91835 FINAL REPORT BASIC AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURE DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW (2003–12) Republic of Cameroon May 31, 2014 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ 6 1. INSTITUTIONAL AND STRATEGIC SITUATION .................................................................................... 24 1.1 Strategic Situation: National Economic Policy ................................................................................ 24 1.2 Sectoral Strategic Situation.............................................................................................................. 25 1.3 Institutional Framework .................................................................................................................. 29 2. LEVEL OF AGRICULTURE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE .................................................................................... 33 2.1 Objective of the Analysis ................................................................................................................. 33 2.2. The Level of Agriculture Public Expenditure .................................................................................. 33 3. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN AGRICULTURE: ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL COMPOSITION, REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................................. 55 3.1 Objective of the Analysis ................................................................................................................. 55 3.2 Economic Composition of Expenditure ........................................................................................... 55 3.3 Functional Composition of Expenditure .......................................................................................... 58 3.4. Relationship between Public Investment in Agriculture and Production Growth ....................... 64 3.5 Regional Allocation of Investment Expenditure ............................................................................. 68 3.6 Agricultural Research .................................................................................................................. 72 3.7 Agricultural Extension ...................................................................................................................... 75 3.8 Rural Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 81 4. TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY IN THE PREPARATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING OF AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURE ..................................................................................................................... 86 4.1 Changes in Budget Planning since the Introduction of MTEF and Program-Based Budgets ......... 86 4.3 Management of Resources Allocated to Decentralized Local Authorities..................................... 90 4.3 Measures for Expediting Budget Implementation: Public Procurement Procedures and Budget Control .................................................................................................................................................... 94 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 96 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 102 List of Participants .................................................................................................................................... 104 ANNEX I. BASIC DATA ............................................................................................................................ 109 ANNEX II: Recommendations to Improve the Public Procurement System ............................................. 125 ANNEX III: Comparison between the PNVRA Support Project and the ACEFA Program .......................... 126 ANNEX IV: Veterinary Health Mandate..................................................................................................... 129 Boxes Box 1. List of Public Bodies Active in the Agricultural Sector 34 Box 2. Agriculture Public Expenditure: NEPAD’s COFOG Methodology and the MAFAP (Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies) Methodology 38 Box 3. Agriculture Expenditure on Public and Private Goods 39 Box 4. Agricultural Research. Principal Data 75 Box 6. The Projet d’Appui at PNVRA and ACEFA Program: Two Advisory Support Programs Providing Assistance to Producers since 2008 81 Box 5. Rural Roads (RR). Principal Data 87 Box 7. Program Budgeting (BP). Key Data 92 Box 8. Budget Decentralization: Impact on Budget Implementation, Information Monitoring, and the Quality of Services 94 Box 6. Veterinary Health Mandate (HM). Principal Data 133 Tables Table1: Institutional evolution of the ministerial departments in the rural sector.................................... 29 Table 2. Rural development expenditure in % of the State budget, based on payment order (M CFA F) . 40 Table 3. International comparisons of agriculture public expenditure ...................................................... 41 Table 4. Verification rate, delegated credits, and central services............................................................. 43 Table 5. MINADER PIB, Resources allocated to main sectors, to infrastructure and other actions 2005–12 (millions of CFA F and %)............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 6: Import dependency rate for some food products ........................................................................ 64 Table 7. MINADER and MINEPIA distribution of capital investment allocations from 2006 to 2012 compared with regional shares of rural population, incidence of rural poverty and crop production (in %) .................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Table 8. Budget allocated to agricultural R&D in sub-Saharan Africa ........................................................ 74 Table 9. ACEF program Phase 2 budget (in thousands of CFA F) ................................................................ 76 Table 10. Expenditures made by PNVRA and the ACEFA program (in CFA F)............................................. 78 Table 11. MINTP Budget for construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of rural roads (source MTEF), from 2006 to 2012, in millions of CFA francs .............................................................................................. 85 Table 12. Proposed actions to improve efficiency in public spending in agriculture ................................. 99 Figures Figure 1. Agriculture sector ministries: relative share of the operating and capital budgets (allocation and verification), plus the IRAD budget and subsidies to EPAs, 2003–2012. 15, 41 Figure 2. Rural development sector ministries: relative weight of the capital budget in the total capital budget, 2003–2012 41 Figure 3. Operating budget, three rural sector ministries, plus IRAD budget and other subsidies, as % of total operating budget, based on payment orders, 2003–2012 42 Figure 4. Verification-based total operating and capital expenditure, MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF, 2003–2012 (million CFA F) 42 Figure 5. Agriculture public expenditure as % of agricultural GDP, 2003–2012 44 Figure 6. PIB, commitments: agriculture sector ministries as % of total PIB, 2003–12 47 Figure 7. MINADER, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total and internal resources (million CFA F) 48 Figure 8. MINEPIA, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total and internal resources (million CFA F) 49 Figure 9. MINFOF, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total and internal resources (million CFA F) 50 Figure 10. MINADER, PIB 2003–12, total investment budget implementation rate, internal and external resources, verification-based 51 Figure 11. MINADER, PIB, commitment and verification rates, 2003–12 52 Figure 12. MINEPIA, PIB 2003–12, investment budget implementation rate, internal and external resources, verification-based, 2003–12 53 Figure 13. MINEPIA, PIB, commitment and verification rates, 2003–12 54 Figure 14. MINFOF, PIB 2003–12, commitment and verification rates, total and internal resources 55 Figure 15. Combined donor disbursements for the agriculture sector registered by the CAA, plus EU, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 56 Figure 16. CAA disbursements by field of intervention, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 57 Figure 17. Combined TFP disbursements to NGOs, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 57 Figure 18. Agriculture sector ministries: operating expenditure, based on payment orders, as % of total budget, 2003–12 59 Figure 19. MINADER, MIEPIA, and MINFOF, workforce as % of operating expenditure, 2003–12 59 Figure 20. MINADER: Regional delegations for agriculture and for rural development: agent-producer ratio per region 60 Figure 21. MINADER, project journals: allocations to main crops, in millions of FCFA, 2005–12 62 Figure 22. MINADER and MINEPIA, average allocations per sector, as % of total, 2005–12 63 Figure 23. PIB, 2006-11, allocations per main function 64 Figure 24: PIB, 2006–11, composition of rural development expenditure 65 Figure 25. PIB, 2006–11, allocations per secondary functions 66 Figure 26. Composition of the primary sector as share of GDP, 2009–12 67 Figure 27. Breakdown of investments (allocation-based) for the three agriculture sector ministries, 2009–12, as % 67 Figure 28. Growth rate of primary sector PIB by sub-sector: 2005–08 and 2009–12 average 68 Figure 29. Agricultural production: average growth rate 2005–08 and 2008–11 69 Figure 30.a. Rice production and public investment, 2005–11 70 Figure 30.b. Other grains production and public investment, 2005–11 70 Figure 30.c. Maize production and public investment, 2005–11 70 Figure 30.d. Coffee production and public investment, 2005–11 70 Figure 30.e. Cocoa production and public investment, 2005–11 70 Figure 31. MINADER PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 71 Figure 32. MINEPIA PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 72 Figure 33. MINADER and MINEPIA PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 73 Figure 34. 2000–12 IRAD budget, per source of financing, millions of CFA F 77 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (M CFA F) Millions of CFA Francs ADF African Development Fund AFD French Development Agency AfDB African Development Bank Support Program for the Renovation and Development of Vocational Training in AFOP Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries Support Program for the Improvement of the Performance of Rural Sector AMO Administrations ARMP Public Procurement Regulatory Board BUCREP Central Bureau of the Census and Population Studies C2D Debt Reduction Development Contract CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CAPEF Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, and Forests CDC Cameroon Development Corporation CEMAC Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa CENEEMA National Center for Studies and Experimentation of Agricultural Mechanization CFA F CFA Franc CGE Farm Management Counselor CGO Professional Organizations Management Counselor CGP Producer Group Advisor CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research COFOG Classification of the Functions of Government) COOP/CIG Cooperative Society/Common Initiative Group DESA Department of Agricultural Surveys and Statistics, MINADER DGB General Directorate of the Budget, MINFI DGE General Directorate of the Economy, MINEPAT Department of Rural Engineering and the Improvement of the Living Environment DGRCV in Rural Areas DOPA Department of Agricultural Professional Organizations, MINADER DPIP Department of Public Investment Programming, MINEPAT ECAM Cameroon Household Survey ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States EFA Family-Owned Agro-pastoral Business EPA Economic Partnership Agreement EPA Public Administrative Establishment EPIA Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry ER External Resources EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (ADAM) FAO Agriculture Development Assistance Mapping Tool FESP Forest and Environment Sector Program FL Finance Law FO Farmers’ Organizations GDP Gross Domestic Product GESP Growth and Employment Strategy Paper GICAM Cameroon Employers’ Association GP Producer Groups HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture IMF International Monetary Fund INS National Institute of Statistics IR Internal Resources IRAD Institute of Agricultural Research for Development IRD Institute of Research for Development (Formerly ORSTOM) MDG Millennium Development Goals MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative MIDENO North West Development Authority MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MINATD Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization MINCOMMERCE Ministry of Commerce MINDUH Ministry of Urban Development and Housing MINEPAT Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Regional Development MINEPDED Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development MINEPIA Ministry Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry MINFI Ministry of Finance MINFOF Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife MINMAP Ministry of Public Procurement MINMIDT Ministry of Mines, Industry, and Technological Development MINPMEESA Ministry of Small and Medium Size Enterprises, Social Economy, and Handicrafts MINRESI Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation MINTP Ministry of Public Works MINTRANS Ministry of Transport MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRFE New State Financial Regime OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OPA Agricultural Professional Organization PADMIR Rural Microfinance Development Support Project PAP Priority Action Program PAPDEP Program to Improve the Programming of Public Expenditure PB Program-Budget PDA Public Development Assistance PES Payment for Environmental Services PIB Public Investment Budget PIDMA Agricultural Markets Investment and Development Support Project Cameroon National Platform of Agricultural, Forestry, and Pastoral Professional PLANOPAC Organizations PNDP National Community Driven Development Program PNIA National Agricultural Investment Plan PNVRA National Agricultural Extension and Research Program PPBS Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSAE Agriculture and Livestock Sector Program RF Road Fund SEMRY Society for the Expansion and Modernization of Rice Cultivation in Yagoua SME Small and Medium-Size Enterprises SODECAO Cocoa Development Company SODECOTON Cotton Development Company SOWEDA South West Development Authority STA Specialized Technical Adviser SV Agricultural Extension Sector TFP Development Partner (DP) UNDP United Nations Development Program WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization ZV Agricultural Extension Zone ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. This report summarizes the conclusions of a team of World Bank consultants who visited Cameroon from May 5 to 23, 2013, from July 28 to August 3, 2013, and from February 18 to 22, 2014 to lend support to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA), the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF), and the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED), in the preparation of a Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review. The team consisted of Emilio Sacerdoti and Ayong Engille (economist and agricultural economist, respectively, both consultants), assisted by Jeanne d’Arc Edima (Program Assistant, World Bank office in Yaoundé). 2. The process for this Review was highly participative: a Technical Monitoring Unit (TMU) was set up under the aegis of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and included representatives of MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF, MINEPDED, the Ministry of Finance (MINFI), and the Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Regional Development (MINEPAT). The members of the TMU served as focal points within their own organizations; these focal points, together with colleagues whom they co-opted, contributed greatly to carrying out the Review by helping to gather data. An inaugural workshop was organized in the World Bank conference hall on May 23, 2013 chaired by Ayissi Timothée, Director of the Department of Agricultural Surveys and Statistics of MINADER, with representatives of the World Bank and the government departments involved participating. The consultants briefed them on the methodology used and the expectations of the Review. A second workshop was held on July 31, 2013 with the participation of the representatives of the Technical Unit and the Ministries involved at which the consultants presented the preliminary results. The draft report was submitted to the TMU on February 19, 2014. 3. The consultants wish to express their thanks to the Cameroon authorities, the DPs, and other non-governmental partners for their welcome, their availability, and their unstinting cooperation. They would especially like to thank Ayissi Timothée and Jeanine Atanga Nkodo, Directors of the Department of Agricultural Surveys and Statistics of MINADER, and all the members of the TMU for their consistent support for the Review. 4. The consultants also wish to thank Stephen Mink (Task Team Leader (TTL), Principal Economist, World Bank, Africa Social Protection (AFTSN), Amadou Ncharé (Agricultural Economist, World Bank), and Manievel Seme (Principal Economist for the Agricultural Sector, World Bank) for their support, advice, and comments throughout this long program of work. The consultants are also grateful to Simon Dietrich, the Bank’s consultant, for the analysis of capital budgets, and his indispensable collaboration in data analysis. 5. This Review was conducted under the Strengthening National Comprehensive Agricultural Public Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa Program, funded jointly by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Multi-Donor Trust Fund of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), and was set in motion by the World Bank. SUMMARY (i). The Cameroon government assigns a crucial role to agriculture in stimulating growth, combating poverty, and job creation. This role is articulated in a variety of political and strategic documents, inter alia: the Cameroon Vision 2035 document, the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP) approved in 2009, and the Rural Sector Development Strategy (ISDR) adopted in 2003, revised in 2006, and currently being amended to bring it into line with the GESP. The GESP, in particular, accords pride of place to the rural sector and recognizes its role in driving economic growth, which it is hoped will average 5.5% between 2010 and 2020, and in combating the poverty rate which should fall from 39.9% in 2007 to 28.7% in 2020. In conjunction with this, a National Program for Food Security (NPFS) (2008−2015) was drawn up in 2007 to combat hunger and food insecurity and cut malnourishment by half, especially among the vulnerable households in rural and peri-urban areas, by 2015. The terms of the agricultural development strategy were given a boost by NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP). In July 2003, with a view to assisting the implementation of the GESP through the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA), the government signed the CAADP Compact with its participating partners (the African Union, ECCAS, producers’ organizations, civil society, technical and financial partners, and the business sector). (ii). In implementing the agricultural development strategy, the Ministry of Agriculture requested a review of public expenditure on agriculture as a component of the agriculture sector modeling work being done to create a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. This request was agreed to by the Planning and Coordinating Agency of NEPAD. The Review falls under the Strengthening National Comprehensive Agricultural Public Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa Program, jointly financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Multi-Donor Trust Fund of the CAADP. (iii).The objectives of the Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review in Cameroon are as follows: [a]. Learn from past experience of budget implementation in the agricultural sector, identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and deviations from the stated goals, and recommend remedial measures for existing and future programs, with the intention of improving their impact and making them more efficient and equitable. [b]. Initiate the creation of databases and formulate the required methodology to conduct regular comparable reviews, thereby contributing towards the institutionalization of the process. This database should facilitate the analysis of factors affecting the growth of agriculture on a macroeconomic scale within the framework of a computable general equilibrium model soon to be established. This model will analyze the role of relative prices, public expenditure, and exchange rates on the growth in the sector. [c]. Assist the government in fostering an environment and management skills focused on results with special emphasis on improving planning, implementation, and budget analysis. [d]. Improve awareness of the absorptive capacities of the sector by the government and its Development Partners (DPs) to help decide how to increase the financial resources dedicated to agricultural development. The Nature of Public Expenditure on Agriculture (iv). Public expenditure in the agricultural sector, in terms of the NEPAD directives, is understood to mean: a. the budgeted expenditure actually implemented by the three ministries for rural development, namely the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA), and the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF); b. the expenditure of other ministries providing support services to the agricultural sector including the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED); c. subsidies to public administration bodies operating in the agricultural sector in the broader sense (including animal husbandry, fisheries, and forestry); d. spending on projects possibly not itemized in the national budget. (v). On the other hand, in accordance with NEPAD recommendations (UA/NEPAD 2005), the budgets of public corporations or semi-public commercial organizations were not taken into account; only subsidies that may have been received from the national budget by these bodies were regarded as public expenditure. Similarly, private capital expenditure, including that of the producers themselves, was not included. Expenditure for support of the agriculture sector by NGOs was taken into account where the NGOs received public funding from donors for expenditure of a public nature; also, where an NGO acts as an implementation agency as part of a project budgeted by the State or agreed by the State, the resources it receives have already been included in the budget as external resources. (vi). The terms of reference of the review cover the ten-year period 2003−2012. (vii). The study dealt with capital and current expenditure separately. As far as capital expenditure is concerned, the assignment involved consulting all the MINFOF project journals to exclude from the total all capital expenditure relating to the protection of biodiversity and wildlife not earmarked for improvement of forestry management. Where the projects in question included a component for improvement of forestry production management, they were recorded as falling within the scope of agricultural development. Furthermore, the organization chart and all the project log books of the MINEPDEP were analyzed in the study so as to retain only environmental expenditure related to agriculture. (viii). The data showed that the ratio of public expenditure on agriculture to total budget expenditure in terms of budget allocations, having averaged close to 4% during the 2004−2008 period, rose to 5.8% in 2010 only to fall again in 2011 and 2012 to 5% (Figure 1). Based on commitments, substantial growth over the past few years in the three ministries’ capital budgets and other expenditure for the sector in relation to the total public investment budget (PIB) can be observed; this proportion reached 10% in 2011, versus 4% in 2006. However, the operating expenditure of the three ministries (MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF) and subsidies continue to be a small part of the total budget in terms of allocations (4% of the budget in 2012 including common expenses and the interest component of debt service) and even less so in terms of implementation (2.9% in 2012). This meager proportion of operating expenditure reflects the relatively small share taken by the operating and capital expenditures of the three ministries, plus that of the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) budget, and subsidies to public corporations in the agricultural sphere, of the total budget (in 2012: 5% of the total on an allocation basis, and 3.2% on a verified basis). Figure 1. Agriculture sector ministries: relative share of the operating and capital budgets (allocation and verification), plus the IRAD budget and subsidies to EPAs, 2003–2012. 0.07 Oper and cap budget 0.06 (verification) 3 ministries, plus 0.05 IRAD budget and other subsidies, as % of total budget, 0.04 verification 0.03 Oper and cap budget 0.02 (allocations) 3 ministries plus 0.01 the IRAD budget and other subsidies as % of total budget, 0 allocation 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (ix). As a proportion of the primary sector GDP, the budget of the three ministries, plus the IRAD budget and subsidies to public corporations in the sector, increased significantly in the period 2003−2011, growing from 4.3% to 4.5% of the primary sector GDP on an allocation basis, and from 2.9% to 3.6% on a verified basis. (x). As regards the public capital budget, budget allocations in absolute terms grew very sharply between 2008 and 2012: for MINADER (from 28 to 40 billion CFA francs, or from 2.6% to 3.3% of the GDP), for MINEPIA (from 7.8 to 10.5 billion CFA francs, equivalent to 1% of GDP), and for MINFOF (from 3 to 9 billion CFA francs in 2011 before a decline in 2012). While MINADER benefited from a significant increase in external funding (50%), external funding earmarked for the other two ministries either remained static (MINEPIA) or declined (MINFOF). (xi). To calculate public expenditure in the agriculture sector using NEPAD definitions, the aid by a number of donors to a number of NGOs for public expenditure, but excluding support for the NGOs’ administrative structures, should be included. In the past four years this has ranged between 2.4 and 3.5 billion CFA francs. According to NEPAD principles, expenditure for feeder roads should also not be taken into account. The inclusion of disbursements to NGOs and the exclusion of expenditure on feeder roads only very slightly alters the share of implemented agricultural expenditure in the total state budget (4.6% in 2011 and 4.0% in 2012). (xii). Expenditure implementation rates have risen (commitments in relation to allocations), reflecting efforts to implement allocations promptly in the first months of the year. In 2011, the rate for MINADER PIB reached 98%, and 79% on a verified basis (86% on internal funding). For MINEPIA, these rates continue to remain low especially as regards external funding, although there has been a noticeable improvement over the past few years. (xiii). The impact of the increase in capital expenditure on production in the agricultural sector was relatively limited when calculated using national accounts data: for example, the subsistence agriculture subsector, from 2009−2012, only grew by 4.3%, lower than the figure aƩained in the previous 2005−2008 four-year period. By contrast, good results were achieved in the commercial and export- based agriculture sectors, and in the production of certain crops like rice, potatoes, maize, soya, onions, palm oil, and ground nuts. The primary subsectors that underperformed were livestock production and fisheries. (xiv). Economic Composition of Expenditure. Scheduled operating expenditure for MINADER, MINEPIA, and MINFOF rose insignificantly compared with strong growth in capital expenditure, and its share of total operating and capital expenditure (verification-based) has dropped markedly from 86% to 48% for MINADER, 85% to 60% for MINEPIA, and 90% to 70% for MINFOF. However, it must be recognized that capital projects contain an operating expenditure component, provisionally estimated as 20% of the total, which increases operating expenses as a percentage of the total. (xv). Looking at operating expenses, the share of wages and salaries has grown since 2009 and in the 2010−2012 period was 80% to 90% of the total for MINADER and MINEPIA, although slightly lower for MINFOF. At MINADER, 94% of its workforce is deployed in the regions. The ratio of ministry agents to agricultural workers (number of agents per 1,000 producers) varies from 4 in the Littoral Region to 0.2 in the Far North. However, in the North and the Far North, farmers get support from two other public agencies, SEMRY (Society for the Expansion and Modernization of Rice Cultivation in Yagoua) for rice, and SODECOTON (Cotton Development Company) for cotton. (xvi). Functional Composition of Expenditure. A breakdown of expenditure by activity and by support to various crops was, as a first phase, carried out on the basis of their relationship to capital expenditure using the detailed information obtained from the project logs for MINADER and MINEPIA. The data shows an increase in allocations for all main crops, the total budget allocations for MINADER having grown 50% over this period; the relative share of rice in the total has fallen; the category that covers all other crops combined (palm oil, plantain, potatoes, root vegetables) increased in 2009−2010 in absolute terms reflecting disbursements under various projects. Transversal, regional, and capacity-building projects in the public sector and for administrative bodies took up 50% of the funds allocated. (xvii). At MINEPIA, the sectors which received the highest allocations were, as expected, veterinary services, infrastructure for animal husbandry, fisheries, and administrative management. (xviii). The formula for resource allocation can also be calculated using MINEPAT statistics for 2006−2011. These show the weight given to transversal projects that underpin integrated rural development, food security, extension services, and training and professionalization. Data in project journals and in PIB implementation reports enable a breakdown of allocations, but it would be useful to set up a system for monitoring expenditure per project, per operation (sectors, basic infrastructure, training, extension services, and research), and per region. It would also be useful to have access to more detailed data of functional expenditure for core functions (infrastructure, extension services, and training). (xix). The sharp growth in public capital expenditure in the agriculture sector since 2008 and 2009, both in terms of allocations and commitments, have as yet shown no positive results in terms of value-added growth in the sector for the 2009–2012 period. In fact, growth in the subsistence farming subsector for the period 2009−2012 only amounted to 4.3%, which was a decline by comparison with the previous four-year period 2005−2008. By contrast, good results were achieved in commercial and export agriculture (5.5% average growth). The subsectors which under-performed in the primary sector were animal husbandry and hunting (2.6%), and fisheries (2.2%), lagging behind population growth (3%). The impact of the increase in capital expenditure since 2006 on production needs to be studied. In some key sectors such as rice and cereals, the figures show a correlation between increased public expenditure and increased production. This correlation, however, is less strong for coffee and cocoa, with cocoa production increasing significantly but coffee production declining, despite the considerable resources allocated. (xx). Regional Allocation of Expenditure. MINEPAT data can be used to analyze MINADER and MINEPIA capital expenditure by region in the period 2006–2011. It shows regional distribution varying between 3% (for the East Region) and 19% (for the North-West Region). This analysis reveals a bias in favor of the North-West Region which benefited from a minimum allocation of 19% of the Public Investment Budget, even though its proportion of food production and rural population are respectively 7% and 12%, and the incidence of rural poverty in this region is only 51%, compared with the poorest regions in the country (Far North: 65.9%, North: 63.7%, Adamawa: 53%). The West and South-West Regions also received allocations which exceeded their contributions to food production. By contrast, the two regions which benefited least were the East and South with allocations of respectively 2.6% and 1.3% of the budget, less than their share of the rural population. (xxi). Agricultural Research. Agricultural research, which is generally undertaken by IRAD, has suffered, in recent years, from the inadequate funding allocated to it, and from a lack of human resources after a large number of researchers retired. The completion of certain projects, such the National Agricultural Extension and Research Program (PNVRA) which contributed to its budget and ended in 2007, restricted the available resources. This was partially offset by State subsidies granted to it after 2007, as well as by HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) funding, especially for financing basic seed production. The development of new varieties of cotton, coffee/cocoa, and maize were some of the priority projects for which IRAD enjoys a reputation for excellence regionally. The funds allotted to it in recent years, either expressed as a percentage of GDP or per capita, remain below the level found in most sub-Saharan African countries. (xxii). Agricultural Extension. To carry out its mandate for producer support, the State has set up a mechanism focusing on extension zones at village level, or sectors in the case of a group of villages or a district. The PNVRA extension program covers a total of 2,460 Agricultural Extension Zones (ZV) and 381 Agricultural Extension Sectors (SV). This mechanism suffers from a shortage of personnel: at ZV level 1,739 posts out of a proposed 2,460 are filled, in other words, 70%; and at SV level, 266 posts of 381, also 70%, are filled. Two-thirds and one-third of this workforce, respectively, are seconded from MINADER and MINEPIA. Previously, in the period 1999/2000 to 2004, this system benefited from financial support from Technical and Financial Partners (TFPs). From 2008, the State started implementing another system providing support and advice through the ACEFA program (Program for the Improvement of Competitiveness of Family Agro-Pastoral Farms) relying on C2D financing (Debt Reduction-Development Contracts). The superimposition of these two overlapping systems resulted in duplicating human, logistical, and financial resources. MINADER and MINEPIA must study how to eliminate duplication caused by these two co-existing mechanisms so as to streamline their operations. (xxiii). Feeder Roads. To streamline its operations, the policy adopted by the government from the 1990s is based on: (i) privatization of maintenance operations to be restricted to SMEs (Small and Medium-Size Enterprises) and private road engineering consulting firms; (ii) refocusing MINTP (Ministry of Public Works) onto planning, programming and coordination activities, and on policy evaluation; (iii) tasking MINADER with formulating strategies for opening up production areas; (iv) maintenance operations to be the responsibility of The Road Maintenance Fund. Since 2007, the total annual budget for maintenance, asphalting, and rehabilitating feeder roads has remained between 32 and 35 billion CFA francs. Nevertheless, these expenses are significantly below those in MINTP’s MTEF (Medium Term Expenditure Framework) and by 2012 the gap had widened to 30%. This suggests that the budget allocations are seriously inadequate for needs. The Road Fund pays for routine maintenance and the work is overseen by the MINTP which invites tenders and signs contracts with the successful private bidders. In addition to private companies, MINTP also contracts with public administrative bodies or EPAs (SODECOTON, SODECAO, MIDENO, and the like), and foreign companies for the maintenance of feeder roads in their operating zones. In 2011 and 2012 these contracts covered 8,500 and 10,500 km, respectively, which is only 42.5% to 52.5% of the total estimated 20,000 km of feeder roads. Strengthening the feeder road network requires larger budget allocations, but there is a lack of consensus on how much needs to be spent. (xxiv). Technical Efficiency of the Public Expenditure Preparation, Implementation and Monitoring Process. The new financial regime (Act No. 2007/006 of December 26, 2007) lays the foundations for a results-oriented public administration which replaces the means-based policy formulated by the 1962 Ordinance. The new fiscal system will be implemented gradually, with a five-year transitional phase from 2008 to 2013, the date of the Act’s full implementation. Under the new financial regime, the ministries adopted Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs) as of 2009, and prepared program-based budgets from the 2013 budget year. As regards public procurement procedures, changes have occurred with the establishment in December 2011 of a new Ministry in charge of Government Procurement, and it is still too early to evaluate the impact of this reform. Furthermore, decentralization policies, which came into effect in 2010, gave decentralized local authorities a greater role in the implementation of public capital budget expenditure, but took little account of difficulties in the implementation and monitoring of expenditure. As regards the MTEFs, the present tendency has been to base the MTEFs on projects currently in the pipeline and new projects under preparation, rather than ensuring the implementation of a well-defined strategy. The current constraints in the MTEFs might be eased with the finalization of the PNIA (National Agricultural Investment Plan) currently being prepared as part of the CAADP. The reliability of the MTEF depends on the quality of the analysis, which has to be undertaken annually, of the allocation of budget resources compared to the sector’s performance. The variance between annual implementation of annual expenditure versus initial forecasts, and their impact on the sector’s performance, must be carefully assessed. The quality of this analysis depends on the quality of data and will be affected by weaknesses in the provision of information. (xxv). Program Budgets. Program budgets were individually identified on an experimental basis in the 2012 budget. A document appended to the 2012 budget presents the budget as a program-based budget using a reconciliation table bridging administrative services with programs. In the long term, the objective is to formulate, present, and implement the budget on a program basis. Experience in other countries indicates that the success of a program budget approach greatly depends on clearly defining managerial responsibility for the programs, as well as more-efficient controls in the expenditure chain, which tends to be complex and frequently formal in nature, without ensuring ultimate ministerial accountability. The management and monitoring of program budgets requires a sophisticated IT system, to facilitate coherent data-sorting on budgetary implementation with new classifications of expenses by program, sub-program, actions, and activities. As the new data-processing system, underpinned by donors providing technical support, is not yet in place, program budget monitoring is still weak. (xxvi). The Challenge of Management and Monitoring. With effect from 2009, each October, ministries have to present their budget implementation Performance Reports, which are then used to help prepare the MTEFs and program budgets. In July, before attending budget meetings, ministries consider the performance reports of the previous year and the Mid-Term Evaluation Report which is prepared by the Department of Studies and Planning. The quality of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report remains plagued by inadequacies in data reporting from decentralized services, as discussed in the following section. The existing Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Monitoring System (PPBS) units that have been set up in the various ministries, currently draft their mid-year assessments of progress, setting out their main actions, activities, and results, program-by-program, in matrix format. The assessments currently only cover a fairly limited number of actions and activities, due to the lack of comprehensive data. More-accurate and detailed reporting of results would make these matrices more reliable and informative. (xxvii). Decentralization of Budget Implementation. This was enacted by a series of measures beginning with the promulgation on July 22, 2004 of three statutes: No. 2004/017 providing for decentralization, No. 2004/018 setting out the regulations applicable to municipalities, and No. 2004/019 setting out those applicable to regions. Decentralization came into effect with Act No. 2009/11 of July 10, 2009 on the financing of Decentralized Local Authorities, and the actual transfer of powers and resources took place in 2010. Approximately 15% of the capital budget is now managed in a decentralized way. One weakness in the decentralization process is lack of accurate and timely reporting of data to monitor expenditure. Another weakness is project management, as municipal councils lack the skills and experience to prepare calls for tender, evaluate bids, and monitor the technical and financial aspects of projects. Remedial measures are under way to enhance municipalities’ operational capabilities, particularly through a partnership agreement with the Ministry of Public Works. (xxviii). Measures to Expedite Budget Implementation: Procurement Plans and Budget Regulation. A key factor in expediting budget implementation is speed in preparing spending commitment plans for budgeted expenditure at central level. In recent years, the guidelines for budget implementation set February 15 as the deadline for establishing spending commitment plans for each ministry together with concomitant procurement plans. The procurement plans must be fully reviewed (the responsibility of MINMAP since 2012) within one month, which suggests that the first calls for tenders can be issued in April, commitments made in May-June, and payments disbursed only in August-September. This is completely out of step with the farming calendar. This finding suggests that approval procedures for spending commitments must be speeded up as much as possible, and that calls for tender should be issued as soon as the budget is allocated. (xxix). As for Budget Control, to ensure that cash payouts match cash management expectations, quarterly estimates of commitments are submitted to ministerial heads of department and agencies. In the past, these stage payments could not be rescheduled, which had the effect of reducing the budget implementation rate. Projects with a fixed completion deadline, generally November 30, also contributed further to a spike in budget spending, because disbursement for committed expenses had to be “verified” before year-end without the possibility of carrying them forward. This situation was remedied at the start of the 2013 financial year by the introduction of a system which permitted payment for obligations incurred to be carried forward to the next year, provided that the obligations arose before the end of the fiscal year. The impact of this measure on budgetary implementation has yet to be assessed. (xxx). Conclusions and Recommendations. A matrix of recommendations is presented below: Actions Recommended to Improve the Efficacy of Public Expenditure in Agriculture Authority Actions Responsibility Budget Planning -- Increase the resources allocated to the agriculture sector Prime Minister’s as the 4% share of the State budget seems inadequate in Office, Ministries terms of the Maputo Declaration. -- Strengthen those areas which appear underfunded, such as feeder roads, water management, rural infrastructure, and fisheries. -- Avoid including in budget programs, those actions and Ministries activities for which feasibility studies have not yet been finalized. -- Project selection to be made on the basis of economic impact analyses. DRFP and -- Ensure that operating expenditure is adequate to Technical maintain capital asses and provide essential services. Directorates responsible for Project Monitoring and Evaluation -- Establish a mechanism for budgeting operating DRPF and expenditure to maintain capital assets. Technical Directorates responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects Budget -- Speed up the procedures for issuing public contracts MINMAP, Implementation once the Finance Law is passed. MINEPAT, MINFI, and Procurement -- Submit commitment and procurement plans at the same MINADER, time as project budgets, and make tender documents MINEPIA, available before the start of the budget year so that calls MINFOF, for tenders can be issued in January. MINEPDED -- Reduce procedural delays. -- Speed up the preparation of tender documentation, and reduce the cost of purchasing them. -- Speed up contract signature procedures. MINFI, MINMAP and line ministries -- Review budget controls so as to boost budget MINFI implementation rates; evaluate the operational impact of recent measures that allow payouts to be carried forward to the next financial year. -- The Ministry of Finance must ensure consistency in the implementation of public expenditure. Decentralization Adopt a number of measures to improve and speed up MINATD, budget implementation through delegated credits: National -- Strengthen operational structures at local and regional Decentralization authority level (CTD). Council (PM), -- Strengthen the capacity of local entrepreneurs involved MINMAP, MINFI, in construction of rural infrastructure. and ministerial -- Speed up payments to companies that meet departments specifications. concerned -- Speed up procurement procedures at municipal level, and reduce delays at MINMAP level when it is involved. -- Finalize the partnership agreement being drawn up between MINTP and municipalities to allow MINTP regional structures to help with project management at municipal level. Monitoring and -- Improve information feedback on actual expenditure by MINEPAT, Evaluation the decentralized services and the CTDs. decentralized department s of -- Ensure the introduction of an effective IT system for ministries monitoring program budgets. concerned, CTD, financial -- Strengthen PPBS units with adequate IT capability to oversight of allow them to produce Administrative Performance MINFI Projects (PPA) and high quality mid- and end-of-year performance reports. -- Produce impact studies for major projects. -- Strengthen semi-annual assessments of ministries’ roadmaps, to cover more actions and activities. Strategic -- Increase spending on R&D; strengthen IRAD’s budget. MINFI, MINEPAT, Guidelines MINRESI, MINADER -- Update the strategy for feeder roads, to include the need MINEPAT, to establish access to remote rural production areas. MINEPIA -- Increase funding for feeder roads. MINTP -- Study how to eliminate duplications between the two MINADER, existing agricultural extension support functions. MINEPIA Encourage resource pooling and ensuring their sustainability. -- Enhance infrastructure services and offer assistance in MINEPIA animal husbandry. INTRODUCTION 1. The agricultural sector plays an essential role in Cameroon’s economy and needs to extend its contribution to growth and combating poverty. It currently accounts for 21.7% of GDP and involves 60% of the active population. It plays a determining role in the war on poverty and food insecurity, thanks to the self-provisioning of 2,000,000 agricultural households in the country, and in the supply of food products to neighborhood and urban markets. It is estimated that some 80% of the food requirements of the country’s population is satisfied by domestic production. 2. According to national accounts data, value-added growth in the primary sector averaged about 4% between 2003–2012, and exceeded GDP growth (averaging 3.3%), but was relatively high only in 2007 (5.9%) and 2008 (5.2%) and was not able to stay continuously high despite increased public investment in the sector, as is shown below. The government aims to boost the annual growth in economic activity from 2.9% for the 2006–2010 period to an annual average of around 5.5% for the 2010–2020 period, and ultimately to double-digits. The authorities hope to achieve this by strengthening the rural sector to achieve primary sector growth of over 5%, in light of its potential benefits. 3. The Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review proposes to throw light on progress made in public spending on agriculture over the course of the last ten years, to evaluate the merits of public involvement and the most recent reforms (particularly decentralization procedures), and also to identify weaknesses as well as measures that could be undertaken to strengthen the effectiveness of this spending. It can thereby contribute to the formulation of policies and interventions in the agricultural sector, and to the implementation of the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP), being formulated as part of the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA). 4. Government’s efforts in the agricultural sector are in line with the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP) adopted by African Heads of State and Government at the Maputo (Mozambique) summit held in 2003. This program is an initiative of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) which is an African Union program. Through this initiative, member States have committed themselves to reaching a minimum threshold of 10% of the national budget allocation for agricultural development, with the goal of achieving an agricultural growth rate of at least 6% per annum. 5. The Regional Economic Communities, including the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), have been tasked by the African Union to assist and coordinate the implementation of the CAADP both at regional level and in member States. In 2011 Cameroon started the process by forming a team dedicated to CAADP implementation. 6. As part of the relaunch of its agricultural development strategy, the Minister of Agriculture expressed the desire that a review of public expenditure in agriculture be undertaken so that past experience in the use of public resources would inform an improvement in performance quality in the medium term. This request was approved by the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency. This review was undertaken by the Strengthening National Comprehensive Agricultural Public Expenditure in Sub-Saharan Africa Program, jointly financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the CAADP Multi-Donor Trust Fund. This program, set in motion by the World Bank, aims to improve the impact of public resources available to sub-Saharan African States in promoting agricultural development and combating rural poverty, a scourge in most of these countries. 7. In July 2013, to support the implementation of the GESP through the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA), the government signed the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Plan (CAADP) with the various stakeholders (the African Union, the ECCAS, producer organizations, civil society, technical and financial partners and the business sector). 8. The objectives of the Basic Agricultural Public Expenditure Diagnostic Review in Cameroon are as follows: (i) Learn from past experience of budget execution in the agricultural sector, identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and deviations from stated goals, and recommend remedial measures for existing and future programs, with the intention of improving their impact and making them more efficient and equitable. (ii) Initiate the creation of databases and formulate the required methodology to conduct regular comparable reviews, thereby contributing towards the institutionalization of the process. This database must facilitate the analysis of factors affecting growth in agriculture on a macroeconomic scale within the framework of a computable general equilibrium model (CGE) soon to be established. This model will provide an analysis of the role played by relative prices, public spending, and exchange rates on growth in the sector. (iii) Assist the government in fostering an environment and the management skills focused on results with particular emphasis on improving planning, implementation, and budget analysis. (iv) Improve awareness of the absorptive capacities of the sector by the government and its Technical and Financial Partners (DPs) to help decide how to increase the financial resources dedicated to agricultural development. 9. The report is divided into five chapters: i. The first chapter sets out the strategic and institutional context; ii. The second chapter examines the level of public spending in agriculture in Cameroon; iii. The third chapter analyzes the economic and functional composition of public spending on agriculture (allocative efficiency); iv. The fourth chapter examines the technical efficiency, preparation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes for agriculture budgets; v. The fifth chapter contains conclusions and recommendations. 10. The present study will examine spending on agriculture as defined by the NEPAD directives: i. The anticipated revenues and expenses of the three ministries responsible for rural development, namely the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA), and Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF). ii. Expenditure by other ministries whose activities support the agricultural sector, namely the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED); iii. Subsidies to public administrative bodies that operate in the agricultural sector in the wider sense (including animal husbandry, fisheries and forestry); iv. Expenditure that may be incurred as part of projects not itemized in the budget. 11. Furthermore, in complying with the recommendations of NEPAD (AU/NEPAD 2005), the budgets of public bodies or those which are public-private joint ventures, have not been taken into account; only those subsidies which may possibly be made to these organizations from the State budget have been deemed public expenditure. By the same token, private investments, such as those by the producers themselves, have not been considered. Expenditure to support agricultural development made by NGOs have been taken into account where NGOs receive public funding from donors for expenses of a public nature; or in circumstances where NGOs act as implementation agents within a project budgeted for by the State, or in terms of a contract with the State, where the funding which they receive already forms part of the budget. 12. The terms of reference of the review cover the ten-year period 2003–2012. 1. INSTITUTIONAL AND STRATEGIC SITUATION 1.1 Strategic Situation: National Economic Policy 13. The history of Cameroon has been marked by four major phases of national policy: i. The planning period. From its independence to 1991, Cameroon’s development policy was guided by five-year plans that were characterized by extensive State intervention in the economy through State-owned enterprises. ii. The structural adjustment period. In the 1990s, Cameroon launched an economic reform process with the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), which was supported by the international financial community and most notably established the State’s withdrawal from the producing sectors of the economy. The country underwent four structural adjustment programs between 1988 and 2000, two of which predated the devaluation of January, 1994. The programs aimed to restore the State’s broad financial equilibrium by rebuilding fiscal savings and production and restoring foreign trade balances. After several inconclusive attempts, Cameroon succeeded in satisfactorily implementing, from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2000, an economic and fiscal program backed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility. The conclusion and smooth implementation of this agreement gradually restored Cameroon’s credibility within the international financial community and allowed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) decision point to be reached. Thanks to these programs and, in particular, the resulting structural reforms set in motion, Cameroon’s economy returned to stable growth of 4.7% per year from 1997 to 2001, with an inflation rate of around 3%. iii. The post-2000 period was marked by the development of poverty reduction and economic growth strategies that laid the foundation for additional economic and financial programs. IMF support was provided through a Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) agreement. Within the framework of the PRGF-supported program, economic policy took on a new direction, notably with the drafting in 2003 of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The PRSP recognized that the improvement in macroeconomic performance had not led to a corresponding improvement in household living conditions, despite the fact that economic growth had generated a solid increase in per capita income (around 2% per year from 1996 to 2001), and a significant 13-point decline in the poverty rate, according to the comparative results of the ECAM-I and II surveys. The PRSP pursued seven strategic pillars: (i) promoting a stable macroeconomic environment; (ii) strengthening growth through economic diversification; (iii) empowering the private sector as the main engine of growth and a partner in the delivery of social services; (iv) developing basic infrastructure, natural resources, and environmental protection; (v) accelerating regional integration within the CEMAC framework; (vi) strengthening human resources, bolstering the social sector, and improving the insertion of disadvantaged groups within the economy; (vii) improving the institutional framework, administration, and governance. After having successfully implemented a PRGF-supported program that had experienced some early setbacks, Cameroon reached the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) completion point in 2006. iv. The period of economic recovery that preceded the economic emergence of 2006. Reaching the completion point allowed the country to transition to medium- and long-term planning with a view to fighting poverty effectively and stimulating the economic recovery. It was in this context that “Vision 2035,” which plans to make Cameroon an emerging and democratic country united in its diversity by 2035, was adopted in 2009. The Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP), also adopted in 2009, establishes the reference framework for government action over the period 2010–2020. The GESP objectives are the following: (i) increase the average annual growth rate to 5.5% over the period 2010–2020; (ii) reduce the underemployment rate from 75.8% to less than 50% by 2020; (iii) reduce the income poverty rate from 39.9% in 2007 to 28.7% by 2020; (iv) achieve all millennium development goals (MDGs) by 2020. This document places strong emphasis on the rural sector and recognizes its role as an engine for growth. It stipulates that the first priority is the need to successfully transition the sector towards rural semi-intensive and industrial production, which will help: (i) ensure security and self-sufficiency of domestic consumption, (ii) supply the processing industry and create an internal market and consumption for production sectors, and lastly, (iii) increase exports and thus improve the trade balance. It provides for the modernization of the rural sector production system, carried out through four important structuring programs: (i) developing food, animal, fish and forest production, (ii) improving living standards, (iii) sustaining management of natural resources and (iv) improving the institutional framework. 1.2 Sectoral Strategic Situation 14. Cameroon’s rural sector development policies evolved many times over the years in response to economic conditions. They transitioned from the five-year plans of the ’70s– ’90s, to the new agricultural policy of the 1990s. The agricultural policy, as defined in the five-year economic and social development plans, was based on three main strategies: - Maintaining and strengthening food self-sufficiency; - Developing export crops; - Improving living standards and conditions in rural areas. 15. The New Agricultural Policy (1990–1998) focused on consolidating achievements in both self-sufficiency and export income and the significant improvement of performance in the sector. It was implemented in a particular context: the government adopted an agricultural sector adjustment plan in 1990, through which it endeavored to create a strategic framework favorable to private initiatives. Deregulation and privatization measures aimed at reducing waste and finding more effective forms of governance were thus provided for. The NAP was assigned five objectives: (i) modernize the production system; (ii) ensure food security; (iii) boost and diversify exports; (iv) develop agrifood processing; and (v) balance production chains. Some of the NAP’s achievements included: (i) the successful restructuration of some state- owned enterprises, (ii) the adoption of new laws governing the co-op sector; (iii) the promotion of agricultural interprofessional organizations; (iv) the liberalization of the marketing of agricultural products; (v) the development of microfinance systems, (vi) the implementation of a new agricultural extension strategy; (vii) the liberalization of the agricultural inputs trade; (viii) various projects to strengthen farmers’ organizations and improve food security. As part of the implementation of the liberalization process, the State also did away with administered regulation, leaving agricultural producers little prepared for new relations requiring them to negotiate and develop contractual arrangements with service providers that were generally more experienced. However, none of the five sectoral objectives were met. The NAP was reviewed and reworked in 1999. It served as a foundation for the development of an integrated rural development strategy in 2001. 16. In 2003, Cameroon drafted a Rural Sector Development Strategy Document (DSDSR), which established the framework for all of the sector’s development action plans. This document was revised in 2006. Its action focuses on four pillars of intervention: (i) modernizing the production system, (ii) improving the institutional framework, (iii) creating an incentivizing environment and, (iv) sustainable management of natural resources. The new 2020 Rural Sector Development Strategy Document (DSDSR), which consolidates subsector strategies in line with the GESP, is currently being drafted under the leadership of the Ministry of Planning and Regional Development (MINEPAT), which is responsible for the consistency of the country’s sector development strategies. In the meantime, each subsector has developed its own strategy in line with the GESP. 17. For the agriculture and rural development subsector, the strategy aims to strengthen Cameroon’s role as a sub-regional agricultural power, with a rural sector that acts as an engine for the national economy, ensuring food security for the population while promoting environment-friendly and sustainable development. In response to the main challenges, the vision is based on four programs, the objective of which is to: (i) improve industry production and competitiveness; (ii) modernize rural and agricultural production infrastructures; (iii) sustainably manage natural resources; and (iv) improve the institutional framework and build the capacities of all State and private stakeholders. It must be noted that agricultural policy decisions, which were once very centralized, are now made in consultation with various stakeholders: ministries in charge of the Economy, Planning and Regional Development; Finance, Agriculture, and Rural Development; Livestock, Fishing, and Animal Husbandry; Trade; and Research, as well as decentralized regional and local authorities, producers’ organizations, NGOs and development partners. 18. For the livestock, fishing and animal husbandry subsector, the strategy aims to increase pastoral and fishery production to satisfy not only the nutritional needs of the population and the agro-industry’s needs for raw materials, but also to produce surplus for export. This objective will be pursued through four operational programs: (i) developing animal production and industries, (ii) developing fishery production, (iii) improving the health of livestock and zoonosis control, and (iv) establishing a support program to improve the subsectoral institutional framework. 19. In parallel with the implementation of projects and programs, efforts have been made, as of 2009, to improve the subsector’s planning framework by: (i) implementing a program to improve the statistical information system for livestock, fishing and animal husbandry, (ii) developing a master plan for livestock sector development, (iii) initiating a process to draft a Code Pastoral, and (iv) drafting an aquaculture development plan. 20. The subsector also received help from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); their 2006 veterinary service evaluation revealed that the organization of Cameroon’s veterinary services did not comply with OIE standards. A gap analysis conducted in early 2011, when compared to the GESP, helped pinpoint the priorities to target in a five-year strategic plan to progressively eliminate the gap. 21. Since 2008, the C2D (Debt Relief and Development Contract) initiatives, implemented as part of cancelling the country’s external debt to France, has allowed for the formulation of actions to develop animal and fishery production; the World Bank has also resumed its support of Cameroon’s rural sector. The government has taken measures to improve the institutional framework of both subsectors—agriculture and livestock/fishing,—through three programs financed by the Debt Relief and Development Contract with France as part of the debt cancellation. They are: (i) the Support Program for the Improvement of Rural Sector Administrations (AMO) joint project (MINEPIA/MINADER) whose goal is to strengthen statistical analysis capacities and institutional organization; (ii) the Support Project for the Renovation and Development of Vocational Training in Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries (AFOP); and finally, (iii) the Program for the Improvement of the Competitiveness of Family Farms (ACEFA). 22. For the forestry and wildlife subsector, the aim is to make Cameroon an ecologically viable country, whose forests and wildlife sustainably contribute to economic, social and cultural development. The strategy aims to improve biodiversity management with a view to contributing to economic growth and job creation in a context of sustainable development. This strategy is built on three pillars: (i) the development and sustainable management of forests; (ii) the conservation and sustainable management of wildlife resources; and (iii) the development of forest resources. They are subdivided into four programs: (i) the program for the development and renewal of forest resources, (ii) the program for the conservation and development of wildlife and protected areas, (iii) the program for the development of timber and non-timber forest resources, and (iv) the support program for the management, institutional management and governance of the subsector. The Forest and Environment Sector Program (FESP), which has been in operation since 2003 and open to funding from all donors, as well as contributions from the private sector and civil and non-governmental organizations, aims to help implement Cameroon’s forestry and wildlife resource sustainable management policy in an environment-friendly manner. The FESP has become the framework for all forest conservation, management, and sustainable exploitation activities. The FESP Phase 1 (2009–2012) covered all of Cameroon. Its scope of intervention included the forest sector and the environment. Its objective is to implement a coherent framework for all interventions aiming to fulfill the objectives of the country’s forestry, wildlife and “green” environment policy and to strengthen the institutional framework in order to implement the sustainable management of forest and wildlife resources policy on an ecological, economic and social level. 23. In parallel, a National Food Security Program (PNSA) (2008–2015) was developed in 2007. Its overall objective is to fight hunger and food insecurity in order to reduce by half the number of people suffering from malnutrition, particularly in vulnerable households in rural and peri-urban areas, by 2015. The strategic aims are similar to those of the 2006 DSDSR: (i) Increase crop, pastoral and fishery production by introducing improved and adapted varieties (breeds) and input supply. (ii) Secure production through water management, soil fertility management, environmental protection, and natural resource conservation. (iii) Improve producers’ income, especially women’s and young peoples’. (iv) Improve village cereal storage systems, particularly in risk areas. (v) Improve the marketing and processing of crop, animal and fishery production. (vi) Take steps to improve the population’s nutritional health. (vii) Set up and strengthen the food-crisis monitoring, alert, and rapid reaction system in risk areas. (viii) Strengthen producers’ capacities and their support structures. 24. Furthermore, to tackle the food crisis that led to riots in February 2008, the government drafted an Emergency Plan based on a substantial and sustained increase in national production, mainly by reinstating the implementation of special agricultural programs, primarily for plantain, rice, roots and tubers. 25. To support the implementation of the GESP through the National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNIA), the government recently signed, in July 2013, the CAADP Pact (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program) with the various stakeholders involved (the African Union, the ECCAS, producers’ organizations, civil organizations, development partners, and the business sector). The CAADP aims to provide a common framework of principles and objectives with a view to: (i) stimulating and supporting political and technical dialogue on setting investment priorities for the agriculture sector, (ii) strengthening organizational development and the capacities of national stakeholders, (iii) encouraging the involvement of the private sector, producers’ organizations, and civil organizations and developing entrepreneurship; (iv) harmonizing the efforts of the government and its development partners. The PNIA document will be available in mid- 2014. It will provide the agricultural sector with a unique policy framework and thus improve the choice of projects to be included in this strategy. The priorities of the future PNIA, which will cover the period 2014–20, will involve the following four policy areas: (i) the development of production industries and the improvement of food security and nutrition, (ii) the modernization of production infrastructures in rural areas and the improvement of access to funding, (iii) the sustainable management of natural resources, and (iv) the improvement of the institutional framework and the strengthening of consultation and management capacities in the rural sector. 1.3 Institutional Framework 26. On an organizational level, the rural sector covers the activities of four key ministries: the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA), the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) and the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED). The institutional evolution of these ministerial departments is shown in Table 1. The Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) became the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in 2005; the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife was once the Ministry of Forestry, which, in 1992, became the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry (MINEF), which was then split into two separate ministries in December 2004: the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and the Ministry of the Environment and Nature Protection (MINEP). The latter became the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) in December 2011. 27. Each of these four key ministries of the rural sector is composed of central directorates, affiliated structures and bodies (missions or companies), ten regional delegations, 58 departmental delegations, district delegations (with the exception of MINEPDED), and various agricultural, forestry and hunting stations and animal research centers. Table1: Institutional evolution of the ministerial departments in the rural sector Period Name Agriculture 1970s to 2005 Ministry of Agriculture 2005 to today Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Livestock 1970s to today Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry Forestry 1981 to November 1992 Ministry of Forestry November 1992 to Ministry of the Environment and Forestry (MINEF) December 2004 December 2004 to today Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) Environment November 1992 to Ministry of the Environment and Forestry (MINEF) December 2004 December 2004 to Ministry of the Environment and Nature Protection (MINEP) December 2011 Since December 2011 Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) Sources: MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF, updated by the authors. 28. In addition to these four key ministries for rural development, other ministerial departments are involved in the sector for such activities as agricultural research (Ministry of Scientific and Technical Research until 2011 and now the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation – MINRESI), rural roads (since 2004, the Ministry of Public Works – MINTP), funding (Ministry of Finance – MINFI), economic affairs, planning, and regional development (Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Regional Development – MINEPAT), decentralization (Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization – MINATD), trade (Ministry of Trade – MINCOMMERCE), the transportation of inputs, rural productions and stakeholders (Ministry of Transport – MINTRANS), property (Ministry of State Property and Land Tenure – MINDCAF), social economy (Ministry of Small and Medium Size Enterprises, Social Economy, and Handicrafts – MINPMEESA), product transformation (Ministry of Mines, Industry, and Technological Development – MINMIDT). 29. These ministries supervise national and regional public bodies that participate in the development of the agricultural sector, as well as commercial organizations such as the Cotton Development Company (SODECOTON) and the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC). A list of these bodies is shown in Box 1 below. Box 1. List of Public Bodies Active in the Agricultural Sector • MINADER: o Cocoa Development Company (SODECAO) o Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC) o Cotton Development Company (SODECOTON) o Society for the Expansion and Modernization of Rice Cultivation in Yagoua (SEMRY) o South West Development Authority (SOWEDA) o North West Development Authority (MIDENO) o Upper Nun Valley Development Authority (UNDVA) o National Center for Studies and Experimentation of Agricultural Mechanization (CENEEMA) o Agricultural Processing Aviation Unit (UNDVA) o National Laboratory for the Diagnostic Analysis of Products and Inputs (LNAD) o Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, and Forests (CAPEF) • MINEPIA: o Animal Production Development and Exploitation Company (SODEPA) o Mission for the Development of Small-scale and Maritime Fishing in Cameroon (MIDEPECAM) o Special Mission for Tsetse Fly Eradication (MSEG) o National Veterinary Laboratory (LANAVET) o Laboratoire d’analyse des denrées alimentaires (food analysis laboratory) o Livestock (Wakwa, Louguere, Kounden) and fishing stations (32 fishing stations and fish breeding centers) o National centers for zootechnical and veterinary training (Maroua, Foumban and Jakiri) o Livestock and Fisheries Development Funds (CDEN, CDENO, CDPM) o Institut des arts et métiers nautiques et de la pêche (Institute for the Nautical Arts and Crafts and Fishing) • MINFOF: o National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR) o Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Forêts (ENEF, National Waters and Forestry School) o Ecole de Faune (Wildlife School) • MINEPDED: o National Climate Change Observatory (ONACC) 30. With decentralization, pursuant to Decrees 2010/0242/PM and 2010/0244/PM of February 26, 2010, some powers relating to the promotion of agricultural production and rural development activities and the promotion of pastoral and fishing production activities were transferred to municipalities, effective the 2010 budget year. Furthermore, municipalities are already actively involved in forest and wildlife management. They manage the share of financial resources generated by municipal taxes on forestry concessions (20%) and supervise the management of the share belonging to neighboring communities (10%).1 Municipal councils also manage communal forests transferred by the State and are also involved in supervising the management of community forests and community-managed declared hunting areas. 32. As one of the non-governmental stakeholders in rural development, the private sector has increased its involvement considerably. There are also numerous producers’ organizations, some of which are organized into economic interest networks (GIC), unions, federations, cooperatives and inter-professional organizations. The producers’ organizations are the Confédération Nationale des producteurs de Coton du Cameroun (CNPCC, National Cameroon Confederation of Cotton Producers), to which SODECOTON is gradually transferring its producer organization management functions, notably the input credits, the Union des coopératives de café-cacao de l’Ouest (UCCAO, Coffee-Cocoa Western Cooperatives Union), the North West Cooperative Association (NWCA), and the South West Farmers’ Cooperative Association (SOWEFCO). The main inter-professional organizations are: the Groupement de la Filière Bois du Cameroun (GFBC, Cameroon Timber Industry Group), the Conseil Interprofessionnel du Cacao et du Café (CICC, Cocoa and Coffee Inter- professional Council), the Réseau des Opérateurs des Filières Horticoles du Cameroun (RHORTICAM, Cameroon Network of Horticulture Industry Operators), and the Poultry Producers’ Association (IPAVIC). Two organizations represent and defend the interests of producers: the Cameroon National Platform of Agricultural, Forestry, and Pastoral Professional Organizations (PLANOPAC) and the Concertation Nationale des Organisations des Producteurs du Cameroun (CNOPCAM, Cameroon National Council of Producers’ Organizations). 33. A significant number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and associations are playing an increasingly important role in rural affairs. Lastly, the Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, and Forests (CAPEF), after a period of dormancy, is in full renewal after the revitalization of its governing bodies and new strategic directions. It is designed to provide rural entrepreneurs with a form of representation, a means of expression and an instrument for participation, the loss of which has long been a factor in their isolation and marginalization. A formalized structure for rural development cooperation between the government and DPs has not yet been established. However, the TFPs have two forums for dialogue: the Groupe Agriculture Elevage (Agriculture Livestock Group) and the Groupe Forêt et Environnement (Forest and Environment Group). 1 To date, 33 agreements have been signed between the MINFOF and municipal councils. 2. LEVEL OF AGRICULTURE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE 2.1 Objective of the Analysis 34. The objective of the analysis in this section is to use implemented expenditure to measure the relative share of agriculture expenditure, as defined by NEPAD, in the total State budget, and to examine changes in the implementation rate of the State’s provisional budget, which is a key indicator of its ability to achieve the budget objectives. It is important to note that, in parallel with the NEPAD initiative, which defines agriculture expenditure using the United Nations Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), the FAO launched the Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies (MAFAP) initiative, which encourages countries to carry out a detailed analysis of the composition of public expenditure and set up an annual database to show a detailed breakdown that separates payments to producers and operators from general sector-support payments . The MAFAP classification is more detailed than that recommended by NEPAD and also includes expenditure that NEPAD does not take into account (see Box 2 for a comparison of these two classifications). 2.2. The Level of Agriculture Public Expenditure 35. For an analysis based on NEPAD guidelines, agriculture public expenditure is defined as the following items: (i) Expenditure in the State budget to support rural development (agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forestry, and the environment) under the authority of the ministries administering these sectors, namely: the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA), and the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF), as well as other ministries; this expenditure can be from internal resources or external resources. Subsidies to public administrative entities that are paid out of the common budget must be included. Operating expenditure is monitored by the Ministry of Finance while the MINEPAT monitors capital expenditure. Note that expenditure on conservation activities (national parks, forest protection) is not included when calculating forestry expenditure. Expenditure for non- agricultural water management and environmental management not directly related to agricultural activities is not included either. (ii) Rural development expenditure under agreements with donors but not included in the State budget. In Cameroon, MINEPAT classifies the data of all DPs that finance public investment projects inside the country as capital expenditure from external resources. Thus, in principle, using MINEPAT statistics ensures that all donor disbursement is included. Donor disbursements to non-governmental and producers’ organizations acting as implementing agencies, meaning that they are not listed in the State budget but make expenditure of a public nature, are also added to this figure. In contrast, according to NEPAD guidelines, which are based on the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), feeder road expenditure must not be included in the calculation of agricultural development expenditure; instead, it is shown on a separate line as this is useful for the overall analysis. 36. The analysis separately considered capital expenditure and operating expenditure. For capital expenditure, the mission consulted all the MINFOF project journals to exclude from total expenditure all biodiversity and wildlife protection expenditure that did not involve the improvement of timber management. Projects that included expenditure relating to the improvement of forest production management were regarded as agricultural development expenditure. Furthermore, the mission analyzed the MINEPDED organization chart and project journals in order to retain only environmental expenditure related to agriculture. A list of excluded MINFOF and retained MINEPDED projects is provided in Schedule I. The following was added to this expenditure: (i) budget expenditure implemented by IRAD that was not provided from the MINADER budget; (ii) subsidies to Public Administrative Establishments operating in the agricultural sector and paid out of the common budget, including the Seed Fund and the Special Fund for Forestry Development; (iii) expenditure from the Ministry of Scientific Research, the Ministry of Trade, and the Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Rural Development that was presented as being relevant to the primary sector in the MINEPAT public investment budget implementation reports. It should be noted that this analysis does not make a distinction between public and private goods in public expenditure, a distinction that is relevant in countries where private goods expenditure (notably subsidies for inputs) is high (Box 3). Box 2. Agriculture public expenditure: NEPAD’s COFOG methodology and the MAFAP (Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies) methodology As part of its Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), NEPAD requires countries to identify government expenditure, as defined by the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) adopted by the United Nations. The agricultural sector covers crop and animal production, forestry and hunting (including non-timber production), and fishery production. However, the NEPAD guidelines exclude expenditure on feeder roads and for purely environmental protection. Furthermore, the FAO launched an initiative to encourage African countries to maintain a database on the level, and detailed breakdown, of agriculture public expenditure using MAFAP methodology, which covers the same productive sectors (agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forestry) as the COFOG methodology bit supplements it in two ways. First, the MAFAP analysis broadens the definition of expenditure to include expenditure on education and health in rural areas, water, electricity and rural roads, which are not included in the COFOG definition of expenditure. These categories are considered to be indirect agricultural support, which is added to direct support. Second, as regards direct agricultural support, the MAFAP analysis requires countries to present an expenditure breakdown that makes a distinction between (i) payments to producers and other agents, such as consumers and processors, for input and equipment subsidies and income support; (ii) expenditure to support the sector, broken down by expenditure for infrastructures, research, training, storage, marketing, and technical assistance. The MAFAP analysis thus requires a more detailed breakdown of expenditure and demands a finer classification than a COFOG- based analysis does. Box 3. Agriculture Expenditure on Public and Private Goods Public goods are goods that produce externalities and that an individual can consume without depriving others of its use, such as research and training, the creation and transfer of technology, soil conservation, sanitation, rural roads, animal and plant health, and the operating budgets of public services. Such expenditure respects the two principles of public goods: it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. In contrast, a private good is a specific product which an individual, by consuming it, deprives others from doing so; private goods include inputs, personal equipment, and direct grants or credits granted to specific individuals. Empirical research on Latin America shows that there is a strong correlation between allocations of agriculture public spending on public or private goods and agricultural growth. For example, a study of several Latin American countries shows that at a constant volume of expenditure, a ten percentage point reduction in subsidy spending increases per capita agricultural income by 2.3 percentage points (Lopez and Galimato 2007). Investing public resources in private goods can facilitate producers’ use of seed, fertilizer, and crop protection products and increase short-term production. However, the prolonged expansion of expenditure on private goods to the detriment of public goods restricts rural development because it reduces services that can only be provided by the State. In the case of Cameroon, expenditure on input subsidies is relatively modest, constitutes part of the expenditure of various regional and industry support projects, and is not easily identified. Consequently, excessive expenditure on private goods is not an issue, but the lessons learned from countries where such spending is high may prove to be a useful guide for the future. 37. According to this data, the budget allocation-based ratio of agriculture public expenditure to total budget expenditure, after hovering around 4% on average during the period 2004–08, increased to 5.8% in 2010 before declining to 5.0% in 2011 and 2012 (Figure 1). Verification-based agriculture public expenditure represented 3.2% of total budget expenditure in 2012. For capital expenditure, the share of the three ministries in the total public investment budget (PIB) has grown considerably over the past several years, reaching 10% in 2011, compared to 4% in 2006 (Figure 2). In contrast, the operating expenditure of the three ministries (MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF), and subsidies, continue to account for a small part of the total budget: 4% in 2012, based on budget allocations, and even less based on payment orders (3.2% in 2012, Figure 3). The total expenditure of these three ministries is provided in Figure 4. Lastly, the very modest agricultural capital expenditure by the ministries of planning, trade, and research, which reached roughly 1 billion CFA francs in 2008, must be added. 38. To measure agriculture public expenditure according to the NEPAD definition, the donor aid provided to several NGOs for public expenditure must be added to the budget data. These amounts averaged 2.8 billion CFA francs between 2007 and 2012, peaking at 3.9 billion CFA francs in 2009. These amounts are provided in Table 2; this data comes from the FAO/ADAM (Agriculture Development Assistance Mapping Tool) database. Furthermore, according to NEPAD guidelines, feeder road expenditure must not be considered; it is thus subtracted in Table 2. Taking technical and financial partners’ (TFP) disbursements to NGOs into account and excluding feeder road expenditure only makes a very slight change in the budget implementation-based ratio of implemented agriculture expenditure to the State budget, resulting in a ratio of 4.6% in 2011 and 4.0% in 2012. A detailed list of TFP disbursements to NGOs is provided in Schedule 1, Table L and Figure 17; the biggest donors according to the FAO/ADAM database, are Spain, Germany, Belgium, the European Union, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, and Luxembourg. Figure 1. Agriculture sector ministries: relative share of the operating and capital budgets (allocation and verification), plus the IRAD budget and subsidies to EPAs, 2003–2012. 1 0.9 Oper and cap budget 0.8 (verification) 3 ministries, plus 0.7 IRAD budget and other 0.6 subsidies, as % of total budget, 0.5 verification 0.4 Oper and cap budget 0.3 (allocations) 3 ministries plus 0.2 the IRAD budget and other subsidies as % of total budget, 0.1 allocation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: MINFI/DGB, MINEPAT/ DPIP Figure 2. Rural development sector ministries: relative weight of the capital budget in the total capital budget, 2003–2012 0.12 0.1 0.08 Cap budget rural sector 0.06 ministries, verification, as % of 0.04 total capital budget, verification 0.02 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: MINEPAT/ DPIP Figure 3. Operating budget, three rural sector ministries, plus IRAD budget and other subsidies, as % of total operating budget, based on payment orders, 2003–2012 0.05 0.04 Operating budget, three rural 0.03 sector ministries, plus IRAD 0.02 budget and other subsidies as % of total operating budget, 0.01 based on payment orders 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINFI/DGB Figure 4. Verification-based total operating and capital expenditure, MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF, 2003–2012 (million CFA F) 60000 50000 40000 30000 MINADER 20000 MINEPIA 10000 MINFOF 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINFI/DGB and MINEPAT/DPIP Table 2. Rural development expenditure in % of the State budget, based on payment order (M CFA F) Ag sector DP IRAD budget Minus COFOG ministries Ag sector ministries disbursement and feeder Total Implemented exp.-State EPA COFOG recurrent, capital, to NGOs subsidies road exp. exp. state budget budget ratio payment incl. from order- verification- ext. based based resources 2003 31000 8566 1198 758 6339 120 47741 1203610 4.0% 2004 32467 6121 2271 1062 7862 130 49653 1349273 3.7% 2005 29891 1598 978 780 8862 140 41969 1334340 3.1% 2006 33436 8457 5818 1131 6602 150 55294 1361287 4.1% 2007 32506 9506 2505 2419 11009 160 57785 1601287 3.6% 2008 52342 17402 4422 3508 11208 170 88712 1830120 4.8% 2009 42115 21390 2778 3899 6846 180 76848 1904728 4.0% 2010 39715 30346 1200 2971 9467 234 83466 2118800 3.9% 2011 38637 47235 6386 2408 13909 312 108262 2329895 4.6% 2012 43952 38745 5157 2120 14572 453 104092 2590653 4.0% 1/ includes int. and ext. debt service payments in principal and interest Source: MINFI, Directorate of the Budget, MINEPAT, donors 39. Looking at primary sector GDP, the budget of the sector’s three ministries, to which are added the capital expenditure of other ministries for the sector, the IRAD budget and subsidies to the sector’s public administrative establishments, increased significantly in the period 2003–12, growing from 4.3% to 4.5% of primary sector GDP, in terms of budget allocations, and from 2.9 to 3.7% in terms of verification (Figure 5). This ratio is at the lower end of the range in terms of other African countries (lower than Burkina Faso, Senegal, Guinea, and Uganda, close to Kenya and Togo, see Table 3). Note that the very high amounts of public expenditure in agricultural GDP for the agriculture of high-income countries is related to the subsidies they give producers. These subsidies are not targeted for development but rather for income support, which is something low- and middle- income countries cannot afford. Figure 5. Agriculture public expenditure as % of agricultural GDP, 2003–2012 6 5 4 Curr and cap budget 3 (allocations) Current budg (implementation) 2 and PIB verification 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT and INS Table 3. International comparisons of agriculture public expenditure 2010–12 Share of agriculture Share of agriculture Share of agriculture budget expenditure budget expenditure in in GDP in national GDP agricultural GDP High-income countries Australia 3.0% 0.3% 10% Canada 2.3% 0.5% 22% EU 2.3% 0.7% 28% USA 1.6% 0.7% 46% Middle-income countries Turkey 13.0% 2.0% 15% Mexico 4.0% 0.7% 18% Venezuela 5.0% 0.5% 12% China 15.0% 1.2% 8% Brazil 9.3% 0.7% 8% Russia 6.0% 1.0% 16% Ukraine 11.6% 1.3% 11% Low-income countries Cameroon 2012 20.9% 0.9% 4.1% Burkina Faso 2004–2011 33% 2.7% 8.2% Senegal, 2009 13.7% 2.8% 20.4% Côte-d'Ivoire 23% 0.6% 2.5% Guinea, 2003–12 22% 1.50% 6.8% Uganda 32% 1.5% 4.7% Tanzania 45% 1.2% 2.7% Ethiopia 44% 2.7% 6.1% Kenya 29% 1.3% 4.5% Togo 41% 1.9% 4.6% Source: World Bank. Years vary by country, between 2010 and 2012 40. A budget-allocation based examination of the public investment budget, in absolute terms, reveals that growth was stronger between 2008 and 2012: for MINADER (from 28 to 40 billion CFA francs, or 2.6 to 3.3% of GDP), for MINEPIA (from 7.8 to 10.5 billion, equal to 1% of GDP), and for MINFOF (an increase from 3 to 9 billion in 2011, followed by a decline in 2012) (Figures 6 to 9). While MINADER benefited from a strong increase in external resources (50%), the external resources for the two other ministries either remained unchanged (MINEPIA) or declined (MINFOF). 41. The expenditure implementation rate rose (when calculated as a verification/allocation ratio), reflecting efforts to start budget implementation promptly in the first few months of the year. Expenditure commitment is contingent on the sector ministries issuing calls for tender in January and February, as well as their approval by MINEPAT and the Ministry of Public Contracts. Thus, the PIB commitment rate for MINADER (commitments compared to allocations) was 98% in 2011, while the verification rate was 79% (86% on internal resources, Figures 10 and 11).2 For MINEPIA, these rates have increased rapidly in the past few years, peaking in 2011 (86% commitment rate, 74% verification rate, Figures 12 and 13) before declining in 2012. For MINFOF, the commitment and verification rates were high in 2011 and 2012, after being very low from 2005 to 2009, when the forest- environment sector program was in the start-up phase (Figure 14). Note that the implementation rate (commitment/allocation ratio) for capital expenditure from external resources is much lower. This reflects the significant delays in the implementation of projects funded by external resources (approval of financing 2 Commitment rate = commitments as % of budget allocations; verification rate = verifications as % of budget allocations. agreements, setting up steering and management entities), which are often difficult to predict. Lastly, the verification rate (the verification/commitment ratio) is significantly lower for delegated credits than for the central services (Table 4); this may be due in part to delays in reporting. Table 4. Verification rate, delegated credits, and central services 2010 2011 2012 Verification/Commitment, in % MINADER Headquarters 98.8% 84.3% 82.5% delegated credits 37.7% 59.1% 65.3% MINEPIA Headquarters n/a 87.8% 75.4% delegated credits n/a 46.0% 83.0% MINFOF Headquarters 45.2% 118.2% 94.3% delegated credits n/a 81.8% 78.2% Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation report Figure 6. PIB, commitments: agriculture sector ministries as % of total PIB, 2003–12 0.12 0.1 0.08 Agriculture ministries 0.06 MINADER as % of total MINEPIA as % of total MINFOF as % of total 0.04 0.02 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Figure 7. MINADER, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total and internal resources (million CFA F) 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 Total resources 20000 Internal resources 15000 10000 5000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Figure 8. MINEPIA, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total and internal resources (million CFA F) 12000 10000 8000 6000 Total resources Internal resources 4000 2000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Figure 9. MINFOF, PIB allocations, 2003–12, total 12000 and internal resources (million CFA F) 10000 8000 6000 Total resources Internal resources 4000 2000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports. Figure 10. MINADER, PIB 2003–12, total investment budget implementation rate, internal and external resources, verification-based 1.4 1.2 MINADER investment budget 1 implementation rate (verification/allocations ratio) 0.8 Internal resources 0.6 implementation rate 0.4 External resources implementation rate 0.2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports. Figure 11. MINADER, PIB, commitment and verification rates, 2003–12 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 Commitment rate Verification rate 0.4 0.2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports. Commitment rate: commitment-allocation ratio; verification rate: verification-allocation ratio. Figure 12. MINEPIA, PIB 2003–12, investment budget implementation rate, internal and external resources, verification-based, 2003–12 2 1.8 1.6 Total budget implementation 1.4 rate, verification-allocations ratio 1.2 Internal resources 1 implementation rate 0.8 0.6 External resources 0.4 implementation rate 0.2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Figure 13. MINEPIA, PIB, commitment and verification rates, 2003–12 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 PIB, commitment rate PIB, verification rate 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports. Commitment rate: commitment-allocations ratio; verification rate: verification-allocations ratio. Figure 14. MINFOF, PIB 2003–12, commitment and verification rates, total and internal resources 1.2 1 Total budget verification rate, verification/allocations ratio 0.8 Verification rate, internal 0.6 resources, verification/allocations ratio 0.4 Commitment rate, total budget 0.2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports 42. Note that disbursements by the Caisse Autonome d’Amortissements (CAA, Autonomous Amortization Fund) from external resources after 2005 are higher than the total commitment and verifications from external resources shown in the MINEPAT PIB implementation reports (Figures 15 and 16); this discrepancy is due to the fact that the MINEPAT data shows the actual implementation rates obtained from the project managers, while the majority of CAA disbursements are used to provide working capital in accounts opened for projects at banks, and which are thus used gradually over time. Disbursements of European Union funding do not pass through the CAA; we therefore used data obtained from the EU Delegation in Cameroon. As illustrated in Figure 15, the sector’s biggest donors are, in order, the EU, the IDA, the IDB, the ADF, China and the IFAD. These figures do not include funding from debt cancellation (HIPC, MDRI and C2D), which is regarded as internal resource. Looking at the breakdown by field of intervention, on amounts disbursed from 2003 to 2012, reveals that the highest amounts were allocated to the forest-environment, community development, and regional development sectors, as well as to support agro- pastoral professional development (Fig. 16). Additionally, Figure 17 shows TFP funding of NGOs and civil organizations. The major fields of intervention are family farming support, aid for professional training and jobs for young people, support for professional organizations, irrigation schemes, research, livestock and fishing development, forest management, and combating animal diseases and desertification. Figure 15. Combined donor disbursements for the agriculture sector registered by the CAA, plus 60000 EU, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 50000 40000 30000 list of donors 20000 10000 0 EU ADF IFAD Spain OPEC SF Source: CAA and EU Delegation Figure 16. CAA disbursements by field of intervention, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Disbursement by field of intervention Source: CAA and MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Figure 17. Combined TFP disbursements to NGOs, 2003–12 (million CFA F) 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 list of donors and amounts 2000 1000 0 Source: FAO/ADAM database 3. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN AGRICULTURE: ECONOMIC AND FUNCTIONAL COMPOSITION, REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION 3.1 Objective of the Analysis 44. We analyze the economic and functional composition of expenditure to determine whether available resources are allocated in a way that maximizes desired outcomes, and whether inefficiencies in allocations are identifiable. The analysis first addresses the economic allocation of expenditure between operations and capital investment, and the allocation of personnel between regions. We then review the functional allocation of expenditure among the various crop types, and among productive subsectors. We examine correlations between public expenditure and changes in production. Lastly, we analyze expenditure allocation by region to determine whether allocations are consistent with indicators such as the size of the rural population, and the volume of agricultural production. 3.2 Economic Composition of Expenditure 45. Based on payment orders from MINADER, MINEPIA, and MINFOF, which are available for the 2004 to 2012 period (for 2003, personnel figures are estimates) operating expenses increased slightly, compared to the surge in investment expenditure; thus, the share of operating expenses in total expenditure (verification based) dropped significantly from 86% to 48% for MINADER, from 85% to 60% for MINEPIA, and from 90 to 70% for MINFOF (Figure 18). These figures can be explained by the fact that the government’s commitment to combat the 2008 food crisis shifted most of its resources to capital investment. However, it must be emphasized that project expenditures that are classified as investments contain a significant proportion of recurring expenses and inputs that projects then distribute. Based on a sample of projects, this proportion may account for around 20% of expenditures classified as investment. Adjusting for this, operating expenses in 2012 would increase from 48% to 58% of the total expenditure for MINADER, from 60% to 67% for MINEPIA, and from 70% to 76% for MINFOF. Figure 18. Agriculture sector ministries: operating expenditure, based on payment orders, as % of total budget, 2003–12 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 MINADER MINEPIA 0.4 MINFOF 0.2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1/ Sources: MINFI/DGB, MINEPAT/DGE. Total established from operating expenses, payment orders, capital investment expenses, verification. For 2003, the workforce is an estimate. Source: MINFI/DGB, estimate for 2003. 46. Payroll as a share of operating expenses grew after 2009, and from 2010 to 2012 it accounted for 80% to 90% of total operating expenses for both MINADER and MINEPIA, although slightly less for MINFOF. (Figure 19). At the same time, the purchase of goods and services, and transfers, as a proportion of total expenditure declined for all three ministries after 2009. If expenditures are corrected for the 20% of project costs incorrectly classified as investment, the share of payroll in operating expenses in 2012 would fall by around 16% for MINADER, 9% for MINEPIA, and 6% for MINFOF. Looking at personnel distribution, 94% of MINADER staff are deployed in the regions (Figure 20). The agent/producer ratio—that is, the number of ministry agents per 1,000 producers—varies between 4 in the Littoral Region and 0.2 in the Far North Region. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the North and Far North Regions, producers get support from two other public agencies: SEMRY for rice production and SODECOTON for cotton production. Figure 20. MINADER: Regional delegations for agriculture and for rural development: agent- producer ratio per region 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 number of agents per 1,000 1.5 producers 1 0.5 0 Source MINADER/ DOPA 3.3 Functional Composition of Expenditure 47. Based on detailed information obtained from MINADER and MINEPIA project journals, functional composition of expenditure, per activity sector and per crop assistance, was analyzed relative to investment expenditure. Project journals are an essential source of information for breaking down agricultural expenditure into broad categories, from food crops and cash crops, to capacity building projects and transversal projects. A review of MINADER project journals showed an increase in allocations for all main crops (Figure 21) from 2007 to 2012, during which total budgeted funds appropriated for MINADER increased by 50%. The share of rice relative to total allocation fell, even though its allocation increased in absolute terms. The “other crops” category (which includes palm oil, plantain, potato, and tubers) showed a significant increase in absolute terms from 2009 to 2010 as a result of some project disbursements. Transversal projects, regional projects, and capacity-building projects in the public sector as well as the construction of administrative facilities, absorbed around 50% of allocated resources (Table 5). Figure 22 shows a breakdown of MINADER and MINEPIA projects by subsector from 2005 to 2012. Food and cash crops absorbed 39% of resources, veterinary services and livestock 5%, fisheries 3.3%, transversal actions 22%, regional actions 8.4%, funding for construction and capacity-building 12%, and extension 6%. Data from Project Journals as well as from PIB implementation reports can be used to evaluate the breakdown of allocations, but it would be useful to create a mechanism for monitoring expenditure per project, function (e.g., sector support, basic infrastructure, training, extension, research) and regions. It would also be useful to have more-detailed data of operating expenses per main function (e.g., infrastructure, extension, training). Figure 21. MINADER, project journals: allocations to main crops, in millions of FCFA, 2005–12 8000 7000 Rice 6000 Maize 5000 Other grains 4000 Coffee 3000 Cocoa 2000 “Cotton” 1000 Other crops 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Compiled by the authors using data from MINADER project journals Table 5. MINADER PIB, Resources allocated to main sectors, to infrastructure and other actions 2005–12 (millions of CFA F and %) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total MINADER PIB Allocation 3503 16830 22178 29868 28084 38783 39033 40431 Project Journals Total 3286 16624 21913 29716 27029 33140 34373 33931 Rice 3.1% 0.2% 21.5% 12.3% 12.1% 9.8% 15.2% 10.8% Maize 0.0% 42.1% 1.5% 1.7% 3.8% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% Other grains 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 4.6% 3.8% 4.1% 4.4% 0.5% Coffee 1.3% 0.0% 4.3% 8.1% 8.3% 8.1% 5.4% 8.2% Cocoa 5.0% 1.0% 10.9% 4.1% 9.7% 5.0% 6.5% 7.0% Cotton 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.8% 4.6% 2.4% 3.8% 3.8% Other crops 4.9% 12.6% 3.3% 4.6% 7.8% 7.6% 5.9% 12.7% Cross-cutting actions 28.3% 27.4% 34.4% 20.9% 21.1% 22.2% 22.4% 30.8% Regional actions 7.5% 6.6% 6.1% 15.7% 9.9% 13.3% 2.8% 7.8% Credit structure reinforcement projects 3.5% 3.3% 0.7% 3.4% 4.6% 2.4% 8.9% 3.7% Public structure support/Capacity building 46.5% 6.5% 10.3% 7.4% 11.0% 11.1% 13.4% 6.4% Extension/Training 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 13.7% 2.6% 9.9% 5.7% 2.4% Source: Assembled by the authors using data from MINADER project journals Figure 22. MINADER and MINEPIA, average allocations per sector, as % of total, 2005–12 Extension/Training Rice Rice Public structure 6% support/Capacity 10% building Maize Maize 12% 6% Other grains Other grains Credit structure 3% reinforcement Coffee projects Coffee 3% 6% Cocoa Regional actions 8% Cocoa Cotton 6% Other crops Cotton 3% Veterinary services Other crops 7% Livestock Veterinary services Cross-cutting Livestock 2% actions Fisheries 3% Fisheries 22% 3% Source: Compiled by the authors using data from MINADER and MINEPIA project journals 48. For MINEPIA, the areas that received the largest allocations were, as expected, the veterinary services, livestock infrastructure, fisheries and administrative management. Using these funding allocations as a guide, it is difficult to judge whether priorities were sufficiently addressed, as all subsectors need public investment. Year-on-year fluctuations in allocations also reflect how quickly projects can be implemented, which are subject to chance factors that are difficult to control. 49. From 2006 to 2011, for which MINEPAT investments can be broken down per main and secondary function, the agricultural sector received an average allocation of 40 billion CFA francs per year. This amount was allocated as follows (Figure 23): - Rural development: 52%, - Crop production: 15% - Forestry production: 18% - Livestock resources: 11% - Fisheries: 3% Figure 23. PIB, 2006-11, allocations per main function Livestock resources Fisheries 3% 11% Rural development Forestry production Crop production 18% Rural development Forestry production 52% Livestock resources Fisheries Crop production 16% Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Looking at the “rural development” function, the areas that received the most resources relative to the total for the function are shown in Figure 24: Integrated rural development, which includes transversal projects (43%), food security (11%), extension (19%) as well as training and professionalization (8%). Hydro-agricultural development and rural infrastructure received, respectively, 4% and 3% of the total. “Crop production”, cocoa-coffee and grains each received approximately one third of total allocations (MINEPAT data could not be broken down by coffee and cocoa). Under “livestock resources”, livestock infrastructure received two thirds of the allocation, livestock health 23%, administration 26%, and training 11%. Figure 24 shows the allocation to the main “rural development” category broken down by secondary function. Figure 24: PIB, 2006–11, composition of rural development expenditure Others, 0.13 Rural infrastructure, 0.03 Agricultural development, 0.04 Integrated rural development, 0.43 Training, 0.07 Food security, 0.11 Extension, 0.19 Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports 50. Based on the data analysis, and the priorities outlined in strategy documents for the rural sector and for subsectors, some key factors seem to be underfunded. Specifically, these are: (i) At MINADER: water management and hydro-agricultural development, infrastructure for improving access to production enclaves, research, producer support, and extension. (ii) At MINEPIA: extension, training trainers, veterinary services, and fisheries. Its animal health remit (see Schedule IV), which allows it to commission private veterinarians, should boost the supply of veterinary services outside the public structure and reduce pressure on the public purse. 51. In general, allocation of investment resources to the three ministries can be reviewed to determine whether distribution is consistent with the sector’s size and contribution in the national economy. In reviewing capital budget allocations between 2009 and 2012, the three ministries MINADER, MINEPIA, and MINFOF (Figures 26 and 27) received budget allocations that were not entirely in line with the relative weight of their sectors, although the differences are relatively small. Specifically, whereas MINADER received 70% of total funds allocated to the three ministries, food and cash crop production in addition to exports represented 75% of primary sector share of GDP. Livestock received 12% of allocated funds, which was in line with its contribution to the primary sector. Silviculture received 14% of allocated funds, which was higher than its 8% contribution to the primary sector. Fisheries received 4% of allocated funds, lower than its 5% contribution to the primary sector. 3.4. Relationship between Public Investment in Agriculture and Production Growth 52. The surge in public investment in the agricultural sector since 2008 and 2009, in the form of either allocations or commitments, has yet to produce clear results in terms of greater added value in the sector from 2009 to 2012, as shown in Figure 28. Indeed, growth in the agricultural subsector of food crop production grew by only 4.3% from 2009 to 2012, which was less than the growth obtained in the previous four-year period of 2005 to 2008. Promising results, however, were achieved in the cash and export crop sector, with an average annual increase of 5.5%. In the primary sector, the subsectors that saw the least improvement were livestock and hunting, and fisheries, at 2.6% and 2.2%, respectively, both growing less than the average population growth rate of 3%. Higher levels of production in food crops did not meet domestic demand, which explains the country’s heavy dependence on imports of some products, especially grains, as shown in Table 6. Nevertheless, a large proportion of plantain and vegetable production is exported to other countries of the sub-region (Gabon and Equatorial Guinea). Table 6: Import dependency rate for some food products Productions 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Grains (excl. beer) 22.66 29.39 20.78 19.75 25.8 27.4 25.93 32.2 Vegetable oils 8.53 15.38 7.08 26.96 8.39 10.3 1.90 16.8 Fish and seafood 50 96 56.54 86.84 67.2 61.1 71.30 79.6 Meat 4.26 55.71 2.68 3.169 3.96 1.70 0.67 0.11 Source: INS; Dependency rate defined as the percentage of consumption met by imports. However, according to MINADER/DESA statistical data, some crops, such as tomatoes, onions, paddy rice, soya, potato, sweet potato, palm oil, experienced relatively strong growth from 2008 to 2011. (Figure 29). Source: INS Source: MINADER/DESA The impact on production of increasing investment from 2006 onwards warrants analysis. Based on PIB data, resources allocated to crop production increased from 9.3 billion CFA francs in 2006 to 16 billion CFA francs in 2012. Analyzing statistics for production of main crops shows the following annual growth rates from 2006 to 2011: rice (22%), potato (7%), maize (4.7%), soya (12%) yam (7%), onion (14%), palm oil (11%), peanut (6.4%), pineapple (9%), cocoa (10%), plantain (9.5%). For most of these crops, rising levels of production were the result of using larger surface areas. Yields, however, have stagnated. Only ginger, onions, tomatoes and potatoes showed an increase in yield for the period. For grains (rice, maize, soya) and tubers (yam, peanut), yields have stagnated since 2007. The figures show a correlation between an increase in public expenditure in some large sectors, such as rice and grains, and growth in production. The correlation is less significant for coffee and cocoa; increase in cocoa production was strong, but coffee production declined despite significant resources allocated to both (Figure 30). For the livestock, fisheries, and forestry subsectors, INS data for the same period shows a modest average growth rate for livestock and fisheries, of 2.9% and 2.2%, respectively, and a higher average growth rate for silviculture and forestry at 16.6%. It is important to note that the strong growth in silviculture and forestry cannot entirely be attributed to public investment since this subsector is composed largely of private firms. Figure 30. Public investments and production for some crops Source: MINADER DESA and MINEPAT 3.5 Regional Allocation of Investment Expenditure 53. MINEPAT data was used to analyze MINADER and MINEPIA investment expenditure from 2006 to 2012 region by region (Figures 31 and 32). The analysis showed that distribution of MINADER expenditure varied regionally from 2% (East Region) to 20% (North-West Region), whereas at MINEPIA, larger shares were allocated to the South-West (46%), Adamawa (13%), and Far North (12%). Figure 31. MINADER PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 ADAMAOUA SOUTH-WEST 3% 15% CENTRE 13% ADAMAOUA SOUTH EAST CENTRE 5% 2% Departments abroad EAST 0% FAR NORTH LITTORAL FAR NORTH NORTH WEST 13% 13% NORTH-WEST WEST Departments abroad LITTORAL SOUTH 4% SOUTH-WEST NORTH-WEST NORTH 20% 12% Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports For both MINADER and MINEPIA, the 2006–2012 average for these allocations was compared with each regions’ share of the country’s rural population, the incidence of rural poverty,3 distribution of the poor, as well as its share of domestic crop production, which, as stated earlier, contributes to 67% of agriculture’s share of GDP (Table 7). Figure 32. MINEPIA PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 ADAMAOUA 13% CENTRE ADAMAOUA 3% EAST CENTRE 2% EAST FAR NORTH SOUTH-WEST FAR NORTH 46% LITTORAL 12% NORTH NORTH-WEST WEST LITTORAL 3% SOUTH SOUTH-WEST NORTH 6% NORTH-WEST WEST 5% SOUTH 5% 5% Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports 3 Defined as the proportion of individuals or households considered poor in a rural population. Figure 33. MINADER and MINEPIA PIB: average investment allocation by region, 2006–12 ADAMAOUA SOUTH-WEST 6% 15% CENTRE 12% SOUTH ADAMAOUA 1% CENTRE EAST 3% EAST WEST FAR NORTH 13% LITTORAL NORTH FAR NORTH NORTH-WEST 15% WEST SOUTH SOUTH-WEST LITTORAL NORTH-WEST 4% 19% NORTH 12% Source: MINEPAT, PIB implementation reports Table 7. MINADER and MINEPIA distribution of capital investment allocations from 2006 to 2012 compared with regional shares of rural population, incidence of rural poverty and crop production (in %) Rural Average Incidence of Regional Crop population Regions allocation poverty distribution of production (%) (%) (%) 2006-12 2007 the poor (%) 2012 2007-11 Adamawa 6.2 6 53 6.9 4 Centre 11.9 10 41.2 7.9 21 East 2.6 5 50.4 5.9 16 Far North 14.8 27 65.9 29.9 10 Littoral 4.3 2 31.1 2.7 10 North 11.8 14 63.7 15.7 4 North-West 18.9 12 51 13 7 West 13 11 28.9 7.7 10 South 1.3 5 29.3 2.4 10 South-West 15.3 8 27.5 5.5 7 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 Source: MINEPAT PIB implementation report, ECAM 3 for incidence of poverty, and population census (BUCREP, 2010) 54. This analysis reveals a heavy bias favoring the North-West Region, which received an average allocation of 19% of PIB funds, whereas the region’s share of domestic crop production and rural population was 7% and 12%, respectively; moreover, the incidence of rural poverty in this region was only 51%, which is below the poorest regions of the country (Far North 65.9%, North 63.7%, Adamawa: 53%). In addition, both the West and South-West Regions with 13% and 15% of allocations, respectively, received resources that far exceeded their contribution to domestic crop production (10% and 7%, respectively), and their share of the rural population (11% and 8%, respectively). The North Region, with 12% of allocation, received an amount in line with its share of rural population (14%), but higher than its contribution to domestic crop production (4%). At the opposite end, the Far North Region, accounting for 27% of the country’s rural population, with an incidence of poverty measured at 65.9%, and contributing 10% to domestic crop production received only 15% of allocations. This region, which falls within the Sahel, remains vulnerable to myriad problems including food insecurity, attacks on fields by seed-eating birds and locusts, destruction of crops by pachyderms, desertification, as well as recurring flooding related to climate change. The East and South Regions received allocations (2.6% and 1.3%, respectively) that fell short of their contribution to the country’s crop production and rural population. The Centre Region, with 12% of allocation, received an amount in line with its share of rural population (10%), but higher than its contribution to national crop production (21%). The Adamawa Region, with 3% of allocation, received budget resources in line with its contribution to domestic crop production (4%), but lower than its share of the country’s rural population (6%). The overall picture that emerges shows unfairness in the regional distribution of PIB, and that the regions with the highest rates of poverty do not receive additional resources, which hampers attempts to reduce poverty. This assessment was shared by MINEPAT in its National Progress Reports of Millennium Development Goals published in 2012, indicating that the MDG of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger by 2020 remains uncertain if current trends continue. Moreover, INS data (ECAM II and III) show that rural poverty worsened from 2001 to 2007, increasing from 52.1% to 55%; the most affected regions were the Far North (increasing from 56.3% to 65.9%), North (50.1% to 63.7%), Adamawa (48.8% to 53%), and East (44% to 50.4%). The only regions that experienced a decline in rural poverty were the Centre (from 48.2% to 41.2%); Littoral (from 35.5% to 31.1%); West (from 40.3% to 28.9%); North-West (from 52.5% to 51%); South (from 31.5% to 29.3%) and South-West (from 33.8% to 27.5%). 3.6 Agricultural Research 55. Research in agriculture, which is mainly carried out by IRAD, has been neglected in recent years due to a lack of funding, as well as a shortage of personnel following the early retirement of researchers. Box 4. Agricultural Research. Principal Data The national system for agricultural research in Cameroon (SNARA) is run by the Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) created in 1996, with support from international research centers, such as CIRAD, CIFOR, IRD, ICRAF, IITA, among others. National agricultural research covers five areas: Annual crops, perennial crops, animal husbandry, forestry-soil-environment, rural socioeconomic environment. IRAD is organized as follows: One General Directorate, five Regional Centers covering five agro- ecological zones, one Regional Center for plantains at Njombé, one Regional Center for the Dja reserve environment, one Specialized Center for research on marine ecosystems at Kribi, one Specialized Center for research on palm oil at Dibamba, and 28 General or Specialized Research Stations such as the National Herbarium. Human resources: 200 researchers. One quarter of the workforce has reached IRAD’s retirement age, which, at 55, is considered early when compared to 65 for university professors, and for those IITA researchers not retiring. Unfortunately, even though a pool of young researchers were recruited in 2000, poor working conditions prompted most to leave. IRAD has produced interesting research, which has been taken up by a number of operators such as subsector ministries, public and private entities (e.g., SODECOTON, MIDENO, SODECAO, SOWEDA, SOCAPALM and notably producers’ organizations). The economic crisis in the 1980s led to a decline in public funding for research. Research activity was later bolstered in the 1990s by the National Agricultural Extension and Research Program (PNVRA) which received financial assistance from the World Bank and the African Development Bank. Since the end of this program, agricultural research has slowed. After the crisis, research projects continued to receive direct funding and national top-up funding from the government, along with bilateral and tender-based research funding. Currently, the government funding available for research is slightly less than one-third of pre-1990 levels. These reduced resources hamper efforts to carry out projects effectively. IRAD has produced interesting research (including improving yields of basic seed for several crops such as higher quality cotton fiber, higher potential yields of cocoa by 1.5 metric ton/ha, and of milk by 10 to 15 liters/cow/day, advances in production technology for livestock feed, etc.) that warrant preservation and extension. Research priorities focus on research stations investigating how to eliminate production constraints, onsite research to improve adaptation of research station results to the circumstances of small producers and to preserve genetic material; pay rises for researchers; and changes to the retirement age. The completion of some projects, such as the PNVRA, which provided budget funding and ended in 2007 (Figure 28), has trimmed available resources; these cutbacks have been partially offset by government grants, which have increased since 2007, and occasionally by HIPC funding, specifically to meet the production costs of basic seed. The development of new varieties of cotton, coffee/cocoa, and maize is one priority activity for which IRAD enjoys a reputation of excellence at regional level. Funds mobilized during the last few years, either as a percentage of GDP or per capita, remain below the level observed in most Sub-Saharan African countries (Table 8). IRAD is in the process of finalizing its 2013 to 2018 strategic plan, split into two three-year operational plans, which should receive additional assistance from the government. (For more details, see Box 4). Source: IRAD Table 8. Budget allocated to agricultural R&D in sub-Saharan Africa Total amount Amount per Year of review % GDP Millions (USD) capita (USD) Cameroon 2011 7.9 0.4 0.03 Malawi 2007 180.1 12.9 1.7 Uganda 2007 359.8 11.6 1.1 South Africa 2007 4,976.6 102.4 1.05 Kenya 2007 277.8 7.4 0.48 Senegal 2008 99 8.0 0.48 Tanzania 2007 234.6 5.8 0.48 Gabon 2008 78.7 58.3 0.47 Ghana 2007 120.1 5.0 0.38 Zambia 2008 55.3 4.6 0.37 Mali 2007 37.4 3.0 0.28 Mozambique 2007 42.9 2.0 0.25 Nigeria 2007 583.2 3.9 0.2 Burkina Faso 2004-2011 8.1 0.5 0.1 Togo 2005-2010 2.0 0.4 0.07 Source: World Bank Notes: For most countries, these data include applied research led by the government, universities and tertiary education institutes, the private sector and non-profit organizations. The data for other countries are in USD “purchasing power parity” (exchange rate calculated by the UNDP to account for the real value of 1 USD in the countries in question); the data for Togo is in USD. 3.7 Agricultural Extension 60. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER), as part of its responsibility to develop and implement government policy for agriculture and rural development, shares the mission of agricultural extension with the Ministry of Scientific Research and Innovation (MINRESI) as well as with other administrations such as the Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry (MINEPIA). The main objectives of agricultural extension are to ensure food security of populations, improve sector productivity and competitiveness, attract foreign currency through exports, and combat rural poverty. To carry out its mission to provide extension agents in the field, the government has implemented a system of extension zones at village level and extension sectors at multi-village or district level. The National Agricultural Extension and Research Program (PNVRA) extension map divides the country into 2,460 Agricultural Extension Zones (ZV) and 381 Agricultural Extension Sectors (SV). Agricultural extension suffers from a shortage of personnel: At ZV level, 1,739 out of 2,460 posts, or 70%, are filled; at SV level, 266 out of 381 posts, or 70%, are filled. Two-thirds of extension agents are MINADER personnel and one-third are MINEPIA personnel. Previously, extension received financial support from TFPs from 1999/2000 to 2004. In view of the program’s many achievements, the government decided to continue to support agricultural extension with HIPC financing from 2006 to 2010, and with internal financing since 2011. The table in Box 3 shows that total funding for extension fell from 4 billion CFA francs in 2000 to 2002 to less than 2 billion CFA francs after 2010. The most recent overview of PNVRA, covering the first quarter of 2013, highlights a number of weaknesses in the program, notably: (i) the tendency of PNVRA personnel to overlook advisory support and instead operate within donors’ project structures which offer better conditions; (ii) the slow disbursement of funds by regional and departmental treasuries; (iii) transport equipment breakdowns, and lack of spare parts; (iv) insufficient funds for training and retraining of personnel. 61. In the future, MINADER intends to raise the level of advisory support to meet the needs of next-generation agriculture. This will entail not only the appointment of additional personnel at senior management levels—such as three agronomist engineers to assist the Head of Agricultural Mission, who previously operated alone—but also improvements to the work environment by building an office and standby living quarters, and provision of a minimum level of equipment (e.g., GPS, computer system, borehole, generator, and means of transport), and a demonstration farm. Carrying out this new vision requires more financial and human resources than are currently being provided. 62. Otherwise, beginning in 2008, the government launched a program Supporting Family Farming Competitiveness (ACEFA) with C2D financing. This program implements an advisory support approach to Family-Owned Agro-pastoral Businesses (EFA) and to Agricultural Professional Organizations (OPA) coupled with financing of projects headed by these organizations. The pilot phase of this program which was rolled out in ten départements across five regions (Adamawa, North, West, South-West and South), provided the opportunity to fine-tune methods and tools, and finance a number of projects. The projected amount for Phase 1, which ended on July 31, 2012, was 14.16 billion CFA francs. The first phase began with the recruitment of 236 Producer Group Advisors (CGP), each monitoring ten Famers’ Groupings; 20 Specialized Technical Advisors (STA), two per département; ten Farm Management Counselors (CGE), one per département; and 25 Professional Organizations Management Counselors (CGO). Phase 2, launched on August 1, 2013 for a period of four years, will extend the program to all ten regions of the country. Eventually, 280,000,000 EFAs will be directly affected, or 23% of Cameroon’s 1.2 million EFAs. This represents a penetration rate of 15% of the total rural population.4 These numbers could nevertheless be improved if increased funding to build CGP capacity per département were made available to this program. The budget for Phase 2 is shown in the table below. Table 9. ACEF program Phase 2 budget (in thousands of CFA F) Components Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total Advisory support 4,841,185 5,030,905 6,830,186 8,563,175 25,265,452 Financing of FO projects 1,828,838 2,681,260 7,438,326 10,026,882 21,975,307 Agro-pastoral professionalization 457,600 747,600 407,600 387,600 2,000,400 Coordination 2,190,247 1,384,247 1,389,247 1,455,247 6,418,986 4 It is estimated that 280,000 EFAs will be directly affected. With the average household being five people, this means 1,400,000 out of a total 9,314,928 individuals in rural areas in 2010 according to data from the third general population census. Miscellaneous and unplanned 4,625,358 Grand total 9,317,870 9,844,,012 16,065,359 20,432,903 60,285,503 Source: ACEFA Program Schedule III details the comparative elements between the two existing advisory support tools. 63. Fundamentally, the two tools serve a nearly identical overall objective, specifically, to contribute to raising the income of family farms by providing advisory support to improve agro-pastoral and fishing sector productivity; more simply, the objective is to reduce rural poverty. Additionally, both tools have the same project owners (MINADER and MINEPIA), and are expected to cover the country’s ten regions, and target EFAs and all agro-pastoral and fishing sectors. 64. Despite the common overarching goals of these two tools, differences exist in terms of specific objectives, strategies and guidelines, components, main activities developed as well as the advisory support mechanism. Whereas the advisory support mechanism of the PNVRA consists of administrative structures (i.e., regional technical groups, départemental technical groups, SVs and ZVs) that report solely to their respective hierarchies, the advisory support mechanism of ACEFA consists of a combination of managers from administrative structures recruited competitively and made available to basic organizations or second- or third-level organizations with which managers sign agreements to guarantee support, and to professional associations and joint bodies (administration-profession). Note that these agreements are subject to evaluation by these organizations and are not renewed unless satisfactory results are obtained. It therefore can be assumed that the ACEFA program promotes a results-based culture and empowers producers’ organizations, unlike PNVRA which addresses neither of these issues. Moreover, ACEFA possesses more sophisticated tools and offers better work conditions to its personnel in comparison to PNVRA, and has a financing tool that contributes to better use of its advisory support. In contrast, the PNVRA depends entirely on its partners to finance support activities. 65. Under PNVRA, the average workload5 for a single zonal extension agent is eight OPs; Under ACEFA, the average workload for a single Producer Group Advisor (CGP) is ten to twelve Famers’ Groupings (GP). It was observed that 70% of PNVRA advisors were also employed by the ACEFA program. These individuals accumulate logistical resources provided by the two programs (e.g., vehicle, motorbike, premiums, office equipment, telephone), but find themselves incapable of serving both, and so sacrifice PNVRA. 5 PNVRA: Activity report conducted in 2012, January 2013. Consequently, there is a reduction in the availability rate of personnel under the PNVRA program,6 from the stated rate of 71% to the actual rate of 34%. In other words, the ACEFA program contributes to running down PNVRA personnel, and a large portion of PNVRA resources are used for other purposes. 66. The expenditures made by the two programs since 2008 are shown in Table 10 below: Table 10. Expenditures made by PNVRA and the ACEFA program (in CFA F) Expenditure 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 PNVRA7 1,740,773,291 1,632,600,000 1,801,486,800 1,497,507,316 1,632,482,739 ACEFA8 228,334,478 1,552,204,658 3,938,471,408 5,293,749,569 1,874,602,317 Total 1,969,107,769 3,184,804,658 5,739,958,208 6,791,256,885 3,507,085,056 MTEF 6 525 000 000 6,774,000,000 7,659,000,000 projected costs9 Gap10 -4,555,892,231 -3,589,195,342 -1,919,041,792 Source: Authors’ calculations These expenditures, although showing a net increase, fell short of stated requirements under MINEPIA and MINADER MTEFs. This points to the need for increased funding, but also for frugal management of resources to raise effectiveness. Box 5. The “Projet d’Appui au PNVRA” and ACEFA Program: Two Advisory Support Programs Providing Assistance to Producers since 2008 1. The PNVRA Providing advisory support to producers or agricultural extension are fundamental missions of the government. Advisory support includes actions that ensure the transfer of technical innovations, 6 According to the PNVRA activity report conducted in 2012, only 2,316 out of 3,243 posts were filled under the PNVRA program, or a theoretical availability rate of 71%. In reality, this rate is much lower, at around 34%, after subtracting the 1,190 agents straddling both programs. 7 Average rate of consumption of allocated credits: 90% 8 Sources: 2008, 2009 and 2010 accounting and financial auditing reports, 2011 and 2012 ACEFA accounting department estimates. 9 MINADER and MINEPIA MTEF costs 10 The financing gap is equal to total expenditure made less MTEF costs strengthen the technical capacities of producers (i.e., farmers, livestock breeders, fish harvesters and farmers), and provide advice and support to producers. In terms of advice, the agent takes on the responsibility of connecting with other actors in domains for which he is not competent. To do this, the government must allocate the appropriate personnel to all these structures, to provide them with means of transport (vehicles or motorbikes), and to ensure their operation and maintenance by offering bonuses. The table below shows mobilized funds per donor (in CFA F) Years UNAIDS IFAD IDA HIPC National Total Budget 1999/2000 4,024,950 523,407,228 1,278,219,673 510,000,000 2,315,651,851 2000/2001 661,754,531 1,653,632,178 1,757,898,980 4,073,285,689 2000/2001 661,754,531 1,653,632,178 1,757,898,980 4,073,285,689 2002 800,323,804 1,808,910,586 1,619,900,000 4,229,134,390 2003 347,977,916 2,545,443,087 300,000,000 3,193,421,003 2004 2,336,336,426 679,750,000 3,016,086,426 2005 960,658,000 960,658,000 2006 1,000,000,000 1,296,745,000 2,296,745,000 2007 1,084,000,000 1,240,926,000 2,324,926,000 2008 955,754,545 978,438,000 1,934,192,545 2009 1,207,000,000 607,000,000 1,814,000,000 2010 1,392,652,000 609,000,000 2,001,652,000 2011 0 1,663,897,018 1,663,897,018 2012 0 1,813,869,710 1,813,869,710 2013 0 1,262,039,000 1,262,039,000 Source: MINADER, DOPA/SD Vulgarisation HIPC Funds financed acquisition of equipment such as vehicles and motorbikes; recruitment of 122 zonal extension agents, raising the agent-producer ratio in production priority areas; the salaries of drivers; feedback workshops and programs throughout the country; and capacity-building of personnel. Funds mobilized by the national government are channeled through the PIB of MINADER (2/3) and MINEPIA (1/3), and transferred to an account opened at the General Treasury and managed in accordance with MINFI guidelines on the execution, monitoring, and auditing of budget implementation of the government, public administrative institutions, decentralized territorial collectivities, and of other publicly funded entities. The budget headings for expenditures paid for with this funding are as follows: - Support for implementation of productive units; - Acquisition of special technical equipment, regional and national feedback workshops, and planning of activities; - Building capacity of actors; - Competitive research funds; - Support for assessments of agro-pastoral and fishing operations; Only investments (e.g., acquisition of vehicles and motorbikes), bonuses, and research-extension interface are managed centrally. The rest of the expenditure is distributed locally through delegation of credits allocated to delegates at regional or départemental level. The rate of consumption of credits varies between 80% and 100%. 2. The ACEFA Program Launched in the fourth quarter of 2008 for a period of 48 months, the program receives funding from C2D. The program’s overarching goal is to help increase the incomes of family farms by improving the competitiveness of their production. The program is made up of four main components: - Component 1: Advisory support. EFAs and GPs receive advisory support that helps them to improve management of their production; OPAs receive specific advisory support that helps them to carry out their missions (supply, commercialization, negotiation, representation and defense of interests, etc.); - Component 2: Financing of projects headed by producers’ organization. Producers’ organizations (GPs and OPAs) receive financial support in the form of grants to implement projects that have a direct positive impact on EFA incomes and competitiveness, and on the environment. - Component 3: Agro-pastoral professionalization. National and regional platforms, as well as the Garoua agro-pastoral professionalization centre (CRPA) receive financial support for operations; the skills of OPAs managers are bolstered to improve their organization and management, and to develop OPA’s strategic vision; - Component 4: Coordination. The program targets as a matter of priority two categories of beneficiaries: EFA members of Famers’ Groupings (GIC, economic interest grouping), and second- and third-level OPAs (unions and federations of GIC, cooperatives and unions of cooperatives). The overall cost of Phase 1 of the project ending in August 2012 was 14.16 billion FCFA, of which 9.4 billion was disbursed. The program’s principles for intervention are the following: - Producers ask for assistance: Advisory support and grants are provided to those requesting them, which favors the most reactive organizations and producers; - Funding is used for productive investments: Grants to OPs cover only the investment expenses of productive projects. Recurring costs must be covered by beneficiaries’ own resources or loans; - Projects are equally co-managed by the government and the profession: Disbursement of grants, availability and evaluation of advisors are done jointly to guarantee good governance and draw decision making closer to beneficiaries; A techno-economic approach is used: Advisory support considers the economics of production, management of producers’ organizations, and the development of services rendered (i.e., support to production, supply, processing, and commercialization). The advisory support system implemented at départemental level includes: a Farm Management Counselor (CGE), a Specialized Technical Advisor in crop production (CTS/PV), a Specialized Technical Advisor in livestock production (CTS/PA) and 30 Producer Group Advisors (CGP). The standard used for the CGPs is one CGP for ten to twelve groupings (one grouping includes ten to twenty producers). These advisors are recruited competitively among civil service personnel of MINADER and MINEPIA, and a contract is signed between the project, the Advisor, and the beneficiary grouping. The program allocates to the Advisor equipment (e.g., motorbike, office equipment, telephone) and supplementary operational allowance (e.g., petrol and oil, motorbike maintenance, around 25,000 CFA F/month). The average annual cost of an Advisor is estimated at 5,800,000 CFA F, including salary, allowance, operating costs, equipment depreciation, and training. An evaluation conducted in 2011 by the consortium CA 17 International/Agro PME, 36 months after project startup, showed that the program had reached input stabilization and operational tools and procedures. Specifically this included: a system of advisory support to OPs and OPAs implemented in ten pilot departments overseen by trained agents with program expertise; co- management bodies also implemented, which are able to execute their missions of building capacity; procedure methods and manuals are accessible, well documented, and tested and amended according to actors’ expectations. The report drew conclusions on the project’s relevance, in that it provides a tailored response to optimizing financial resources allocated to farmers' projects by proposing advisory support that meets their actual needs. The report also offered conclusions on the project’s effectiveness, observing that other projects financed without advisory support encountered substantial problems in implementation or failed outright. However, the report did not deliver a verdict on the program’s effectiveness as the timing of the report afforded insufficient perspective. In terms of sustainability, the report documents the problem of actual availability of government agents, and the inability to count on real participation by beneficiaries at a significant level. After four years of activities (Phase 1), the program has already deployed a total of 236 CGPs in ten departments over five regions of the country. To provide country-wide coverage, the program intends to recruit 1,700 additional Advisors. Eventually, the program may affect around 280,000 producers in the agricultural/silvicultural/pastoral/fisheries sectors, or 24% of rural producers. Instances of duplication of resources between PNVRA and ACEFA were observed. Around 70% of ACEFA program Advisors come from PNVRA and act on behalf of both programs. Some are allocated two vehicles/motorbikes (one from PNVRA and another from ACEFA), two bonuses, etc. These circumstances can only be a source of waste. 3.8 Rural Roads 56. In the past and especially in the last two decades, the roads subsector has been characterized by actions that tend to favor construction of new infrastructure without real consideration for operating maintenance costs or the suitability of design for use. Maintenance of such roads fell in full to the government, and to a lesser extent, to public authorities. Although this approach may have been sustainable during Cameroon’s rapid economic development in the early 1980s, it must be noted that since the economic crisis beginning in 1986 the stock of roads has inevitably been deprived of capital. Under these circumstances, the government adopted in June 1996 the Transport Sector Program (PST) which aimed to build capacity in road maintenance through more efficient use of available resources, by seeking a balance between prudent investment and road maintenance costs. This objective resulted in policy that focused on the following points: - Disengagement of the government from execution and control of road maintenance work in favor of the private sector; - Implementation of a sustainable mechanism for financing road maintenance of priority networks that would guarantee the permanent availability of funds; - Implementation of a payment mechanism to pay firms quickly and efficiently; - Reform of public procurement procedures to expedite the process and increase transparency; - Definition of a new institutional framework to refocus MINTP departments on planning, scheduling, budgeting, and supervising road maintenance work. - 57. The strategy of rehabilitation and maintenance of rural roads, which constitutes an integral part of the Transport Sector Program, was adopted in April 2000. It focuses on addressing more specifically roads that are not classified as part of the priority network by drawing upon support from municipalities. This strategy is integrated into the government’s objective of combating rural poverty, and improving the living conditions and productivity of rural populations. The strategy is bolstered by the decentralization process, which seeks to transfer responsibilities to municipalities in order to encourage better management of the local road network. Specifically, this strategy will: - Clarify the classification of the road network between priority, rural roads, and private roads; - Transfer to municipalities the stock of rural roads and project-management responsibilities for this network; - Involve private firms for technical advice, and if necessary, as project manager or delegated project owners at the request and on behalf of municipalities; - Involve beneficiary populations in decision-making, road maintenance and management, especially for stormwater gates; - Ensure the promotion of local firms and design offices within public procurement procedures; - Establish rehabilitation and maintenance of rural roads within an efficient and sustainable system of financing/budgeting to ensure regular provision of services on the network allowing road use throughout the year as much as possible; - Integrate environmental considerations in road maintenance work; - Encourage the use of labor intensive techniques in maintaining roads. 58. Nevertheless the implementation of this strategy, which should be updated, is hampered by numerous constraints, especially: (i) the failure to adopt the regulatory framework for rural road management that would entail full involvement by municipalities and beneficiaries; (ii) the limited capacity of municipalities and beneficiaries (Road Committees) to ensure regular post-rehabilitation road maintenance and management of stormwater gates; (iii) the lack of legal recognition of several road committees. It is important to note that road maintenance campaigns are often disrupted by: (a) funds release procedures that are unsuitable given seasonal constraints affecting works; in fact, as a result of procedures related to startup and closing of budgetary operations in conjunction with slow execution of public procurement, almost all of the dry season is wasted; (b) SMEs lack equipment for public infrastructure-type works; (c) delays observed in transferring shares of revenue from the Road Fund. This results in under-consumption of credits allocated, which are inadequate to begin with. 59. Management of construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of rural roads is spread between the Ministry of Public Works (MINTP), which defines road policy, including for rural roads, MINADER, which formulates strategies on improving accessibility of production regions, and the Road Fund, which finances maintenance operations. The road network is estimated to total 35,000 km, but more detailed mapping carried out with a geographic information system (GIS) raises the estimate for rural roads to 80,000 km (Box 5). The existing resources are insufficient to maintain 35,000 km of road, and therefore a large proportion of the 80,000 km are currently abandoned. The MINTP, the project manager for rural roads, signs contracts with private firms upon conclusion of the public tendering process, or signs agreements with State companies and public administrative authorities such as SODECOTON, SEMRY, SODECAO, SOWEDA, MIDENO. These agreements covered 8,500 km of rural road in 2011, and 10,800 km in 2012. Since 2010, resources provided in MINADER’s budget to open and rehabilitate feeder roads that improve accessibility of production regions have been transferred to decentralized local authorities (351 rural municipalities). Mayors have become delegated project managers for the work, for which they launch calls for tenders, select private firms, and monitor and accept work. At the same time, the management of Road Fund resources previously reserved for rural roads which came within the competence of the Directorate of Rural Roads at the MINTP, has since been transferred to municipalities. A decree from the President of the Republic signed in 2012 designated mayors as the authorizing officers of the Road Fund alongside the ministries of MINTP, MINDUH, and MINTRANP. The lack of experience among municipal councils in drafting tender documents, selecting bidders, and verifying work may negatively affect implementation periods and quality of work. To overcome these shortcomings, MINTP’s departmental delegates are to provide support in project management delegated to municipalities, for example for drafting tender documents, setting specifications, etc. A draft partnership agreement between the MINTP and each of these 360 municipalities is being drawn up by MINTP. Under these agreements, technical resources such as a road network map for each municipality will be made available to each municipal council. The municipal council will be responsible for updating the map. The municipalities also benefit from a number of support programs similar to the National Community Driven Development Program (PNDP) financed by IDA. The available data show that the funds allocated to rural roads each year for asphalting, maintenance (including funds transferred to the Road Fund for maintenance), and rehabilitation have been relatively unchanged since 2008, between 32 and 35 billion CFA francs (Table 10). Analysis of the MTEFs of MINTP from 2006 to 2012 indicates that rural roads required funding of around 33.8 billion CFA francs on average per year with a gradual increase. Since budget allocations have not increased since 2009, creating a widening gap between the requirements stated in MTEFs and budget allocations. In 2012, this gap was 30%. Box 6. Rural Roads (RR). Principal Data The priority rural network requiring maintenance originally estimated to include 12,000 km now includes 35,000 km. A proportion of this network has been abandoned due to the lack of funding and should be rehabilitated. Financing of rehabilitation: PIB (internal and external funding). Some external financing has ended, such as the IDB/OPEC project ending in 2006. The Projet d’ Appui à la Compétitivité Agricole (PACA), financed by IDA, is currently supporting the rehabilitation of 500 km. Improving accessibility of production regions is a major concern of the government. It has therefore created a task force in anticipation of work that will be required, and which will be managed by MINTP, using machinery from MATGENIE. The needs in terms of improving accessibility of production regions are estimated at 25,000 km. Feeder roads that improve accessibility are those that connect villages to agricultural production and whose straight- line distance does not exceed 5 km. Rural roads connecting villages that exceed a straight-line distance of 5 km come within the jurisdiction of MINTP and their maintenance is paid for by funds from the Road Fund. Identification of feeder roads to be cleared is done by the Decentralized Entities of MINADER, occasionally without consultation with municipal councils. In principle, municipal councils issue Municipal Development Plans. Resources provided in MINADER’s budget to open and rehabilitate feeder roads that improve accessibility of production regions were transferred to Decentralized Municipalities (351 Rural Municipalities). Municipal councils ensure delegated project management of the road work, launching calls for tender, selecting private firms, monitoring and accepting work. The Road Fund finances regular maintenance of roads for which project management is ensured by MINTP. The ministry launches calls for tenders, and signs contracts with the private firms selected. In addition to private firms, MINTP signs agreements with some public enterprises or EPAs (e.g., SODECOTON, SODECAO, MIDENO) and forestry companies for maintenance of rural roads in their areas of operation. The Road Fund releases 12% of its funds annually, or 10 billion CFA francs, to pay for the maintenance of rural roads. Since these resources are inadequate, MINTP has adopted a policy of itinerant maintenance. Rehabilitation cost: 10 million CFA francs per km to re-lay the road surface, 15 to 20 million CFA francs per km when degradation is significant. Asphalting cost: 100 million CFA francs per km. The cumbersome public procurement process bears noting. Table 11. MINTP Budget for construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of rural roads (source M from 2006 to 2012, in millions of CFA francs ACTIVITY TYPE 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Maintenance of Priority Rural 5,674 6,036 6,629 7,292 2,304 6,600 10,030 Roads 1/ Maintenance of Non-Priority 547 2,779 2,303 2,533 3,871 1,500 1,000 Rural Roads Rehabilitation of Rural Roads 9,049 174 21,586 13,456 612 6,517 18,095 Asphalting of Rural Roads - - - - 10,000 10,000 12,000 Clearing Rural Roads 2,251 4,781 4,636 4,610 2,250 3,350 3,900 Total Rural Roads 17,521 13,769 35,154 32,530 31,881 22,062 33,447 Required funding stated in MTEF 16,664 31,221 24,011 26,741 45,900 44,818 47,142 1/ Funds transferred to Road Fund Sources: MINTP, and authors’ calculations 4. TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY IN THE PREPARATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING OF AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURE 67. Far-reaching innovations have been introduced in the past few years to enhance the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of public expenditure so as to improve consistency in budgeting decisions, expedite implementation, and afford a greater role to decentralized local authorities. The new financial regime (Act No. 2007/006 of December 26, 2007) lays the foundation for a more results-based public administration, replacing the means- based approach formulated by the 1962 Ordinance. The new fiscal system will be implemented gradually, with a five-year transitional phase from 2008 to 2013, the date of the Act’s full implementation. 68. Under the new financial regime, the ministries adopted medium-term expenditure frameworks as of 2009, and prepared program-based budgets from the 2013 budget year. As regards procurement procedures, changes took place after the establishment, in December 2011, of a new ministry for Public Procurement, so it is still too early to assess the impact of this reform. In addition, decentralization, which came into effect in 2010, assigns a greater role to decentralized local authorities in the implementation of the budget, but can give rise to difficulties in the implementation and monitoring of expenditure. 69. The progress of implementation rates of ministries’ capital budgets in the medium term were studied in Chapter 2. The data shows an improvement from 2009 in both spending commitments (commitments in relation to allocations) which exceeded 90% in 2011 and 2012, and spending implementation rates (implementation in relation to allocations) which came to about 80%. The rates are lower when external funds are involved because of delays in implementing projects funded by external resources (approval of financial arrangements, establishment of steering committees, and management units). Faster implementation requires speedier procedures for commitment and procurement plans; concrete recommendations are set out in Section 4.3. 4.1 Changes in Budget Planning since the Introduction of MTEF and Program-Based Budgets 70. MTEFs. The introduction of MTEFs in 2009 was a factor in rationalizing the budget preparation process. It allows for the inclusion of budget items in a coherent manner with specific objectives and with a clearly outlined strategy; in this way, requests for budget allocations can be justified in terms of the policy of a sector in the medium term. In any event, the reliability of a MTEF depends on the effectiveness of selection criteria priorities, and on the quality of the assessment of budget funding allocations on sector performance, which has to be carried out annually. The impact assessments of annual expenditure on sector performance are critical for improving planning strategy. The reliability of this assessment depends on the quality of the data on the results achieved, and the quality of information feedback. 71. Program-based Budgets. In Act No. 2007/006 of December 26, 2007 introducing the State Financial Regime, budget planning was introduced and came into force in 2013 (see Box 7). Programs were introduced on an experimental basis in the 2012 budget. A document appended to the 2012 budget presented the budget in the form of a program-based budget using a reconciliation table bridging administrative services with programs. Going forward, the goal is to draw up, present and implement the budget on a program basis. This provides an opportunity to rectify the inadequacies in means-based budgeting by focusing on results and leading to: (i) an improvement in the quality of public expenditure; (ii) greater administrative flexibility; (iii). greater accountability for those responsible for the management of their allocations and in the achievement of results. With the introduction of program budgets as from 2012, each ministry was required to set the objectives for these programs, defined in terms of operations and activities, and to assess the results achieved. The existing Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Monitoring System (PPBS) units set up in the various ministries, currently draft their mid-year assessments of progress at the ministries, setting out their main actions, activities, and results, program-by-program, in matrix format. The assessments currently only cover a fairly limited number of actions and activities, due to the lack of comprehensive data. More-accurate and detailed reporting of results would make these matrices more reliable and comprehensive. 72. Since 2012, the ratification of programs in terms of the MTEFs has been effected by a Planning Conference organized by the Inter-ministerial Committee on Program Review (CIEP), which evaluates their general coherence. At present there is a tendency to base the MTEFs on current projects and new projects in the preparation phase, but the goal of an MTEF ought to be assuring the application of sectoral strategies through the mobilization of the necessary resources, and ensuring that there is a choice between alternative projects. In the agricultural sector, the current shortcomings of MTEFs ought to be resolved when the PNIA (National Agricultural Investment Plan), which is currently under preparation in terms of the CAADP, is finalized. 73. The PNIA, presently being drawn up, provides the medium-term strategic framework for planning, coordination, and alignment of the full range of interventions in the rural sector for the 2014−2020 period, and will form the framework within which the METFs will operate. As explained in the preparatory document for the CAADP, “The PNIA takes into account the needs, lessons, and gaps in capital investment and for sector operations on a seven-year time horizon (2014−2020). It provides an overview of the whole range of programs and projects in the sector, both under way and in the planning phase, and informs the PPBS (Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System) chain in each ministry involved in rural sector development (MINADER, MINEPIA, MINFOF, MINEPDED, MINEPAT, MINRESI, MINSANTE, and so on).” 74. Challenges for Management and Monitoring. Experience in other countries shows that the success of a program-based budget approach greatly depends upon clearly defining managerial responsibility for the programs, as well as considerable efficiency in the expenditure chain, which tends to be complex and frequently formal in nature, without ensuring that the responsible ministers are duly accountable (conclusions of the Report on the Plan for the Modernization of Public Finance ratified in April 2013). The management and monitoring of program-based budgets requires a sophisticated IT system, to facilitate coherent data-sorting on budgetary implementation with new categorizations of expenses by program, sub-program, actions, and activities. Because the new data-processing system, aided by donors in the form of technical support, is not yet in place, the program budget monitoring is still weak. It is therefore essential to give priority to the implementation of a new IT system. It will also be critical to carry out studies in a more systematic fashion on the impact of the various projects and programs so as to evaluate their efficacy, both in absolute and comparative terms. 75. Performance Reports. With effect from 2009, ministries had to present Performance Reports in October concerning the implementation of their budget; these Performance Reports ought to help facilitate the preparation of MTEFs and program budgets. In July, before attending budget meetings, ministries should be able to refer to the performance reports of the previous year and the Mid-Term Evaluation Report prepared by the directorates for financial resources, the directorates for study and programming, and the monitoring departments with the support of regional delegations. MINADER and MINEPIA draw up evaluation matrices for the policy direction at mid-year, which take the place of mid-term evaluation reports. These matrices are fairly broad, and lack detail due to inadequate feedback of information from decentralized services, as discussed in the next section. The finalization of the PNIA makes the strengthening of the monitoring and evaluation function imperative, since its present inadequacy hampers the speedy adoption of corrective measures that are needed to keep the program going. Box 7. Program Budgeting (BP). Key Data A program is defined in Article 8 of the new financial regime as “a range of actions to be undertaken in a public body for the achievement of an objective specified as part of its functions” and which applies to the relevant “chapter” (Article 9 of the new financial statute). A program refers to a particular grouping of credits. This new approach entails greater accountability for ministries in the reporting of results. With program budgeting, each ministerial division has to draw up an Administrative Service Performance Plan (PPA). This plan should contain a summary of the information concerning the programs of the relevant ministry as well as the anticipated outcomes at the completion of the relevant programs. The assessment of the PPA for the budget year “x” should lead to the drawing up of an Annual Performance Report (RAP) for the year “x + 1” that will in future be part of the financial regulations. The PPA assists in replacing a means-based philosophy by a results- orientated culture at all levels in public administration. As far as sectoral ministries are concerned, program budgeting promotes a more effective presentation of objectives and make them easier to defend in budget meetings. As far as technical coordination with MINFI and MINEPAT is concerned, program budgeting promotes an accurate analysis of sectoral ministries’ proposals in budget meetings; it enables MINFI to prepare its introductory memorandum to the budget, it acts as a basis for monitoring implementation after the budget’s adoption. It forms the basis for discussion in the Finance and Budget Commission. In parliament it becomes the reference document for monitoring and evaluating programs. Given the multi-annual nature of budget planning, the introduction of programs may require commitments which go beyond the budget year. In addition, to reconcile the requirements of an annual budget with credits for multi-annual programs, two new concepts were introduced in the 2013 budget: Commitment Authorizations (AE) and Credit Payments (CP). AEs constitute the maximum extent of expenditure that can be undertaken in a period not exceeding three years. By contrast, CPs constitute the ceiling of an expense that can be scheduled or actually paid in terms of an expenditure commitment included in the AE. CPs represent the annual tranche of AEs. When an expense has been debited but not paid, credits can be carried forward; these roll-overs take the form of a provision itemized in the next year’s budget. However, credits not committed are cancelled at the end of the budget year. AEs should, particularly for program budgeting purposes, result in: (i) improved flexibility in budget control; (ii) improved project implementation; (iii) greater relevance of MTEFs. 4.2 Management of Resources Allocated to Decentralized Local Authorities 76. Budget decentralization was introduced in a series of Acts beginning with the promulgation on July 22, 2004 of three statutes: Act No. 2004/017 providing for decentralization, No. 2004/018 setting out the regulations applicable to municipalities, and No. 2004/019 setting out the regulations applicable to the regions, followed by the issue, in 2005, of the “Document d’orientation stratégique sur la mise en oeuvre de la décentralisation” (“Strategy Paper on the Implementation of Decentralization”) prepared by the ministry with responsibility for decentralization (MINATD). This came into effect with Act No. 2009/11 of July 10, 2009 which set out the fiscal system for the Decentralized Local Authorities and the effective transfer of responsibility and resources commencing in 2010. The powers transferred by Prime Ministerial decree were as follows: (i) at MINADER, the acquisition of seeds and pesticides, surveillance of and combating phytosanitary diseases, the development of small-scale rural infrastructure, community mobilization for local development; (ii) at MINEPIA: the establishment and management of communal animal husbandry and agro- pastoral perimeters, delimitation and coordinated management of agro-pastoral areas, protection of underground and surface water resources through community monitoring; (iii) at MINFOF, management of forests transferred by the State becoming communal forests, supervision of communal forests, supervision of community wildlife areas, management of financial resources collected from royalty payments for forestry concession leases payable to municipalities (20%), and the supervision and management of the portion payable to neighboring communities (10%). To date, 33 contracts have been signed between MINFOF and municipal councils; (iv) at MINTP, a new roads classification has been introduced for the purposes of decentralization. Three categories of roads have been introduced: - National roads, managed by the State; - Regional roads which include former département roads and regional roads, managed by the State (these were transferred to the regions when the latter were re- established); - Municipal roads (all other roads, rural and urban) to be managed by the 360 municipal councils; It is to be noted that this transfer is taking place gradually, and to date only responsibility for the development of rural infrastructure has been transferred to MINADER, the establishment and management of infrastructure and equipment for animal husbandry to MINEPIA, and the management of communal forests, management of financial resources collected from royalties for communal forests, as well as management supervision of royalties payable to neighboring communities, in respect of MINFOF. Approximately 15% of the capital budget is managed in a decentralized manner. 77. The conclusion can be drawn from the analysis set out in Box 8, that information feedback on monitoring is a weak link in the decentralization process. Another weakness is project management because municipal councils have neither the expertise nor experience to prepare calls for tender, evaluate bids, and monitor the technical and financial aspects of projects. This is compounded by local businesses’ limited ability to target key markets. In addition, since the establishment of MINMAP, municipalities which previously had District Tender Commissions are no longer responsible for procurement, as this activity has been entirely devolved to MINMAP. For example, tender documentation sent to MINMAP in January 2013 for the maintenance of an essential network, had still not resulted in concrete agreements by February 2014, fourteen months later. Such a situation can only hamper spending in the sector and impact negatively on growth. Action is needed to: (i) ensure more reliable provision of information; (ii) enhance the project management skills of the local authorities; (iii) expedite procurement procedures by raising MINMAP’s intervention threshold, which had already been raised to 100 million CFA francs in 2013. Measures are already under way to increase project management capacity through draft partnership agreements between MINMAP and each of the 360 municipalities currently being drawn up by MINTP, and MINTP departmental officials have been asked to focus on municipalities’ project management skills. In future, periodic evaluation will be required to improve municipalities’ project management capacity. Box 8. Budget Decentralization: Impact on Budget Implementation, Information Monitoring, and the Quality of Services 1- Implementation: Decentralization of the national budget was provided for by Act No. 2009/11 dated July 10, 2009 relating to the fiscal system of the decentralized local authorities, which came into effect in 2010. Some 15% of the budgets of MINADER and MINEPIA are managed in a decentralized manner. From 2012, at the beginning of the financial year, delegated credits for the regions were made as a credit document. After the introduction of the PROBMIS software in 2013, delegated credits were automatically transferred at the beginning of the year. 2- Procedure for Credit Commitments: As regards credit transferred to municipalities, the procedure is as follows: - Commitments by the municipalities - Commitment approval by the Financial Controller - Authorization of the implementation of the works and handing over of the same to a Works Committee, including local technical experts from the ministry where the project has been handed over to a local council; - Ratification of the expenditure by the local authority; - Payment to the contractor. 3- Information Feedback. Each month, regional representatives of the ministries in the sector will meet under the aegis of the MINEPAT delegate to review implementation of the PIB. These reports are sent to the Executive Officer for Investment at MINEPAT. At regional level quarterly reports are sent to the Regional Head. At regional level, the Sub-Committee for Monitoring and Evaluation of the PIB will meet monthly with technical officers and the Financial Controller, chaired by the president of the regional committee. In accordance with the provisions of Ministerial Directive No. 08/008/BAC/MINFI/DGB/DES, of July 28, 2008 the Local Financial Controllers (FC) carry out duties involving the collection, recording, and transmission of information on the allocation and commitment of delegated credits (including credits from HIPC, MDRI, C2D, as the case may be). Each month the Local Financial Controllers submit data to the District FCs, who, in turn send it, after verification, to the Departmental FC. From there it goes to the responsible Regional FC and finally to the Budget Directorate-General. The timetable is laid down with set deadlines, and the referral procedure has to be completed within 20 days of the month end to which the data refers. However, it should be noted that the Financial Directorates of the sectoral ministries do not receive the information on the implementation of the decentralized budget relevant to their sectors. This situation is regrettable since the National Fiscal System requires the latter to provide Performance Reports on the implementation of their budgets which requires full information on implementation at local level. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the local authorities do not adhere to the terms of reference they sign with contractors who are obliged to provide their implementation reports on the projects awarded to them. Problems in implementation are further aggravated because circulars from the minister responsible for budget implementation prior to 2013, gave to MINMEE and MINTP engineering responsibility for infrastructure delegated to local and regional authorities (CTD) by MINADER. This situation therefore excludes MINADER’s Technical Services from works acceptance committees, and thus from the technical monitoring of implementation, even though the ministerial department has at its disposal the Association of Rural Engineers who have expertise in the construction of such infrastructure. Note that this situation was rectified in 2013. 4- Quality of Services. The poor quality of services remains a vexing question. Municipal councils do not have the skilled staff to ensure technical monitoring of services. However, the ministries have transferred to them the authority and PIB funding to finance the construction of these works locally. PIB resources cannot be released for technical monitoring purposes. Furthermore, the ministries provide technical personnel in their decentralized structures but without the financial resources to carry out actual technical monitoring of the construction works delegated to the CTD. Discussions are under way as to whether the operating budgets of the ministries should be used for the deployment of technical personnel, or whether these costs should be borne by municipal resources. The matter will be settled by the National Council for Decentralization chaired by the Prime Minister who is head of government. MINTP has taken steps to facilitate the implementation by municipalities of the projects which have already been assigned to them. A partnership agreement between MINTP and each of the 360 municipalities is being drawn up by MINTP. Furthermore, departmental officials from MINTP have been requested to provide support for project management at municipal level (preparation of calls for tender, quantity surveying and the like). 4.3 Measures for Expediting Budget Implementation: Public Procurement Procedures and Budget Control 78. A key factor in expediting budget implementation procedures is the swift preparation of budget commitment plans at central level. In recent years the deadline for the submission of budget implementation plans was February 15, in which implementation plans by ministry are set out, and these have to be accompanied by procurement schedules. At present, consideration of these procurement plans, which has fallen to MINMAP since 2012, must be completed within a period of one month, from which it can be assumed that the first calls for tenders can only be issued in April, commitments made in May–June, and payments effected from August–September. 79. It was shown in the study carried out in 2010 by MINEPAT/GIZ, entitled “Analysis of Factors Impeding Cameroon’s Ability to Absorb Foreign Aid,” (“Analyse des facteurs limitant la capacité du Cameroun à absorber l’aide étrangère”) that procurement procedures and processes operate as a major brake on the absorption of public aid for development. A study entitled: “Performance du système de passation des marchés publics et l’analyse de pertes financières et des coûts économiques liées aux dysfonctionnements du processus de passation des marchés publics au Cameroun” (“Performance of the public procurement system and an analysis of financial losses and economic costs linked to dysfunctions in the procurement process in Cameroon”) undertaken by MINEPAT/GIZ/PAED in April 2011, offered the following findings: - Cameroon’s procurement code complies with recognized international practice characterizing modern procurement systems with respect to competition rules, transparency, efficiency and cost-effectiveness; - The procurement system is not applied; - Several deficiencies were apparent in procurement namely: (i) the complexity of the process; (ii) excessive costs of tender documentation, which restricts the entry of small- and medium-sized enterprises; (iii) delays in the preparation of tender documents; most tender documents are not available until June; about one-quarter of planned procurement is not effected within the financial year; (iv) lack of confidence among many economic operators due to delays in payment for work completed. The study assessed financial losses due to these problems at about 2%, and the economic costs at about 20% of all projects budgeted for. It made 80 recommendations of which 15 are urgent. We have attached these recommendations as appendix II to the present report, given their pertinence, their impact on public expenditure, and the fact that they are still applicable. 80. In light of the above, it must be emphasized that delays occasioned by the present procurement system make it unsuited to the agricultural sector whose activities remain dependent on the seasons and consequently on climatic changes. In tropical areas, the start of the growing season remains March 15, so, in order to be effective, support to producers (seed, phytosanitary or veterinary products, fertilizer, training, agricultural machinery and equipment, and so on) must be available to them at least one month beforehand, in other words by February 15. Furthermore, this timetable is difficult to apply. It is recommended that measures be adopted to expedite, as much as possible, the approval procedures for commitment plans and launching calls for tender. For example, it would be possible to submit commitment and procurement plans at the same time as the draft budget, and for invitations to tender to be available before the start of the financial year so as to initiate implementation from January. Raising the threshold for authorizations from MINMAP from 50 to 100 millions CFA francs, decided in 2013, hasspeeded up the procedures for smaller procurements, but should be matched by faster procedures at MINMAP for procurements it is responsible for approving. 81. Budget Control and Cash Flow Bottlenecks. As regards budget control, to ensure that cash payouts during the year match cash management expectations, quarterly commitment estimates are submitted to the heads of the ministerial departments and agencies. In the past, these estimates could not be rescheduled, which had the effect of reducing the budget implementation rate. Projects with a fixed completion deadline, generally November 30, further compromised budget spending, because disbursements for committed expenses had to be “verified” before year-end without the possibility of carrying them forward. This state of affairs was rectified with the introduction of commitment authorizations and credit payments from the start of the 2013 financial year, though the requirement that credit commitments be incurred before the end of the budget year, for payment rescheduling to the following year to be possible, nevertheless remained in force. Credits not committed by the financial year end are cancelled. Therefore, authorizations for commitments available at the end of the financial year for a program cannot be included in the carry-overs. The principle of quarterly commitment quotas has been retained, as well as a precautionary withholding of 10% of payments for goods and services; although certain budget items are still exempt. It should be noted that in 2013 cash-flow problems resulted in the treasury frequently blocking requests for the withdrawal of funds from the spending ministries, which contributed to a reduction in the rate of expenditure implementation. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82. Public expenditure in the agriculture sector, including expenditure by IRAD and subsidies to public administration bodies operating in the agriculture sector, which had amounted to almost 4% of total budget expenditure in the 2004−2008 period, rose to above 5% of the total in 2011 and 2012. The capital expenditure proportion of the global capital budget for ministries involved in the agriculture sector rose sharply in the period, reaching 11% in 2010 versus 4% in 2006. By contrast, operating expenditure, including subsidies to public administration bodies, still made up an insignificant part of the budget (2.9% in 2012). In terms of the NEPAD definition, public expenditure in the agriculture sector, which includes aid disbursed to NGOs for public expenditure, apart from support to administrative organizations, but excluding expenditure for feeder roads, was calculated at 4.4% of the total State budget for 2011 and at 3.8% in 2012. The implementation rate for capital expenditure has risen over the past few years, the commitment rate in particular. This is evidence of greater efficiency in budget management and greater determination to reduce delays in the implementation of projects. However, the sharp increase in public capital expenditure in the agriculture sector since 2009 has produced disappointing results in terms of value-added growth in the primary sector which amounted on average to 4.1% in the 2009−2012 period as against 4.7% between 2005−2008. 83. Functional analysis of capital expenditure in the agriculture sector based on project journals, reveals that the growth of capital expenditure from 2007 to 2012 benefited most of the major subsectors (rice, other cereals, coffee/cocoa, other crops). The sectors that appear to be underfunded are agricultural water supply, infrastructure to increase accessibility to production areas, research, veterinary services and fisheries. IRAD provides the primary agricultural research service, but its resources were reduced after 2009 when the National Agriculture Extension and Research Program, financed by the World Bank and the ADB, came to an end. Resources dedicated to it over the past few years, both in terms of percentage of GDP and per capita, are lower than the levels seen in most sub-Saharan African countries. Feeder roads are another sector in which resources have not increased significantly over the past four years; a comparison between funds itemized in the Ministry of Public Works’ MTEF and budget allocations reveal an average gap of 35% over the past three years. Agricultural extension services are a critical element for the authorities’ action to enhance agricultural production. The launching of the ACEFA project with a support and advisory structure in pilot regions, which will gradually be extended to all areas, gives rise to the problem of aligning these new structures with the already existing structures of the PNVRA. 84. Budget planning and preparation was improved with the introduction of the MTEFs in 2009 and program-based budgets from 2012. Experience in other countries indicates that the success of a program budget approach heavily depends on defining managerial responsibility for the programs clearly, as well as on considerable efficiency in the expenditure chain, which tends to be complex and frequently formal in nature. Improving performance analysis requires enhanced planning, budgeting and monitoring structures within the various ministries. In particular, monitoring the implementation of program budgets requires a sophisticated IT system, which is not yet in place. Annual performance reports and mid-term evaluation reports play an essential role in improving the quality of ministerial submissions at budget conferences, but their worth is compromised by delays in the feedback of information. Similarly, the six- monthly evaluation reports only cover part of the annual program of actions and activities. The METFs ought to play a strategic role in the formulation of sectoral policies but tend to be confined to a presentation of existing projects. The PNIA which is currently being drafted will, in the medium term, be integrated in the METFs and define the national strategic framework, for planning, co-ordination, and alignment of the entirety of interventions in the rural sector for the 2014–2020 period. The implementation of the PNIA will require the strengthening of monitoring and evaluation structures, to ensure that necessary remedial measures are swiftly implemented. 85. Management of resources at decentralized level presents enormous challenges, both in terms of efficacy in carrying out expenditure, due to weaknesses in project management and local implementation capacity, and in the feedback of information. Recent partnership initiatives between MINTP and municipalities and the assistance of MINTP departmental officials in project management are a step in the right direction. 86. Despite improvements in rates of expenditure commitment, more needs to be done to expedite the implementation of expenditure during the course of the year. The principle of budget control should be made more flexible to allow early expenditure commitments in the first part of the year. The introduction of the concepts of authorizing commitments and carrying credits forward will facilitate payment procedures over several financial years, while retaining the requirement that expenses be committed before the end of the year, failing which budget allocations will be lost. Public procurement procedures act as a brake on the absorption of public development aid and budgetary implementation of internal resources. The excessive costs of tender documentation presents a stumbling block for small- and medium-sized enterprises; access to documentation should be eased, and project documentation should be available from the beginning of the budget year to cut delays. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the matrix below (Table 12). Table 12. Proposed actions to improve efficiency in public spending in agriculture Authority Actions Responsibility Budget -- Increase the resources allocated to the agriculture Prime Minister’s programming sector as the 4% share of the State budget appears Office, Ministries inadequate in terms of the Maputo Declaration. -- Strengthen those areas which appear underfunded, such as feeder roads, water management, rural infrastructure, and fisheries. -- Avoid the inclusion in budget programs of those actions Ministries and activities for which feasibility studies have not yet been finalized. -- Project selection to be made on the basis of economic impact analyses. DRFP and Technical Directorates -- Ensure that administrative expenditure is sufficient for responsible for maintaining capital goods and for providing essential Monitoring and services. Evaluation of Projects -- Establish a mechanism for budgeting for operating DRFP and expenditure on maintenance of capital items. Technical Directorates responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects Budget -- Speed up procedures for issuing public contracts after MINMAP, Implementation the promulgation of the budget. MINEPAT, MINFI, and Procurement MINADER, -- Present commitment and procurement plans at the MINEPIA, same time as the project budget, and make tender MINFOF, documents available before the start of the budget year MINEPDED so that calls for tender can be issued in January. -- Reduce procedural delays. -- Speed up the preparation of tender documentation, and reduce the cost of purchasing it. -- Speed up contract signature procedures. MINFI, MINMAP and line ministries -- Reassess budget regulations so as to boost budget MINFI implementation rates; evaluate the operational impact of the recent measures which allow for carrying forward credit appropriations to the following financial year. -- The Ministry of Finance must ensure consistency in the implementation of public expenditure. Decentralization Adopt a number of measures to improve and speed up MINATD, National budget implementation through delegated credits: Decentralization Council (PM), -- Strengthen operational structures at local and regional MINMAP, MINFI, authority level (CTD). and ministerial -- Enhance the capacity of local entrepreneurs involved in departments construction of rural infrastructure. concerned -- Speed up payments to companies that meet specifications. -- Speed up procurement procedures at municipal level and reduce delays at MINMAP level, when it is involved. -- Finalize the partnership agreement being drawn up between MINTP and municipalities to allow departmental structures of MINTP to promote project management at municipal level. Monitoring and -- Improve information feedback on actual expenditure by MINEPAT, Evaluation the decentralized services and the CTDs. decentralized departments of ministries -- Ensure the introduction of an effective IT system for concerned, CTD, monitoring program budgets. financial oversight of MINFI -- Strengthen the PPBS units with adequate IT capacity to allow them to produce Administrative Performance Projects (PPA) and high quality mid- and end-of-year performance reports. -- Produce impact studies for major projects. -- Strengthen semi-annual assessments of ministries’ progress, detailing monitoring of actions and activities. Strategic -- Increase spending on R&D; strengthen IRAD’s budget. MINFI, MINEPAT, Guidelines MINRESI, MINADER -- Update the strategy for feeder roads, so as to include MINEPAT, the need to improve access to remote production areas. MINEPIA -- Increase funding for feeder roads. MINTP -- Study how to end the duplications observed between MINADER, the two existing support consultancies. Give support to MINEPIA pooling resources and ensuring their sustainability. -- Enhance infrastructure services and offer assistance in MINEPIA animal husbandry. REFERENCES ARMP, 2006: Study on penalties in the field of public contracts. CA 17 International, September 2011: Midterm evaluation of the Program for the Improvement of the Competitiveness of Family Farms (CRD/ACEFA). Cameroon: Finance Law, 2003 to 2012. Cameroon: Budget Regulations Law, 2003 to 2012. Cameroon: Law No. 2009/011 of July 10, 2009 on the fiscal regime of Decentralized Territorial Units. Cameroon: Law No. 2007/006 December 26, 2007 on the Fiscal Regime of the State, 2007. Speech by the President of the Republic at the opening ceremonies of the Agro-pastoral Institute of Ebolowa, January 17, 2011. Campaign speech by the head of State in Maroua on the occasion of the 2011 presidential election, Maroua, October 4, 2011. Speech by His Excellency Mr. Paul Biya, President elect of the Republic of Cameroon upon swearing in before the National Assembly, Yaoundé, November 3, 2011. FAO: Interagency mission for institutional and strategic repositioning of nutrition in Cameroon, April 2013. INS: Statistical Yearbook Cameroon 2011 and 2012. IRAD: Statistical Agricultural Research Plans, 2008–2012 and 2013–2016. Lopez, Ramon and Gregman Galinato, “Should Government Strip Subsidies to Private Goods, Evidence from Rural Latin America,” Journal of Public Economics, 91, pages 1071–94. MINADER: rural development strategy document: agriculture and rural development, 2010. MINADER: Priority action plans 2011. MINADER-DESA: Bulletin of Exchanges between Cameroon, CEMAC, and Nigeria, 2007. MINADER – MINEPIA: Conceptual Design of a Sectorial Agricultural Program – Livestock (PSAE), July 2009. MINADER-MINEPIA: Introductory document for introducing the second phase of the ACEFA program, May 2013. MINEPAT: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), 2003. MINEPAT: Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (DSCE), 2009. MINEPAT-DGE: PIB Status Reports, 2003 to 2012. MINEPAT: Vision 2035, 2009. MINEPAT – GIZ-GPPi: Analysis of the factors restricting the ability of Cameroon to absorb foreign aid, 2010. MINEPAT-GIZ –PAEDP: Performance of the public contract award system and analysis of the financial losses and economic costs related to the malfunctioning of the public procurement process in Cameroon, April 2011. MINEPAT / GIZ: Inventory and diagnosis of the rural sector in Cameroon—February 2013. MINEPIA: Priority action plan fact sheet 2013–2017. MINEPAT: Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (GESP), 2009. MINEPAT-PNUD: National progress report on the Millennium Development Goals (2012). MINFI: Government financial operations database. MINFOF: 2020 forest and fauna sub-sector strategy; 2013–2016 action plan. MINFOF: Policy statement on the forest and fauna sub-sector. MINFOF: Rio + 20 Accomplishments and challenges of the forest sector in Cameroon, 2012. MINEPDED: Priority action plan 2013–2017. MINTP: Rehabilitation and Maintenance Statement regarding the Rural Roads in Cameroon, 2000WFP/ Republic of Cameroon: Food security and markets in Cameroon, 2011. Presidency of the Republic: DECREE No. 2011 / 408 December 9, 2011 relating to the organization of the government. Republic of Cameroon—European Community: Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for 2008–2013, (10th EDF). Office of the Prime Minister: Decree Nos. 201 0/0242/PM and 201 0/0244/PM of February 26, 2010 establishing the ways of exercising authority transferred by the State to municipalities, as concerns promoting agricultural production and rural development activities and pastoral and fishery-related activities. List of Participants Ministry of Finance Mr. André Gérard NGUESSONG General Directorate of the Budget, Computer Unit Mr. KOUMBA AYISSI General Directorate of the Budget Mr. Gaspard NGAHZI General Directorate of the Budget Mr. El Hadj MEFIRE Moussa Central Financial Control Unit, MINADER Benoît NDOUMBE LOBE Economic Affairs Division NGA KOUMDA Cabinet of the Minister, MINFI ESSOMBA André Chief of Service for State-owned Companies and Mixed Economy (Shareholding Division) Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Regional Development Mr. Ahmed NDJAMA ABOUEM Deputy Director for the Monitoring of Public Investment Programs and Projects Mr. NGANGUE Computer Specialist, Public Investment Program and Project Monitoring Branches Mr. Didier BAKELAK General Directorate of Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Mr. BILOA Gatien General Inspector in Charge of Rural Development and Decentralization Mr. Timothée AYISSI Director of Surveys and Statistical Studies, Head of Monitoring Technical Unit Mrs. Jeanine ATANGA NKODO Director of Surveys and Statistical Studies (Since December 2013) Mr. Etienne Serge ANAKEU Monitoring Technical Unit Secretariat Mr. Benjamin GARGA Chief of Service, Financial Affairs Mr. Vincent NANGNANG Inspector Mr. NTANG NKAMA Department of Studies, Planning, and Cooperation Mr. Amos BASSIA BASSIA Department of Studies, Planning, and Cooperation; Agricultural Analyses, Prospects, and Policies Unit Mr. Dagobert DJAKOU Unit Head, Department of Studies, Planning, and Cooperation; Agricultural Analyses, Prospects, and Policies Unit Mr. Fernand AYANGMA Director, Department of Rural Engineering and the Improvement of the Living Environment in Rural Areas Mrs. Gisèle BAOK, spouse of BEDOUNG Rural Engineering Works Engineer, Department of Rural Engineering and the Improvement of the Living Environment in Rural Areas Mr. NGASSA Raymond Chief of Service for the Budget Mrs. EKOBO Colette Edith Inspector of Services (IGDA) Mr. NJOYA Maurice POUMIE Inspector of Services (IGDR) Mr. KAMGAING Serges Deputy Director of Surveys and Statistical Studies Mr. FOUEDJO David SIGIPES Unit Head Mr. MEYONG Dieudonné Human Resources Department, SGP Mr. NGUENANG Augier Chief of Service, Personnel Central Index Mr. Mohamadou SAOUDI Department of Financial Resources and Heritage Mr. MBILI OLOUME Deputy Director of Extension Mr. DOUGDJE Mahama Extension Branch Mr. NUZA Syxtus Director, Department of Regulation and Quality Control of Inputs and Products Mr. BAKAK Prosper Inputs and Products Regulation and Quality Control Branch Mr. MBOLO NGONO Gabriel Regional Delegate of Agriculture for the Centre Region Mr. MBOUSSI MOUTE Jean Claude Divisional Delegate of Agriculture and Rural Development for the Nyong & SO’O Division Ministry of Public Works Mr. Jean Jules DOMO DJOHOU Head of Unit, Department of Studies, Standards, and Planning Mr. MBOLE MBOLE Director of Rural Roads Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry Mr. OUMAROU Ousmanou Director, Department of General Affairs Mr. HAMIDOU Saïdou Deputy Director of Financial Resources and Heritage Mr. Sébastien DJENOUASSI Department of Studies, Planning, and Cooperation Mr. ADAMA Justin Deputy Director of Personnel Dr. FOTSO KAMGA Deputy Director of Pharmacy and Private Veterinary Sector Mr. ANDJONGO EFANDENA Gérard Divisional Delegate of Livestock, Fisheries, and Animal Husbandry Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife Mrs. EHETH Victoire Director, Division of Cooperation (DCP) Mr. Simon Pierre SONE Director of General Affairs Mr. Marcel OJONG Assistant Research Officer, DCP Mrs. BOO Lucile Aurélie Chief of Section for Forests Ministry of the Environment, Nature Protection, and Sustainable Development Mrs. NANGA MEFANT Berthe Inspector of Services Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) Mr. Noé WOIN General Director Dr. NYASSE Salomon Scientific Coordinator for Sustainable Resources NDO’O Eunice Assistant Research Officer, Department of Scientific Research Ministry of Higher Education Mrs. Rosine NZIETCHUENG Technical Adviser for the Structuring of Research and Doctoral Schools, MINESUP Ministry of Commerce ESSONO MESSANGA Sylvestre Deputy Director of Commercial Exchanges Autonomous Sinking Fund of Cameroon (CAA) Mr. MVONDO Jean Paul Director for Project Financing Mr. Pierre TCHOUAMENI Assistant Research Officer National Institute of Statistics (INS) Mr. DJOU Pierre Unit Head ACEFA Program Mr. BOUBA MOUMINI National Coordinator Mr. KENGNE Assistant National Coordinator IMF Mr. TCHAKOTE Du Prince Economist World Bank Dr. Amadou NCHARÉ Agricultural Economist Mr. Emmanuel SENE Rural Development Senior Specialist European Union Delegation Mr. Michel SCHLEIFER Program Officer, Rural Development, Environment, and Civil Society Section Clemens SCHROËTER Project Officer GIZ GIZ Mrs. Katharina CESANA M&E Expert, Forest and Environment Sector Support Program AFD Mr. Mathieu Le Grix Head of Mission for Agriculture, Forestry, and the Environment French Embassy Mr. Eric FORCE Cooperation Attaché for Sustainable Development and the Environment DATA oduction by region 2007–2011 (in tons) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average 2007–2011 566,498 585,666 601,239 653,456 690,485 619,469 2,595,773 2,767,154 3,204,813 3,640,180 3,804,781 3,202,540 2,071,241 2,120,253 2,306,880 2,538,167 2,555,534 2,318,415 H 1,237,942 1,309,071 1,391,121 1,484,245 1,680,594 1,420,595 1,373,152 1,396,829 1,524,252 1,623,800 1,726,161 1,528,839 403,369 415,892 831,766 881,856 849,444 676,465 ST 1,105,321 1,173,594 946,353 946,767 979,735 1,030,354 1,238,728 1,296,838 1,552,555 1,794,199 1,847,094 1,545,883 1,206,593 1,348,103 1,530,291 1,642,919 1,643,265 1,474,234 ST 788,154 812,251 1,011,188 1,271,339 1,463,043 1,069,195 12,586,771 13,225,651 14,900,458 16,476,928 17,240,136 14,885,989 mpilation of authors based on MINADER/DESA databases oduction by region (in %) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average 2007–2011 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 21% 21% 22% 22% 22% 21% 16% 16% 15% 15% 15% 16% H 10% 10% 9% 9% 10% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10% 3% 3% 6% 5% 5% 4% ST 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 7% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 10% SOUTH-WEST 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Compilation of authors based on MINADER/DESA databases Table A.3: Budget data in billions of CFA francs (current rate) A- Estimated State Budget (Finance Law) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Current Expenses 1,244.70 1,346.0 1,367.5 1,420 1,680.4 1,483.5 1,660.4 1,953.3 1,891.0 2,007.8 Goods and Services 211.85 258.85 228.3 339.2 376.3 407.6 511.8 552.8 340.9 568.2 Salaries 455.00 455.00 475.0 446.0 479.0 510.0 560.77 628.8 685.0 735.00 Subsidies and Transfers 156.15 165.15 163.77 207.74 235.69 258.34 287.14 353.93 494.3 417.0 Pensions 95.00 100.00 110.00 121.00 121.00 Interest 86.30 158.0 74.2 58.0 49.00 47.00 37.40 37.80 45.00 39.60 Foreign Debt 66.30 137.00 52.60 32.0 35.00 32.00 27.40 30.60 25.00 21.40 Domestic Debt 20.00 21.00 21.60 26.00 14.00 15.00 10.00 7.20 20.00 18.20 Capital Expenses (IR and ER Allocations) 264.30 271.00 353.50 441.0 570.58 792.4 640.51 616.66 680.00 792.20 1 Internal Resources 140.00 201.00 256.00 331.0 460.58 654.4 500.51 456.66 474.00 526.00 Including HIPC, MDRI, C2D 40.17 70.00 65.00 129.1 193.30 176.4 16.32 85.44 37.80 30.00 External Resources 67.30 70.00 97.50 110.0 110.00 138.0 140.00 160.00 206.00 206.00 Total 1,509 1,617 1,721 1,861 2,251 2,276 2,301 2,570 2,571 2,800 B- State’s Implemented Budget Current Expenses 1,049 1,169 1,055 1,097 1,151 1,396 1,490 1,611 1,842 1,807 Implementation Rate 84% 87% 77% 77% 68% 94% 90% 82% 97% 90% Goods and Services 321 414 337 381 436 512 540 613 550 575 Implementation Rate 151% 160% 147% 112% 116% 126% 106% 111% 161% 101% Salaries 421 450 414 419 435 561 629 634 685 706 Implementation Rate 93% 99% 87% 94% 91% 110% 112% 101% 100% 96% Subsidies and Transfers 126 141 175 211 230 286 289 331 563 474 Implementation Rate 81% 86% 107% 102% 97% 111% 101% 93% 114% 114% Pensions 66 64 77 72 84 94 104 117 117 132 Implementation Rate 99% 104% 106% 97% 109% Interest 181 164 129 87 50 37 33 33 45 51 Implementation Rate 209% 104% 174% 150% 103% 79% 87% 86% 99% 129% Foreign Debt 154 138 111 73 37 33 29 26 31 25 Implementation Rate 232% 101% 211% 227% 104% 102% 105% 86% 122% 117% Domestic Debt 27 26 18 15 14 4 4 6 14 20 Implementation Rate 135% 122% 84% 56% 99% 30% 37% 86% 70% 110% Capital Expenses (IR and ER Verifications) 154.15 160.04 50.31 246.66 331.16 392.01 414.28 508.14 487.48 583.00 Implementation Rate 58% 59% 14% 56% 58% 49% 65% 82% 72% 74% 1 Internal Resources 104.00 114.32 22.91 167.80 286.55 318.86 347.65 302.33 354.90 459.70 Implementation Rate 74% 57% 9% 51% 62% 49% 69% 66% 75% 87% Including HIPC, MDRI, C2D 1.75 37.24 7.28 14.67 56.00 29.55 102.54 57.61 7.26 11.70 Implementation Rate 4% 53% 11% 11% 29% 17% 628% 67% 19% 39% External Resources 50.15 45.73 27.41 78.86 44.62 73.14 66.62 205.80 132.58 123.30 Implementation Rate 75% 65% 28% 72% 41% 53% 48% 129% 64% 60% Total 1,219 1,331 1,278 1,366 1,542 1,967 1,931 2,067 2,603 2,245 Implementation Rate (% of Liquidation Base) 81% 82% 74% 73% 68% 86% 84% 80% 101% 80% Sources: Finance Law; MINFI; GDB; Article IV of IMF Report; MINEPAT: PIB Implementation Reports C- MINADER Expenses (in billions of CFAF) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Capital Expenses (Liquidation) 4.71 3.48 0.98 7.03 7.34 11.78 16.58 23.05 30.93 29.38 Internal Resources (IR), including HIPC, MDRI, and C2D 4.71 2.79 0.41 1.49 4.96 5.36 13.11 23.05 24.72 24.22 % of total capital expenses (IR) 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% 8% 7% 5% External Resources (ER) 0.03 0.69 0.57 5.54 2.38 4.36 2.78 0.00 6.21 5.16 % of total capital expenses (State ER) 0% 2% 2% 7% 5% 6% 4% 0% 5% 4% Current expenses, Scheduling 20.06 22.9 19.8 21.3 20.4 32.1 26.8 24.7 24.3 27.2 Goods and Services 6.0 7 6 5 4.794 8.861 4.56 4.494 3.959 4.892 % total State expenses for Goods and Services 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Salaries 13.06 13.9 12.8 12.9 15.4 15.4 17.458 20 20 22 % total expenses State Personnel 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Transfers and Subsidies 1.0 1.9 1.3 2.9 0.20 7.80 4.7 0.006 0.04 0.017 % total expenses for State transfers and subsidies 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% Total of MINADER Expenses 24.77 26.42 20.78 28.35 27.76 43.84 43.38 47.73 55.23 56.63 % total State expenses 2.03% 1.98% 1.63% 2.08% 1.80% 2.23% 2.25% 2.31% 2.12% 2.52% Rural Paths Expenses from MINADER Budget 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.234 0.312 0.453 MINADER Implemented Budget Excluding Rural Paths 24.65 26.29 20.64 28.20 27.60 43.67 43.20 47.49 54.92 56.17 MINADER Implemented Budget Excl. Rural Paths / State Implemented Budget 2.02% 1.97% 1.61% 2.06% 1.79% 2.22% 2.24% 2.30% 2.11% 2.50% D- MINEPIA Expenses (in billions of CFAF) Capital Expenses (Liquidation) 1.68 0.99 0.19 0.89 1.48 3.32 3.29 3.79 7.25 5.69 Internal Resources (IR), including HIPC, MDRI, and C2D 1.50 0.99 0.03 0.61 1.36 2.14 3.21 3.79 7.07 5.69 % of total capital expenses (IR) 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% External Resources (ER) 0.18 0.00 0.16 0.28 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 % of total capital expenses (State ER) 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Current expenses, Scheduling 5.4 5.9 5.5 6.1 5.7 9.2 8.5 7.1 7.2 8.5 Goods and Services 1.00 0.95 0.94 1.37 1.10 1.68 0.99 0.67 0.78 1.377 % total expenses State Goods and Services 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Salaries 4 4.50 4.14 4.19 4.61 5.54 6.14 6.38 6.42 7.08 % total expenses for State Personnel Salaries 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% Transfers and Subsidies 0.40 0.48 0.41 0.55 0.03 2.01 1.33 0.01 0.01 0.005 % total expenses for State transfers and subsidies 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total of MINEPIA Expenses 7.08 6.92 5.68 7.00 7.22 12.56 11.74 10.85 14.45 14.15 % total State expenses 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% E- MINFOF Expenses (in billions of CFAF) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Capital Expenses (Liquidation) 2.26 0.13 0.42 0.54 0.53 1.72 1.29 3.27 8.82 3.45 Internal Resources (IR), including HIPC, MDRI, and C2D 1.27 0.00 0.18 0.54 0.53 0.73 1.29 3.27 8.82 3.45 % of total capital expenses (IR) 1.22% 0.00% 0.80% 0.32% 0.18% 0.23% 0.37% 1.08% 2.48% 0.75% External Resources (ER) 0.99 0.13 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % of total capital expenses (State ER) 1.97% 0.29% 0.91% 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Current expenses, Scheduling 4.59 5.0 4.6 6.0 6.3 11.1 6.8 8.0 7.2 8.2 Goods and Services 0.5 0.65 0.81 1.82 2.69 5.07 1.73 2.26 1.88 1.69 % total expenses for State Goods and Services 0.16% 0.16% 0.24% 0.48% 0.62% 0.99% 0.32% 0.37% 0.34% 0.29% Salaries 3.79 4.05 3.73 3.77 3.6 4.8 5.1 5.7 5.3 6.5 % total expenses for State Personnel Salaries 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% Transfers and Subsidies 0.3 0.32 0.06 0.41 0.01 1.18 - 0.05 0.02 0.02 % total expenses for State transfers and subsidies 0.24% 0.23% 0.03% 0.19% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% Total of MINFOF Expenses 6.85 5.16 5.02 6.54 6.83 12.77 8.12 11.28 16.01 11.66 % total expenses State 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% COFOG Current Expenses (65% of total operational budget) 4.49 4.91 4.58 5.85 6.29 10.64 6.83 7.99 7.19 8.20 F- Projects outside MINFOF Budget 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mengana Gorilla Site Preservation Project 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.65 Campo MA'AN Project 0.015 0.12 0.02 0.08 0.32 Rehabilitation of Protected Areas, Parks, and Reserves 0.101 0.095 0.218 0.854 National Program for Wildlife Enhancement and 0.1 Repopulation in Protected Areas Green Spaces Development 0.025 Korup Project 0.01 Protected Areas Preservation and Development 0.16 0.3 0.427 Development of National Buildings and Parks, and 0.59 0.398 Protected Areas National Biodiversity Program, GTZ 0.025 Mbam & Djerem Park Development 0.01 0.277 Mefou Park Development 0.07 0.07 Water Points and Rehabilitation of National Parks 0.093 Support to Parks and Zoological Gardens 0.06 0.1 0.086 0.08 0.107 0.1 0.05 0.1 Sea Turtle Protection 0.006 Support to Lobéké National Park 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.106 0.222 0.045 Garoua Wildlife College, Support to Trainers 0.021 Waza National Park Development and Feasibility for Douala Zoological Garden Total Expenses for Projects outside MINFOF Budget 0.35 0.77 0.48 0.51 2.27 0.10 0.99 0.93 Total Expenses based on liquidation of Projects 0.18 0.39 0.24 0.26 1.14 0.05 0.49 0.46 outside MINFOF budget COFOG Capital Expenses of MINFOF 2.26 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.29 1.46 0.15 3.22 8.33 2.99 Total of MINFOF COFOG Expenses 6.74 5.04 4.83 6.01 6.59 12.10 6.98 11.21 15.51 11.19 G- MINEPDED Expenses (in billions of CFAF) 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 2,008 2,009 2,010 2,011 2,012 Capital Expenses (Liquidation) 0.29 0.08 0.80 0.29 4.23 1.58 1.67 Internal Resources (IR), including HIPC, MDRI, and C2D 0.00 0.08 0.36 0.29 4.23 1.58 1.52 % of total capital expenses (IR) 0.00% 0.03% 0.11% 0.08% 1.40% 0.44% 0.33% External Resources (ER) 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 % of total capital expenses (State ER) 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% Current expenses, Scheduling Goods and Services 0.16 0.59 1.07 2.32 1.14 1.28 1.33 1.21 % total expenses State Goods and Services 0.05% 0.15% 0.25% 0.45% 0.21% 0.21% 0.24% 0.21% Salaries 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.56 0.58 0.53 % total expenses for State Personnel Salaries 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Transfers and Subsidies 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 % total expenses for State transfers and subsidies 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.003% 0.003% 0.002% 0.002% Total of MINEPDED Expenses 0.56 1.27 1.55 3.63 2.03 6.09 3.50 3.42 % total expenses State 0.04% 0.09% 0.10% 0.18% 0.11% 0.29% 0.13% 0.15% H-Agriculture-related Projects Approved by MINEPDED 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 2,008 2,009 2,010 2,011 2,012 FESP, CIDA 0.005 Sustainable Development of Natural Resources, GEF, 0.015 0.11 0.35 1.2 0.07 UNDP Support to Environmental Protection and Renewal and Natural Resources Support for Environmental Protection and the 0.125 Replenishment of Natural Resources, GEF Benoue Basin Development Project 0.285 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.15 Study of the Environmental Compensation Mechanism 0.03 Related to the Preservation of Forest Ecosystems Budget Support to Prepare the Environmental 0.01 0.02 Management Manual of Forest Use Operation Green Sahel 0.8 0.8 1.12 1 1 Preservation of Mangrove Ecosystems 0.1 0.12 0.12 0.12 Fight against Water Hyacinths 0.15 0.15 0.15 Total G 0.145 0.395 1.19 2.22 1.61 1.42 1.42 I- Operational Subsidies (in Billions of CFAF) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 National Forestry Development Agency (ANAFOR) - 0.50 0.60 0.65 0.17 0.40 0.45 0.60 National Center for Studies and Experimentation of Agricultural Mechanization (CENEEMA) 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.55 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries, Livestock, and Forests (CAPEF) 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 North-West Livestock Development Fund (CDENO) 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.45 Gulf of Guinea Fisheries Regional Committee 0.04 FAO/WFP Management Committee 0.33 0.30 0.41 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 North Livestock Development Fund (CDEN) 0.08 0.20 0.30 Maritime Fishing Development Fund 0.08 0.50 0.50 Binguela Farmer Field School 0.50 0.60 Farmer Support Fund 0.35 Revolving Fertilizers Fund for Producers’ Federations 1.00 Seed-growers’ Fund 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.20 Special Forest Development Fund 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD) 0.75 0.70 0.90 0.80 1.38 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 Noun Upper Valley Development Authority (UNVDA) 0.14 0.65 0.35 0.15 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 North-West Development Authority (MIDENO) 0.28 0.53 0.33 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 South-West Development Authority (SOWEDA) 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.55 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Mandara Mountains Comprehensive Development Authority (MIDIMA) 0.25 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.22 0.28 0 0.20 0.20 0.20 Studies and Development Authority of the North (MEADEN) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.20 Ocean Development Studies Mission (MEAO) 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Cereal Board (OC) 0.35 0.27 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Cocoa-Coffee Seed-Growing Project 0.14 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.20 Animal Production Development Company (SODEPA) - 0.20 0.10 0.10 1.00 0.20 Cocoa Development Company (SODECAO) 0.70 0.08 0.85 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 Society for the Expansion and Modernization of Rice Cultivation in Yagoua (SEMRY) 0.25 0.29 0.52 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.60 Aerial Agricultural Treatment Unit 0.18 0.02 0.02 - - Total H 7.10 7.14 8.43 8.07 9.91 9.53 8.09 8.92 11.91 9.60 J- Special Funds (in Millions of CFAF) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 101.28 Certification Fees for Plant Treatment Products Seed Growers’ Own Funds 123 C.D.E.N 60 50 50 100 150 200 150 80 350 300 C.D.E.N.O. 50 50 306 120 200 100 50 50 150 150 CPDM 200 200 600 600 600 500 736 600 750 700 IRAD Own Funds 335 661 842 841 622 660 550 Total I 310 401 1,057 1,256 1,712 1,743 1,878 1,453 2,011 1,925 Total I (in billions of CFAF) 0.31 0.40 1.06 1.26 1.71 1.74 1.88 1.45 2.01 1.93 Sources: MINADER/DRCQ, MINFI-PSREP, IRAD K- Agricultural Expenses Implemented by Other Ministries 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 MINRESI IR and ER Allocation 0.03 0.03 0.025 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 IR 0.035 ER 0 Commitment 0 0 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 IR 0.035 ER Liquidation 0 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 IR 0.035 ER MINCOMMERCE ER/IR Allocation 0 0 0 0 0.246 1.182 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 IR 0.482 ER 0.7 Commitment 0 0 0 0 0.096 0.474 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 IR 0.474 ER Liquidation 0 0 0 0 0.093 0.474 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 IR ER MINEPAT 0 Total Resources Allocation 0 0.995 0 0.27 0 IR 0 0.07 0 0.026 0.12 35.54 ER 0 0.925 0 0.04 0.15 Commitment 1.517 IR 0.07 0.12 0 ER 1.447 0 0 32.227 0 0 Liquidation 1.517 20 0 IR 0.07 0 20 29.5 ER 1.447 0 0 0 MINMIDT IR and ER Allocation 0 0.05 IR 0.05 ER 0 Commitment 0 0.1 Liquidation 0.075 Total J Allocation 0.03 1.025 0.025 0 0.551 1.267 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.235 Commitment 0 1.517 0 0 0.131 0.609 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.235 Liquidation 0 1.517 0 0 20.128 0.584 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.235 Source: MINEPAT/DPIP: PIB Implementation Reports, Authors’ Estimates L- Disbursement of Public Aid to NGOs and CSOs by the Main TFPs (in Millions of CFAF) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2,012 Germany 0 0 293.0 436.3 514.2 419.0 707.7 626.0 599.3 399 Belgium 516.6 648.0 235.4 125.5 28.8 376.0 502.8 543.0 351.2 370 Canada 40.7 37.2 115.1 68.3 24.0 8.8 245.8 148.1 229.4 102 Spain 30.04 111.55 95.05 147.18 1379.28 1348.85 1508.05 792.14 304.21 635 France 0 0 0 0 0 0 70.69 27.94 9.36 12 Greece 17.6 18 Italy 0 53.1 0.0 0.0 76.5 154.8 298.8 153.0 280.9 113 Luxembourg 0 0 0 102.1 72.1 84.0 47.1 34.6 126.4 52 Switzerland 170.2 212.5 41.9 49.8 120.1 58.3 281.1 0.0 46.8 109 Sweden 0 0 0 0.05 6.87 5.49 1.56 0.00 1.03 2 European Union 0 0 0 184.0 197.0 1052.8 235.6 646.6 458.9 308 Total L (in Millions of CFAF) 757.5 1062.3 780.3 1130.9 2419.0 3508.1 3899.3 2971.3 2407.6 2119.7 Source: FAO (ADAMS mapping tool) ANNEX II: Recommendations to Improve the Public Procurement System Framework Framework does not promote an 1. Draw up a progress report, assess the impact of reforms effective system undertaken in 2005 and 2008 and publish the results Too many rules 2. Pursue ARMP efforts to provide text manuals and endeavor to assemble all implementation instruments into a single collection. Rules poorly mastered 3. Enable improved access to legal documents (including the by stakeholders Internet) and ensure good communication about the availability of the texts. Stakeholders Insufficient training/professionalization 4. Finalize the setting up of a certifying continuous education system for the various stakeholders involved in public contracts. Draw up measurable criteria for positions pertaining to the Contracting Authority and Public Contract Committees Poor motivation (career, payment, 5. Systematize implementation of the assessment system for working conditions) Contracting Authorities by the ARMP. Develop an assessment system for the performance of other stakeholders (CPM, payments department, and companies). Provide a system for senior staff motivation (bonuses, career plans). Ensure the timely payment of stakeholders. Guarantee the improvement of working conditions by equipping institutions with working logistics (premises, office equipment, and vehicles). Corruption 6. Pursue measures undertaken to fight corruption and implement rapid-results initiatives (RRI) adopted within the framework of the strategy to fight against corruption. PROCEDURES Maturation and preparation of the 7. Bidding documents must be available when preparing the budget. projects Studies for year "n" projects must be carried out in year "n - 1". Lack of quality control during 8. Supporting procedures with technical assistance (e.g., a procurement process consultant) from the preliminary stages until the acceptance / payment or expand the role of the Independent Observer (IO) to enable them to ensure effective control throughout the process. 9. Ensure the quality of the assessment grid and provide for the use as much as possible of the “yes/no” binary notation. Occurrence of several proceedings that 10. Rapidly adopt the 2009 Order proposed by the Public Contracts cause delays and increase costs Regulatory Board to determine compensation for committee meetings on a flat per-project basis rather than per session. In the medium term, assess the relevance of the existing control system Delays and quality during execution 11. Clarify the roles of Project ownership and Project management and include legal services in the preparation of the draft contract. GUIDANCE Poor organization of the system 12. Adopt a common system for public contracts as concerns project management, which is based on the objectives of the Growth and Employment Strategy Paper. Develop contract services as a contracts unit within the Office of the Contracting Authority. Anticipate delegating the powers of the Contracting Authority to the staff of the Ministerial Contracting Authorities. Remedies and Sanctions 13. Establish a competent authority for ensuring an amicable Poorly implemented settlement. Examine the current performance of the system for remedies and sanctions by conducting a study. Transparency and archiving not 14. Ensure accessibility to existing data via the Internet (contracts, guarantees remedies, list of people who are excluded from the procedure) for anyone interested, preferably electronically (Internet). In the Public Contracts Code, specify the responsibility of Contracting Authorities as regards archiving. Source: MINEPA|T|/GIZ/PAEDP, 2011: Performance of the public contracts system and analysis of financial losses and economic costs due to malfunctions of the public contracts process in Cameroon. ANNEX III: Comparison between the PNVRA Support Project and the ACEFA Program Criteria National Agricultural Extension ACEFA Program Remarks Support Project (PNVRA) Background and Preserving the achievements of the Family-owned Agricultural Justification of the Justification PNVRA businesses (EFA), a driving PNVRA not force for the competitiveness relevant of Cameroonian agriculture and a vital factor for poverty reduction in rural areas Contracting MINADER/MINEPIA MINADER/MINEPIA Authority: Overall Contribute to improving the Contribute to increasing the Almost similar Objective productivity of agro-fishery farms incomes of family farmers by and therefore increase revenue improving the competitiveness of their farms Criteria National Agricultural Extension ACEFA Program Remarks Support Project (PNVRA) Specific Sustainable improvement of Improving the technical The PNVRA gives Objectives agricultural production and mastery of production, more room to producers’ income economic management, and promotion in a access to innovations in context that requires Improve the guidance performances family-owned farms. greater action of government ministries involved instead. On the Building capacities for contrary, ACEFA Promote the creation of viable production and valuation of places producers at business associations capable of products from family-owned the center of its providing services to their members in the areas of production, input farms. actions (enterprise) supply, technology transfer, etc . . . and provides them Improving services rendered with decision- Promote support and counseling as a by OPAs (especially supply making tools. new approach for agricultural and marketing.) guidance Promote the emergence of private businessmen as substitutes of the state in the agricultural guidance of Farmers’ Organizations, who shall in turn, pay for the services that are rendered to them. Components 1- Development of the potential of 1- Establishing an Both seek agricultural farms and products organizational support performance 2- Support for the marketing of and counseling through agricultural agricultural products. mechanism development and 3- Improvement of the use of 2- Financing projects agricultural inputs and conducted by Farmers’ sustainability equipment Organizations and 4- Conservatory management of Agricultural natural resources and Professional environmental preservation Organizations (OPAs) 5- Improvement of the vision of 3- Agro-pastoral producers professionalization 6- Management and coordination 4- Coordination, monitoring, and management Major activities Supporting FOs in the formulation Establishing the mechanism developed and implementation of their for accompanying and production projects, capacity counseling organizations and building of FOs and basic extension supporting Farmers’ agents, development of technical and Organizations and OPAs in the economic specifications, facilitation development, implementation of contractual relations between FOs and evaluation of their and businessmen, implementation of projects, supporting the partnership agreements signed in operation of joint bodies for connection with other projects and project selection, financing, programs (PADMIR, PSCC, NCCB, monitoring, and evaluation of PRODERIP, etc . . .) funded projects, analyzing the performance of family-owned Criteria National Agricultural Extension ACEFA Program Remarks Support Project (PNVRA) farms (EFA Monitoring Center). Intervention Building the technical capacities of Financing and joint strategies and FOs and agricultural extension management seem principles departments based on the producer to be undeniable needs and a system of research upon assets for the ACEFA request. Program. However, their sustainability is not guaranteed. Targets Basic groups and 2nd and 3rd level Basic groups and 2nd and 3rd Focus on the same organizations level organizations targets Target sectors All agro-pastoral and fishery sectors All agro-pastoral and fishery Guidance to the same sectors sectors Coverage All agro-pastoral and fishery sectors All agro-pastoral and fishery PNVRA coverage rate: sectors 83% ACEFA penetration rate: 15% Established A Regional Technical Group (RTG) 4 Proceedings: (1) The PNVRA’s Support and made up of 5 senior staff per region, Departmental mechanism is made Counseling (2) a Divisional Technical Group Advisory/Support Committee, up of only Mechanism (DTG) made of about 5 senior staff a guidance and monitoring administrative per division. The RTG and the DTG organization, (2) the senior staff drawn ensure supervision in their sphere of departmental assembly of from MINADER, and competence, (3) the Extension farmers, consisting of the MINEPIA, while that Sectors—SV (a total of 381 SV) (4) Farmers’ Organizations and of ACEFA is made up Extension zones (a total of 2460 ZVs) OPAs accompanied by of senior staff from 70% of which have the necessary advisors, (3) local committees the above ministries, personnel. Personnel is assigned by of organizations, which bodies representing way of transfers made by the two represent organizations the profession, and ministers. represented by advisors, (4) joint bodies the Departmental Technical (administration- Unit (CTD) consisting of: 1 profession) CTD supervisor, 1 Technical- Economic Advisor, 1 70% of the PNVRA staff is also part of the ACEFA mechanism. logistic support and incentives received twice Criteria National Agricultural Extension ACEFA Program Remarks Support Project (PNVRA) Working Motor cycle or vehicle, The ACEFA program conditions of allowances for servicing offers better technical motorcycles to CGPs: 25,000 working conditions personnel CFAF /month, the project takes care of repairing major breakdowns and replaces used out tires In addition to the public service salary, personnel enjoy monthly indemnities, office services, and telephone services Impact and It is difficult to assess the impact Appreciable The sustainability of sustainability ACEFA is yet to be proven ANNEX IV: Veterinary Health Mandate Box 6. Veterinary Health Mandate (HM). Principal Data The fight against animal diseases and protecting the health of populations by inspecting animal and fished-based food products falls under the jurisdiction of the government, and thus the representatives of the Ministry in charge of Veterinary Services. The VHM is the act by which the State confers part of its missions in the fight against animal diseases11 and the inspection of animal and fish-based food products to a veterinarian operating in a private practice (referred to as an agent), according to well-defined terms of reference. The VHM is governed by Decree No. 2001/955/PM of November 1, 2001, which establishes the conditions for granting and using the Veterinary Health Mandate to the fight against major animal diseases and the inspection of animal and fish-based food products. The VHM covers all or part of the following activities: (1) sanitary prophylaxis operations directed against diseases known to be contagious, (ii) veterinary health inspection operations. 11 Animal diseases transmissible to humans Interventions carried out by a Health Veterinarian under the Veterinary Health Mandate are compensated. These operations are supported by the State and the beneficiaries. The categories of mandates to be assigned, and the nomenclature of collective prophylaxis and animal health operations within the framework of the Veterinary Health Mandate was established by Order No. 0013/MINEPIA of 20 July 2010 Three categories of mandates are provided for: (i) Category A for the execution of the collective prophylaxis of diseases legally deemed to be infectious and require compulsory vaccination; Category B for monitoring, health prophylaxis, and animal health of diseases legally deemed to be infectious; category C for veterinary health inspections of animal and fish-based food products and their derivatives. The nomenclature of VHM-related operations is as follows: A. For prophylaxis and animal health: -visits to farms -isolation, confinement, quarantine, and the observation of animals or herds infected or suspected of being infected -identification and marking of animals for vaccination -samples for diagnosis or for epidemiological investigations -disinfection of the livestock premises and equipment -destruction of animal carcasses B. Regarding veterinary health inspection: -examination of animals at the entrance of meat-packing facilities and slaughterhouses -examination of live animals transported by rail or road -examination of carcasses in meat-packing facilities and slaughterhouses -veterinary health inspection of fishery products and their derivatives during import and export -veterinary health inspection of animal-based food products during importation and exportation -veterinary health inspection of animal and/or fish-based products in fish stores, fisheries, shops, supermarkets, mass catering facilities, and transport vehicles; -veterinary health inspection of milk, dairy products, and their derivatives during processing, preparation, storage, and in sales areas; -veterinary health inspection of game, eggs or egg products; -sampling of animal or fish-based food products and their conveyance to sample analysis laboratories; -destruction and denaturing of products seized and declared unfit for consumption. The holder of the VHM is subject to the technical control of the Ministry in charge of Veterinary Services. The Joint Order No. 00104/MINEPIA/MINFI of July 30, 2010 establishes the compensation rates for Health Veterinarians and the shares paid by farmers. These rates take three factors into consideration, namely: the vaccination tax paid to the State, the fees of Health Veterinarians, and the cost of the vaccine. The recovery of such costs is ensured by the Revenue Collector of the Program to Secure Livestock and Fisheries Revenue as concerns taxes and by the Health Veterinarian as regards the fees and the actual cost of the vaccine. A PACA-funded study on the "Development of the Veterinary Health Mandate mapping in Cameroon" was conducted in July 2011 by MINEPIA. To date, no Veterinary Health Mandate has been issued. MINEPIA undertook to start this process in 2013 with a pilot phase which will focus on two diseases: (i) Cattle FMD (Adamawa and North- West) and (ii) PPR throughout the national territory. The bidding documents are currently being finalized and the calls for expression of interest will soon be published.