A solid IP, validated and endorsed by the relevant stakeholders, can be a powerful tool to: 

• enable country leaders to take charge of the investment planning, and the implementation and monitoring process, with greater national ownership;
• increase clarity and transparency in priority-setting for public investments;
• align key actors around a shared agenda for action;
• ensure the leading role of the private sector in all of the IP processes
• achieve greater consistency in interventions, highlighting gaps, complementarities and overlaps; 
• align projects and programmes to the priorities expressed in the IP and to its overarching results;
• promote convergence of domestic and external sources of funding and strategic use of scarce resources, and serve as a basis to mobilize additional resources based on a well-identified financing gap; and
• provide a framework to assess progress and underpin mutual accountability.

It is important to note that the IP development process does not stop once the document has been endorsed, nor should it be a one-off exercise resulting in a document that is likely to stay on a shelf. The IP must be used to be useful and this requires an iterative process that continues through implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), sector review, annual revision and update, with lessons learned throughout implementation. For that, stakeholders need to use IPs regularly to inform their actions and advocate for their use by other stakeholders and partners.

IP development and implementation must be clearly embedded in the existing policy frameworks and policy processes, the medium-term and annual budgetary frameworks, and governance and coordination mechanisms, with the aim to strengthen and complement, rather than replace, existing mechanisms. 

Technically, an IP is of “good quality” when it effectively guides the national government and development partners to invest in areas and interventions that provide the highest return on investment and are economically and socially beneficial in pursuit of the country’s development goals. 

The quality of the IP will be measured in terms of the extent to which it was formulated with the participation of all relevant stakeholders, especially the private sector and the agriculture communities, the robust evidence-based analysis that underpins it and the catalytic role it plays to ensure timely achievement of the overall sectoral development goal. IPs must be based on a robust results framework linked to national development goals, as well to sustainable development goals. They must also demonstrate clear priority-setting between and within programmes, be costed – usually at output rather than detailed activity level – delineate implementation mechanisms and M&E processes and protocols, and include an indicative financing plan showing incremental and existing financing. IPs should also note outstanding sector policy issues and their implications. A Quality IP advocates, adherence to transparency when allocating or using land, strong compliance with the principles for responsible investment in agriculture, and with tenure of land and other productive resources.

Using evidence-based analysis to inform the identification of investment priorities should contribute to producing better outcomes. Such analysis will inform the design of the IP and contribute to making it credible, robust and realistic. Diagnostic studies can assess agricultural sector performance and analyze main bottlenecks, challenges, opportunities and drivers for growth. Tools and approaches include: policy and sector analysis, Computerized General Equilibrium (CGE) modelling and Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs) [see Plan Strategically]. 

Once overall investment priorities are agreed upon, by the government the following key IP design tasks should be undertaken, using a transparent and inclusive process:

• Determine the main features of the IP, in particular: (i) purpose – for coordination and alignment, for accountability, for actual planning, for resource mobilization, implementation or for a combination of these; and (ii) scope – delineation of the plan’s sectoral scope and the extent to which private as well as public investment should be captured. 
• Formulate the results framework, setting overall results to which the IP contributes at the impact level (e.g. reducing poverty, addressing chronic malnutrition, producing economic growth and transformation for improved livelihoods) as well as specific results with result indicators and eventually target values at the outcome and output levels.
• Define the architecture –programme areas, subprogramme areas and components – linked to the results framework, and identify responsible/accountable actors for each programme and subprogramme area. 
• Undertake priority-setting on the basis of criteria agreed upon by consensus, in line with existing national development priorities that may be linked to economic prosperity as well as food security and nutrition, resilience and environmental sustainability. Geographical balance within the country must also be taken into account.
• Integrate cross-cutting themes (e.g. climate change, nutrition, gender and risk) in relevant programme areas in the IP.
• Prepare the budget, based on an estimated cost per component/output for each programme. Output-based costing is recommended at the IP level, as more specific activity-based costing will take place during the subsequent preparation of projects and programmes.  IP costing will help determine the financing gaps, which will assist in attracting IP investment and leveraging funding. The IP budget must be realistic and credible.
• Conduct a financial and economic analysis (FEA) at IP level to help assess the potential benefit of the IP against the total investment costs. The choice of method and level of detail will depend upon data availability. An FEA at the IP level only aims to capture a broad indication of whether expected returns can justify the planned expenditure; the methodology therefore differs from the more detailed FEA applied at investment project level. 
• Design an M&E system for the IP coherent with the IP Results Framework. This is an integral section of the IP document. Designing the M&E system should be done in close partnership with all IP stakeholders, to ensure that the objectives and M&E institutional roles are well understood and shared. Regular monitoring of achievement against initial objectives and costs is essential.
• Conduct a risk analysis, identifying the risks that could affect the progress or success of IP implementation and highlighting the most critical risks and relevant mitigation strategies in the plan write-up. 

IPs are developed and managed by governments, usually under the lead of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Planning, in consultation with national stakeholders, including the private sector, farmers’ organizations, civil society, teaching and research institutes, chambers of commerce and other relevant actors. In CAADP and in the context of GAFSP, for example, multi-stakeholder governance and consultation processes are a requirement for IP development and endorsement.

The range of ministries involved – such as Agriculture, Public Works, Finance, Planning, Trade, etc. – will depend on the policy framework to be implemented through the IP and on how the sector is structured. Effective mobilization and coordination of all sector and subsector actors at central and decentralized levels, and a reflection and recognition of their contributions is critical to provide the foundation for successful IP implementation.

While development of an IP is a nationally owned exercise (partnership of public and private investors), it should be undertaken in collaboration with development partners. This is to ensure a common understanding of national investment priorities and needs in order to maximize opportunities for harmonized and predictable support to address financing gaps identified in the plan.

When IPs are formulated through a process that includes various national stakeholder groups, with strong ownership and leadership by national government, it is likely that more credible and effective plans will be produced, even though more time and resources may be required than if the formulation work is largely delegated to external experts. The experience of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) suggests that 12-18 months may be needed to prepare an IP through an effective and inclusive process.

It is essential to establish a clear institutional set-up and coordination mechanisms that specify roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the various actors involved. Leadership from one ministry at a level that is sufficiently senior to rally diverse stakeholders is necessary to move the process forward and avoid excessive fragmentation. Implementation experience in CAADP has shown that high level national commitment, even beyond the specific sector lead ministries and including representatives of the private sector, is required to make these multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder processes a success and to translate commitments into results on the ground.