock Marketing 220 Natural Resources 221 Livestock Marketing Others Cooperatives Commission AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 213 Eth. Agri Research IMPROVED SEED DEVELOPMENT 218 National Seed Vulnerability and Food Security Emergency Food Security 362 Emergency Food Security Emergency Rehab. & Management Unit 421 Emergency Rehab. & Management Unit STATE FARMS LARGE SCALE IRRIGATION 216 Ministry of Water 80% MOWRD (minus irrigation and water works) 216 / 1 Basin Development 216 / 2 Water Supply 216 / 6 Est. of Water 216 / 8 Capacity Building Irrigation & Water Works 216 / 3 Irrigation & Water Works 50% National Meteorological Services Agency 217 National Meteorology RURAL ENERGY 240 Mines and Energy 20% of Ministry of Mines and Energy (should have actual figures on relevant project) 241 Ministry of Mines and Energy 243 Ethiopian Electric Agency 244 National Oil Depots 10% Ethiopian Geological Survey 242 Ethiopian Geological Survey FEDERAL ROADS 273 Ethiopian Roads RURAL FINANCE RURAL SME DEVELOPMENT t t rP e t t Envir. Developm Developmen Developmen and Developmen Developmen Lab Service Service Devt. Center Ext. Fisheries DESCRIPTION Sanctuary Tea Training riculturalg Gen. Gen. Agriculture & & Resource Protection/ Agr. and A Bureau riculturalg A and riculturalg Agriculture riculturalg & Protection and Tech.P.C Exp. of of Research A Devt A of of Devt Admn. Admn. Natural Parks Soil GENERAL Resource Eco. Coop. Animals Plant Coffee Integrated Agriculture Rural Bureau Rural Bureau Bureau Sustainable Bureau Recurrent / turala ionalg CODE regions SNNP regions Ababa regions Re all 222/ all Gambela & all for for for Addis for 211 211 & 211 Amhara Oromia 219 for Amhara Classification 219 for 216 MoFED TVETS)) MARKETING) MANAGEMENT) Agency Gen (AGRICULTURAL Center & Protection Adm (Benishangul-Gumuz) (AGRICULTURAL Env. for RESOURCES Development & Promotion Service lab Development Center Fisheries (EDUCATION Exp Training CREDIT Gen. Sanctuary Bureau/Auth. department Tea Agriculture & Development: Resource Protection/ and and AND Classification (NATURAL and protection Technology Research Development Agriculture Training 3 21 Recurrent OVERSIGHT Admn. Rural Natural Parks Soil Eco Extension Animals Plant Coffee Integrated Agriculture Rural of5 Bank of Resource Development World Regional SECTOR BOARD: Bureau Environment BOARD: BOARD: Parks BOARD: Natural BOARD: Sustainable EXTENSION BOARD: BOARD: BOARD: BOARD: BOARD: Agriculture BOARD: BOARD: MARKETING ANNEX Page Center M&E.R.D Service Enterprise Service Service Energy Bureau Maint. Coord. Service Inst. Gen. Authority Gen. Investigation Water, Resources Gen. and Authority & & of Works & & Gen. Coop. Research Mines Roads Cons. & Co Agri Research Security Resources Energy of Admn. Water Irrigation Admn. Devt. Admn. Co Bureau Rural Roads Admn. Farmers' Agri. Agr. Agricultural Food Water Rural Agri. Rural Bureau Roads 273 Gumuz Tigray SNNP Dawa SNNP is Amhara Oromia Oromia Oromia Oromia Gumuz & for Dire & Gambela for for for & for for Bensh. 215/ & which Bensh. only Somali Affar only only Only 11203/ for for 214 Harari for Gumuz 240 241 216 SNNP 212/ SNNP, Oromia for 216 212/ Tigray for for Bensh. except for Oromia 213 212 Amhara, Oromia for Somali, for 11206 213 Tigray, for regions, 213 for all 216 231 for 263 Bureau M&ERD)) water, Resources ?????? Gen. inst. (Bureau Water & Services) Coord. Center Security Admn. RESEARCH Research Service Services Gen Energy Food IRRIGATION Gen. Gen and and Research Maint. investigation and & Enterprise & Resources: Authority & 3 21 Cooperatives Agri SCALE Authority ENERGY Mines ROADS (Admin guarantees Admn. Works Admin of FINANCE of6 Co: of of Energy Roads Cons. Co guarantees Farmers' Credit AGRICULTURAL Agri Regional/Agricultural Agricultural Vulnerability SMALL 10% Water Irrigation 10% RURAL Rural Bureau RURAL Rural Roads Agri. RURAL Credit ANNEX Page Cons. Development Water Development Water & Water DESCRIPTION & Water & Prevention Development Development Research Soil Soil Devt. & Soil offices Promotion Agri Disaster Fish Development of Agriculture & GENERAL Wildlife, Agriculture & Agriculture Wildlife, Resource Resource Dev. Wildlife, Dev. Coffee Research Res. Development Peasant Forest, Peasant Cooperative Peasant Forest, Natural Natural Nat. Forest, Research Valley Settlement Livestock Agricultural Peasant Construction M.M.M XXX Crop Natural Exp. CODE Ababa regions Ababa Affar) Ababa Capital Oromia Amhara) SNNP, Gumuz all for Oromia) Addis for for for Addis for Addis & & Bensh. & Regional Only Oromia, GENERAL 720 for for 714 71205(Only Harari Harari 71207(Only 715(Only 710/ Harari for for Amhara, for Harari except except Tigray, & except Classification 712 712 711 712 oFED Gambela M MARKETING) Exp MANAGEMENT) Capital TVETS) Regional Cons. (AGRICULTURAL consv for RESOURCES Development Health Development water Water Development Water & and Water CREDIT & Prevention Development Animal Water Development Development RESEARCH development & soil Soil Soil and & (AGRICULTURAL TVETS AND Classification (NATURAL offices FTCs Disaster Fish Development of of of Promotion & & Bank Agricultural study wildlife, resources Wildlife, Resource Dev. Wildlife, Agricultural Dev. Coffee Resource Drug Agricultural Agricultural Research use Res. Development training Research World Environment Peasant Forest, Natural Land Forest, Natural Nat. Forest, Research Valley Settlement EXTENSION Peasant Livestock Agricultural Peasant Construction M.M.M. XX Construction Crop Natural Animal EDUCATION Peasant Agri Construction MARKETING Cooperative AGRICULTURAL Agri Peasant Natural 3 21 of7 ANNEX Page Development Water & Energy Dev. Construction Resource Dev. and Supply Urban Inf. Building (WIBS) & Construction Force Urban & Cons Water Rural Own Contract Natural Irrigation Mining Energy Rural Other Rural Road Rural Rural Bridge Supporting Capacity Studies Rural regions Somali Oromia SNNP Harari Dawa all & Amhara & for & Amhara & Dire & for & Only Bensh. 720 Oromia Ababa Harari A.A Affar 731 for for Affar, Somali, Addis Bensh, 762 for except for Affar, except 730 except regions, Tigray, regions, all for all for regions 713 for all 722 760 for 761 Energy) Development Supply Security (minus Development Development Water Food IRRIGATION & SUPPLY Water and Cons. Energy DEV. and Urban Construction Construction Agricultural Prevention SCALE Agricultural Devt. Resource Dev. & ENERGY WATER INFR. ROADS Urban Building Urban Mining (WIBS) Rural Force & Cons & Cons Vulnerability Peasant Disaster SMALL Peasant Irrigation Natural Irrigation SAERAR RURAL Energy 20% RURAL Rural Other 85% RURAL RURAL Own Rural Rural Bridge Supporting Capacity Studies Project Contract Rural Rural Bridge Supporting 3 21 of8 ANNEX Page n Descriptio Lab. park Amhara Different dev. national protection basic Crop Rural Semien 210 211 21101 21103 21107 21108 21109 21110 21111 2114 CODE n Descriptio Affar Different 210 211 21101 CODE n Descriptio center Tigray Different Research Agr. 210 211 213 21101 21301 CODE Region Prot. Each For Envir. Resources Development Lab and Service Devt. Service Service Service C.L Center DESCRIPTION Training Fisheries Ext. Center Service Sanctuary Tea F.D Classification Natural Gen. Agriculture and Agr. Gen. Gen. Gen. & & Resource & Tech.P.C and and Investigation & Agriculture & Gen. & Exp and Agricultural Protection Devt & of Research Protection Research GENERAL Admn. Agriculture Animals Coop. Plant Rural Natural Parks Coffee Soil Integrated Eco. Admn. Admn. Security Adm. Co Admn. Livestock Seed Agri Recurrent Bureau Agricultural Sustainable Food Agri. Agriculture 3 21 of9 ANNEX Page n Descriptio Amhara Different protection valley Environment Kobogirana 216 217 219 240 241 247 21601 21901 24101 24701 CODE n Descriptio Affar Different CODE n Descriptio Tigray Different CODE Development Dev. Service Service Service Service Service DESCRIPTION Org. R.L. Lab Dev. Protection/ EC. Inst. Gen. Gen. Gen. Resources Gen. Gen. East & & 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 Bureau & & & Resource Comm. GENERAL Cooperative South Agriculture Woreda Research Admn. ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE Admn. ProE. ProE. ProE. ProE. Devt Admn. Energy Devt. Admn. Admn. Agr. Natural Rural Rural Tourism Rural 21 3 of 10 ANNEX Page n Descriptio Amhara Different 231 263 23101 26301 11203 CODE n column. blue the in Descriptio Authority provided Affar Different ones Dev Roads the from Roads Rural Rural Affar different are 216 263 21601 26301 ptions CODE descri regional the n whenever Descriptio given are Tigray Different descriptions Cooperative 231 263 23101 26301 11206 table.However, CODE this in provided are item budget Service DESCRIPTION M&E.R.D Enterprise Service Energy Service Service Bureau Maint. each Gen. Authority Gen. and Gen. Authority & Gen. Coord. for & Works & & & Water, of Mines Roads Cons. Coop. codes GENERAL Resources Admn. Water Irrigation Admn. of Admn. Admn. Rural Roads regional Bureau Water Bureau Roads Farmers' Note: The 21 3 of 11 ANNEX Page n Bureau Descriptio Devt. Gumuz Training Eco. Prom. Different clinic and Agricultural Woreda health Technology Benshangul Plant Rural Integrated Assosa Cooperative 210 211 212 21101 21105 21109 21114 21114 21201 CODE n Descriptio Somali Different research Cooperative Rural 210 211 213 21101 21108 31301 CODE n Descriptio Oromia Different 210 211 212 213 21105 21103 21107 21108 21109 21110 21116 21114 21201 21301 CODE Reg Prot. Each For Envir. Resources Development Lab and Service Devt. Service Service Service C.L Center DESCRIPTION Training Fisheries Ext. Center Service Sanctuary Tea F.D Classification Natural Gen. Agriculture and Agr. Gen. Gen. Gen. & & Resource & Tech.P.C and and Investigation & Agriculture & Gen. & Exp and Agricultural Protection Devt & of Research Protection Research GENERAL Admn. Agriculture Animals Coop. Plant Rural Natural Parks Coffee Soil Integrated Eco. Admn. Admn. Security Adm. Co Admn. Livestock Seed Agri Recurrent Bureau Agricultural Sustainable Food Agri. Agriculture 21 3 of 12 ANNEX Page n Descriptio Gumuz Different Benshangul CODE n Descriptio Somali Different CODE n Descriptio Econ. Oromia Different region Project Project Project Project Natural Fishery Rural Central Protection the Of of Previous Ziway Previous Previous Asela Previous Bacho Dev. Natural Park 214 219 21401 21402 21403 21404 21405 21406 21407 21901 21092 21903 21904 21905 CODE Development Dev. Service Service Service Service Service DESCRIPTION Org. R.L. Lab Dev. Protection/ EC. Inst. Gen. Gen. Gen. Resources Gen. Gen. East & & 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 Bureau & & & Resource Comm. GENERAL Cooperative South Agriculture Woreda Research Admn. ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE Admn. ProE. ProE. ProE. ProE. Devt Admn. Energy Devt. Admn. Admn. Agr. Natural Rural Rural Tourism Rural 21 3 of 13 ANNEX Page n Descriptio Gumuz Different Benshangul 216 263 21601 26301 CODE n Descriptio Auth. Somali Different Dev. Authority Irrigation Road 219 216 263 21601 26301 CODE n Descriptio Oromia Different 216 263 21601 21602 21603 26304 CODE e provid are item budget Service DESCRIPTION M&E.R.D Enterprise Service Energy Service Service Bureau Maint. each Gen. Authority Gen. and Gen. Authority & Gen. Coord. for & Works & & & Water, of Mines Roads Cons. Coop. codes GENERAL Resources Admn. Water Irrigation Admn. of Admn. Admn. Rural Roads regional Bureau Water Bureau Roads Farmers' Note: The 21 3 of 14 ANNEX Page 210 211 21101 CODE Dawa Dire n Descriptio Ababa Different Addis 210 211 21101 CODE 210 211 21101 CODE Harari n Descriptio Gambela Different 210 211 21101 CODE n Descriptio SNNP Different Cooperative 210 211 212 213 214 215 21301 21401 21501 CODE Reg Prot. Each For Envir. Resources Development Lab and Service Devt. Service Service Service C.L Center DESCRIPTION Training Fisheries Ext. Center Service Sanctuary Tea F.D Classification Natural Gen. Agriculture and Agr. Gen. Gen. & & Resource Investigation Gen. Gen. & Protection and & Agriculture & & 21 Exp and Agricultural Tech.P.C and & of Research Devt Protection Research 3 of GENERAL Admn. Agriculture Animals Coop. Plant Rural Natural Parks Coffee Soil Integrated Eco. Admn. Admn. Security Adm. Co Admn. Livestock Seed Agri 15 Recurrent Bureau Agricultural Sustainable Food Agri. Agriculture ANNEX Page CODE Dawa Dire n Descriptio Ababa Different Protection Addis Environment 216 CODE CODE Harari n Descriptio Park Gambela Different National Gambela 219 21901 CODE n Descriptio SNNP Different 222 CODE Development Dev. Service Service Service Service Service DESCRIPTION Org. R.L. Lab Dev. Protection/ EC. Inst. Gen. Gen. Gen. Resources Gen. Gen. East & & 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 Bureau & & & 21 Resource Comm. 3 of GENERAL Cooperative South Agriculture Woreda Research Admn. ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE ProE Admn. ProE. ProE. ProE. ProE. Devt Admn. Energy Devt. Admn. Admn. 16 Agr. Natural Rural Rural Tourism Rural ANNEX Page 231 23101 CODE Dawa Dire n Descriptio Ababa Different Road Addis Ababa Addis 263 CODE 231 CODE Harari n Descriptio Gambela Different Construction Road Rural 216 263 21601 26301 CODE n Descriptio SNNP Different Construction Road Rural 216 273 21601 27301 CODE e provid are item budget Service DESCRIPTION M&E.R.D Enterprise Service Energy Service Service Bureau Maint. each Gen. Authority Gen. and Gen. Authority & Gen. Coord. for & Works & & & 21 Water, of Mines Roads Cons. Coop. codes 3 of GENERAL Resources Admn. Water Irrigation Admn. of Admn. Admn. 17 Rural Roads regional Bureau Water Bureau Roads Farmers' Note: The ANNEX Page ANNEX 3 Page 18 of 21 Capital Exp Classification For Each Region Tigray Affar Amhara CODE Different Description CODE Different Description CODE Different Description Agricultural Development 710 710 710 Agri Research 711 711 Peasant Agriculture Development 712 712 712 Livestock & Fish 71201 71201 71201 Crop Development 71202 71202 71202 Peasant Coffee Agri Training Irrigation Devt. Cons. Disaster Prevention Animal Health Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Agricultural Development 71203 Natural Research Natural Resource Devt. M.M.M 71207 XXX 71205 Consturction of Office Land Use Study Crop Development Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Cons. Cooperative Promotion Rural Inf. Dev. 713 713 Natural Resource & Water Development 720 Natural Resources 720 720 Water Resource Dev. Nat. Res. Dev. 721 Irrigation Dev. 72102 Animal Drug Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water 72105 Forest and Water Conservation SAERAR 721 Research Valley Dev. 723 Settlement & Disaster Prevention 72106 Water Supply 722 722 Water Resource Rural & Urban 72201 Rural 72201 Urban 72202 Other (inc. Irrigation, Sewage) Strengthening Other (WIBS) 723 Prior years 72202 - 08 Mining and Energy 730 Mining & Energy Mining Energy Wood Energy Road Construction 760 760 760 Own Force 761 761 761 Rural & Urban Rural 76103 76103 76103 Urban Bridge Cons 76105 Supporting Construction 76106 Capacity Building Studies Project Contract 762 762 Rural & Urban Rural 76201 76201 Roads to be constructed Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Note: The regional codes for each budget item are provided in this table.However, descriptions are given whenever the regional descriptions are different from the ones provided in the blue table. ANNEX 3 Page 19 of 21 Capital Exp Classification For Each Region Oromia Somali Benshangul Gumz CODE Different Description CODE Different Description CODE Different Description Agricultural Development 710 710 Agri Research 711 710 Peasant Agriculture Development 712 712 712 Agricultural Services Livestock & Fish 71201 71201 71201 Crop Development 713 71202 71202 Peasant Coffee 71203 Agri Training Irrigation Devt. Cons. Disaster Prevention Animal Health Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Agricultural Development Natural Research Natural Resource Devt. M.M.M XXX Consturction of Office Land Use Study Crop Development Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Cons. 714 Cooperative Promotion 715 Rural Inf. Dev. 713 713 Natural Resource & Water Development 720 Natural Resource Dev. 721 Natural Resource Dev. 720 Nat. Res. Dev. Irrigation Dev. 721 Irrigation Promotion 72102 Animal Drug Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water 72105 SAERAR Research Valley Dev. Settlement & Disaster Prevention Water Supply 722 Water Mining & Energy 722 722 Rural & Urban 72201 Rural 72201 72203 Urban 72202 72201 Other (inc. Irrigation, Sewage) 72204 Irrigation Dev. Strengthening 72201 Capacity Building Other (WIBS) Prior years Mining and Energy 730 Energy 730 Mining & Energy Mining 731 Energy 731 Wood Energy Road Construction 760 Rural Roads 760 760 Own Force 761 761 Rural & Urban Rural 76101 76103 76201 Urban Bridge Cons 76105 Supporting Construction Capacity Building 762 Studies 763 Road Construction Study Project Contract Rural & Urban Rural Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Note: The regional codes for each budget item are provide ANNEX 3 Page 20 of 21 Capital Exp Classification For Each Region SNNP Gambela Harari CODE Different Description CODE Different Description CODE Different Description Agricultural Development 710 710 710 Agri Research 711 711 711 Peasant Agriculture Development 712 Farming Dev. 712 Agricultural Services Livestock & Fish 71201 71201 Animal Resource Dev. Crop Development 71202 Farmers Planting Dev. 71202 Cash Crop Development Peasant Coffee Agri Training Irrigation Devt. Cons. Disaster Prevention Animal Health Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water 71203 Natural Res. And Env. Pro. Agricultural Development Natural Research 71205 Natural Resource Devt. M.M.M XXX Consturction of Office Land Use Study Crop Development Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Cons. Cooperative Promotion Rural Inf. Dev. 713 Natural Resource & Water Development 720 720 Water Resource Dev. 721 Water Resources Nat. Res. Dev. 721 Irrigation Dev. Animal Drug Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water 72105 Natural Forestry and Soil Protection SAERAR Research 72103 Soil Laboratory Valley Dev. Settlement & Disaster Prevention Water Supply 722 General Water Resources 722 Water Services Rural & Urban 72201 Consumable Water Construction 72201 Water Supply 72102 Water Supply Rural Urban 72101 Water Mining and Energy Other (inc. Irrigation, Sewage) 72202 Irrigation Dev. 72202 Irrigation Strengthening Other (WIBS) Prior years Mining and Energy Mining & Energy Mining Energy Wood Energy Road Construction 760 Labor, Rural Roads 760 Road Service 760 Own Force 761 Labor Base, Rural Roads 761 Rural & Urban 76101 Primary Roads and Heavy Rural 76103 76003 Rural Road Construction Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Capacity Building Studies Project Contract Rural & Urban Rural Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Note: The regional codes for each budget item are provide ANNEX 3 Page 21 of 21 Capital Exp Classification For Each Region Addis Ababa Dire Dawa CODE Different Description CODE Different Description Agricultural Development 710 710 Agriculture and Natural Agri Research Peasant Agriculture Development 712 Agricultural Development Livestock & Fish 71002 Animal and Fish Resource Dev. 71201 Crop Development Peasant Coffee Agri Training Irrigation Devt. Cons. Disaster Prevention Animal Health Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Agricultural Development 71001 Natural Research Natural Resource Devt. 71203 M.M.M XXX Consturction of Office 71008 Office Building Construction Land Use Study Crop Development Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water Cons. Cooperative Promotion Rural Inf. Dev. Natural Resource & Water Development 720 Environmental 720 Water Resource Dev. Nat. Res. Dev. Irrigation Dev. Animal Drug Forest, Wildlife, Soil & Water 721 Environmental Protection SAERAR Research Valley Dev. Settlement & Disaster Prevention Water Supply 722 Water and Sewerage 722 Water Resource Dev. Rural & Urban 72201 Water Supply Rural Urban Other (inc. Irrigation, Sewage) Strengthening Other (WIBS) Prior years Mining and Energy Mining & Energy Mining Energy Wood Energy Road Construction Own Force Rural & Urban Rural Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Capacity Building Studies Project Contract Rural & Urban Rural Urban Bridge Cons Supporting Construction Note: The regional codes for each budget item are provide ANNEX 4 Page 1 of 3 Annex 4. Methodology for Data Collection 1.1 The concept note for the public expenditure review stresses priority areas the review will be focusing on. Agriculture promotion, water harvesting, food security and regional infrastructure are some of the main areas of interest. Data collection focused on all agricultural, water based, energy oriented and infrastructural activities available in the various sections of the annual expenditure reports. The collected data encapsulates expenditures regarding agriculture and rural development in general and the priority areas in particular. Public bodies by economic sector with 100% of their expenditure towards ARD: Administration and General Services · Organs of State o Regional Farmers Cooperative Office Economic Services · Agriculture and Natural Resource o Ministry of Agriculture ( named Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development starting EFY 1995) o Regional Bureau of Agriculture (named Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development starting EFY 1995) o Ministry of Rural Development (institution emerging from EFY 1994) o Regional Bureau of Rural Development (institution emerging from EFY 1994) o Social Works Commission (Cooperatives) o Regional Cooperative Promotion Desk o Farmers' Cooperatives Coordination o National Agricultural Inputs Agency o National Seed Industry Agency o Agricultural Inputs Bureau o Regional Natural Resource Development Authority o Regional Environmental Protection and Land use Administration Authority o Coffee Tea Authority o Livestock Marketing o Water Resource Development Bureau o Irrigation Authority · Mining and Energy o Rural Energy Development o Regional Rural Energy Desk · Road Construction o Regional Rural Roads Authority Social Services · Relief and Rehabilitation o Commission for pastoral Development o Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission o Emergency Food Security Reserve Administration o National Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Fund Administration ANNEX 4 Page 2 of 3 o Emergency Recovery Management Unit o Food Security Program o Regional Relief and Rehabilitation o Regional Food Security and Livestock Development Program o Regional Settlement and Food Security 1.2 The public bodies mentioned below were believed to contribute only a portion of their annual expenditure towards ARD related activities. A team comprising representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and the World Bank task team met to determine the share of ARD related activities from the annual activities of these agencies. Public bodies with only a partial contribution towards ARD: · Environmental Protection Agency- 70%, Seventy percent of programming expenditures under this agency are included under the reclassified ARD expenditure. The 30% excluded comprises of the programs concerning Pesticide Disposal and Industrial Impact on Environment assessments, not considered as agriculture and rural development oriented. · Ministry of Water Resource- 80% The Ministry's activities that contribute to the rural development account to 80%. The remainder 20% accounts for urban water works and sewage design, construction and maintenance. Municipal financing, makes up the main source for urban program financing amounts. However, since municipal expenditures are off budget, 20% represents the share of the ministry's on-budget expenditure going towards the urban programs. · National Meteorological Services- 50% Only half of contribution of this service goes to agricultural development and productivity. The remainder is mainly for the aviation industry and other non- agriculture and rural development actors that require current reports. · Ministry and Bureau of Mines and Energy-20% Only the rural energy/ electrification related activities, which account to 20%, have been included into the revised classification. The programs, which have been explicitly set apart, are activities that have no roles on rural or agricultural development. These activities are related to mining and extraction. · Ethiopian Geological Surveys- 10% Based on suggestions from MoARD, only 10% of the surveys' expenditure is captured. This small proportion represents spending on activities related to ground water and soil type surveys. · Ethiopian Electric Agency 20% Since a large portion of the rural population does not have electricity, it has been assumed that only 20% of the spending for this sector contributes to the rural development. · Ethiopian Roads Authority and Office of the Road Fund- 50% Fifty percent of the Authority's spending has been captured for this exercise. This percentage is set to reflect the level of utilization of federal roads for ARD. The team agreed that most of the roads were built to connect administrative centers ANNEX 4 Page 3 of 3 and not rural populations or markets. Therefore, the roads do not drive ARD, but convenience the limited agricultural and rural development actors in the vicinity. · Regional Water Supply (Urban & Rural) - 85% The percentage for this sector is set based on the portion of the rural population, which is 85%. 1.3 The data have been reorganized at two levels to best suit the analysis for the review and to insure no data collected has been over looked. At first, similar programs found under each public body are regrouped into sub-headings (the bold lines). These are aggregated under the appropriate program heading (the pink lines). 1.4 The mapping table (Annex 6) attached is a correspondence table between MoFED classifications and World Bank classifications. The table shows in detail the relationship between the two classifications and the regrouping of similar programs. The arrows indicate where each program has been reclassified to and whether or not whole amount of the program has been taken. A full lined arrow indicates the retrieval of the whole program's data where as the dotted line arrow shows partial recovery of the data. Partial retrieval of data is done by using the percentages aforementioned. 1.5 Data excluded from the revised classification table is the remaining percentage from the aforesaid mentioned sectors or an urban program found under an institution with ARD programs too. The public bodies for which no data was collected from have been classified urban centric with no contribution towards agriculture or rural development. ANNEX 5 Page 1 of 13 Annex 5: Description of the Database Data entering and Processing Procedures Background 1.1 The data for the public expenditure review covers the period, 1997-2006, which corresponds to 1990-98 Ethiopia Fiscal Years. The source for collected and processed data is the annually published budget and expenditure documents available from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED), and output from the Budget Disbursements Account (BDA) and Budget Information Systems (BIS) projects at the federal and regional levels. The document provides revenue, budget and expenditure data, by public body for the federal and regional governments. 1.2 The information collected comprises of budget and expenditure data for programs under public bodies identified by the World Bank team as components of agriculture and rural development. The federal and regional public bodies identified are: · Ministry/ Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development · Agriculture Research Institute · Cooperative Development Bureau · Natural Resource Development · Agricultural Inputs Agency · Coffee and Tea Authority · Environmental Protection Agency · Rural Development Office · Ministry/ Bureau of Water Resources · Irrigation Authority · Ministry/ Bureau of Mines and Energy · Ethiopian/ Rural Road Authority · Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission 1.3 The recurrent and capital data collected on these public bodies are for the revised budgets and the actual expenditure figures. Division of recurrent data is by economic classification, to allow analysis of personnel expenditure and operations and maintenance expenditures. The years 1990-1993 EFY has five economic sub- classifications for recurrent expenditures, starting 1994 EFY these were restructured to four sub-classifications. Since, the previous years could not be restructured accordingly the information has been entered in the original format of the reports. 1.4 The capital budget and expenditure data does not make use of the economic sub- classifications; and arrangement of the data is by source of financing. There are three types of financing, domestic financing, the financing sourced through loans and financing by assistance. For some years, the domestic financing is attained by summing the treasury and retained revenue data for that period. ANNEX 5 Page 2 of 13 Methodology (summary flow charts on pages 9, 10 and 12) 1.5 There is a separate Excel workbook for each fiscal year, of the period covered in the public expenditure review1. Provided in each workbook is a table of content and five datasheets. The first datasheet provides a national overview of the data and is a summary of the other four sheets. The remaining sheets are the federal recurrent, federal capital, regional recurrent and regional capital sheet respectively. Each sheet contains two tables, an initial data table as extracted from the MoFED and various BoFEDs' output, and revised classifications table based on the World Bank/ MoFED/ MoARD Team's classification of Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) expenditure components. For the recurrent datasheets, the original data table has white, blue and yellow lines. The white lines are direct inputs from the various data sources; the blue lines sum these white lines under the appropriate program and public body. The yellow lines are public body level totals as reported by the data provider used to check the sum in the blue lines. Sample Recurrent Sheet 1.6 Capital data entry is at the program level, entered into the white lines, summed, by the blue line, and compared against the given total in the yellow line. Data for the years 1997-1998 is only for the federal government, and Oromia, Amhara, Tigray and SNNPR. Though most regions are complete EFY 1996 lacks recurrent and capital data for Afar region and capital budget and expenditure data for Addis Ababa. Future updates will complete the data set for all the regions, when data is available. 1These files are located in M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA BASE\Processed data with Revised Classification. ANNEX 5 Page 3 of 13 Sample Capital Sheet 1.7 The second table does not introduce any new data. Data in this table is linked to the original data table. The table picks program level data from the original data table through links and reclassifies these values, in the white lines based on the ARD programs identified by the WB, MoFED and MoARD work group. The revised classifications in the recurrent sheets maintain the economic classifications while the capital sheets keep the revised classifications according to the sources of financing. Original Data Collection and Classification Federal Federal Regional Regional Recurrent Capital Recurrent Capital National Revised Revised Revised Revised Classification Classification Classification Classification Original Data Original Data Original Data Original Data MoFED Published Accounts Revised Budget Assistance Actual Expenditure Capital Loan Revised Budget Actual Expenditure s estic Bodies Dom Program Revised Budget Public Actual Expenditure and Revised Budget Actual Expenditure t Operations Maintenance Recurren Personnel Structure 5 13 ta X of4 Revised Budget Actual Expenditure Dal ina ANNE Page Orig ANNEX 5 Page 5 of 13 1.8 The federal recurrent sheet contains a set of percentages that have been set through discussions with the MoFED and MoARD, and represent the proportion of various public bodies' contribution towards ARD. There percentage values have been linked to the appropriate areas of the revised classification table. Linking the percentage table with the revised classification table allows automatic updates in the future. Sample Blue Check Box and Percentage Variability Table with trace line highlighting use of Percentage Table 1.9 The data worksheets moreover contain blue check boxes that insure that the complete integration of data entered in the original data, in the revised classifications. Since the revised classification does not include all the original data, the difference of the original data grand total and the revised classification grand, and the total amount excluded from the revised classifications table, should be identical. Sample Annual National Table ANNEX 5 Page 6 of 13 1.10 The pink lines' totals in the revised classifications table in the sheets for federal/ regional recurrent and capital are linked to the national table, on the second sheet of the workbook. The national table thus provides a summary of the four tables on one sheet. 1.11 A linked summary table2 has been constructed in order to allow the presentation of the whole period's data in one continuous form. This summary table has a total national section, total federal section, total regional section and a summary for each region, for each year of the period. The total regional section of the summary table is the sum of the data by region for ARD programs with in the respective years. 1.12 The federal section of the summary table is linked to the federal recurrent and capital data sheets for the year in question. The national section is then calculated by summing the corresponding total regional and federal values from the various programs and years. 1.13 Since it was impossible at present to obtain federal and regional expenditure data for EFY 1998, the sub-program budget execution for EFY 1997 was calculated and applied to both the federal and regional budget figures of 1998 to generate estimated expenditures. For programs that first appear in 1998, the most plausible budget execution percentage was applied. These set of estimates are included into the main part of the summary table, but are in red font to differentiate them from the other actual figures. 1.14 To the right of the main summary table there is a separate section in a red box on the linked summary sheet. Since the data in the previous section only covers the four regions, in order to complete the data set 1997 and 1998 EFY, a separate set of estimates needed to be generated to tentatively fill in the data gaps. Since the estimates in the main part of the summary table are only for the four big regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRG) in 1998EFY, this second set of estimates was designed to obtain the total regional (11 regions') expenditures for 1997 and 1998 EFY. The estimates however are based on the actual and estimated budget and expenditure figures for 1997 and 1998. The first step was to collect the four regions to eleven regions comparison percentages for 1996EFY3. 1.15 The second step was creating a separate file4 in order to attain an estimated budget and expenditure values for all 11 regions. This file consists of two tables; the first table contains the four to eleven region ratios for EFY 1996. The second table contains the summary table for EFY 1997 and 98. The data for 1997 and 98 are links from the actual value section of linked summary table; therefore includes the initial estimates calculated. The data from the linked summary table is divided by the corresponding percentage from the conversion table, to give an eleven-region budget and expenditure estimate based on data from the four big regions. Following the conversion of the data from the four big regions to a total regional budget and expenditure, the new data for 1997 and 1998 linked to the estimates section of the linked summary table. 2Located at M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA BASE\Processed data with Revised Classification 3These percentages are located in M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA FOR CHAPTERS under the file name comparison of 4 regions to 11 regions. 4Located at M:\RURAL PER\ANALYSIS ARD - PER\DATA BASE\DATA FOR ANALYSIS, Table to convert 4 to 11 ANNEX 5 Page 7 of 13 1.16 The analysis conducted for the public expenditure review makes use of a value-only copy of this linked summary table including the estimated sections. This summary table consists of actual and estimated values. Federal expenditure in 1998 and total regional budget and expenditure for the years 1997 and 1998 are estimated values, and are identified by red font for all the estimated values. A check table at the bottom of the values-only sheet insures there are no differences between the linked summary sheet and the values-only copy of the linked summary table. 1.17 Furthermore, values-only data is checked using check table that compare the linked summary values against: 1. A values-only copy of the linked summary table, including the estimated budget and expenditure figures for only the data captured in the annual national tables. These checks ensure that the links for the summary table are inline with the annual files. The annual national tables are aggregates at the annual level, and do not link to any other file but this check file. A check table, which compares these annual aggregates against the summarized linked values from the disaggregated annual work sheets, provides a good check for the links and formulas in the summary table and the annual national tables. 2. A values-only copy of the linked summary table with the estimate section of the summary table. This check table allows identification of any changes appearing in the linked summary. Differences would appear in this check table if any values are changed in the annual files or the linked summary table, and if the values only copy of the linked summary table in the check table is not updated accordingly. 3. A values-only copy of the linked summary table without the estimate section of the summary table. Like the second check table this file allows identification of any changes appearing in the linked summary. Differences would appear in this check table if any values are changed in the annual files or the linked summary table, and the values only copy of the linked summary table in the check table is not updated accordingly. Since the estimated section of the linked summary table is not included into this check table, all the values being checked are actual values. This is with the exception of the federal, overall regional and regional expenditure values, which are estimates for EFY 1998, even in the actual value section of the linked summary table. 1.18 The steps to ensure the check files are, checking the latest data correctly, are the following: Step 1. Prior to making, any changes in the database check the sum at the bottom of the check table, if there is a value other than zero, identify areas where there is a difference. If there are no differences advance to step 3, Step 2. In the event of a difference, trace the values with the differences in the linked summary table to determine if the difference is from failure to update in the check files. Other sources of differences are, the linked summary table linking to the wrong value in the annual or estimates file or an error in the formulas summing the various components. ANNEX 5 Page 8 of 13 i. To update the check file identify the sections of data being checked by the individual check files and copy paste a values only copy in the appropriate section of the values only summary table in the check file, ii. For errors in the links and formulas fix at the appropriate section of the linked summary table Make sure all differences are solved prior to proceeding on to step 3, Step 3. After making changes within the data set for the data base, check the sum at the bottom of the check tables, there should be values other than zero, identify the areas where there are differences. Follow step 2 until all differences are solved, 1.19 The sections of the linked summary tables copied as values into each check file are: · For the check file of the annual national tables the total budget and expenditure data columns for the total, recurrent and capital sections of the years from the linked summary file are copied, · For the check file with the estimates section of the linked summary table, both the actual data section and the estimated values section are copied from the linked summary file, · For the check file with no estimates, only the actual data section of the linked summary file is copied into the check file. on linked reclassify four el to sheet, based the tab inllif sheets al to available used data from tion ted es classifications na summary reclassification crea com Links Data the the be 4) original ARD 5) reclassified to linked lues and va atad the ated tables until totals towards estim redte datal ecked of ativet ch national en igina given linked the tenylt use. or and Data data sectiona 3) into table against from All 6) both tables, resenpspag analytical to prior Bodies processing Appropriate used data 2) Public identified table and Values-only analysis thet values for thet values for thet the copied 9) summary for database for tables values table el the agains table of BoFEDs teda agains table agains table tab E collected RSE only only only national and estim summary lyno BAS Data Checked Checked Checked es creation A 8) values and 8) values only 8) values annual CHAPT MoFED Linked valua the in DAT Original 7) as FOR 5 13 1) from A X of9 DAT involved ANNE Page Steps T:NE M URY CEN RR & WAGES O CAPITAL:YT LOAN RECU TREAS URI ASSISTA SEC D FOO URCE T DNA RAL VESIT AND T S T T MEN TU ERA RAL H EC E SD f. RESO ON ETING TU EEDS NTE RMS MEN YGR SME MEN In MEN Y GHT SIN ARC YTILIB FA RET URCE ROAD TERA TVET OP SI RAL MARK COOP MANAGE AGRICUL RESE EXTE AND AGRICUL EDVROP OPM E ENE MINING FINAN OP SCAL ROA W ERAN WA RAL L RESO MANAGE RURAL RURAL SUPPL OVER NATU IM DEVEL STAT AND DEVEL VUL RURAL FEDE RURAL SMAL IRRIGATION RURAL DEVEL RURAL ment ment Federal Gumuz Govern Regional Govern R Ababa Dawa , Terms m,a Tigray Afar Amhara Oromia Somali Beneshangul- SNNP Gambela Harari Addis Dire Real etniV, ARD to: d an PDR Expenditure An Africa: nzania,aT st mbia o Expenditure n Za akiP Asia: La nda nda Totalr respect Pop. nda esia,nod Security Mozambique, with South In GDP, a,y Uga mbodia a,id Ca Food opment Sub-Sahara Resource Ag Ken In a, Devt. Comparato inhC Nat. Devel Sectors Chart GDP, Agri. Defense Administration Urban Other Health Education Roads Processing , and to: Pop. Terms nditures GDP, Expenditure Expenditure respect 13 Ag Real Expe 5 of Collection X with and Other 10 Total GDP, Pro-poor Data ANNE Page the a bys of dat levels Assistance program all between at re ARDo tu tw Loan calculated relationships Expendi first Capital and the the Actual ed for shows icste m identifi 11) Do arrows) been page lue (b have Chart Total & Government relationship lationshipsre Relationship izontal Operations Maintenance Federal such hor (Data re tu the of and chart diagram, Expendi Recurrent Personnel Services arrows) above llowing Actual programs fo (red the in The ARD Total two vertical shown base. the programs. data l not firste Actua th ARD ARD l Though ta for illustrates the the To Expenditure nt.e all in 13 ndat lat above for en 5 levels, of Total m .t X Oversight Resource m nt,e Budge governm 11 Mg Relationship diagram Federal Environ Sector Natural various Federal Expenditure and ANNE Page Data The federal governm at T:NE M URY CEN RR & WAGES YT O LOAN CAPITAL: RECU URI TREAS ASSISTA SEC D ETING VESIT FOO URCE T AND CE MEN DNA MARK ERA T EC T T RESO RAL RAL H EEDS NTE MEN YGR S E SD f. In Y GHT ON TU COOP TU YTILIB RMS ROAD MEN MEN TERA SI RAL MANAGE SIN ARC RESOUR ENE FINAN ROA W TVET AND RESE EDVROP SME OPM FA MINING SCAL ERAN OP OP E RAL L MANAGE RURAL RURAL SUPPL OVER NATU EXTE AGRICUL AGRICUL IM DEVEL TERA AND VUL STAT W RURAL FEDE RURAL DEVEL SMAL IRRIGATION RURAL DEVEL RURAL , Terms m,a Real etniV, an ment to: d PDR Expenditure An Africa: nzania,aT st mbia o n Za akiP ARD ment La Asia: Federal nda nda Govern ARD Totalr respect Pop. nda esia,nod Regional Govern R Ababa Mozambique, with South In a GDP, a,y Uga mbodia a,id Dire Dawa Ca Sub-Sahara SNNP Gambel Harari Addis Chart Ag Ken In a, Comparato inhC ARD y Gumuz GDP, rag a Beneshangul- Ti Afa r Amhar Oromia Somali National Expenditure Relationship Data Expenditure Expenditure Total nditures 13 Pro-poor Expe 5 of X 12 Other ANNE Page nk d an Ba Bases) World Sub-Saharan Development on m Data fro Rural based Bank re triesn and 10): Bank. cou (World (page Expenditu WDI Agriculture World selected Chart the and r and the sources. by fo into GEM Budget bles established. ssified government. established. Relationship Regional of varia LDB, included been pment on Data and recla been been have the been levels by Develo based has have that and Federal have comparator that 9) from that nciled Rural ps ships age nda account (p reco and countries, that relation figures figures data Asian of Chart figures, relationshi ntalo Agriculture Rahi. vertical horiz Southern Processing Expenditure Expenditure reclassified for by tion. percentagea Expenditure and and and and various Bank figure only various supplied the the iont ow Budget Budget World Total Reclassifica Budget, Countries data gnifiessi ow sh sh Collec : 13 Data Arrow 5 of the connectors connectors X Yellow Pink: Orange: Blue: Green: 13 for · · · · · Dashed Red Blue ANNE Page Key The total. The The ANNEX 6 Page 1 of 25 Annex 6: Selective Gender Analysis INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report presents findings on gender analysis of rural programs in Ethiopia undertaken as part of Ethiopia's Agricultural and Rural Development Public Expenditure Review. The report analyses gender issues in selected rural development programs which are essential to support female farmers, namely the Agricultural Extension Program, the Technical Vocational Education and Training Program, and the Food Security Program. It assesses the effectiveness of the programs in responding to male and female farmers' needs, and to the extent that data allow it, it analyses gender incidence of public expenditures. The last part of the document assesses the institutional capacity of state institutions to mainstream gender in rural policies and programs. 1.2 Methodology and data The report relies on data provided by the different programs analyzed on the sex breakdown of their beneficiaries, and budget. The information to assess the operations of the respective programs has been obtained through a review of program documents as well as extensive interviews with program officials and beneficiaries during field visits to Oromiya, SNNP, Amhara, and Tigray Regions. While preliminary, the report finds that targeted gender related investments can accrue important returns for Ethiopia's rural economy and society. This is something that probably deserves further scrutiny in the future using survey specifically designed to that effect and larger samples. 1.3 Ethiopia has made an important commitment to fight gender inequalities and has done important advances in the last years. However, significant challenges remain. A comprehensive review of legislation to eliminate gender biases, and the creation in December 2005 of a Ministry of Women's Affairs ­ previously a department under the Prime Minister Office, are major achievements of recent years. Also, the government of Ethiopia (GoE) acknowledges the importance of "unleashing the potential of women" to achieve sustainable rural growth in the second poverty reduction strategy - PASDEP which will guide the country's development until 2010. However, while women play already a prominent role in rural development in Ethiopia, carrying out between 40 and 60 percent of agricultural labor, in addition to the domestic work to support their families and communities, their low access to key services and inputs such as land, credit or training does not correspond to their contribution to rural development. 1.4 The report shows that addressing gender issues as part of rural development programs and policies will be essential to fight poverty in rural areas in the coming years. The report investigates the relationship between gender inequalities, rural productivity, and food security in rural Ethiopia. It shows how the rigid gender division of labor prevailing in many rural areas limits productivity gains and contributes to the underutilization of a high proportion of the agricultural labor force, the one comprised of married female farmers, which is untrained on mainstream agricultural techniques, and enjoys limited access to key rural inputs. It draws attention over the potential gains for food security of better analyzing intra-household dynamics and how they affect the government's food ANNEX 6 Page 2 of 25 security strategy. The report calls for the need to create an enabling environment through gender aware public policies and programs so that women can play their role in enhancing food security, and contributing to sustained rural growth. It offers concrete suggestions on how to do it through the reform of selected public programs. 1.5 Overall, this review shows that, if "women's potential is to be unleashed", rationalization and improvement in the incidence of selected rural expenditures will be necessary. Improving the gender incidence of rural expenditures will require, among other things, a conscious effort to redesign certain programs so as to adjust them to the needs of female farmers. A fundamental change in the way extension services for female farmers are conceived, designed and implemented will need to be operated in order to tap on women's potential to increase agricultural productivity. Operational reforms in agricultural colleges will be necessary to ensure enough women become development agents as well as to produce a high quality professional extension force, adapted to a changing rural environment. In parallel, better analysis of the gender differentiated outcomes of the governments' food security strategy will be necessary to enhance the impact of the program. Finally, at the policy and institutional levels, a more structured effort to operationalize PASDEP's gender commitments and to empower public institutions with a gender mandate to participate and support the process of policy formulation and program planning in the rural sector will be required. GENDER AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION 1.6 While there are important data limitations to determine women's access to extension services in Ethiopia, the information available points to very low or low rates of female access to such services. The agricultural extension program of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) provides direct support to male and female farmers in their productive functions by the means of targeted extension packages consisting of training and subsidized loans to buy inputs. The program aims to increase productivity and enhance food security in rural areas. As women represent about half of the productive agricultural labor force in Ethiopia, providing extension services catered to their needs is crucial to meet the extension program objectives. Overall, however, women tend to access extension services less than men, and some sources put female participation at just 9 percent back in 19991. In Tigray, the only region for which sex disaggregated data are available, despite a substantial increase in female participation in the last three years, from 11 percent in 2003 to 26 percent in 20052, gender gaps in extension remain large, with almost three times more male than female farmers having access to extension services provided by the program. Recent evidence on the frequency of visits by extension workers, support women's lesser attention from the program as well. In a survey of 3,900 households carried out in 2005, 50 percent of men compared to 28 percent of women reported visits by extension workers once a week, while 32 percent 12001 Agricultural Survey Data cited in Ethiopia National Action Plan for Gender, p.3. 2Data from Tigray's Regional Bureau of Agriculture. ANNEX 6 Page 3 of 25 of women against 11 percent of men reported having never been visited by an extension worker3 (see Fig 1). Frequency of Visit of Extension Agent by Gender 60 50.4 50 40 28 31.8 (%)30 17 20 10.5 11.7 15.6 12.6 11.7 10.9 10 0 Once a week Once in two Once in a More than a Never visited weeks month month Men Women Source: PANE Citizen Card Report 2005 1.7 More important, opportunities for productivity gains in Ethiopia's rural sector are likely to forego due to women's low access to extension services. Women contribute between 40 and 77 percent of agricultural labor in Ethiopia, depending on the type of activity4. By contrast, they access extension services in a proportion of 9 to 26 percent5. In no case, is women's access to agricultural inputs similar to their contribution to agricultural output. This is not only unfair, but it is developmentally inefficient leading to an underutilized capacity of Ethiopia's rural sector which has between 14 and 72 percent of its labor force not properly trained. In addition, evidence from neighboring countries pointing to higher productivity of female plots6, presents a strong argument to invest in building the capacities of female farmers. Overall, evidence supporting the gains of reducing gender gaps in extension services exists for different countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Kenya for example, if women were given the same level of agricultural inputs as men, the value of their output would increase by 22 percent (see box 1); and in Burkina Faso, similar access to fertilizer and labor by men and women farmers would increase agricultural output between 10 and 20 percent7. 3PANE Citizen Report Card Survey, 2005. The survey used a sample of 3,900 households in three rural regions (Tigray, SNNP, and Amhara) and one urban region (Dire Dawa). 4The Central Statistics Authority, cited in the World Bank Ethiopia's Strategic Country Gender Assessment, puts women's participation in agriculture in 1999 at 38.8 percent. Additionally, studies carried out in 1997 and 1998 in Amhara, SNNP, and Tigray (referred to in same document) show that females contribute between 55 and 58 percent of the labor for crop production, and 77 percent of the labor for livestock production. 5If Tigray's rates ­ see prior paragraph, were to be generalized to the rest of the country. 6Saito, K., 1994, Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 230, Washington DC: The World Bank. 7IFPRI, 2005, Women, Still the Key to Food and Nutrition Security, Washington DC: IFPRI, and Saito, K., 1994, Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 230, Washington DC: The World Bank ANNEX 6 Page 4 of 25 Fig. 1 Gender-based inefficiencies in agriculture in Ethiopia 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 62.2% 60.0% Male 50.0% 91% 40.0% Female 30.0% 20.0% 38.8% 10.0% 9% 0.0% Labor contribution to Access to Extension Agriculture Services Source: Labor Force Survey, 1999 and CSA, 2001 Note: Data on access to extension services correspond to 2001; Data on labor contribution to Agriculture correspond to 1999 1.8 Overall, extension services in Ethiopia do not reflect adequately the needs and role of female farmers in agricultural production, whether heads of households or married farmers. Women are targeted by the extension program in two different ways: females heading households receive services from the program in crop production, livestock rearing, horticulture, etc., vis a vis men heads of households. Married female farmers, however, receive services in the areas of small ruminants, small-scale income generation projects, family planning, nutrition, HIV-Aids, etc. In general, Low effectiveness of extension services for women seems to be a problem, as evidenced by a rate of technology adoption 22 percent lower among female headed households, when compared to male headed households 8 . Overall, extension services for women, suffer from insufficient focus on women's productive activity. Married female farmers in agricultural households work in agriculture production along with their husbands. 87 percent of males and 72 percent of females in agricultural households work full time in agriculture, according to the 2001-2002 Agricultural Sample Enumeration, and time use evidence from case studies across Ethiopia illustrates women's role in agriculture production9. However, the design of the current system of extension makes support in mainstream farming and crop production for female farmers limited. In the case of female headed households (FHHs), while isolated efforts by extension agents to provide them with key inputs to carry out their farming functions such as oxen, exist, cultural taboos that preclude women from using the plough lead them to enter sharecropping arrangements with neighbors with the subsequent lose in farming output. Ethiopia's recent Participatory 8Bonger, T., Ayele, G., and Kuma, T., 2004, Agricultural Extension Adoption and Diffusion in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Development Research Institute. 9Aredo, D., The Gender Division of Labour in Ethiopian Agriculture: A review of Case Studies; and Tiruneh, A., Women in the Food System: a Case from Bale Region; in Proceedings of the Workshop on Problems and Prospects of Rural Development in Ethiopia, Institute of Development Research: Addis Ababa. December 1989. ANNEX 6 Page 5 of 25 Poverty Assessment suggests that loses of 50 percent in FHHs' farming output as a result of sharecropping, is a leading factor in their impoverishment10. Box. 1. Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity in Kenya Using plot specific surveys, a World Bank study analyzed differences in agricultural productivity of men and women in rural Kenya in 1994. Surveys conducted in 720 households in three districts of Kenya namely, Kakamega, Muranga, and Kilifi, were the base of the study. An important feature of the surveys was the collection of data on a plot-specific basis. Most farm management studies are based on data collected at the household level. In such studies, all land is lumped together in one farm. In addition, labor inputs are often aggregated into total family labor or total hired labor. Such data, by not separating the information for each plot, are too aggregated to address differences between men and women in agriculture. The study found a higher productivity of female labor compared to male labor. The results for the all plots model showed that the most important inputs influencing output were, in order of importance, female family labor, capital, fertilizer, female hired labor and male family labor. Extension contact and location are also important in influencing output. The elasticity of female family labor (0.24) was almost twice that for male family labor (0.15). Given this, a 10 percent increase in female family labor input would result in a 2.4 percent increase in output, while a 10 percent increase in male family labor input would lead to an output increase of only 1.5 percent, leading to conclude a higher productivity of female labor. In addition the study concluded that, when given the necessary support services, women are better farm managers than men. While with existing endowments, the mean gross value of output per hectare in male managed plots was 8.4 percent higher than output in women managed plots, simulation exercises showed that, if women had the same access to resources as men, the value of their output would increase by about 22 percent which would more than fully close the gap between male and female output. Because output on women's plots would rise by more than the difference between the mean values of men's and women's output these results suggest that women may be better farm managers than men. This difference may arise because the crops on which this analysis is based (maize, beans, cowpeas) were crops which tend to be grown extensively by women, and in which they may have developed superior expertise. Similarly, when women were assigned the mean values of land and fertilizer used by men (keeping all other variables at the mean levels for women) the value of women's output increased by 10.5 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively. Source: Adapted from Saito, K., 1994, Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 230, Washington DC: The World Bank. 1.9 In addition, recent changes in the delivery of services for rural women which eliminate the figure of home agents, may threaten to further reduce women's access to agricultural extension services and to impact negatively on food security. Since 2005, home agents ­ agents in charge of extension services for married women, are gradually being substituted with health extension agents nationwide. While health extension agents will address health related needs of female farmers, they will not provide training in productive activities nor will be able to establish the practical link between nutrition and production as home agents did in the past. This is an important aspect of the food security strategy which will be lost under the new system. In addition, already overloaded extension agents are not likely to take over the work previously done by home agents regarding income generating projects for women, risking further neglect of the productive needs of married female farmers. While the shift from home agents to health extension agents, may be 10MoFED., 2005, Ethiopia Participatory Poverty Assessment 2004-2005, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. ANNEX 6 Page 6 of 25 justified on grounds that go beyond the extension program ­ e.g. improving health outcomes in rural areas, the change could have unintended effects on agricultural productivity and food security. Several design and implementation's features of the extension program are at the root of women's low participation, and limited effectiveness of extension services. · Lack of clear guidelines and targets from the MoARD and regional Bureaus of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARDs) on female participation in the program; as well as absence of monitoring systems to hold field staff accountable to progress on gender. While the MoARD and Regional Agricultural Bureaus have informal targets for female participation in extension activities (30 percent of total beneficiaries are to be women), guidelines on how to achieve them are non-existent, woreda officials are often unaware of such targets, and mechanisms to monitor whether the targets are met, starting by reporting gender disaggregated data, are not in place. This leads to a limited effort of extension agents to reach out to female farmers on the ground. · Unrealistic assumptions about intra-household relations which limit the effectiveness of extension delivery methods. There is a general assumption among program staff at all levels, that services delivered through the head of the household will trickle down to the rest of family members. International evidence shows that this is not always the case and recommends that married females participate in extension activities along with their partners. · Low numbers of female extension agents which represented just about 12 percent of the total extension staff force in 2004-2005, discourage female participation as well. In Ethiopia's current cultural setting, which constrains male female contact, increasing the number of female extension agents can contribute to increasing female participation. This has been the case in other countries in the region11. · Lack of participation of beneficiaries in the planning of extension services. Extension services are designed by extension program officials mainly based on technical criteria, with limited participation from services' users. While such a top-down approach is in principle equally detrimental to men and women, women's low participation in the few consultation forums available, whether the peasant's association, kebele or woreda councils, makes their exclusion more acute. · Closely related to the previous point and probably a result of the low involvement of users in the planning of the services, the rigid design of extension packages 11 Studies for Zimbabwe, Mali, and other Sub-Saharan countries show an increase in women's access to services when female agents are responsible for the delivery of extension services. For details see Saito, K., and Weidemann, J., 1990, Extension for Women's Farmers in Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 103, Washington DC: World Bank. ANNEX 6 Page 7 of 25 may preclude further use of the packages by female clients in certain regions. The extension program offers two types of packages providing technical assistance and loans12. While the first package is preferred by land owning households, female headed households, less likely to own property than couple headed households, tend to opt for the household package. However, its large size (US$540) makes it difficult for FHHs to manage it as unlike couple headed households, FHHs are constrained in their ability to mobilize extra labor, and to respond with alternative livelihood strategies in case of default. Even in those cases where penalties for default are not enforced and borrowers could perceive that there is no strong obligation for refunding the credit, a case of default would influence the credit record of the household/individual and could limit the possibility of obtaining credit/support from the community in cases of future need. This, coupled with higher risk aversion among women as reported in gender and micro-finance studies, and high borrowing thresholds may be contributing to a low demand for loans from women under the extension program. Recommendations for the Extension Program 1.10 This section uses a three-prone approach offering recommendations on how to address gender issue in the Agricultural Extension Program at the levels of: (i) conceptualization and approach of the program; (ii) design and planning of extension services; and (iii) implementation and monitoring of the services. A New Approach to Extension Services ... 1.11 Adequate consideration and integration of social and gender issues in the design and implementation of extension services will help the program achieve its goal of increasing productivity in rural areas of Ethiopia. Social processes and gender roles and relations influence how productive and reproductive processes take place in rural areas, shaping the way in which men and women engage in farm and off-farm activities in rural Ethiopia, and therefore influencing rural productivity. If such processes are properly considered and internalized in the design and implementation of extension services, the agricultural extension program will be in a better position to achieve its intended goal. While the importance of taking gender and social issues into account is to a certain extent acknowledged by rural development planners in Ethiopia, consideration of social issues in agricultural extension goes far beyond acknowledging the special circumstances of female headed households. Men and women play different roles in the agricultural production process and they encounter different problems and have different opportunities to carry out their tasks in the domestic and productive sphere. Effective extension services should have these differential conditions into account in order to lift gender specific barriers to productivity gains. 12Under the Minimum Package, households can borrow up to 500 Birr (or US$54) to buy seeds and fertilizer and; under the Household Package, households can borrow 5,000 Birr, or US$ 540 to start up a variety of income generating activities such as cattle rearing, beekeeping, etc. ANNEX 6 Page 8 of 25 1.12 This requires of a conscious effort by planners and of a complete change of approach in the way extension services are conceived and understood. As a first step, the agricultural extension program needs to operate a change of vision by which: (i) all women are seen as potential farmers, regardless of whether they are married or heading a household, and therefore entitled to agricultural extension services in equal conditions to their husbands and other women. And (ii) extension services should promote flexibility of gender roles. The consolidation of traditional gender roles and a fix gender division of labor in and out of agricultural production under the current system of extension services is hurting productivity in rural areas. Cross over of tasks between men and women, and higher involvement of women in areas of higher economic return should be encouraged regardless of cultural taboos. Design and Planning of Agricultural Extension Services 1.13 The aforementioned change of approach has concrete implications for the design of extension program. The extension service under this new approach should: 1.14 Abolish the dual system by which single and married women receive different extension services to make sure that married women access mainstream farming extension services on equal foot than men and females heading households. 1.15 Retraining home agents will be an important piece of the new strategy to provide quality extension services for all women. Home agents are an underutilized resource, and under the new system of health extension agents, a redundant one. They are however significant in number, have already a working relationship with female farmers across the country, and have knowledge in subjects related to agriculture. A relatively small investment could make them a valuable resource to meet the productive needs of female farmers. Retraining home agents, and abolishing the dual system of extension for women, will ensure that the productive needs of women in rural areas are adequately served and will therefore palliate the aforementioned potential negative effects on rural productivity and food security of the shift from home agents to health agents. 1.16 Move towards gender-sensitive participatory planning of extension services. The implementation of gender aware participatory extension planning systems has proven successful in adjusting services to the needs of female farmers and in increasing female access to extension services in other regions of the world. In the last 15 years, gender sensitive participatory methodologies for extension services planning and delivery have been developed and broadly tested. They require of deep consultation, creating ad hoc consultation forums beyond traditional community structures, and acknowledging gender differences in participatory processes. The agricultural extension program should: (i) develop its own gender aware methodology for the delivery of extension services integrating experience from international best practices; (ii) pilot the methodology in order to adjust it to regional/local specificity involving regional and local staff and beneficiaries in the process; (iii) build the capacity of the existing extension staff force to use the methodology, and; (iv) integrate the methodology in the curriculum of ANNEX 6 Page 9 of 25 agricultural colleges. This would require considerable efforts and of important changes, but it has proven worth in other countries not only in terms of increasing female participation but also in terms of improved service effectiveness (see box 2). 1.17 Build the capacity to implement the new system. If the change towards integrated gender aware extension services is to be effective, an effort to build the capacity of staff in charge of implementing it will be essential. As a first step, an internal communication strategy should be devised in order to share the features and reasons for a new approach to extension services, as well as to communicate the expected roles and responsibilities of each agent under the new way of operation of the services. In a second stage, an external communication strategy should target local authorities, community leaders and final beneficiaries, explaining the change, why it is necessary and what will be the expected benefits under the new system. Finally, the program should invest in building different aspects of the technical capacity necessary to implement the system (e.g. development agents trained in gender aware methodology; program officials in gender sensitive methods of monitoring and evaluation, etc.). Box. 2. Gender Sensitive Extension Services: Lessons from Central America Gender Sensitive approaches to Extension Services' planning and delivery have proliferated in Central America in the last 15 years. Nicaragua, Honduras or Panama have implemented them since the early nineties. These are methodologies specially conceived to adjust the design of extension services and traditional methods of extension delivery to the differentiated needs that male and female farmers have due to their different societal roles (different time schedules, different tasks according to the local gender division of labor, different problems to access services, different preferences and priorities for their involvement in productive and non-productive activities, etc.). Gender sensitive extension approaches vary from each other but they tend to share some features. They are characterized by a highly participatory process in which men and women are consulted on: (i) the identification of community needs, (ii) the identification of the demand of extension services, and (iii) the design of an extension service delivery plan. Community Gender Assessments and series of successive participatory workshops are some of the techniques used in the implementation of these approaches on the ground. After years of implementation, the first evaluations show that gender sensitive extension services contribute to increase women's access to extension, to make extension services more efficient, and to reduce gender inequalities at the community level. · Following more than 10 years of experimentation with gender sensitive methodologies, the Nicaragua Agricultural Technology Institute, has doubled women's participation in extension services up to 20 percent in 2004, from a mere 8 percent in 1995. · Also in Nicaragua, extension services have become more efficient as the gender focus of the new method of extension services has allowed for: (i) the identification of male and female specific barriers to agricultural productivity increases, as well as measures to lift them; (ii) a more efficient use of community and household resources by taking into consideration male and female specific patterns of use and access; and (iii) the integration of men and women's views, opportunities, and constrains for technology adoption to the process of technology development. · Honduras Ministry of Agriculture, through the Rural Land Administration project, has piloted since the mid nineties a comprehensive plan for gender sensitive extension services. As a result, women's access to extension services has largely increased, and gender relations in communities have become more equal with higher involvement of men in domestic tasks and of women in productive areas. In both, Nicaragua and Honduras, women's sense of empowerment and increased decision making capacity is reported as a ANNEX 6 Page 10 of 25 byproduct of the new approach to extension services. Information on Honduras and Nicaragua cases is available in: World Bank, 2006, Buenas Prácticas de la Incorporación de Género en los Proyectos Financiados por el Banco Mundial en Centroamérica. Washington DC: World Bank. Implementation and Monitoring of Extension Services 1.18 Establishing a performance based gender system. Programs operating in rural Ethiopia in which gender targets have been established and carefully monitored have achieved impressive percentages of female participation. Female participation in the credit component of the Food Security Program in some regions has exceeded that of men (see Food Security section in this report). The agricultural extension program could learn from the food security experience by setting clear targets, designing guidelines to achieve them (and training officials in how to implement them and rising awareness on the importance of doing so); and establishing mechanisms to monitor progress in gender. Female participation by type of service, and perceived quality of the services by men and women are examples of possible indicators. To the extent that extension services move to a performance based system, female participation should be included among the criteria to assess performance. Gender disaggregated information and management systems are therefore another fundamental aspect to develop. Gender disaggregated information on program beneficiaries should be periodically collected by woredas and regional bureaus, and analyzed as part of progress reports. 1.19 Lifting women-specific obstacles to participate Women encounter genuine barriers to access extension services whether time constraints, low self-confidence, or gender discrimination. Two areas in which the extension program could focus are: building women's confidence and management skills and; encouraging participation of women in decision making at the kebele and woreda levels. International evidence shows the high return for women, their families, and their communities, of investments in women's organization and decision making capacity. The higher the managerial capacity and confidence of women is, the larger will be their involvement in productive and social projects in their communities. The current deficit in women's management skills and their low confidence may be limiting the number of women applying for loans under the extension program, and taking on new activities in rural areas. This should be addressed through targeted training (on the basics of the business cycle, like preparing a business proposal and plan, financial skills for small scale projects, as well as literacy and numeracy skills for business management etc.) and the organization of women's groups. Similarly, efforts should be made to increase the participation of women in decision making structures at the kebele and woreda level. A higher number of women and in higher decision making positions is needed in such forums. ANNEX 6 Page 11 of 25 GENDER AND TECHNICAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING 1.20 Alarmingly low female participation in the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Program (TVET) of the MoARD has important gender implications in terms of marked inequalities in the allocation of rural public expenditure, as well as in limiting female access to final extension services in the longer term. The program, which provides training for future extension agents through three-year academic programs in agricultural colleges run by the MoARD, represents an important expenditure of the MoARD- 164,418,000 Birr in 2005-06. Female students comprised just 9 percent of graduates from agricultural colleges in 2005. They tend to enroll less than boys, and drop out more- 14 percent for boys compared to 86 percent for girls. In the 2002-2005 academic cycle, agricultural colleges lost almost half of their female students (45 percent female abandonment rate). Low female participation in TVETs is an important cause of concern not only as an indicator of marked gender inequities in access to the program's benefits ­ women benefit from 19.6 million Birr against 144.8 million Birr for boys from the program in the 2005-2006 academic year (Fig. 3), but also because it negatively affects women's access to final extension services, as low numbers of female extension agents have been linked to low use of extension services by female clients elsewhere in the region. Indeed, studies for Zimbabwe, Mali, and other Sub- Saharan countries show an increase in women's access to services when female agents are responsible for the delivery of extension services 13. Fig. 3 TVET Expenditure by Gender (Birr Million) 19.62 Male Female 144.80 Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2005 Note: Male and female correspond to male and female total enrollment in the three grades in the 2005-2006 academic year 1.21 Several factors contribute to the low enrolment and massive drop out of girls from Agricultural Colleges. Paramount among these are, in the first place, the overall lower 13Saito, K., and Weidemann, J., 1990, Extension for Women's Farmers in Africa, World Bank Discussion Paper No. 103, Washington DC: World Bank. ANNEX 6 Page 12 of 25 academic performance of girls in secondary education which makes them enroll less and drop out more as they encounter serious difficulties to follow the academic program. For example in 2003-04 just 27.4 percent of all students preparing for higher education were women14. This is aggravated by the lack of academic tutoring services (whether fee based or subsidized) to support female students with problems throughout the academic year. Secondly, deficient boarding and school facilities affect women's safety contributing to sexual harassment and potential abuse from students and staff ­ reports of sexual abuse exists and pregnancies are one of the leading causes of college abandonment. Finally, lack of female instructors, which represent less than 3 percent of the teaching force, indirectly contributes as well to the low rates of female students. Recommendations for the TVET program 1.22 Increasing productivity in rural areas requires of significant reforms to the TVET programs so as to guarantee an extension force which is responsive to the needs of female farmers. In the case of the TVET program, this will require of: (i) increased numbers of women graduating from agricultural colleges; and (ii) an academic curriculum which recognizes upfront the role of women in rural development in Ethiopia, and addresses the differentiated needs of male and female farmers through the technical design of the curriculum of agricultural colleges. Increasing participation of female students in agricultural colleges could be achieved through: · Recruitment of female instructors. While this might prove difficult, the government's effort to recruit male instructors ­ sometimes even recruiting abroad, should be expanded to the recruitment of female instructors. Family aware working conditions and promotion opportunities could help attracting female instructors. · Quotas at entry and gender based performance criteria to attract and retain female students. This will help increase the numbers of females and will ensure that women do not concentrate into low quality colleges once a competitive system between colleges currently under consideration, is fully in place. Colleges should aim at meeting the Ministry of Education recommended 30 percent enrollment quota for female students. Additionally, under the system of performance based reward for instructors, currently under consideration for colleges, indicators to assess performance should be gender disaggregated (e.g. completion rates) and specific gender based performance criteria established. · Support services for female students. These should include academic and non-academic type of support services. The former should focus on subsidized tutorial services to assist students in their academic performance. The non-academic should comprise psycho- social counseling services; as well as training in family planning and sexual and reproductive health. 14National Action Plan for Gender Equality. ANNEX 6 Page 13 of 25 · Equal Opportunities Officers to monitor female students' performance in each college. They should guarantee that gender related provisions in the operation of colleges are met, monitor the needs of female and male students and make recommendations to the college's board, from which they should be full members. · Gender and ethics training for instructors. Training to build instructors capacity to teach female students should be provided. This should include, among other things, analysis of female students' social needs affecting their academic performance, and ethics, including those applying to teacher-students relationships. 1.23 A gender aware curriculum. The current curriculum of TVETs is strictly based on technical concerns without an adequate articulation of how social issues influence the process of rural development and of agricultural production. A better coverage of such aspects in the curriculum, through specific modules would be advisable if agricultural extension services are to be effective. The modules should include, among other things an explanation of the different contributions of men and women to rural development and should highlight the role of women in agriculture. Additionally, specific research based modules should be designed to address technical aspects in areas of women's involvement, and students should be trained in gender issues in agricultural extension planning and delivery ­ including exposure to gender aware extension delivery methods. GENDER AND FOOD SECURITY 1.24 This section reviews gender issues in the Food Security Program. While the Food Security Program has a good record in terms of participation of women, especially when compared to other rural programs in Ethiopia, there are aspects of the design and implementation of the program that can be improved to better address gender issues and in turn increase effectiveness of public expenditure and enhance food security. The analysis in this section considers only the Food Security components funded by the World Bank, as they were the only ones collecting gender disaggregated information on beneficiaries15. Similar type of analysis should be expanded to the rest of the program to assess whether the findings hereby presented, especially those regarding high female participation in program activities apply to the rest of the program. 1.25 Women are one of the priority target groups of the Food Security Program. The Food Security Program supports food insecure households in rural areas of Ethiopia through: (i) a productive safety nets component consisting of public works and direct income support to food insecure households; (ii) households' voluntary resettlement to food secure areas; and (iii) other food security projects which provide credit and 15Lack of gender disaggregated data in Other Food Security Projects not funded by the World Bank precluded their inclusion in the assessment. Among them, the Federal Government funded Food Security Project deserves further analysis given its size. The gender disaggregated data available for such program, for Amhara region, show however patterns of participation by men and women in project activities similar to those in projects funded by the World Bank. ANNEX 6 Page 14 of 25 employment generation through community driven development projects. 16 The implementation manual of the Safety Nets Program establishes clear guidelines to target women, especially chronically food insecure female headed households, and to facilitate their participation in direct transfers and public works17. Similarly, under the Other Food Security Projects (OFS), women should comprise 30 percent of projects' beneficiaries. Across program activities, women should participate as members of program management committees at the kebele and woreda level and provisions are made to that effect. Program officials and community leaders have been trained on gender aspects applying to the program implementation, the OFS component has a gender and communication expert in each region, and most of the regions monitor progress on gender through gender disaggregated statistics. 1.26 While efforts to target women have led to significant female participation across program activities, gender gaps in the allocation of program resources persist. Women comprise a noteworthy 46 percent of beneficiaries of safety nets activities in Tigray, 42 percent in SNNP, and 37 percent in Amhara (see Fig.3). As for other food security activities ­ loans and community works, women outnumber men in Tigray where they make up to 53 percent of beneficiaries; they comprise 44 percent of beneficiaries in Oromiya, 33 percent in SNNP and 25 in Amhara (see Fig. 4). All in all, Food Security Program expenditure benefits men more than women in a proportion of 60 to 40 percent for the Safety Nets Component and 64 to 36 for Other Food Security Projects. Additionally, however, women benefit from specific expenditures targeted to them ­ e.g. support to girl schooling under the Emergency Draught Recovery Project, and indirectly from the use of certain public works like water harvesting, or small irrigation, which save them time spent in domestic tasks. 1.27 More important, however, the program could integrate international lessons to analyze how intra-household differences affect the implementation and outcomes of Food Security Programs and to capitalize on the role of women in food security. Evidence from other countries links female participation to effectiveness of Food Security Programs. An evaluation of 101 public works programs in South Africa found that female participation led to more cost-efficient outcomes, with higher direct benefits for the community and higher gender impact18 . Similarly, evidence from program evaluations across the world shows that insufficient attention to intra-household dynamics and inequities can compromise the efficiency, equity and effectiveness of social protection programs19. Research supporting the asymmetric impact of policies on 16 Gender impacts within the resettlement program are difficult to analyze as information is collected at the household rather than individual level. Such an analysis would require of a methodology different to the one used in this assessment. 17The program allows for the possibility of sponsoring childcare facilities, it establishes shorter shifts for women in public works to acknowledge their reproductive burden, and it has special provision for pregnant and lactating mothers. Also, public work are allowed in labor-less female headed household private properties, and priority is given to public works which reduce women's regular work burden. 18Adato, M., J. Hoddinott, and L.Haddad. 2003. Power, politics, efficiency, and effectiveness: Benefits and challenges of community participation in South Africa's public works programs. Manuscript. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 19Ezemenari, K., Chaudhury, N., and Owens, J., 2002, Gender and Risk in the Design of Social Protection Interventions, Social Safety Net Primer Series, December 2002, Washington DC: World Bank Institute. ANNEX 6 Page 15 of 25 members of the household exists worldwide and for the particular case of Ethiopia. Prior studies on the effects of agricultural shocks in rural Ethiopia show how women disproportionately absorb the impact of the crisis as evidenced by the drop in their Body Mass Index20. Similarly, the positive correlation between women's controlled income and household investments in food, health and education is widely acknowledged and studies on the Ethiopian context show that a larger amount of assets under the control of women increases the share of household expenditure on children's education21. The Ethiopia's Food Security Program may be hindering its impact by not giving a more prominent role to women in program design and implementation. 1.28 Indeed, insufficient consideration of intra-household dynamics and gender differences in Ethiopia's Food Security Program is already leading to program dysfunctions. One specific concern regards public works where, while the head of the household is the person registered under the program and the one receiving the transfers, it is common for the wife/wives, and other household members to carry out the actual work. This means that women's control of public works' benefits is limited and cases of mishandling of benefits by male recipients ­ e.g. selling the food, have already been reported by program officials. Similarly, loans provided to households under the OFS projects are channeled through the head of the household, meaning that the actual control of such resources is by him. The extent to which the loans benefit the entire family is difficult to ascertain without specific studies which look at intra-household impacts. However, assuming that the benefits will be shared by all household members, challenges evidence from other programs evaluations22, and it might be unrealistic, Ethiopia's last Participatory Poverty Assessment showing that men had absolute control of decisions and income management in 75 percent of households interviewed23. 20Dercon and Krishnan (2000) quoted in Ezemenari, K., Chaudhury, N., and Owens, J., 2002, Gender and Risk in the Design of Social Protection Interventions, Social Safety Net Primer Series, December 2002, Washington DC: World Bank Institute 21Quisumbing, R., and Maluccio, J., 2000, Intra-household allocation and gender relations: new empirical evidence from four developing countries, FCND Discussion Paper No. 84, IFPRI. Washington DC 22Ezemenari et al. 2002 23MoFED., 2005, Ethiopia Participatory Poverty Assessment 2004-2005, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. ANNEX 6 Page 16 of 25 Fig.3. Safety Nets Expenditure by Sex 2004-2005 100% 80% 61.09 33.79 57.86 60% Female 40% Male 103.39 39.05 79.88 20% 0% Amhara Tigray SNNP Million Birr Fig.4. Other Food Security Expenditure by Sex 2004-2005 100% 11.22 80% 5.11 7.61 14.04 60% Female 40% 36.11 Male 9.86 9.49 20% 12.29 0% Amhara SNNP Oromiya Tigray Million Birr Source: Regional Food Security Bureaus Notes: (1) OFS data do not include information on the other food security project funded by the federal government, and the European Union. (2) Gender disaggregated data on Safety Nets beneficiaries for Oromiya were unavailable. (3) Data for Safety Nets in Amhara region refer to Public Works only (4) Data refer to individual beneficiaries Recommendations for the Food Security Program 1.29 This section uses a two-prone approach presenting recommendations on: (i) how to increase the participation of women in the Food Security Program and, (ii) how to better address intra-household dynamics in the design of the program. 1.30 There is room to increase women's participation in the program by adjusting certain aspects of the program design and implementation, especially in regions with low female participation. These include: ANNEX 6 Page 17 of 25 · Fully implementing existing gender related provisions, especially regarding female participation in the planning process of the program. In general, it would be important for the program to ensure that gender provisions in the implementation manual (e.g. 30 percent female participation target, female participation in management committees, consultation with women during planning of public works, etc.) do not fade away during implementation through careful monitoring and continuous training to food security task forces in woredas and other officials in the regional bureaus. In particular, more emphasis should be made in ensuring adequate participation of women in the planning of program activities. This will require of adequately consultation during the planning of public and community works using specific gender aware methodologies, and of a greater participation of women in kebele and woreda food security councils. The current target of two female representatives or 30 percent female participation is not always met, and even when it is, it is insufficient to guarantee meaningful participation from women. · Gender based Performance system. Evidence from other countries shows that integrating gender criteria in performance systems in the public sector is a cost-effective mechanism for achieving gender outcomes and improving public service delivery (see box 3). The Food Security Program has experience using gender targets to informally assess its performance (e.g. 30 percent female participation in the Other Food Security Projects) and is in a better position in terms of institutional capacity than other rural programs to pilot a performance based system. The program could therefore design and implement such a system, and include gender sensitive service delivery as one of the performance criteria. The definition of specific criteria should be informed however by a solid analytical basis. Research will be needed to identify the specific processes by which intra-household differences and the different roles of men and women affect food security outcomes in rural Ethiopia, and then establish selected operational targets. · Improving guidelines, targets and reporting mechanisms in non World Bank funded components of the Other Food Security Program. Part of the OFSP is funded by donors other than the WB including the FAO, EU, or the Federal Government. These projects have implementation procedures different to those described at the beginning of this section. None of the projects reports on gender impacts or collects gender disaggregated information on beneficiaries. As a first step towards assessing the gender impact of the whole program such projects should improve monitoring instruments to allow for gender differentiated data. Additionally, clear gender guidelines and targets should be included in implementation manuals and passed on to program officials on the ground. · Building the management skills of women so as to increasing the proportion of female applicants for loans under the OFSP component, especially in Amhara and SNNP. Program officials report women's reluctance to apply for loans due to their lack of confidence in their ability to manage income generating projects. Capacity building at the local level to overcome such gap, and channeling credit through women's groups ­ so they can act as multi-collateral, should be therefore encouraged. ANNEX 6 Page 18 of 25 · Building the capacity of regional Gender and Communications experts. Gender and communications experts in the regions are a relatively new figure in the program. Since their arrival 6 months ago, monitoring of female participation has improved considerably. The extent to which gender disaggregated information collected is used in the program planning process is however unclear. Gender and Communications officers should work upstream and downstream linking field officials to program planners and making sure that gender related information is used in the planning process to inform program adjustments. They should oversee that gender aspects in the implementation manual do not evaporate during the execution of the program. This will require of further training in gender analysis, and of program staff support to empower them as full team members, integrated in the program decision making process. 1.31 Operational measures to improve the treatment of gender aspects and account for intra household gender dynamics include: first, establishing rules to channel benefits through wives ­ already being tested in some regions. Second, allow for individual loans from members of a same household. Third, improve reporting mechanisms for public works, which account for the person working and the person registered. Fourth, impact evaluations and program incidence analysis need to assess intra household impacts. The mid-term evaluation of the Other Food Security component; and the baseline survey for the Safety Nets component currently being prepared are opportunities to do so. This will require of a gender aware design of the survey and evaluation instruments, but will provide valuable information on the basis of which to improve the program and improve food security outcomes. 1.32 Moving from a household based approach to intra-household based approach to program design is an important step, and not without challenges. The change in unit of analysis can become methodologically complicated as, to start with, absence of gender disaggregated data will be an important limitation. An incremental approach is therefore recommended. First, the program should carry out selected studies to measure intra- household impacts of the program's different components and activities, to identify if there are areas in which inadequate treatment of gender/intra-household dynamics is leading to program inefficiencies. Second, if such areas are identified, the program should select one or two in which to pilot a different operational design that allows for the treatment of intra-household differences. This will probably require of a data collection effort specific to the component/area of intervention. If the analytical work and part of the operational experimentation take place following the mid-term evaluation of the program, the evidence produced could feed into the design of the next phase of the program. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT 1.33 In the last 13 years, Ethiopia has shown an important commitment, both political and financial, to build the capacity of State institutions to address gender issues in policies and in the delivery of public services. Ethiopia's Government has committed to ANNEX 6 Page 19 of 25 addressing gender issues in policies and programs since 1993, when the Women's Policy was approved. To that end, several institutional mechanisms for gender mainstreaming have been created at the different administrative levels including: a Federal Women's Affair Office, upgraded to the rank of Ministry in December 2005; Regional Women's Affairs Bureaus in each region; local women's affair offices in each woreda; and Women's Affairs Departments/Desks in most of sector Ministries and some sector Regional Bureaus. In 2000-2001, the expenditure on gender machineries amounted to 2,346,596 Birr or about 0.017 percent of the national budget. This section assesses the capacity of state institutions with a gender mandate to use such resources effectively to mainstream gender in rural programs and policies. Federal, Regional and Local Women's Affairs Offices 1.34 The capacity of the Federal Women's Affairs Office to mainstream gender in rural development policies and programs has been somewhat weak in the past 13 years since its creation, due to their scarcity of resources (4 staff members to serve the whole country). However, this will change under the new status of Ministry and the Ministry is likely to become an important asset for gender mainstreaming in the country, including in rural policies and programs. 1.35 While they represent the highest expenditure commitment to gender mainstreaming in Ethiopia, Women's Regional Bureaus' limited involvement in productive rural development programs limits their potential to mainstream gender in the rural sector. Regional Women Bureaus are the largest expenditure for gender mainstreaming purposes in Ethiopia (see comparison to federal expenditure in Fig. 5). With a staff force that ranges from 10 to 25 gender professionals per region, regional women's bureaus have been for years the most powerful actors of the Ethiopian State Gender Machinery ­ this is likely to change with the creation of the Women's Affairs Ministry. They enjoy certain decision making power - they are part of the regional cabinet; and try to mainstream gender in the work of sector bureaus using a system of focal points. However, their agenda is largely determined by donor's interests due to their dependence on donors' funds for program development, leading to work programs focused on awareness rising activities about women's rights and the eradication of cultural harmful practices, with little emphasis on the productive role of rural women. While the extent of their collaboration with regional BoARDs varies according to the region, there is room for playing a larger advisory and supervisory role by working closely with them. 1.36 Finally, local women's affairs officers in woredas, are field workers charged with overseeing the work of local administrations with women. While the individual technical capacity of these officers is rather low, their effectiveness and larger impact will depend on the extent to which they are able to coordinate and integrate their work program with those of Women's Regional Bureau. The degree of integration with regional bureaus varies however greatly from region to region. Out of four regions visited, Tigray and SNNP exhibited the best coordination and integration between regional and local instances. ANNEX 6 Page 20 of 25 Ethiopia's Expenditure in National Women's Machinery in 2000-01 (Birr Millions) 0.31 2.04 Federal WAO Regional WAOs Source: Ethiopia Federal and Regional Budget 2000-2001 Women's Affair Department of the MoARD and Women's Desks of BoARDs 1.37 Overall the capacity of the Women's Affairs Department of the MoARD is low, limiting its ability to meet its mandate of mainstreaming gender in the MoARD programs. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has a Women's Affair Office since 1994 responsible for mainstreaming gender in all programs and activities of the Ministry. The WAD's ability to comply with its mandate is however curtailed by a series of factors including: lack of clarity regarding its role and functions, insufficient and inadequate human and financial resources, poor integration in the decision making and planning processes of the Ministry; and other general weaknesses that affect the MoARD such as failures in inter-institutional coordination and deficient management and information systems. · Role and Functions. While focused almost exclusively on gender awareness rising in the past, the role of the office is gradually shifting towards mainstreaming gender in the MoARD operations. While this is a step in the right direction, a high proportion of the Department's time is however still spent on gender capacity building and training. In order to achieve its mandate, the office should emphasize working with sector departments within the Ministry to address gender issues in their planning and operations; designing a national strategy for gender and rural development, developing gender guidelines for the sector, and monitoring and evaluating the BoARDs and woredas progress on gender. · Human Resources. Such a change of role and functions will require a different human resource strategy as well. The profile of current Department's staff is adequate for current functions of capacity building, training and technical assistance on gender. A broader mandate on planning and policy formulation would require analytical skills which are now missing. This can either be provided through new recruitments (a post of gender economist is highly recommended) or through postgraduate training (probably abroad) for some of the existing personnel. ANNEX 6 Page 21 of 25 Fig. 6. Expenditure of the Women's Affair Department of the MoARD 400,000.00 30-20 300,000.00 200,000.00 Birr 100,000.00 - 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Total Recurrent Capital Fig. 7 Expenditure of the Women's Affair Department of the MoARD 0.015 ) 0.01 (% 0.005 0 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 WAO Budget as a proportion of MoARD budget Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development · Financial Resources. A low and declining budget allocation, particularly regarding recurrent resources, limits considerably the ability of the Department to fulfill its labor- intensive gender mainstreaming functions. With a budget of 530,107 Birr in 2005, the Women's Affair Department budget represents just 0.0016 percent of the MoARD's total resources, the lowest in four years, 80 percent down from its 2003 level. Capital expenditure has been traditionally very low, except for a 387,307 Birr allocation by the Canadian International Cooperation Agency in 2005, and has relied entirely on donor contributions. However, limited and declining recurrent resources are the main budget related factor limiting the effectiveness of the department. With just enough resources to cover one coordinator and three gender experts and following a sharp decline over time, the department has lost 50 percent of its already diminished recurrent resources in 4 years, the low recurrent budget severely undermines its operative capacity. · Decision Making Power. The capacity of the Women's Affair Department to influence the operations of other departments and the planning process of the Ministry is extremely low. This is basically due to the isolation of the Department within the Ministry, which is in turn a result of: (i) timid support from management; (ii) a poor working relationships with other departments - which do not consider gender issues as relevant to their work; and (iii) the Department's exclusion from decision making forums and the decision ANNEX 6 Page 22 of 25 making process in the Ministry (e.g. PASDEP planning, project decision and evaluation meetings, etc.). · Overall Weaknesses of MoARD. The high degree of autonomy of the decentralized administration in Ethiopia and the absence of coordination between administrations limit at times the efficacy of monitoring and control functions of federal bodies, the Women's Affair Department included. In the case of the WAD, downstream and upstream processes are not fully operational, thus reducing the implementing potential of regional women's desk in BoARDs and woredas, on the one hand, and the monitoring capacity of the federal office on the other, hurting the entire gender planning process. The inability of the WAD to obtain gender disaggregated data from BoARDs and woredas, coupled with deficient Management and Information System at the federal level, impairs the ability of the office to design national strategies and action plans based on accurate information. 1.38 While a remarkable step towards mainstreaming gender in the implementation of rural development programs and policies, Women's Desk in BoARDs remain a largely underutilized resource. Women Desks in the regional Bureaus of Agriculture and Rural Development constitute an important instrument to monitor the implementation of gender provisions in rural programs and policies. In order to be effective in this role, the desks should be able to work closely with other departments within the bureaus to integrate gender issues in their operations, and to have monitoring capacity to follow up on the implementation of gender issues at the woreda level. In reality, however, desks are perceived by the BoARDs as the default department to deal with services for women. Each Desk is staffed with 2 to 3 people. If properly used ­ the right human resource profile, and departmental role and functions, this represents an important resource for gender mainstreaming and an essential complement to the work of the Women's Affair Department of the MoARD. Recommendations for different institutions 1.39 Achieving the gender commitments in the PASDEP demands concrete steps from different institutional actors in the rural sector. 1.40 The MoARD, needs to fundamentally change its approach to gender mainstreaming, which should be understood as the responsibility of all the actors across the Ministry rather than the role of the Women's Affairs Department. The profile of gender issues and the importance of addressing gender issues should be emphasized by top management and the message passed down to technical and field officials. Addressing gender issues and reducing gender inequalities in public services needs to be presented by top management as criteria of excellence and as a principle of public policy effectiveness. Also, the ministry should take concrete and measurable steps towards implementing gender commitments, including (i) establishing clear, program-specific gender targets and guidelines on how to achieve them and making progress on gender a criteria to evaluate performance of line departments of the Ministry; (ii) improving Management and Information System by collecting gender disaggregated statistics to be ANNEX 6 Page 23 of 25 used in the planning process; and (iii) rising the profile of gender issues and of the Women's Affairs Department. 1.41 The Women's Affair Department needs to be integrated into the planning process of the Ministry and its resources augmented to match the Department's role. In order to become a real instrument in the process of increasing rural productivity, the WAD should focus on providing advice and technical assistance to the different departments of the Ministry to address gender issues in their planning and operations; play the leading role in monitoring and evaluating the BoARDs and woredas work on gender, and provide advice to the MoARD on how to integrate gender issues in the formulation of rural policies. These functions will require of increased resources by the means of qualified personnel with experience in strategic planning and policy formulation, and of a better insertion of the Department in the decision making process of the ministry. If budget allocations to the WAD were to be maintained at the current level, the WAD functions would have to continue focusing on on-demand training and technical assistance. The impact of this strategy to increase productivity in rural areas is nevertheless likely to be limited, as the incidence of untargeted training and technical assistance tends to be low. Regardless of the level of financial/human resources, and to facilitate its insertion in decision making processes, the WAD should have power to comment and recommend on strategic documents; enjoy auditing powers to monitor other departments' progress on gender; and participate in strategic decision making forums within the ministry 1.42 Similar measures to redefine the role of Women's Desks in regional BoARDs to fully integrate them into the operations of the bureaus, especially regarding improved participation of women's desks into planning processes and enhanced monitoring powers to carry out these tasks apply here as well. 1.43 Regional Women's Bureaus need to play a larger role mainstreaming gender in rural policies and programs by: (i) paying higher attention to the productive needs of women by reallocating some of the resources under their control (staff) to work with regional BoARDs; and (ii) fully integrating the figure of local women's affairs officers to the work of the bureau, wherever it is not yet integrated, by the means of continuous guidance and technical support to local women's officers. 1.44 Finally, the new Ministry of Women's Affairs can play an essential role by helping overcome coordination failures in the area of gender and rural development. This will entail taking on functions which fall outside the realm of other institutions working in the sector, and promoting coordination between the different partners working on gender and rural development. In the first case, an important part of its role will be to undertake research and analysis on gender issues in rural development with a view to establish the link between research findings and policy formulation by MoARD and BoARDs; as well as to build the capacity of actors across administrations to address the needs of women in rural areas. Regarding promoting coordination, the Ministry should take the lead in the creation of inter-institutional coordination mechanisms in the area of gender and rural development such as ad hoc committees with representatives from the different administrations, CSOs and private sector. ANNEX 6 Page 24 of 25 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 1.45 This report has shown that there is potential for addressing gender issues in the context of rural program and policies to tackle the development challenges that Ethiopia faces today and in the coming years. Evidence from different programs reviewed shows that gender and social dynamics play a role in determining rural productivity, food security and, in turn poverty. The policy options available to the Government are to address gender inequalities now and contribute to a sustained and fair development process; or not face them now and deal with the consequences later in the form of reduced growth, and probably higher poverty. Public programs should commit to gender equality, and promote balanced gender relations, and flexible gender roles at the community and household level as a way of improving people's lives and as a principle of public action effectiveness. Maintaining gender inequalities and a rigid gender division of labor is inefficient and constrains much needed productivity gains in Ethiopia's rural sector. If women are to fully contribute to the development process in Ethiopia and its potential is to really be unleashed, gender issues need to be put on the discussion table at the policy level and be addressed through public programs and service delivery on the ground. 1.46 There are encouraging signs that evidence Ethiopia's long term commitment to gender equality. The recent creation of the Ministry of Women's Affair, and the subsequent expenditure allocation, is one of them. The PASDEP commitment to gender is another important step. The document, which will guide the countries development for the rest of the decade, acknowledges the importance of fully integrating women to the development process in rural areas, and embraces all the objectives of the Women's National Action Plan. 1.47 However, a conscious effort and specific expenditure allocations to make these commitments effective will be needed in the coming years. In addition to the suggestions mentioned for specific programs in previous sections, the government should, first, attach specific targets to existing gender goals in the PASDEP. Unlike for other areas, specific targets and guidelines on how to implement gender objectives of the PASDEP are totally absent from the strategy. Setting targets for female extension agents, Female students in TVETs, and female access to extension services should be a priority. Second, effective implementation of the PASDEP requires of a fundamental change in the targeting strategy of the government to move away from targeting female headed households to target individual women. Using FHHs as a proxy for women has proven inefficient and ineffective (see assessment of the extension program), and should be abandoned as targeting strategy. Third, take advantage of the newly promoted, grass root oriented system of extension services to address gender issues following the recommendations proposed earlier in the report. 1.48 Also, as a decisive factor to achieve effectiveness of public action in the context of the implementation of PASDEP, it is essential that programs and policies in Ethiopia break out from the underlying principle of benevolent head of household. The general assumption that channeling services or benefits to the household through the ANNEX 6 Page 25 of 25 household head will benefit all household members still prevails among Ethiopian planners and officials, limiting the effectiveness of programs. This assumption is partly responsible for having a high proportion of female farmers untrained on mainstream agricultural techniques under the extension program, it creates distortions between the person contributing to and benefiting from public works under the Food Security Program, and is preventing a higher (female) entrepreneurship in rural areas by limiting the number of loans to one per family under several programs. If Ethiopia is to break the cycle of poverty in rural households, public programs need to be founded under accurate assumptions. A process of serious revision of the design of programs is required that analyzes program effectiveness measured against intra household program impact. Based on the findings, adjustments to program designs should be done, shifting where necessary, the focus of the program to the individual rather than the household.