Introduction
Across Africa, governments are placing agricultural transformation at the centre of their development agendas as they work to strengthen food security, adapt to climate change, and expand economic opportunity. Yet in many countries, the challenge is not the lack of strategies or plans but the persistent difficulty of turning them into results. Limited coordination, weak data systems, and capacity constraints often slow implementation.
Agricultural delivery mechanisms including Agricultural Transformation Agencies (ATAs), Agricultural Transformation Offices (ATOs), and emerging structures such as Nigeria’s Food Security War Room, offer a practical response. These institutions help governments coordinate actors, strengthen analytics, solve implementation bottlenecks, and keep reforms on track.
To better understand what works and why, the African Agricultural Transformation Initiative (AATI) commissioned a comparative study of delivery models in Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Togo, with additional insights from Nigeria. This article highlights the key lessons and why they matter for governments seeking to bridge the gap between strategy and results.
Why Delivery Mechanisms Matter
Agriculture remains essential for economic growth, rural livelihoods, and climate resilience across the continent. Countries such as Tanzania have made ambitious targets under the Agriculture Master Plan (AMP 2050), for example, aims to raise smallholder incomes by more than 25% and lift seven million people out of poverty. But achieving these goals requires strong delivery systems.
Across Africa, institutional bottlenecks including uneven coordination, fragmented partner efforts, and limited data continue to slow implementation. Such gaps demonstrate the need for institutions that can strengthen delivery capacity from within government structures.
This is why countries including Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Togo have adopted delivery mechanisms to strengthen implementation coordinate actors, accelerate reforms, and ensure that national strategies translate into real results for farmers.
What the Comparative Study Examined
The study analysed Agricultural Transformation (AT) models across four countries- Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Ethiopia, describing learnings in institutional design, governance, financing, analytics, stakeholder coordination, sustainability, and political-managerial dynamics. The research combined document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and an eight-dimension analytical framework.
The models reviewed reflect different institutional histories and degrees of maturity:
- Ethiopia ATA – a long-established agency with strong analytics and multi-sector reach,
- Togo ATA – a hybrid structure with central–ministerial linkages,
- Tanzania ATO – a newly embedded unit driving delivery of the AMP,
- Sierra Leone ATO – supporting the Feed Salone Strategy within the Ministry,
- Nigeria FSWR – providing rapid, high-level coordination under pressing circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- High-level political sponsorship
High-level political sponsorship combined with government ownership has been central to launching and sustaining AT models. Direct requests from national leadership (as seen in Tanzania, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone) and prime ministerial backing (as seen in Ethiopia and Togo) provided the political momentum needed to secure early resources, shape reform agendas, and overcome bureaucratic resistance.
2. Strategic institutional anchoring
Strategic institutional anchoring within the structures of government allowed AT models to balance proximity to executive power with integration into line ministries. Effective models balance proximity to executive power, with the ability to mobilize high-level decisions, and integration into ministry systems to sustain their operations over time. ATAs, such as Ethiopia’s and Togo’s, gain strength from their closeness to the centre of government (Prime minister and president), allowing them to coordinate across ministries and leverage political authority to accelerate reforms.
3. Clear mandates
Delivery institutions work best when their roles are specific and realistic. Tight, focused mandates avoid duplication, reduce internal resistance, and create room for early wins. Togo’s ATA focused its efforts on implementing the ZAAPs—an operationally clear, outcome-oriented mandate that positioned it as driving delivery on a visible flagship.
4. Strong analytics capabilities
Institutions with dedicated analytics units were better able to validate targets, inform policy, track progress, and adjust course. Ethiopia’s ATI stands out, its analytics unit has informed more than 80% of policy decisions in supported areas. Data strengthens credibility and supports real-time problem solving.
5. Coordination must be problem-driven
By design, an AT acts as convener—bringing together ministries, development partners and private sector actors to align on shared priorities and reduce duplication of efforts. Thus effective coordination has been central to how AT models deliver on their mandates. When coordination is tied to a specific bottleneck, alignment improves, and resources mobilise more effectively.
6. Adaptive, phased delivery builds momentum
Breaking large agendas into manageable phases helps teams demonstrate early results and build trust. These early wins build confidence, attract funding, and help establish institutional credibility, evident in ATA Togo’s rapid expansion of the ZAAPs and the early AMP milestones achieved by ATO Tanzania.
7. Capacity building within government ministries and AT teams
Training local staff within AT institutions builds internal expertise and reduces dependence on external consultants. Their success depends on strengthening in-house ministerial planning, coordination, and monitoring processes; however, they may still rely on external technical consultants for specific or time-bound projects.
Understanding the Challenges
Although delivery mechanisms hold strong potential, the study found that they face recurring challenges that shape their effectiveness. These include political transitions, internal resistance where roles overlap with existing units, unrealistic expectations about ATO’s mobilising financing, slow public administrative systems, and pressure to prioritise rapid results over analytics. Limited private-sector engagement also constrains market linkages and commercialisation efforts. These challenges reinforce why clear mandates, strong analytics, problem-driven coordination, and deliberate institutionalisation are essential for sustained performance.
Conclusion
The study’s findings conclude that strong delivery mechanisms are essential for turning agricultural strategies into results. ATs help governments coordinate actors, solve problems, strengthen accountability, and maintain momentum behind key reforms and programmes.
Early alignment with government has been critical for national ownership. Flexible approaches have allowed teams to navigate political and bureaucratic shifts. And cross-country learning such as the 2025 Nairobi retreat has accelerated institutional maturity.
This study provides practical insights to help countries design delivery mechanisms that are resilient, country-owned, and built to close the gap between ambition and results.
With political commitment, delivery capability, and shared learning, transformation is achievable.
