Grassroots Development: The AfricanDevelopment Foundation

June 1988

NTIS order #PB88-236252

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Development: The Afri-can Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, June 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 8 8 - 6 0 0 5 2 6

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

Foreword

Grassroots development, to some, is a contradiction in terms. They identify devel-opment with industrialization, with large-scale transportation systems and U.S.-styleagriculture with its expensive equipment. To others, grassroots development is a meansto achieve results, an approach that has been missing from too many foreign aid pro-grams and partly to blame for their failures, For yet others, grassroots development isan end in itself because it promotes people’s well-being and empowers self-help groupsto expand and make their own choices and bring about change.

Grassroots development may be a little of all these things to the members of Con-gress who established the African Development Foundation (ADF) in 1980. This reportis about the Foundation - the only program wholly funded by the U.S. Congress to sup-port grassroots development in Africa. Our analysis of ADF’s experience is broadly drawn;it will be of interest to anyone involved in self-help efforts of any kind. What works?What doesn’t? And why?

This is OTA’S third report on U.S. foreign aid and African agriculture and the mostcomprehensive look at a single program. It complements a larger, more general workin press on enhancing agriculture in Africa and its already-published companion reporton the Sahel Development Program. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, its Subcom-mittee on Africa, and the House Select Committee on Hunger requested this study. TheSenate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on African Affairs, endorsed theirrequest.

OTA’S special thanks go to the Washington-based and African staff of the Founda-tion who openly discussed their philosophy, their work, and their plans at length andwho spent their holidays reviewing our draft. Also, we gratefully acknowledge the helpof the people who participate in the 12 ADF-funded projects that we visited in Africa.They contributed their time, resources, knowledge, and enthusiasm to this assessmentand it could not have been done without their help. Many others shared their insightswith us, both in Africa and here in Washington. Members and leaders of the field teams,workshop participants, reviewers, and members of OTA’S Low-Resource AgricultureAdvisory Panel all deserve, and have, our appreciation. As with all OTA studies, thecontent of this report is solely OTA’S responsiblity.

. . .I l l

OTA Project Staff -grassroots Development:The African Development Foundation

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources, Program Manager

Phyllis N. Windle, Project

Analytical Staff

Director

Kathy Desmond, ContractorGeorge Scharffenberger, Contractor

Scott McCormick, ContractorAllen Ruby, Research Analyst

J. Kathy Parker, ContractorValerie Brown, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff

Ellis Lewis, Administrative AssistantNellie Hammond, SecretaryCarolyn Swarm, Secretary

Contents

PageAbbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapterl. Summary and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter2. OTA’s Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3. The African Development Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter4. OTA’S Findings About ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 5. OTA’S Findings About ADF’s Funding Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter6. Lessons for Other Development Assistance Organizations . . . . ......115

Appendix A. ADF Projects Awarded From Fiscal Year 1984 ThroughFiscal Year 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Appendix B. Summaries of 12 ADF-Funded Projects Visited by OTA . .....126

Appendix C, Desk Reviewers, Participants in the Methods Workshop,and Members of OTA Field Assessment Teams . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . .146

Appendix D. Field Team Methods: The Assessment Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148

Appendix E. Field Interviews , ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . ...,165

Appendix F. Reviewers of OTA’s Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.,..,.172

Appendix G, References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....174

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...179

ABBREVIATIONS

ADFAFC

AID

AJAC

ALDEP

AMA

app.ARAP

ATICEBEMO

CONGAD

CRFC u s o

DHCFAO

FONGS

FRFSKFTEFYGAO

—African Development Foundation—Agricultural Finance Corporation

(Zimbabwe)—U.S. Agency for International Devel-

opment—Association of Young Farmers of the

Casamance (Senegal; acronym forFrench name)

—Arable Lands Development Program(Botswana)

—Boiteko Agricultural ManagementAssociation (Botswana)

—appendix—Arable Rainfed Agricultural Program

(Botswana)—Appropriate Technology International—Dutch Catholic development assis-

tance program (acronym for Dutchname)

—Council of Nongovernmental Orga-nizations Supporting Development(Senegal; acronym for French name)

–Country Resource Facilitator (ADF)—Canadian University Service Orga-

nization–Dakoro Herders Cooperative (Niger)—Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations—Federation of Nongovernmental Or-

ganizations of Senegal (acronym forFrench name)

–Foundation Representative (ADF)—Farming Systems Kenya—Full-time equivalent—Fiscal year—General Accounting Office

AND ACRONYMS

IAF —Inter-American FoundationIBM —International Business Machines, Inc.ICIPE —International Centre of Insect Physi-

ology and EcologyIFAD —International Fund for Agricultural

DevelopmentIUCN —International Union for the Conserva-

tion of Nature and Natural ResourcesKFM —Kungal Fado Mango (Niger; acronym

for Fulani name)MISEREOR—German Catholic bishops develop-

NGK

NGONOVIB

OMBOTAPACT

PAM

PmPRCP v oRLOSAED

UNUNIFEM

WID

ment assistance program–Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati Self-Help

project (Kenya)—Non-governmental organization—Dutch private development assistance

organization (acronym for Dutchname)

–Office of Management and Budget—Office of Technology Assessment—Privrte Agencies Collaborating To-

gether—Project Assessment Memorandum

(ADF)—Partnership for Productivity/Kenya–Project Review Committee (ADF)—Private voluntary organization–Regional Liaison Officer (ADF)—Government regional development

agency for the Senegal River Valley(acronym for French name)

—United Nations—United Nations Development Fund

for Women—Women in development

vi

Chapter 1

Summnary and Options

CONTENTS

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scope and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ADF Yesterday and Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .How Well Are ADF-Funded Projects Doing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ADF’s Program and Possible Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lessons for other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Congressional Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reauthorization: Permanent v. 5-Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Appropriations. . . . . . . .Congressional OversightLegislation. . . . . . . . . . . .

Box1-1. ADF’s Legislation in Brief A

Figure

Box

Mandate for

F i g u r e s

3357

10121213141517

PageGrassroots Development . . . 17

1-l. Countries With ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4l-2. Flow Chart of OTA’s Assessment Methods, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

TablesTable Pagel-1. The 12 ADF Projects Visited by OTA Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6l-2. Rating the Critical Issues in 12 ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 71-3. Summary of Congressional options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

Chapter 1

Summary and Options

SUMMARY

The African Development Foundation (ADF)is a small U.S. development assistance agencyfaced with a large task: supporting grassrootsdevelopment in Africa. Congress created ADFin 1980 to “enable the poor to participate inthe process of development. ” As of 1987, ADFhas given grants to organizations in 19 Afri-can countries and its FY 88 appropriations were$7,0 million (figure l-l).

OTA’S assessment confirmed the validity ofthe assumptions on which ADF was createdand found that most ADF-funded projects weredoing reasonably well. While a number of areasfor improvement were identified, OTA con-cluded that the Foundation’s reauthorizationis justified, ADF would need additional fund-ing, however, if it is to implement recommendedimprovements without reducing the funds avail-able for new grants.

Scope and Methods

This report, done at the request of the HouseForeign Affairs Committee, its Subcommitteeon Africa, and the House Select Committee onHunger, is intended to assist Congress with de-cisions about the African Development Foun-dation’s role in U.S. foreign assistance. Conse-quently, this is not an evaluation of specificADF-funded projects. Most of the Foundation’sprojects are in early stages of implementationand any final analysis must await their com-pletion. Nor is this the final word on ADF. TheFoundation is young and evolving. It has hadsome successes, and some problems. This re-port suggests some ways to overcome theseproblems and thus enable the Foundation tofulfill more effectively the unique role that Con-gress has designated for it.

This report examines ADF’s overall fundingprogram with a special focus on its agricultureand renewable resources projects and the use

of technology. As Congress requested, it looksat the broad impacts of ADF’s work: the results,replicability, and sustainability of its projects;

and how it fosters the participation of Africansin their own social and economic development(figure 1-2).

The assessment began with an analysis of re-cent evaluations of similar organizations tocompare different evaluation methods andidentify common problems. In addition, expertsin project and program evaluation, grassrootsdevelopment, and field evaluation methodswere interviewed. Project files in ADF’s Wash-ington office were carefully reviewed to pro-vide an overview of the Foundation’s fundingprogram and highlight potential problem areas.Field visits to 12 representative ADF-fundedprojects (table 1-1) and interviews with Africanand donor officials in Africa formed the foun-dation of the report’s findings, Three regionalfield teams visited 6 countries, spending a to-tal of 285 person-days gathering and analyzinginformation and suggesting possible improve-ments that ADF could undertake.

The Foundation cooperated fully with allparts of this work. For example, discussionswith ADF staff provided a broad picture ofADF’s activities. Members of the Foundation’sAfrican staff accompanied the OTA field teamson their site visits and assisted with local ar-rangements, Also, ADF provided substantial re-view comments while this report was in draftform. At the same time, however, OTA soughtto ensure that its results were independent:selection criteria stipulated that no field teammembers had previous or current contractualrelationships with the Foundation; ADF fieldstaff did not participate in most interviews, in-cluding meetings with project managers; andthe Foundation did not have access to OTA’Sfield assessment materials or the three teams’reports.

3

4

Figurel.1 .—Countries With ADF.Funded Projects

SUDAN

\ \ / /

. [LR

Map adapted from the African-American Institute, Inc., copyright @ 1984.

5

Figure 1 -2.— Flow Chart of OTA’S AssessmentMethods

CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST OTA experience

\ /I

Identification of critical issues1. Participation 3. Sustainability2. Results 4. Replicability

Technology (in relation to the other four issues)

Assessment Methods WASHINGTON DESK REVIEWS ON

WorksHop 1. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY2. RENEWABLE RESOURCE

\

TECHNOLOGY3. PARTICIPATION

I Choice of indicators to I

Meeting FIELD ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS AND FORMS

rI National-level interviews Project visits

II Field Team Wrap-Up Meetings

II INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF

CONGRESSIONAL OPTIONS

DRAFT REPORT

FINAL REPORT

KEY: Items printed m capital letters are repcxts or wtten materialsItems printed In bold are meetmgs

SOURCE: Offtce of Technology Assessment, 19SS

ADF Yesterday and Today

The Foundation was established by Congressin 1980 to complement official bilateral andmultilateral development assistance programssuch as those of the Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID) and the United Nations.ADF’s legislation was modeled on the Inter-American Foundation but its history is quitedifferent. ADF had a difficult start. First, theAdministration delayed appointment of ADF’sBoard of Directors until 1983. This stalled theagency’s start-up because ADF’s legislation re-quired that the U.S. President appoint a Boardto be responsible for the Foundation’s manage-ment and to select its president. Then, high-level staff resigned in 1984 creating more un-certainty about ADF’s program. As a result,Congress asked the General Accounting Office(GAO) to assess ADF’s management capacityto implement its mandate. Although GAO raisedsome difficult issues, its qualified endorsementof ADF’s capabilities led Congress to reauthor-ize ADF for five years beginning in 1985.

In 1984, under the leadership of a new presi-dent, the Foundation began to develop its fund-ing program in earnest. Procedures were de-vised to identify potential grantees, approvegrants, and conduct project monitoring andevaluation. Some processes, such as project ap-proval, have changed little since 1984. Others,such as research and evaluation procedures,are being developed further now as the firstprojects are reaching completion, Certain keyactivities, such as the responsibilities for projectapproval, are under continuing ADF review,

ADF’s Washington and Africa-based staffgrew to 52 full- and part-time employees, con-tractors, and interns by February 1988. Twenty-five staff members are full-time employees,within the Office of Management and Budget’s27 full-time employee limit. Virtually all fund-ing decisions are made in Washington, e.g.,screening, reviewing, and approving projectproposals. The addition of ADF’s African staff(4 regional officers and 14 part-time countryresource facilitators) is recent, however, andmay alter this high degree of centralization.

ADF has awarded grants to 114 projects in19 countries in Africa totaling $10.3 million in

6

--(4

0

m

U2com

coco

m

UTUJ

Cum :co

r-.=

o000“

:

o0

m“OJ

hmU-J-“0

. .

--l

7

the past 4 fiscal years (1984-1987). Individualgrants range from $700 to $250,000; projectsaverage approximately $90,000, including grantamendments. Most commitments are for 2 to3 years. Two-thirds of the projects have agri-cultural activities as a major component; somesupport other rural activities such as potablewater supply and still others provide aid to ur-ban organizations (20 percent). The Foundationawards grants to grassroots organizations andto intermediary organizations that provide serv-ices to local groups, Funded groups use ADFmoney to repair wells, build small-scale irriga-tion systems, improve animal health, plantvegetable gardens and orchards, rent tractors,raise chickens, obtain credit for fertilizer, formcooperatives, and many other activities. ADFgrants enable intermediary organizations toprovide services such as credit, training andtechnical assistance to grassroots groups.

How Well Are ADF-FundedProjects Doing?

People’s participation in ADF-funded proj-ects, the projects’ sustainability over time, andtheir replicability from location to location arefundamental aspects of ADF’s congressionalmandate. And appreciable positive results, lead-ing to social and economic development, areexpected to be a major outcome of supportinggrassroots efforts. Therefore, these were thefour critical issues—participation, positive re-sults, sustainability, and replicability—onwhich the performance of the 12 visited projectswas assessed (table 1-2).

Table 1-2.—Rating the Critical Issuesin 12 ADF-Funded Projects

No. of projects rated

Critical issue High Moderate LowOverall Degree of Participation . . . 6 2“ 4Overall Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 2OveraIl Sustainability (for next 3

to 5 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 1Overall Replicability in Region

or Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 2.

Participation

Fostering the participation of Africans intheir own development is an important goal ofADF. This assessment of 12 ADF-funded proj-ects showed high overall participation in one-half of the projects but low overall participa-tion in one-third. These ratings were adjustedfor the local context and were based on ele-ments such as people’s support for project de-sign and its technologies; their access to theproject and benefits in light of their contribu-tions; their role in project decisionmaking; andhow participatory the recipient organizationsare.

A number of issues remain for ADF to settleand, if addressed, are likely to improve theFoundation’s record on participation, For ex-ample, ADF must give increased attention tothe various elements that characterize partici-pation, rather than allowing one, local control,to supersede all others. A project may be con-trolled locally, yet people who contribute timeor other resources may not support the activi-ties undertaken or take part in decisionmak-ing. Involvement in decisionmaking seems tobe key but ADF has little information on thisor other elements of participation.

In the 12 cases studied, either an Africangrassroots group or intermediary organizationoriginated the project in every case. Of thefunded groups visited, four were grassrootsorganizations and eight were intermediaryorganizations. More intermediary organiza-tions had low participation than grassrootsgroups. Both types of organizations face diffi-cult questions of access. For example, womenhave a low degree of access to projects in one-third of the projects visited, and rarely partici-pated in management.

Generally, participants were representativeof the community, agreed the project addresseda need, and shared equitably in costs and ben-efits. On the other hand, usually participantsdid not take part in evaluation and financialdecisionmaking. A third of the projects werejudged low on participants’ acceptance of theproposed technologies, their share in project

8

management, and participatory provision oftechnical assistance.

Results

One of ADF’s main purposes is to help bringabout social and economic development. A wayto assess whether ADF is achieving this pur-pose is to evaluate the results of ADF-fundedprojects. OTA’S rating of results was based onwhether projects achieved their objectives and,more importantly, whether positive economicand social impacts had occurred, or were likelyto occur, without significant negative effects,including those on the environment.

Because of the early stage of most of the proj-ects visited, project results could only be esti-mated. Actual impacts were observable in onlyhalf of the projects. Ten projects were judgedlikely to have positive impacts on social andeconomic development of poor people in thelocale but the levels of impact varied from sig-nificant to negligible. One project brought abouta 30 percent increase in income for women whoreceived small agricultural loans; an irrigationproject doubled land value in another. Twoother projects, however, were unlikely to ben-efit the poor even though they were likely toreach some of their objectives.

To adequately assess the results, or outcomes,of projects, the benefits must be considered inrelation to the costs. Thus, OTA considered thecontributions of ADF, the local communities,and other donors.

Ž Grant size and numbers of participants var-ied widely. As a result, ADF’s grant sizeper person ranged from $50 to $3,507, aver-aging $650.

● Just under one-half of the money ADF isputting into the 12 visited projects is spentfor equipment. Another 18 percent goesinto revolving credit funds. About 10 per-cent is spent in each of three categories:1) agricultural inputs, 2) salaries and officeexpenses, and 3) ADF audits, evaluations,and other expenses including contingencyfunds. The remainder funds vehicles, trans-portation, training, and technical assis-tance.

●

●

Communities usually provide labor forprojects. In six projects, a majority of par-ticipants also provide some money and ma-terials.All 12 of the visited organizations were re-cipients of funds from other externaldonors in addition to ADF. In four of thesecases, the specific project funded by ADFwas also funded by other donors. The otherdonors include AID, the U.S. Ambas-sador’s Self-Help Fund, European religiousdonors, European and U.S. private volun-tary organizations (PVOS), private founda-tions, the World Bank, and the African De-velopment Bank.

Sustainability

Sustainability generally means that projectactivities or results will continue after the grantperiod. OTA judged ADF-funded projects onseveral levels: sustainability of the project, ofproject-related activities, and of the local groupand/or intermediary organization. Also, sus-tainability includes economic, environmental,technical, and social factors; each was assessedindependently but then combined in an over-all rating.

Almost all ADF-funded activities were judgedto have a high or moderate potential to be sus-tainable over the next 3 to 5 years. Changeswere underway in a number of projects, though,and their eventual form might differ consider-ably from that proposed in the original projectdocumentation. Community support and theself-help nature of the projects were the strong-est reasons for sustainability. But the lack ofcareful economic and environmental planningwere common constraints threatening sustaina-bility, especially in the longer term. The mostcommon constraint to economic sustainabil-ity in ADF-funded projects is lack of provisionfor future ongoing, or recurrent, costs (affect-ing five projects). Three projects already shownegative environmental consequences—soilerosion, soil compaction, and land clearingwithout adequate reforestation.

The poorer performance of ADF-funded proj-ects regarding longer term sustainability also

9

relates to the technologies being used. Almostall of the projects were judged technologicallysustainable in the short term. Technologiesused in nine projects, however, were relativelyhigh risk; those in five were relatively complex;and those in five were comparatively high cost.

RepIicability

Donors seek replicability to increase the im-pact of their funding program, Grantmakers,such as ADF, that fund small-scale projects in-tend that their sponsored projects will benefitlocal people, but they also intend them to havewider impacts. Replicability refers to more thanthe duplication of project activities, it includesdissemination of technologies, organizationalmethods, or skills beyond the funded group. Injudging replicability of projects, OTA consid-ered 1) the potential for other groups in the re-gion or country to use the technology or repeatthe project activity and 2) whether aspects ofthe organization’s management structure orstyle could be beneficial to other groups.

Ten of the ADF-funded projects visited showeda moderate or high degree of replicability inthe region or country, and two a low degree.Self-help processes, such as the ways groupsidentified, planned, or managed their activities,were judged more likely to be replicable thanthe technologies used. The major constraint toreplicability was the high cost of the projectactivities or technology. In seven projects, morethan one-half of those visited, project activitieswere judged unlikely to be repeated for this rea-son. However, the majority of funded groupsmade some effort to spread what they learned.Most intermediary organizations planned toreplicate project activities with additional lo-cal groups. In three cases, non-participantsadopted technologies introduced by the ADF-funded projects.

Interestingly, three projects involving grass-roots organizations have had an impact on na-tional institutions. One was among the first vil-lage associations to obtain credit from the newNational Agricultural Credit Bank in Senegal.Its successful irrigated rice project raised theexpectation that other local associations could

Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle

ADF funding allows groups to tap the wisdom andexperience of their local leaders. This man leads afarmers’ cooperative that produces tea and coffee

in eastern Zimbabwe.

also handle credit. Another is seen by the Bot-swana Ministry of Agriculture as a successfulpilot project on vegetable and poultry/egg pro-duction, worthy to be tried elsewhere by theMinistry. The third, a water supply and irriga-tion system built by residents of three commu-nities, provides Kenyan officials with an exam-ple of lower cost local water projects.

How the Four Critical Issues Interact

Participation, positive results, short- and long-term sustainability, and replicability are alldesirable but not necessarily simultaneouslycompatible. Generally, participation increasesresults. And positive results can increase par-ticipation and be a condition for replicability.On the other hand, over-emphasizing resultscan lessen participation, especially in the shortterm. And neither participation nor results arenecessarily compatible with long-term sustaina-bility, especially with environmental sustaina-bility if dangers are dimly perceived. Thus ADFneeds to balance the demands of these differ-ent aspects of its mandate in implementing itsfunding program.

10

ADF's Program and Possibleimprovements

Many of the ADF-funded projects that OTAexamined are performing reasonably well. Some,however, have deficiencies regarding partici-pation, sustainability, and replicability that aretroubling given ADF’s mandate. The Founda-tion inevitably made difficult choices as it trans-lated its mandate into action. Together, thoseexplicit and implicit choices have shaped ADF’sfunding program and they are reflected in theproject findings discussed here.

The Foundation’s choices in several areashave had clearly positive impacts. The Foun-dation has a highly committed staff with con-siderable African experience and it has con-tracted with qualified Africans to help carryout its program. It supports the growth of grass-roots leadership and organizational capacityand its grant-making process is often flexibleand responsive. The focus on agricultural proj-ects is appropriate, and ADF’s new evaluationprogram is promising.

In other areas, however, ADF is doing lessthan it could. Five major areas of improvementexist:

1. ADF’s relationships with its applicants andgrantees are not as effective as they could be.Decisions regarding ADF’s evolving role vis avis each funded group, such as the level of in-volvement, frequency of contact, and the bal-ance between facilitation and evaluation, couldbe improved. Often ADF is too passive but attimes it is too involved. In the former case, po-tential to assist the group’s development is ne-glected. In the latter, the self-help process maybe bypassed inappropriately.

2. Pre-funding analysis of project proposalsis often inadequate in one or more of severalcritical areas: the sociallpolitical context andorganizational factors of the applicant group,technological choices, environmental implica-tions, and the economic constraints and oppor-tunities of the projected activities.

● Although ADF encourages a high degreeof local control, other critical elements ofparticipation, such as participants’ involve-

●

●

ment in decisionmaking and access bywomen, minority groups, and the poor, arenot sufficiently addressed. Thus, ADF isnot fully meeting its mandate to foster par-ticipation by the poor in their own devel-opment.ADF’s analysis of the stage of develop-ment—the growth and track record—of ap-plicant groups and their relationship togovernment officials and other donors oftenis weak. Similarly, analysis of intermedi-ary organizations and their relationshipswith grassroots groups has not been suffi-cient. As a result, ADF sometimes makesinappropriate decisions as to who, when,what or at what level to grant funding.Inadequate analysis of technical, environ-mental, and economic factors sometimesresults in ADF funding projects with ques-tionable technical soundness, economicand financial viability, and environmentalsustainability. Also, ADF’s work has nothelped expand the choices of technologiesavailable.

3. The way that ADF monitors projects oftendoes not provide enough in-depth understand-ing and information to effectively facilitate im-plementation by project managers and partici-pants. As a result, the Foundation missesopportunities to assist grantees and increasethe likelihood of project success.

4. ADF African field staff are underused inpre-funding analysis and project monitoring.This slows decisionmaking, causes ADF tomake funding decisions without the helpfulanalysis they could provide, and also means thatfunded groups are not receiving the best pos-sible assistance.

5. ADF does not communicate sufficientlywith other private and official developmentgroups in Africa, so its ability to learn fromothers’ experience and to help groups benefitfrom others’ resources is reduced. Also, ADFdoes not prepare country-specific planningstrategies to guide its use of sparse resourcesand place its work in context. This reduces itsimpact and makes it difficult for ADF to iden-tify its specific role in each country.

In addition, other significant but lower pri-ority problems exist. For instance, an unnec-essarily long time passes between ADF’s receiptof project proposals and the disbursement ofproject funds (12,5 months for the 12 visitedprojects). ADF has not yet completed agree-ments or reached informal understandings withthe governments in 13 of the 19 countries inwhich it funds projects.l ADF’s funding port-folio does not reflect the full range of possibil-ities granted in its legislation, The Foundationhas not paid sufficient attention to evaluatingits own funding program, Nor is its researchprogram yet addressing issues raised by theorganizations and activities it funds.

None of these problems is irremediable andADF has begun to take steps to correct somealready. For example, the Foundation is plan-ning to expand the responsibilities of its Afri-can staff but has not yet clarified how to dothis, The following suggestions could help cor-rect these problems and are OTA’S high pri-ority changes for ADF:

revise and clarify the roles of staff in theirworking relationships with applicants andgrantees,increase and improve pre-grant analysisand facilitate better planning by applicantsduring the project approval process,improve communication with the managersof funded projects and more actively helpthem identify problems and resources dur-ing project implementation,enhance the responsibilities of the Africanstaff in project identification, approval, andmonitoring, andincrease communication with other devel-opment organizations, especially those thatassist similar recipient groups. Begin todevelop plans to guide its work in eachcountry.

Each of these suggestions requires ADF totake a more active role as facilitator with itsgrantees, with its staff, and within the devel-

1 In early 1988, ADF completed agreements with Sierra Leoneand Ghana, reducing the number of countries without agree-ments to 11 of 19.

opment assistance community. OTA finds thatsuch a role is consistent with the Foundation’smandate to support self-help efforts. This role,if it is pursued carefully, can be consistent withthe Foundation’s desire to encourage local con-trol of funded projects and to avoid makingfunded groups dependent on the Foundation,For example, plans to guide ADF’s work in eachcountry that identify funding program priori-ties can be drawn up with the participation ofgrassroots and intermediary organizations,Also, they can be applied flexibly to be consist-ent with ADF’s mandate to be responsive to lo-cal initiatives.

In implementing each of these suggestions,the emphasis should be on simple, inexpensive,and rapid methods. For example, existing ap-praisal methods could be used for collectinginformation quickly to enable ADF to make bet-ter decisions. OTA is not recommending expen-sive, large-scale feasibility or environmental im-pact studies. In some cases, small planninggrants could enable ADF’s applicants to con-duct much of the pre-grant analysis themselvesor to choose qualified consultants to do it forthem. ADF, however, needs to select appropri-ate ways to verify independently the soundnessof proposals and, when necessary, obtain out-side expertise to appraise project plans. In mostof these cases, African contractors could pro-vide such verification by making short visits.

In addition to selected use of outside experts,ADF staff needs training (particularly in low-resource agricultural technology and economicand environmental analysis) to conduct betteranalysis of proposals and to assess the workof consultants.

Also, ADF should give some attention to theselower priority improvements:

●

●

●

Streamline the project approval processand reduce unnecessary delays.Conclude agreements with African govern-ments where appropriate.Evaluate and address issues regarding thelimited scope of its current portfolio, suchas ADF’s emphasis on funding income-generating activities and the large portionof its grants for equipment.

12

A variety of private and official developmentassistance programs have developed specificprograms and procedures that ADF could learnfrom to address these various problem areas.But ADF also has a unique role, different fromother official U.S. development assistance pro-grams. ADF should develop additional creativeways to meet the concerns discussed here.

Every suggestion carries a price tag. Improve-ments in efficiency of resource use would en-able ADF to implement some suggestions with-out additional cost, but most of these changeswill increase operational costs. If ADF is tomaintain its current level of annual grants, itis unlikely that it could make the changes sug-gested here for less than a $500,000 to $700,000increase in its annual budget. The majority ofthese funds should be used to increase the re-sponsibilities of the African staff and providethem with the resources to carry out new duties.Some funds would be needed for additionalWashington staff and increased travel. The re-maining funds could be divided among short-term contracts, staff training, and ADF’s re-search program.

Lessons For Other Organizations

Congress, in directing the Foundation toshare the results of its work, expected that ADF

would learn from its successes and its disap-pointments and that other development assis-tance groups could benefit from ADF’s learning.Indeed, ADF shares many of the deficiencieshighlighted here with other funders and it canserve as a positive model in some areas.

The Foundation can successfully exemplifycertain aspects of funding program manage-ment, such as maximizing local control of ex-ternally-funded work, using Africans to providetechnical assistance and conduct evaluations,and providing funding for planning grants.Also, ADF has, by and large, established effec-tive congressional relations that could be instruc-tive for other government-funded agencies.

Finally, this assessment offers its own lessonsto other evaluators: program and project assess-ments create complementary pictures of anorganization’s status and external evaluationsare useful additions to ongoing internal ones.The findings of ADF’s own internal projectevaluations are confirmed by this assessmentand they are parallel to those reached duringevaluations of similar development assistancegroups. This consistency indicates that the is-sues raised are of significance not only to ADFbut also more generally to all programs de-signed to support grassroots development.

CONGRESSIONAL OPTI0NS

Congress has several tools available for in-fluencing ADF’s work–authorization, appro-priations, and oversight. Each has been usedin the past. For example, Congress examinesADF’s appropriation annually when the Foun-dation testifies before the appropriations com-mittees and when the Foreign Affairs and For-eign Relations Committees set funding levelsduring the authorization process. The Founda-tion’s staff have testified before other commit-tees, and thorough congressional oversight hasbeen conducted by congressional researchagencies: 1) the General Accounting Office, inits 1984-1985 study of ADF’s management ca-pacity and, 2) the work reported here. Until thistime, Congress had not conducted a broad ex-

amination of ADF’s enabling legislation normade substantive changes in it.

This section addresses how Congress coulduse these tools to improve ADF’s effectiveness(table 1-3). The congressional options suggestedhere fall into two categories, according to theirpriority:

● High Priority Options–Reauthorize ADF.—Set overall levels of appropriations, e.g.,

increase appropriations by $500,000 to$700,000 per year for two years to enableADF to make high priority changes inconducting its funding program or hold

13

appropriations constant until such changesare made.

—Withhold major oversight for an interimperiod; then, examine the changes im-plemented and consider increasing theannual appropriation for grants by $2 to$3 million.

Ž Other Options—Amend ADF’s authorizing legislation to:

a) remove the $250,000 limit on ADFprojects and b) require that ADF’s Boardof Directors be bipartisan.

—Amend ADF’s appropriations and/or au-thorizing legislation to a) arrange forfunds from terminated projects and loanrepayments to return to ADF’s account,b) allow grantees to keep project fundsin interest-bearing accounts, and c) pro-vide no-year funds.

—Conduct oversight regarding specificitems such as women’s participation inADF-funded activities, environmentalimpacts, and funding delays.

Reauthorization:Permanent v. 5-Year

The Foundation’s enabling legislation in-cludes a provision for expiration of the Foun-dation’s authority in 5 years. In 1985, ADF wasreauthorized for its second 5-year period. Con-gress will face the issue of reauthorization onceagain before 1990.

Although ADF can make a number of impor-tant improvements, its problems are not seri-ous enough to question the Foundation’s au-thorization. Nor have the assumptions thatjustified ADF’s creation been altered. To con-tinue ADF, Congress could: 1) extend the Foun-dation’s authority for another 5 years, or 2)delete the requirement for reauthorization, pro-viding ADF with permanent authority. Both ap-proaches have advantages and disadvantages.A 5-year reauthorization provides ADF with animpetus to make improvements because it willbe re-evaluated in 5 years. Thus, reauthoriza-tion gives Congress another 5 years to appraiseADF’s work and maximizes Congress’ leverageover the Foundation. This approach, however,

Table 1-3.—Summary of Congressional Options

Reauthorization1. Regarding reauthorization of the agency:

Ž delete provision requiring periodic reauthorization ofADF, or

● reauthorize ADF for another five-year period folIowingits expiration in 1990.

Appropriations1. Regarding overall levels of appropriations for a 2-year in-

terim period:● hold appropriations constant, pending high priority

programmatic changes, orŽ increase appropriations $500,000 to $700,000 to fund

high priority program changes with or without earmark-ing, then conduct oversight on ADF’s improvements andevaluate higher appropriations for grants.

2. Increase the annual appropriation for grants by $2-$3 mil-lion at the end of the interim period.

Oversight1. Withhold major oversight for a 2-year interim implementa-

tion period.2. After 2 years, conduct formal oversight on high-priority

topics such as ADF’s pre-funding analysis of projects; itsrelationships with grantees; project monitoring and evalu-ation processes; use of African staff; and communicationwith other funders.

3. Also, routinely discuss specific issues with ADF, such aswomen’s participation in projects, environmental impacts,and funding delays.

4. Evaluate the qualifications of nominees to the ADF Boardof Directors before Senate confirmation.

Other Legislative Options1. Fine-tune authorizing legislation to make ADF more ef-

fective:● eliminate the $250,000 project limit, and● specify bipartisan composition of the Board of Directors.

2. Amend appropriations or authorizing legislation to:. allow terminated grant funds and loan repayments to

return to ADF’s account,● provide ADF with no-year funds, and● allow guarantees to use interest-bearinag accounts.

must be balanced against some disadvantages:temporary reauthorization may contribute touncertainty about the Foundation’s future andwork against ADF’s establishing the long termprograms encouraged by the congressionalmandate. Also, short term reauthorization in-creases pressures on the Foundation to fundprojects with quick results, an approach thatcould jeopardize other important aspects of itsmandate such as participation and sustaina-bility.

As an alternative, permanent authorization,like that supporting the Inter-American Foun-dation, could be achieved by deleting the re-quirement for periodic reauthorization. This

14

could encourage ADF to take a longer term per-spective. Congress could use other methods,such as appropriations decisions or oversighthearings, to provide ADF with incentives tomake improvements.

Appropriations

The Foundation has sought increases in itsappropriations every year since its inception;its FY 1988 appropriations are $7.0 million. Atthe time of its 1985 Five Year Plan, ADF antic-ipated a many-fold increase by 1.990, expect-ing to reach $30 million. While congressionalbudget realities have dashed those expectations,ADF still seeks to expand its program, con-vinced that it has the capability to accomplishmore in more places. Certainly as Congress ex-periences frustration with the poor develop-ment record of larger agencies, the temptationis strong to channel additional money to groupsusing alternative approaches.

ADF would have no shortage of activities tofund if more money were available. The Foun-dation receives requests to develop programsin countries not yet funded and to undertakemore work in those countries where it alreadyhas programs. The Foundation estimates thatit has received approximately 1,335 projectproposals and 1,168 letter inquiries since com-mencing funding in fiscal year 1984. AlthoughOTA has not estimated how many of those pro-posals are appropriate for funding, it is clearthat the Foundation could expand its programto additional countries with serious interest,such as Burundi, Gabon, Madagascar, andSwaziland.

The contractors involved in OTA’S assess-ment each evaluated ADF’s funding programand level of funding. Virtually all raised seri-ous concerns about certain aspects of ADF’sfunding program: particularly the need for ADFto redefine its relationship with applicants andgrantees, to perform better pre-grant analysis,to do more effective project monitoring, to in-crease reliance on its African staff, to improvecommunication with others in Africa, and tobegin to prepare country plans.

None of OTA’S experts, however, judged thatADF’s appropriations should be decreased.Almost all thought that increases in ADF’s grantprogram were warranted, especially if theFoundation made the high priority changes dis-cussed here. A few stressed the opinion thatfunding should remain constant until thechanges were accomplished.

Should ADF’s Funding Be Increased?

Congress has several options to consider re-garding future funding for ADF: hold total ap-propriations constant, pending high priorityprogrammatic changes; or increase appropri-ations for the types of changes suggested here,giving either general direction or specific ear-marking regarding the money’s use. Any in-creased funding for grants should be deferreduntil ADF successfully makes the suggested im-provements.

Of these funding options, holding ADF’sfunding steady while asking for importantchanges is the least likely to be effective. OTAestimates that the changes suggested here couldcost the Foundation $500,000 to $700,000 an-nually if undertaken all at once. The Founda-tion could not allocate this amount of moneyto new tasks without diverting funds fromgrants, thus reducing the amount available fornew projects. If Congress used this option,ADF’s non-grant costs would increase and itsobligations for new grants would decline sub-stantially.

Another option would be for Congress to in-crease ADF’s appropriations by an amount ade-quate to make these high priority improvementsfor, perhaps, two years, then plan hearings toevaluate ADF’s actions. This option could beimplemented by 1) earmarking funds for spe-cific types of reforms, or 2) providing non-earmarked funds with general direction regard-ing their use and then using oversight to en-sure implementation. The first option givesCongress maximum control but cuts ADF’s flex-ibility. Generally, OTA finds that congressionalmicro-management is inappropriate and thatit decreases programs’ effectiveness (46). In thiscase, some general congressional direction, i.e.,

15

to improve ADF’s operation of its programrather than increasing funding for grants,seems warranted regarding the intended usesof interim funding increases. Detailed earmark-ing is probably not necessary, however.

Many people find ADF’s mandate innovativeand judge its projects at least as successful asthose supported by other donors. OTA foundthat ADF could make use of more funds if itsprogram were improved. Therefore increasedappropriations for grants, as distinct from otheradministrative and program changes, could beprovided at the end of an interim period if ADFdemonstrated that improvements had beenmade. With more solid analysis underway, withincreased responsibilities for African staff, andwith improved, streamlined procedures inplace, ADF probably could effectively absorba $2 to $3 million increase in project fundingby fiscal year 1991, bringing its total appropri-ations to $9.5 to $10.7 million (in 1988 dollars).

Options that designate new funds for mak-ing the changes suggested here will temporar-ily tip ADF’s budget toward a larger propor-tion of administrative and other non-grant costsbecause the high priority changes are opera-tional ones, such as expanding the use of Afri-can staff and providing additional staff train-ing. Operational costs, in this report, refer tothe broad category of all non-grant expenses,including administrative costs. Some people,however, feel that ADF’s non-grant costs arealready too high, The Foundation calculates itsadministrative costs at 38 percent for fiscal year1986, 35 percent for fiscal year 1987, and 31percent for fiscal year 1988 (using a method sim-

ADF’s approach is different from other donors.Most ask the people to contribute to projectsthe donors have selected. These projects maymeet a need, but are not a priority of the peo-ple. “please cooperate with us, ” they say.ADF’s approach is “let the people decide. ”Charles Keenja, Principal Secretary of the Ministry of

Local Government and Cooperative Development,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. OTA interview,

Sept. 1, 1987.

ilar to that used by the Inter-American Foun-dation). OTA calculates ADF’s operationalcosts (comparing all non-grant expenses to thetotal committed appropriations) to be 42 per-cent in fiscal year 1986 and 43 percent in fis-cal year 1987.

If ADF received new appropriations of$500,000 to $700,000 and used the money asdiscussed here to improve its operations, itsnon-grant costs could approximate 50 percentof the total budget in fiscal years 1989 and 1990,This shift to a higher percentage of non-grantcosts should be temporary, however, and viewedas a short-term investment in ADF’s long-termeffectiveness. OTA expects that, over time, im-mediate, non-grant improvements would en-able the Foundation to handle larger amountsof grant-related funding, thereby reducing theproportion of non-grant costs. Thus, discus-sions between Congress and ADF concerningADF’s operational costs should focus on thebest use of non-grant funds to support an im-proved grants program rather than only on theproportion of non-grant costs. Temptations arestrong to make easy cuts or to increase aver-age grant size when pressures exist to curb theproportion of operational expenses. Many ofthose cuts, for example, in staff travel and train-ing, could hurt the Foundation’s grants program.

Congressional Oversigh*

The Foundation’s efforts for effective con-gressional liaison seem to be motivated by asincere desire to keep Congress well acquaintedwith ADF’s work and to create and maintainsolid working relations. For example, the Foun-dation’s attitude was cooperative and openthroughout this assessment and it respondedrapidly to requests for information. Evidenceexists that ADF also is responsive to key con-gressional committees and that it has soughtto improve its performance as a result of out-side suggestions. The Foundation is aware al-ready of many of the concerns highlighted inthis report. It is tackling some of these prob-lems now and, based on its record, is likely torespond conscientiously to OTA’S findings.

16

A Short-Term Reprieve FromMajor Oversight

No need exists for extensive congressionaloversight immediately. ADF has hosted two ma-jor external examinations of its work in the past4 years. These reviews are likely to improveADF’s effectiveness but each has absorbed aconsiderable amount of staff time and re-sources. Now that high priority areas for im-provement have been identified, Congresscould reprieve ADF from further external in-vestigation while it implements high priorityimprovements.

High Priority Oversight Topics

At the end of a 2-year period, however, ADFshould be given the opportunity to demonstratewhat it has accomplished of the high prioritychanges suggested in this report and how thesealterations are affecting its budget. Congresscould determine then whether further fundingincreases are appropriate.

Congress could, for example, ask the Foun-dation how it is:

●

●

●

●

●

implementing more effective ways to re-late to applicants and grantees that fulfillvarious elements of its innovative mandate?increasing the responsibilities of its Afri-can staff for pre-approval analysis andmonitoring, and concomitantly adjustingthe Washington staff’s responsibilities?streamlining and improving its pre-grantanalysis of social, organizational, techni-cal, environmental, and economic factors?developing improved and more efficientprocesses for project approval and moni-toring?consulting with other funders and coordi-nating work, when appropriate, and plan-ning country programs?

Specific Areas for CongressionalOversigh

Several areas exist that could require morespecific congressional oversight. These areareas that Congress could ask ADF to addressin its annual report to Congress (the Congres-

sional Presentation), in routine annual appro-priations hearings, or in hearings conductedby the authorizing committees. Three areas toaddress include:

1. The participation of women, ethnic minor-ities, and the poor in ADF-funded projects isdifficult to determine and this ambiguity indi-cates that ADF should direct increased attentionto these issues. In general, women’s contribu-tions of time, labor, and energy is dispropor-tionate to their participation in project decision-making and management, even when the localcontext is taken into account. Congress coulduse oversight to ensure that ADF take appro-priate steps to increase the participation ofwomen, ethnic minority groups, and the poorin its funded projects while recognizing ADF’sneed to work within local cultures and to fundviable projects.

2. ADF’s attention to environmental issuesalso needs strengthening. In some cases, ADF-funded activities inadvertently contribute toenvironmental degradation although alterna-tive technologies exist that have fewer nega-tive impacts or that could help restore the envi-ronment. This, as well as a lack of simple andrealistic economic and financial planning, con-strains the projects’ sustainability.

3. Congress has 15 days to review and dis-approve ADF-funded projects, as it has for allExecutive Branch expenditures not includedin the previous year’s Congressional Presenta-tion. Notification is a way in which ADF in-forms Congress of new work. But the formalnotification period sometimes can stretch proj-ect approval by as much as a month if Congressis in recess. Congress and ADF could work to-gether to streamline this process. For example,ADF could send project notices to Congressduring recesses, a practice that is not done now.Congress and ADF could agree to types of proj-ects that should not be transmitted to Congressduring recess (the first project in a given coun-try, unusually large projects, etc.) and to a moresuccinct notification format that would de-crease ADF’s internal workload. Or, Congresscould drop notification for projects below aspecified amount of funds.

17

Senate Confirmation ofABM Board of Directors

Congress considered the role of ADF’s Boardof Directors important enough to set out de-tailed stipulations in the Foundation’s enabl-ing legislation. Therefore, Congress has an in-terest in the direction that the Board sets forADF and could use oversight for keeping abreastof the Board’s thinking,

The U.S. Senate confirms members of ADF’sBoard of Directors. This provides an importantopportunity to oversee the Foundation’s direc-tion.’ Up to now, Congress has rarely usedthis tool to ensure that prospective membershave experience relevant to ADF’s mandate andthat they represent a range of views on Afri-can grassroots development. Members of Con-gress could inform the U.S. President of qual-ifications they consider essential for nomineesor they could be more active in formal confir-mation hearings.

Legislation

No Major Overhaul Needed

No need exists for a major revamping ofADF’s enabling legislation. This law is far-sighted and based on a participatory approachto grassroots social and economic developmentthat has proven successful. Also, it is a goodexample of Congress providing general direc-tion without undue restrictions or unreasona-ble demands. It provides ADF with appropri-ately wide latitude, and remains consistent, ingeneral terms, with what is known of effectivegrassroots development assistance (box 1-1),

Fine-Tuning for Effectiveness

Certain provisions of this or other legislation(such as appropriations laws) affecting ADF areproblematic, however, and likely to becomemore so as ADF ages. Concerns exist in sev-eral areas:

~As of March, 1988, three vacancies of the five designated forprivate sector representatives existed on the Board. ADF’s leg-islation specifies that five board members be from the privatesector and two represent U.S. government agencies concernedwith African affairs.

● the $250,000 cap on individual projectfunding,

● the partisan nature of ADF’s Board of Di-rectors,

Box 1-l.—ADF’s Legislation in Brief:A Mandate for Grassroots Development

ADF was established by the InternationalSecurity and Development Cooperation Actof 1980 (Public Law 96-533, Title V), and thusis not authorized by the Foreign AssistanceAct. This has provided ADF with the flexibil-ity to depart from types of work carried outby other U.S. agencies.

According to its legislation, ADF’s purposesare four-fold:

(1) “to strengthen the bonds of friendshipand understanding between the peopleof Africa and the United States;

(2) to support self-help activities at the locallevel designed to enlarge opportunitiesfor community development;

(3) to stimulate and assist effective and ex-panding participation of Africans in theirdevelopment process; and

(4) to encourage the establishment and growthof development institutions which are in-digenous to particular countries in Africaand which can respond to the require-ments of the poor. . . .“

Further, ADF is to carry out these activitieswith indigenous groups representative of thepoor and to coordinate, to the extent possible,its work with U.S. government and private,regional, and international groups. Specifi-cally, it may make grants, loans, and loanguarantees to: a) foster local development in-stitutions and efforts initiated by communi-ties, b) develop self-evaluation methods totransfer experience, c) develop research byAfricans and transfer information withinAfrica, and d) procure technical or other assis-tance for its recipients. ADF is to give priorityto projects which community groups under-take themselves, where there is participationby the poor.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Legislation on Foreign RelationsThrough 1986, Volume 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, March 1987).

18

●

●

ADF’s inability to retain funds from ter-minated grants and loan repayments, andgrantees’ inability to keep project funds ininterest-bearing accounts.

ne $250,000 Cap on Projoct Funding

Some successful ADF-funded projects arenow being affected by the $250,000 per projectfunding limit. Pressures on organizations to at-tempt ever-new activities to qualify for anotherfunded project can encourage them to attemptactivities for which they are not ready ratherthan solidify positive results of earlier efforts.This problem is likely to increase as more ADF-funded projects reach maximum funding levels.

The Foundation is better positioned to deter-mine the appropriate limit to single-projectfunding than Congress; this is a decision thatmost grant-making organizations make forthemselves. For example, the Inter-AmericanFoundation operates without a legislatedproject ceiling and has funded successful grass-roots projects in excess of $1 million.

Congress could amend ADF’s authorizing leg-islation to eliminate the $250,000 ceiling perproject, However, this would not bean endorse-ment for ADF to increase the average size ofits grants, nor to undertake more complexprojects. Rather, this would enable ADF to bet-ter: sequence its support of various componentsof some projects; adjust for unexpected in-creases in costs; or provide a transition for anactivity to become better established. The Foun-dation should approach the idea of fundingprojects in excess of $250,000 cautiously. First,it might develop guidelines for gradually pro-viding sequenced grants to individual groups.Congress can ensure by oversight that ADFkeeps average grant size low without retainingthe strict limit to project size.

The Partisan Nature of ADF's Board

The Foundation’s legislation details manyaspects of the structure of ADF’s Board of Di-rectors. It does not, however, require that mem-bers represent both political parties. It is inADF’s best interest to have a Board that repre-sents a wide range of views regarding grass-

roots development and that potential partisanconcerns not shape its work. Therefore, Con-gress could amend ADF’s enabling legislationto ensure that Board members be drawn fromboth political parties in approximately equalnumbers. Congress provided such protectionfor the Peace Corps National Advisory Coun-cil. A similar structure has proven successfulfor OTA’S Technology Assessment Board.

Inabillty To Retain Funds FromTerminated Projects and LoanRepayments

All grant-making groups need to terminateprojects before completion when projects de-velop irresolvable problems. In fiscal year 1987,the Foundation terminated six such projects.These projects were funded in fiscal year 1985when the Foundation had funds that could bespent in any fiscal year (“no-year funds”).Therefore, ADF will retain money deobligatedfrom these projects and be able to use the fundsfor new work. Current single fiscal year fund-ing requires that the money obligated, but notspent for a project, be deobligated then returnedto the U.S. Treasury rather than ADF. Congresscould amend this process so that ADF wouldbe allowed to retain funds from terminatedprojects for use in other grants. U.S. AID hasthe power to retain deobligated money as longas it is reobligated for a similar project in thesame geographic area (44). Congress could pro-vide ADF with similar authority, allowing ADFto reallocate funds to other projects without re-quiring that they be spent in the same regionor sectors.

Also, Congress could prevent this problemby providing ADF with no-year funding. Ad-ditional benefits exist to no-year funding aswell. Fiscal year funding can constrain pro-grams’ effectiveness and absorb resources thatcould be better directed in longer-term efforts(46). ADF, like many groups that have singlefiscal year funding, finds that project approvaltends to accumulate at the end of the fiscal year.As a result, decisionmaking can become hasty.No-year funds are no panacea, however. TheSahel Development Program in AID, for exam-ple, was granted no-year funds, then hesitated

19

to use them for fear of congressional disapproval.Some AID officials felt that money unspent inone year would result in lowered congressionalappropriations the following year. Also, no-yearfunds require oversight, since unobligatedfunds accumulating over several years may in-dicate that an organization’s capacity to makegrants has been exceeded. While Congresswould need to monitor the situation if it pro-vided ADF with no-year funds, accumulationsof funds are unlikely to occur due to ADF’sbacklog of unfunded proposals.

Similar to allowing the return of terminatedgrant funds to ADF, Congress also could allowrepayments of ADF loans to return to ADF. Un-der current rules, the U.S. Treasury, not ADF,would receive loan repayments if ADF estab-lished a loan program, So far, ADF does notprovide loans or loan guarantees despite con-gressional authority to do so. A number of sig-nificant problems hamper development of theseprograms and OTA is not recommending thatADF give high priority to creating one at thistime. However, Congress could legislate a pro-vision that ADF receive loan repayments, ex-

pecting that ADF may appropriately begin loanand loan guarantee programs sometime in thefuture,

Grantees’ Inability To Keep Money inlnterest-Bearing Accounts

In these two cases—loss of terminated grantfunds and of potential loan repay ments—ADF’sappropriations are in effect decreased. Currentappropriations legislation also has the unan-ticipated effect of decreasing the worth of indi-vidual grants to organizations in Africa becauseproject managers cannot keep ADF-providedfunds in interest-bearing accounts (except forincome generated from project activities). Grantsize in real terms decreases then, especially incountries where inflation is high or where cur-rency is devalued. Congress could legislate aprovision for ADF whereby grantees could keepproject funds in interest-bearing accounts,stipulating that all interest payments be usedfor project-related costs or returned to ADF.Congress provided the Inter-American Foun-dation with this authority in 1980,

OTA's AssessmentChapter 2

Methods

—

PageSummaryWhy This Assessment Was Requested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .How OTA Conducted the Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OverviewDesigning the Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Developing Field Team Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Desk Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . .Selection of Countries and Projects to Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Field Team Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.......Synthesis Meeting and Preparation of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box2-1.2-2.

GAO’s Look atRecent Similar

Boxes

23232525252629292931

PageADF Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

FrigurePage

2-1. Flowchart of OTA’s Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 2

OTA's Assessment Methodsl

●

●

SUMMARY

OTA undertook this assessment at the re-quest of the House Foreign Affairs Commit-tee and the House Select Committee on Hun-ger, with specific instructions to examinepeople’s participation in projects funded bythe African Development Foundation (ADF)and the projects’ results, sustainability, and

●

replicability, The committees also requestedan assessment of the Foundation’s overallperformance and how it could be improved.

The methods used to assess ADF activitiesincluded extensive interviews with develop-ment experts in Washington and Africa, in-

IThis chapter and app. D provide detailed information forreaders with an interest in evaluation methods. In addition, apps.C, E, and F list many of this assessment’s participants. The re-sults of the assessment begin in the next chapter.

eluding ADF staff; reviews of Foundationdocuments in Washington, D.C. related toparticipation, agricultural technology, andrenewable resource management in ADF-funded projects; and workshops for OTAstaff and contractors.

Three five-member teams visited East, West,and Southern Africa for 23 days in 1987, ob-serving 12 ADF-funded projects in 6 coun-tries. Each group spoke with project partici-pants, Foundation staff, local and nationalofficials, U.S. ambassadors, AID mission di-rectors, and representatives of other devel-opment and research organizations. Theteams assessed ADF-funded projects, re-viewed the Foundation’s programs in eachcountry, and suggested congressional op-tions and ways for ADF to improve its work.

WHY THIS ASSESSMENT WAS REQUESTED

When the African Development Foundation(ADF) was founded, Congress intended that itsgrassroots approach complement other typesof aid already provided to Africa by the UnitedStates. Now Congress is evaluating how wellU.S. development assistance to Africa is doingand ADF, as one U.S.-funded development pro-gram, has come under scrutiny. This is part ofCongress’ continuing attempt to ensure that theUnited States provides the most effective assis-tance possible via the Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID), the Peace Corps, multilat-eral institutions, private voluntary organiza-tions, and other groups that receive U.S. fundsdirectly or indirectly. Although the focus hereis on ADF’s program, this study has broaderapplicability. For example, the Foundation’s en-abling legislation stresses the need for Africansto participate in their own development andADF’s experience with participatory develop-

ment is relevant to the pending reauthorizationof the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee andthe House Select Committee on Hunger re-quested this comprehensive assessment ofADF’s funding program.2 Their request notedthe context in which U.S. aid to Africa takesplace: “Strong humanitarian, political, and eco-nomic reasons exist for the U.S. to continueto participate in assisting African countries intheir efforts to develop their human and physi-cal resources. ” As the requesting committees

ZRepresentatives Dante Fascell, Chairman of the House For-eign Affairs Committee, and Howard Wolpe, Chairman of itsSubcommittee on Africa, and Mickey Leland, Chairman of theHouse Select Committee on Hunger, requested the study. Sena-tor Paul Simon, Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Af-fairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported theirrequest.

23

24

said, ADF was established because “one rea-son given for the failure of many programsfunded by the major donors has been the lackof involvement of the intended beneficiaries,especially low-resource farmers, many of whomare women.” Their question was whether ADFhad been any more successful in having an im-pact on development in Africa. The requestersspecifically asked OTA to examine:

●

●

●

●

the degree to which ADF’s activities ful-fill the Foundation’s legislated mandate,whether ADF is supporting sustainable andreplicable projects with positive impactsbeyond the project level,the degree to which ADF is assisting thepoor majority, andways for ADF to improve its effectiveness.

In addition to these factors, OTA focused at-tention on the Foundation’s use of technologyand technical assistance and narrowed thescope to include only those projects dealingwith agriculture and renewable resources. Thisfocus, which covered 67 percent (58 projects)of ADF’s portfolio, made the assessment man-ageable and allowed OTA to use its previousexperience in these areas.

OTA’S involvement with U.S. assistance toAfrica began in 1984 when the House SelectCommittee on Hunger requested an issues pa-per on technology, agriculture, and U.S. for-eign aid to sub-Saharan Africa (Africa Tomor-row, 1984). Then Congress requested a moredetailed follow-up study examining agriculturaltechnologies for low-resource African agricul-ture (Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Rolefor U.S. Development Assistance, in press,1988). In 1986, OTA published an interim re-port based on that on-going assessment - Con-tinuing the Commitment: Agricultural Devel-opment in the Sahel. This report included aone-month field visit to U.S.-funded develop-ment work in West Africa. The final report onlow-resource agriculture in Africa provides ageneral framework for a resource-enhancingapproach to African agriculture, discusses theoverall role of technology, and details the po-tential of a number of technologies such assmall-scale irrigation, agroforestry, and fer-tilizers.

This previous OTA work has emphasized theneed to support participation of poor farmers,herders, fishers, and their organizations in theprograms designed to assist them. An assess-

Box 2-I.—GAO’s Look at ADF Management

In mid-1984 the Senate AppropriationsCommittee’s Subcommittee on Foreign Oper-ations requested that the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) determine whetherADF had the management capacity to carryout its mandate and to handle larger appropri-ations efficiently. The study was requested be-cause of the uncertainty which followed theresignations of the first President and Vice-President in April and May 1984, barely 6months after ADF had begun operations.GAO’s analysis concluded that by late 1984ADF had made progress in establishing its or-ganizational structure. It had filled most of itsauthorized staff positions, established inter-nal administrative procedures, grant agree-ments, and a project review committee, andwas making plans for its accounting system.

GAO also concluded, however, that ADFshould not focus on expanding its program sig-nificantly to approach the $100 million it origi-nally envisioned spending in 1990. (This num-ber was revised to $30 million in ADF’s 5-YearPlan published in May 1985.) GAO raised anumber of other concerns as well. Some, suchas the need for a 5-year plan, have been cor-rected. OTA considers other issues still rele-vant, For instance, GAO felt that ADF had not:

1. identified which countries would receivepriority funding,

2. determined to what extent ADF wouldprovide loans and loan guarantees,

3. settled the extent to which ADF wouldemphasize private sector initiatives as en-couraged by the Board of Directors,

4. established how ADF would coordinatewith other donors, and

5. decided how ADF would meet demandsfor project monitoring and handle staff-ing for these tasks.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Issues Affecting Ap-propriations for the Afr]c8n Development Foundat~on, GAO/N’SIAf)-85-62, May 7, 1985.

25

ment of ADF thus builds on OTA’S experience suited in the early stages of this work, tappingby exploring, in depth, a program established GAO’s previous work and exploring the possi-to do just that. bility of a joint OTA/GAO effort. Finally, how-

OTA’S examination of ADF is the Founda-ever, the committees requested that OTA con-duct this assessment independently because

tion’s second congressional review. The Gen- OTA’S focus and experience better matchederal Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated ADF’s their need for an examination of the Founda-management capacity in 1985 (box 2-l). GAO,OTA, and the congressional requesters con-

tion’s impacts on development in Africa.

HOW OTA CONDUCTED THE ASSESSMENT

overview

This report presents findings about ADF’soverall funding program in the area of agricul-ture and renewable resources, describes itsperformance, suggests areas for improvement,and notes opportunities for other developmentassistance organizations to learn from the Foun-dation’s experience.

The work was conducted in several stages,each building on the previous one (figure 2-1).Field visits to 12 ADF-funded projects in Africaprovided crucial information regarding ADF’sfield operations. OTA was not charged to evalu-ate the funded groups, however. Instead, teamsvisited projects to assess the overall ADFprogram.

In doing this assessment, OTA used a vari-ety of methods to gather information at the pro-gram and project level, both in the United Statesand in Africa. In Washington, ADF staff andother experts were interviewed. Project docu-ments, ADF’s evaluations of 10 nearly com-pleted projects, two country profiles, and ad-ditional information about its program werereviewed. In Africa, project managers and par-ticipants as well as national and local officialsand other development funding groups wereinterviewed. These interviews provided abroadview of ADF’s philosophy and policies as wellas a measure of how well ADF implements itsmission.

This assessment included several major steps.The assessment plan was developed in spring1987; OTA organized the field teams and de-veloped materials they would use that summer.

The reviews of ADF’s Washington project fileswere conducted in August, the field teams wentto Africa in September, and the synthesis meet-ing was held when the team leaders returnedin October. This report represents only a snap-shot in the life of the 12 ADF-funded projectsand in the evolution of the organization.Changes in ADF’s policies or practices madeafter the fall of 1987 are included in footnotes.

Designing the Assessment Plan

The congressional request identified criticalissues related to ADF’s mandate and suggestedthat the assessment include field visits to ADF-funded projects in Africa. To plan its assess-ment, OTA began in Washington with inten-sive interviews with approximately 30 expertsin field evaluation methodologies and grass-roots organizations. The most appropriate pro-gram evaluation methods were incorporatedinto OTA’S approach (see box 2-2). Also, ADF’sstaff were interviewed about their roles andwork. An Advisory Panel established to guideOTA’S assessment of low-resource agriculturein Africa met in Washington at the end of Apriland was used to review the plan and begin de-veloping field indicators to help assess four crit-ical issues: participation, results, sustainabil-ity, and replicability. This panel suggested thatthe assessment teams lengthen their time in thefield, that African team members be named forevery country visited, and that data collectedbe disaggregated by gender.

OTA next conducted an initial analysis ofADF’s project portfolio based on abstracts pro-vided by ADF for each funded project. From

26

Figure 2-1. - Flow Chart of OTA’S Assessment Methods

CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST OTA experience

Identification of critical issues1. Participation 3. Sustainability2. Results 4. Replicability

Technology (in relation to the other four issues)

/ \Assessment Methods

WASHINGTON DESK REVIEWS ON

Workshop1. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY2. RENEWABLE RESOURCE

\ TECHNOLOGY

Choice of indicators to

(

measure the critical issues

Field Team Orientation )Meeting FIELD ASSESSMENT WORK

SHEETS AND FORMS

rI National-level intewiews Project visits

I

IINDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF

CONGRESSIONAL OPTIONS

I

Review process

FINAL REPORT

KEY: ~ems printed m capital letters are reports or written materialsItems printed m bold are meetmgs

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, t988

this, OTA tabulated project information, includ-ing grant size, duration, maturity, geographicscope, activities, goods or services funded bythe ADF grant, and intended outcomes. Thisanalysis provided information on the range ofproject characteristics and average features sothe countries and projects selected for visitswould be representative of ADF’s portfolio. Thesurvey was limited to the 86 projects fundedby ADF through September 31, 1986. Two-thirds of these, or 58, dealt substantively withagriculture or renewable resources and wereconsidered within OTA’S scope of work.

This assessment of funded projects must bequalified by the newness of ADF’s program. Itsfirst projects are just now nearing completion.Thus, OTA’S major focus is on suggesting howADF’s overall funding program can be im-proved, not on providing a definitive statementjudging the results of ADF projects.

Developing Field Team Methods

To develop methods for the field teams’ use,OTA held a workshop with two purposes:

1. to review current field evaluation methods,and

2. to develop indicators to address the criti-cal issues identified in Congress’ requestfor this study.

The field research method used is a form of“rapid rural appraisal. ” In rapid appraisal,teams visit the field for a short time to obtainselected information needed for policymakers.This approach is quicker and more cost effec-tive than some other research methods. It relieson individual and group interviews, observa-tion, and local documentation where available(12,21).

In the methods workshop, OTA staff, teamleaders, and three consultants with extensiveevaluation experience (app. C) spent 2 days:

defining the critical issues—participation,results, replicability, and sustainability;converting these definitions into concreteindicators that could be observed andmeasured in the field; anddesigning worksheets on which to collectdata for each of these issues.

27

Each critical issue had multiple dimensions tions (from project proposal evaluation andand thus required several indicators to use in monitoring checklists), suggested modificationsthe field. OTA used a variety of sources to help by the Low-Resource Agriculture Advisorydefine each issue, including expressions of con- Panel, and relevant findings from OTA’S pro-gressional interest, ADF’s operational defini- vious work on low-resource agriculture in

Box 2-2 .—Recent Similar Assessments

Four agencies, with programs in some respect similar to ADF’s, were evaluated recently. OTAused these evaluations to suggest assessment methods for this effort, such as the need for desk re-views, the number of projects to visit, and the time required for field work. Also, these examinationsof grassroots funding organizations identified important common approaches and problems. Eachorganization’s purpose and the intent and method of its evaluation are summarized here. The resultsof OTA’S assessment of ADF are compared to the findings of these evaluations in chapter 6.

Appropriate Technology International (ATI). ATI’s mission is to develop innovative approachesto technology, directly involving organizations and entrepreneurs in developing countries. The Agencyfor International Development (AID) conducted an external, mid-term review to assess ATI’s per-formance under its cooperative agreement with AID, to identify lessons regarding technology trans-fer and promoting small-and medium-scale enterprises, and to assess ATI’s ability to replicate itssuccessful innovations. The evaluation included an assessment of 18 ATI projects in 10 countriesby a contractor-supplied team. Members used open-ended, improvised, interview questions in thefield, standardized among regions, The evaluation, including orientation sessions, field visits, anda synthesis meeting, took place in a 6-month period (16).

Inter-American Foundation (IAF). IAF provides grants and loans directly to Latin American grass-roots groups and is the model on which ADF was based. It operates outside of other official U.S.development assistance channels, responding to initiatives of indigenous groups for social, institu-tional, and economic development. This internal evaluation reviewed the foundation’s goals, proce-dures, and policies; initiated a strategic planning effort; investigated IAF’s accomplishments, its rolein U.S. relations in Latin America, and its effectiveness as a pioneer. A team of 3 evaluators reviewedextensive written materials, including IAF’s legislative history, and conducted interviews with at least200 people. Individual members of the team visited between 1 and 3 countries each; the process took3 months (50),

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). This multilateral agency works to in-crease food production in some of the poorest, food deficit countries and to improve the nutritionallevel and living conditions of the poorest populations. AID conducted this external review, examin-ing IFAD’s program relative to U.S. development assistance policy and providing a basis for deci-sions regarding U.S. participation in IFAD, The evaluation methods included desk reviews of writtenmaterials, field visits to IFAD projects throughout the world, interviews with IFAD staff and repre-sentatives of other institutions, and a synthesis meeting. Teams used an open-ended protocol andquestionnaires in the field. In all, 9 AID staff members conducted the evaluation over a 4-month period,spending 3 to 5 days at each of 19 project sites (39).

The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) provides funding and direct techni-cal assistance for women-specific projects and serves as a catalyst to ensure women’s involvementin mainstream development activities. The agency conducted this internal evaluation to assess theextent to which it is carrying out its mandate, to show the impact of development assistance on women,to document the fund’s activities relative to the U.N. Decade for Women, and to identify future priori-ties. This was the most extensive and field-oriented of the evaluations and the one from which OTAborrowed the most methodology. UNIFEM included desk reviews, orientation sessions, field evacua-tions of projects, mailed questionnaires, and input from regional commissions in this project andprogram assessment. Regional field teams visited 42 projects in 24 countries; members were drawnfrom experts resident in the country or region. The work lasted approximately 1 year (38).

83-361 0 - 88 : ~1. 3 - z

28

Africa and other evaluations. OTA sought todevelop indicators that blended quantitativeand qualitative data.

The “participation” issue required the mostcomplex set of indicators concerning who par-ticipates, when, and how. The focus was onequitable access to the project, the project par-ticipants’ roles in all phases of the project cy-cle, project control, and the recipient organi-zat ion’s operat ional s tyle. Indicators ofequitable access, for example, were the typesand levels of involvement of women and vari-ous ethnic, age, and income groups.

Assessing “results” included determiningwhether or not the project achieved its objec-tives. However, results also were defined to in-clude a measure of the project’s broader effectson participants, the recipient organization, andthe community. Information on broad projectoutcomes was used as well as data on specificproject outputs. OTA attempted to identify in-tended and unintended effects of several kinds:economic, social, organizational, environ-mental, policy, and technological. These resultswere examined in terms of the project’s spe-cific objectives as well as in terms of the localcontext and broader development goals.

“Sustainability” was considered the time re-lated dimension of “results” while “replicabil-ity” was the spatially related dimension. Thus,effects beyond the grant period are consideredunder sustainability. Sustainability can bemeasured on several levels including mainte-nance of a resource, continuation of a projector activity, and persistence of an organization.Field measures included indicators for severallevels, e.g., the institutional, social, economic,environmental, and technological sustainabil-ity of the ADF-funded projects.

Effects beyond the project locale were con-sidered part of “replicability.” Like sustaina-bility, replicability is implied in ADF’s purposeto achieve social and economic developmentin Africa through support of local self-help ef-forts. Ideally, even small projects should havean impact beyond their immediate location.This can occur in several ways: by serving asa model for other individuals or groups; by con-

tributing to spontaneous adoption of new tech-nologies by others; or by effecting policy changeon a regional or national level. Also, the learn-ing process that occurs during project imple-mentation itself can be replicated by a fundedgroup or others to plan additional activities.Therefore, OTA assessed whether groups’ proc-esses as well as their specific activities couldbe repeated.

The choice of technology has a direct bear-ing on participation, results, sustainability, andreplicability in ADF-funded projects. Therefore,assessing the use of technology was also a partof OTA’S analysis of the four critical issues.Much research and experience in Africa showsthat, in general, participation of poor farmersin increasing their productivity and incomesin a sustainable way is facilitated by technol-ogies that are lower cost, use local resources,are readily learned, and increase incomes with-out unacceptably increasing risk. Distinguish-ing among high-cost, high-technology, high-input, and high-risk methods is important, how-ever. And, ultimately, the appropriate use oftechnology must be judged by a careful analy-sis of a particular situation. Field teams wereinstructed to assess the appropriateness of tech-nology choices only after interviewing projectmanagers, researchers, and local officials inAfrica familiar with the use of a given technol-ogy in that locale.

OTA staff used the input from the MethodsWorkshop to develop assessment materials forthe three-field teams to use in Africa (app. D):

●

●

●

Worksheets for teams to record data col-lected at project sites for each of the criti-cal issues (Participation, Results, Sustaina-bility, and Replicability);Project Assessment Forms for the teamsto describe their analysis of project per-formance, based on information in theworksheets;Country Assessment Forms which teamsused to assess ADF’s overall performancein the country based on project assessmentinformation as well as from additional in-terviews in Africa and information fromADF; and

29

● Congressional Assessment Forms for teammembers to provide suggestions regardinglevels of congressional appropriations forADF, ways to improve ADF’s work, andlessons for other donors.

The Desk Reviews

A desk review is an analysis based on projectdocuments. The overview provided by a deskreview is usually complemented by field visitsto selected projects.

Three specialists with extensive African ex-perience reviewed ADF’s files on the 58 projectsselected for this analysis (app. C). All three re-viewed the same files, but each with a differ-ent focus. One examined participation, anotheragricultural technologies, and the third exam-ined renewable resources. Each person spentabout 2 weeks reviewing files, meeting withADF staff , and preparing reports . Thesereviewers:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

developed topologies of participatory meth-ods, technologies, and funded organizations;described characteristics of participationand technologies and analyzed theirstrengths and weaknesses;determined how types of participation andtechnical methods are chosen and bywhom;discussed how technical assistance is pro-vided, and by whom;analyzed the possible implications of theirfindings for participation, results, sustaina-bility, and replicability;identified concerns for the field teams toexamine more closely during their time inAfrica; andprovided suggestions for improving ADF’sfunding program.

Selection of Countries andProjects to Visit

Twelve projects were selected for visits, twoin each of six countries. First, likely countriesto visit were identified based on those with at

least three ADF-funded projects within thescope of work. Based on these considerations,OTA formed an East Africa team to visit Tan-zania and Kenya, a West Africa team to visitNiger and Senegal, and a Southern Africa teamto visit Botswana and Zimbabwe.

Specific projects were chosen for visits basedon the analysis of ADF’s project portfolio. Theprojects represented ADF’s portfolio in theserespects: grant size, duration, maturity, andgeographic scope. Also, attempts were madeto include projects illustrating the range of agri-cultural activities and organizations funded byADF. No information about project perform-ance was available at the time of project selec-tion. However, 2 of the 12 projects were among10 undergoing simultaneous evaluation by ADFteams (NGK and PfP in Kenya).

The final list of projects included two whichwere not on OTA’S original list. The DakoroHerders’ Association project in Niger was sub-stituted for the Iniminak Pastoralists Projectafter ADF expressed concern that OTA couldlearn little by visiting the latter project due toits delayed start and strained relations withlocal officials. The Development Fund of Sil-veira House in Zimbabwe replaced the NationalCouncil of Disabled Persons project in Mata-beleland, Zimbabwe, due to concerns for theteam’s safety and validity of data collected inan area of dissident activity. Brief descriptionsof the selected projects and summary projectfindings are included in appendix B.

Field Team Work

The three regional teams used the same meth-ods so that their work could be compared acrossprojects and across regions. Their work beganin Washington with a 4-day Team OrientationWorkshop. At this workshop, the U.S.-basedfield team members refined the methods andmaterials developed by OTA (app. D), preparedwork plans, and met with ADF staff members.

Each team consisted of five members: threebased in the United States (including the teamleader) and an African member from each ofthe two countries to be visited (app. C). The Afri-

30

Each team spent 23 days overseas, visitingtwo countries. On the first 2 days in the capitalcity of each country, they briefed the Africanteam member, met with host country officials,and interviewed the U.S. ambassador, AID mis-sion director, and representatives of other de-velopment agencies (listed in app. E). Approx-imately 2 days were spent at each project siteinterviewing project managers and staff, mem-bers of committees and the Board of Directors,and project participants (independently fromproject staff). To encourage their participation,groups of women were at times interviewedseparately from men. Small group interviewswere complemented with individual interviewsand, in several instances, with large group meet-ings. Between 1 and 20 project subgroups werevisited at various locations where the 12 pro-jects were being carried out. Teams also metwith local non-participants and others in theproject area, such as:

● local officials to gather information, includ-ing average production, income levels, andgovernment policies regarding aspects ofthe project;

● researchers to learn about how well cer-tain technologies performed locally; and

● representatives of others with similarprojects (listed in app. E).

In all, approximately 800 persons were inter-viewed in project locales.

can members joined the group upon arrival ineach country. Members were chosen for theirexpertise in several of the following areas:evaluation methodology; technical expertise inagriculture, natural resource management, eco-nomics, or social sciences; foreign languageskills, especially fluency in French for the WestAfrica team; and experience working withgrassroots organizations in Africa. Most hadextensive experience in at least one of the coun-tries visited, Emphasis also was placed on bal-ancing the teams with women and men. Therewere two women on the OTA teams in five ofthe six countries. Members could not have pre-vious or ongoing contractual relationship withADF.

.

31

ADF has African field staff in five of the sixcountries visited. These ADF staff accompa-nied teams to the project sites and attendedselected meetings between teams and projector national government personnel. OTA andADF agreed at the outset that ADF staff wouldnot be present at most meetings with projectmanagers and participants in order to facili-tate open discussions.

OTA team members included persons fluentin the languages used by local officials andproject managers, except in one case where asecondary language understood by both theproject leader and OTA team interviewer wasused. In some instances, persons were hiredto help translate interviews with project par-ticipants. Key information obtained from all in-terviews was cross checked and verified by ad-ditional sources.

During their final 3 days together in Africa,team members met to reach consensus on theirfindings. Together, teams made judgments

concerning how well ADF projects were per-forming and how well the ADF program sup-ports its projects. Finally, each member in-dividually suggested ways ADF could improveits work and how Congress could encouragethese improvements.

Synthesis Meeting and Preparationof Report

Materials from the three teams were broughttogether during a Synthesis Meeting which in-cluded OTA staff and the three team leaders,Participants compared findings from the threeareas, established the reliability of data in differ-ent parts of the worksheets, began to developcriteria for project rankings across regions,formed general conclusions about ADF’s pro-gram, prepared congressional options, andbegan the report-drafting process. This leddirectly to the draft report and, after extensiveoutside review (app. F), including by ADF, tothe final report.

Chapter 3

The African DevelopmentFoundation

.

CONTENTS

PageSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35The Beginnings of the African Development Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Getting Started: 1980 to 1984..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Growth: From 1984 Through 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

ADF’s Processes to Fund Projects and Its Project Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Process for Approving Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Process of Monitoring Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44ADF Portfolio of Funded Projects: September 1984 Through

September 1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Evaluation, Research, and Public Education: How ADF Is Sharing

What It Learns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Evaluations of lts Funded Projects by ADF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Self-Evaluations by Funded Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Research Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6 0 X

Box Page3-1. ADF’s Place in U.S. Foreign Assistance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

F i g u r e s

Figure Page3-1.ADF Project Approval Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423-2. Sectors of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463-3. Functions of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463-4. Technological Components of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects. . . . . . 47

TablesTable Page3-l. ADF Appropriations and Obligations: Fiscal Years 1981-1988. . . . . . . . . 363-2. Number of Sectors of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473-3. Number of Functions of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects. . . . . . . . . . . 473-4. Number of Components of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects . . . . . . . . 48

Chapter 3

The African Development Foundation

The African Development Foundation (ADF] ●

had a difficult start, first with delayed ap-pointment of the Board of Directors and thenwith unexpected turnover of top staff result- .ing in a General Accounting Office (GAO)study of its management capacity.

After a new president was appointed, ADFdeveloped workable funding procedures thatconsisted of outreach, grant approval, andmonitoring processes,

Between 1984 and 1987, ADF awarded grantsto 114 projects in 19 African countries, dis-tributing a total of $10,3 million.

Now that its first grants are nearing comple-t ion, ADF has begun evaluat ing theseprojects. ADF also awarded research grantsto Africans and published public educationmaterials.

Origins

Congress established the African Develop-ment Foundation (ADF) in 1980 in an attemptto counter some of the limitations faced by offi-cial development assistance programs such asthose of the World Bank and the Agency forInternational Development (AID). Inadequaciesor gaps in official U.S. development assistancethat Congress hoped ADF might overcome in-cluded: government-to-government programsfailed to reach the majority of Africa’s poor;standard grants were typically too large to behandled by grassroots organizations; fundingapproval in established assistance agencies wastoo slow, cumbersome, and cautious; andAmericans and Europeans played too great arole in project design and implementation. Be-ginning in 1975, the planning unit of AID’sAfrica Bureau, the private Development Groupfor Alternative Policies, and the Inter-AmericanFoundation (IAF) played important roles inADF’s establishment, as did legislators who pro-posed it in five bills between 1977 and 1980(1,28). The Foundation’s legislation wasmodeled on IAF’s, passed 11 years earlier. Bothfoundations have similar purposes and arebased in congressional mandates “to enable the

poor to participate in the process of develop-ment” (ADF, Title V, Section 502). While somepeople have advocated ADF as an alternativeto other U.S.-funded development programs,the International Security and Development Co-operation Act of 1980 established ADF to “com-plement” them (43).

Getting Started: 1980 to 1984

President Carter signed the legislation estab-lishing ADF into law in December 1980, butthis was followed by a long delay in appoint-ing ADF’s Board of Directors. The legislationspecified that the seven-person Board, com-prised of five persons from the private sectorand two from government agencies concernedwith African affairs, be appointed by the Presi-dent with the consent of the Senate. The Rea-gan administration delayed naming this boardand did not include funds for ADF in thebudgets sent to Congress from 1981 through1983. Congress, however, appropriated $2.omillion in fiscal year 1981, $2.0 million in fis-cal year 1982, and $2.0 million in fiscal year1983 (table 3-1). These funds were earmarkedin the Sahel Development Fund and were avail-able to ADF regardless “of the year appropri-

35

—. .

36

Table 3-1.–ADF Appropriations and Obligations: Fiscal Years 1981-1988(in millions of dollars)

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Appropriations’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 5 0 02 2.000 2.000 3.000 1.000 3.706 6.614 7.000Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.713 4.493 5.995 6.565 4

Grants 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.838 2.617 3.442 3.902Project Development and Evaluation6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.000 0.585 1.080 1.259Administration and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.875 1.291 1.473 1.404

NOTES: 1 ADFdid not become operational until 1984. Funds appropriated from FY 1981 to 1983 were no-year funds and were carried over for use in future years.2$2m~~on Wasappropriated but $l.5mittion was rescinded.s This table includes actual obligations, so projections for fiscal year 1988 are not listed. OTA used figures in this table tO CdCUlate the PrOPOflhI of non-9rant

costs for fiscal years 1966 and 1987. ADF, however, now divides obligations into two, not three, categories and calculates its administrative costs basedon the two-part classification,

4 $4g 000 of the Fy 87 appropriations was not obligated and was returned to the U.S. Treasury.5 A p~oject has all its funds placed in the obligation Iirte the fiscal year the grant agreement is signed (e g., the funding for a 5-Year ProJect signed in 19~

appears only under 1986). The grant line includes funding commitments for:● projects (new commitments);● amendments to previously committed projects: 12 totaling $364,449 in 1986 and 47 totaling $627,231 in 1987;● research grants: five totaling $250,000 in 1986 and two totaling $58,939 in 1987; and● cooperative agreements, which are principally for African Country Resource Facilitators, eight totaling $144,975 in 1987,

6 The project develo~ment and evaluation line includes costs for contractors, including African Regional Liaison Officers, providing technical assistance and

appraising, monitoring, and evaluating projects.

SOURCES’ African Development Foundation, 1988. Executive Office of the President, Off Ice of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Goverrrmerrf FY1986, 1987, 1988, Apperrdix (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985, 1986, 1987).

ated (“no year” funds). Congress rescinded $1.5million of the fiscal year 1981 appropriation,but retained $0,5 million in startup funds. Thus,$4.5 million in ADF funds was carried over tofiscal year 1984, by which time Congress hadpressured the administration to name ADF’sBoard of Directors and appropriated an addi-tional $3 million for fiscal year 1984. The at-tendant political compromises set the stage forthe new organization’s difficult birth.

The Senate approved the administration’snominees for the ADF Board in October 1983.All seven board members were Republicans.The government officials named were the Un-dersecretary of State for African Affairs andAID’s Assistant Administrator for Africa. Fourof the five representatives of the private sectorwere businesspeople, and none had African ex-perience. The Board appointed Constance Hil-liard as president and Reginald Petty as vice-president. Pressures from the Hill to begin fund-ing projects in Africa grew quickly. Tensionswithin the staff and between the staff and Boardled to the resignations of the president and vicepresident in April and May 1984, which para-lyzed the Foundation’s activities and generatedunfavorable press coverage about the delays inawarding grants (34). As a result, in June 1984the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of theSenate Appropriations Committee requested a

General Accounting Office (GAO) study to de-termine if ADF had the management capacityto carry out its mandate (ch. 2).

ADF’s Board appointed Leonard Robinson,Jr., acting President starting June 1, 1984. AsDeputy Assistant Secretary of State for Afri-can Affairs, he had represented the State De-partment at two ADF Board meetings. Robin-son was a former Peace Corps volunteer andAssociate Country Director in India. He ap-pointed Percy Wilson vice-president. Wilsonhad directed community-level domestic anti-poverty programs and been Peace Corps Direc-tor in Sierra Leone. The organization was setup quickly under pressure: staff was hired on6-month contracts, funding criteria and proce-dures were developed, and work began on afive-year plan while GAO auditors were in theoffice.

An explicit directive from key congressionalmembers to fund projects before the end of thefiscal year took overwhelming precedence. Sixconsultants with experience in African devel-opment programs attended a week-long work-shop in Washington in late July then went toAfrica to bring back project proposals. Mostof a variety of projects proposed by U.S. pri-vate voluntary organizations (PVOS) were re-jected because they were not designed or con-

37

trolled by Africans. The consultants evaluatedother already-submitted proposals in the fieldand relied on personal African contacts in thosecountries where they had worked before to seekadditional fundable projects. They returned in6 weeks with 86 proposals; 36 were presentedto the newly formed staff Project Review Com-mittee. In September 1984, just prior to the in-formal congressional deadline, the Boardawarded grants to 11 projects totaling $838,000:five from Lesotho, two from Botswana, and oneeach from Mali, Niger, Liberia, and Zambia.

By the end of September 1984, 11 permanentstaff members had been hired, 6 others had beenselected, and Robinson had been appointedpresident. The GAO report concluded that ADFwas “putting into place the staff and adminis-trative capacity to manage a grant program”(41). But GAO questioned aspects of ADF’soperations, especially the fact that they pro-jected their annual budget to rise to $96 mil-lion by 1990. (This initial projection was laterrevised to $30 million in ADF’s Five Year Plan.)Subsequently, Congress reauthorized ADFthrough 1990.

Growth: From 1984 Through 1987

Expansion to 19 Countries

The Foundation was able to expand consider-ably from 1985 through 1987 due to the accumu-lation of “no year” funds and new appropria-tions. After publicizing the availability of fundsfor grassroots organizations, ADF receivedhundreds of proposals and in fiscal year 1985awarded grants to 42 projects in 13 countriesworth $2.6 million. In fiscal year 1986 ADFawarded about $2.8 million in grants to 33 moreprojects, expanding to 19 countries. The Foun-dation consolidated its program in fiscal year1987, funding 28 new projects in the same coun-tries for $3.1 million, In addition, the Founda-tion awarded nearly $1.0 million in 59 amend-ments to previous grants in 1986 and 1987 (table3-1). In its first 4 years, then, the Foundationawarded $10,3 million to 114 projects in 19countries.

Which countries received funding dependedin large part on the personal contacts of ADFstaff because the Foundation did not have cri-

teria to select new countries. Also, selectiondepended on the Board’s decision that ADFwould fund projects only in countries maintain-ing diplomatic relations with the United States(see box 3-1).

The expansion of ADF’s program in Africarequired ADF to develop relationships withAfrican governments. ADF only funds legallyrecognized organizations in Africa and it in-forms the appropriate African governments,through their embassies in Washington, of eachgrant. Although the Foundation does not allowAfrican governments to decide who receivesADF funds, applicants often must obtain hostcountry permission to receive outside funding.

In most countries, ADF representatives madeinitial contacts with African officials to informthem of ADF’s program, but they did not at-tempt to reach a formal agreement specifyinghow ADF will operate in each country untillater. Since mid-1986 ADF has given priorityto negotiating accords with the governmentsof those countries where ADF has active pro-grams. At that time ADF decided not to beginfunding in any country until an accord is ne-gotiated. By the end of 1987, accords or writ-ten understandings have been reached withnine governments (none in Southern or EastAfrica),’ The terms of the accords include alimited role for the national government inproject implementation and exemptions fromcertain African customs payments by grant re-cipients. These are similar to the agreementsmost U.S. PVOS negotiate with African govern-ments before beginning work there. The Foun-dation reached informal understandings withBenin and Congo/Brazzaville through an ex-change of letters in lieu of a formal accord.

The Foundation’s recognition of the need fora more systematic approach is reflected in itsrecent plan to collect and analyze informationto design a funding strategy for each country.A manual on how to prepare Country Assess-ment Profiles was developed in 1986 and Pro-files have been completed for Tanzania, Sene-

‘Of these, 6 were in countries where ADF funded projects andADF signed accords with Sierra Leone and Ghana in Januaryand February 1988, respectively.

38

Box 3-1.—ADF’s Place in U.S. Foreign Assistance

Congress established ADF as a public corporation, independent of other U.S. foreign assistanceagencies and operating outside the constraints of short-term U.S. foreign policy considerations (13),One rationale for ADF’s independence is that ADF primarily funds non-governmental, grassrootsorganizations, unlike most official U.S. programs which provide resources to foreign governments.Also, Congress anticipated that independence would:

● give the Foundation broader access to local groups,● decrease the likelihood that political pressures from the United States or from host govern-

ments would override other considerations in making funding decisions, and● build confidence in ADF as a reliable partner in long-term development.

The Foundation, with the support of its Board, has demonstrated its independence by fundingprojects in several countries with which the U.S. government disagrees. For example, ADF continuesto fund grassroots groups in Zimbabwe even though AID froze funding there in 1986, and ADF stillaccepts proposals from Benin, where AID programs are ending also. The Foundation began fundingprojects in Tanzania in 1986, before AID’s program was resumed in 1987 (aid, except for food aid,had been cut off in 1984 under the Brooke Amendment because Tanzania had fallen more than ayear into default in repayment of loans to the United States). The Foundation has understandablereasons, such as the personal safety of its staff, for not funding projects in some African countrieswith which the U.S. government has had major disagreements, such as Angola and Mozambique.

Congress also intended ADF to be a complementary participant in U.S. development assistance.As such, ADF does not act inconsistently with long-term foreign policy considerations. It is whollyfunded by Congress, two administration officials sit on its Board of Directors, and it funds projectsonly in countries which have diplomatic relations with the United States. In addition, most of the19 countries within which ADF operates also participate in other U.S.-funded development assistance:

• 19 have AID programs,● 15 have Peace Corps volunteers, and• 19 have received Public Law 480 food commodities in the past 2 years.

ADF operates more like U.S. and European PVOS and private foundations than official assistanceprograms such as AID and the World Bank in project scale, grant size, and operating style. ManyU.S. PVOS take part in official U.S. foreign assistance because they receive U.S. funds; a minorityof U.S. PVOS, however, currently fund self-help programs of African organizations in a similar wayto ADF. This dichotomy—ADF’s being an official program but acting in some ways more like a pri-vate one—sometimes confuses representatives of official and private programs in the United Statesand in Africa. This distinction also provides the Foundation with an advantage in developing a spe-cial niche in U.S. foreign aid,

gal, Cameroons, Sao Tome, Congo, and CapeVerde. (ADF has funded projects only in thefirst three countries.) First, consultants in theUnited States prepare a report on the geogra-phy, history, population, government, andeconomy of the particular African country. Ateam of senior ADF staff is briefed on this ma-terial, then travels to Africa to interview offi-cials in the ministry responsible for foreignaffairs, other African officials, and represent-atives of PVOS, training and research institu-

tions, and other development assistance orga-nizations. The ADF team identifies fundinggaps, obtains other information relevant toADF’s funding program, and verifies informa-tion already received. Another part of the pro-file deals with the “viability and safety of oper-ating” in the country. Ideally, profiles wouldbe prepared before ADF begins funding in acountry, but they were not done before ADFentered the first 19 countries.

39

Increasing ADF Staff inWashington and Africa

To expand ADF’s funding program to 19countries, the president enlarged the Founda-tion’s staff to 27 full-time employees, 6 contrac-tors, 1 intern, and 4 work study students inWashington and 15 full- and part-time staff inAfrica by the end of fiscal year 1987. Now, fourmain functional offices are based in Washing-ton, D. C,:

●

●

●

●

Office of the President, which includes apresident, vice president, general counsel,congressional liaison, and assistants;Office of Administration and Finance,which includes a director, budget and fis-cal officer, personnel officer, and as-sistants;Office of Program and Field Operations,which includes a director, five regionalFoundation Representatives, a grants coor-dinator, and three program assistants; andOffice of Research and Evaluation, whichincludes a director, research associates,and an information officer.

The Foundation’s 1985 Five Year Plan envi-sioned establishing five regional field officesin Africa to assist in monitoring projects. In1986, ADF implemented that plan when itselected the first African Regional LiaisonOfficers (RLOS). According to their job descrip-tions, Regional Liaison Officers will help mon-itor projects; verify grantees’ compliance withgrants’ conditions and reporting requirements;work with auditors , technical assistanceproviders, evaluators, and African officials;conduct outreach to potential applicants; andcarry out administrative functions such aslogistical support for ADF Washington staffvisits. The Regional Liaison Officers performthese duties as assistants to the Washington-based Foundation Representatives. Currently,ADF has contracted four full-time RegionalLiaison Officers based in Nairobi, Kenya;Dakar, Senegal; Harare, Zimbabwe; andYaounde, Cameroon. Each has a small officeand travel budget.

The Foundation began to select African per-sonnel to serve as Country Resource Facilita-

Photo credit” ADF/Kerry Hanrahan

Africans help implement ADF’s funding program inAfrica. Besa Amenuvor (ADF’s Country Resource Facili-tator (CRF) for Ghana), Leonard Floyd (ADF’sWashington-based Foundation Representative), andKoffi Adaba (CRF for Togo) were among those attend-ing a 1988 conference in Togo for ADF’s regional staff.

tors (CRFS) in 1987 on a part-time basis due tothe difficulty and expense of travel withinAfrica and the wide distances between gran-tees. By November 1987, ADF had signed co-operative agreements with 11 Country Re-source Facilitators.* The Country ResourceFacilitators’ primary responsibility is to facili-tate the provision of technical assistance tofunded groups. In reality, the Country ResourceFacilitators also function as assistants to theADF’s Washington-based Foundation Repre-sentatives. The addition of Country ResourceFacilitators was not envisioned in ADF’s FiveYear Plan. Therefore, the Foundation has re-evaluated the roles of the Regional LiaisonOfficers and plans to merge the regional andcountry positions by 1990.

ADF complements its full-time staff by hir-ing African and American consultants on a con-tract basis. For example, 72 contracts wereawarded in fiscal year 1987 for project evalua-tions, and monitoring, translation, technicalassistance, research, and administrat ivefunctions.

ZBY F~b~u~ry 1988, ADF had signed cooperative wreernentswith 14 Country Resource Facilitators.

.

40

This growth in the Foundation’s staff hasbeen slower than was projected in the Five YearPlan and than was suggested in its enabling leg-islation, in part because appropriations havebeen lower than anticipated. The 1980 law setgenerous staff limits: 25 during the first year,50 during the second, and 75 thereafter. TheOffice of Management and Budget, with author-ity to approve new staff positions, subsequentlyset ADF’s limit at 27 full-time positions (FTEs).3

Although the size of the Foundation’s staffhas grown more slowly than expected, its in-crease has been larger than the relative increasein the number of grants and amount awarded.Consequently, ADF has been criticized for itsstaff size, relatively high salary levels, and sub-stantial travel costs. Congressional staff andothers have expressed concern regarding thehigh ratio of administrative and other opera-tional costs in relation to grant commitments,estimated by OTA to be 42 percent in fiscal year1986 and 43 percent in fiscal year 1987.4

3ADF has not exceeded this level. By February 1988, its staffconsisted of 25 FTE employees, 7 contractors, and 2 student in-terns in Washington and 4 Regional Liaison Officers and 14 Coun-try Resource Facilitators in Africa for a total of 52. The CountryResource Facilitators, interns and one contractor are part-time.

40TA included in its grants category all project grants,amendments to grants, and research grants. Then OTA com-pared all non-grant costs to the total amount of money obligatedin a given year. ADF, like the Inter-American Foundation, catego-rizes its costs differently. Beginning in fiscal year 1988 ADF’s

Congress has exerted pressure on ADF to re-duce its administrative costs. The Foundationresponds that its high non-grant costs are justifi-able, given expenses needed to establish a newagency, monitor grants in 19 countries andother factors. Also, ADF President LeonardRobinson, Jr., testified that he was attemptingto reduce administrative costs to 31 percent forfiscal year 1988 (42).

Setting Up An Advisory Council

The Foundation’s authorizing legislation re-quired that ADF set up an Advisory Councilof persons knowledgeable about developmentactivities in Africa and that the Board consultwith it at least once a year to discuss ADF ob-jectives and activities. The 27-person Councilmet in March, June, November 1985, and No-vember 1986, and 4 task forces made sugges-tions regarding 1) concepts of development, 2)ways to educate the public about ADF’s work,3) methods to work with Congress and otherU.S. government groups, and 4) means to sup-plement the Foundation’s appropriations withoutside resources.

categories are I) Program Support, or administrative costs and2) Program Development, which includes grants, African staff,publication expenses, and work by contractors to appraise, mon-itor, evaluate and provide technical assistance to grantees. TheFoundation retroactively estimated its administrative costs at38 percent in fiscal year 1986 and 35 percent in fiscal year 1987.

ADF’S PROCESSES TO FUND PROJECT% AND ITS PROJECT PORTFOLIO

Outreach formation on how to apply for grants in Eng-

The Foundation spreads information aboutlish, French, and Portuguese. Other organiza-tions, including Africare and the World Council

its program by several methods: of Credit Unions, have publicized information● publications, about ADF’s program in Africa.● ‘meetings in Africa, and● personal contacts.

Also, ADF staff publicizes its programthrough meetings with government officials,

ADF’s brochure and newsletter, Beyond Re- PVOS, and the media during initial trips to Afri-lief’, are especially important information tools. can countries where ADF intends to begin fund-The brochure contains funding criteria and in- ing. For example, the local press has carried

41

articles about ADF and African radio and tele-vision stations have featured interviews withADF staff. Following this type of publicity, ADFreceives many requests, a large part of whichare ineligible, such as requests for individualassistance and scholarships.

In the early days, ADF’s most importantmethod of informing African organizations ofthe availability of funds was via the personalcontacts of ADF staff. ADF staff called on peo-ple and groups recommended by colleagues,who also helped spread the word about theFoundation. This method of communication re-mains important, although outreach is becom-ing more systematic. For example, dissemina-tion of information about ADF’s fundingprogram is one purpose of the Foundation Rep-resentatives’ trips to Africa. The African Re-gional Liaison Officers, who sometimes visita neighboring country between FoundationRepresentative visits, and country representa-tives also explain ADF’s program and pro-cedures.

Once ADF funds several organizations in acountry, word often spreads through networksof similar groups. This informal method of out-reach becomes more important as additionalprojects are funded in a country.

Recently, ADF traced how its funded projectsoriginally made contact with the Foundation.Of 102 projects, the greatest number, 35, re-sulted from Foundation Representative con-tacts. Another 23 proposals were submitteddirectly from Africa to Washington. Manyprojects were referred by others: 19 were re-ferred by U.S. PVOS, 10 by African non-

We had to leave and go to Nigeria becauseof the drought. We were not happy there. [TheADF Representative] said she would help usand now we are back. . . . No one else wouldhelp.

Macao bii Gao, Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative,Bundu Eggo, Niger.

Translated and paraphrased from an OTA interview,.Sept, .22, 1987,

governmental organizations (NGOS), five byAfrican governments, three by African univer-sities, three from U.S. government programs(AID, Ambassadors Self-Help Fund, PeaceCorps), two from Regional Liaison Officers, oneeach from an international NGO and ADF ini-tiative (6).

The OTA field teams found that an Americanor European resident in Africa was responsi-ble for linking grassroots organizations withADF in a quarter of the ADF projects theyvisited. These “brokers” were a Peace CorpsVolunteer, a European volunteer, and an Amer-ican photographer/writer.

Process for Approving Grants

The Foundation’s process for approvinggrants has been modified only slightly since1984, although the way the system functionsin practice has evolved with the growth of thestaff and portfolio (figure 3-1) (2,26). The Foun-dation Representatives are notified of theamount of funds available for grants in theirregion at the beginning of each fiscal year. Eachis allocated the same amount, about $700,000during the past 2 years. They generally preferto respond to individual proposals without con-cern about the number of grants to countrieswithin the region. In at least one case, however,the Representative attempted to plan distribu-tion by country within the region. Unallocatedfunds may be awarded to projects in any re-gion during the final quarter of the fiscal year.

The initial contact between an applicant andthe Washington office varies from submissionof a sophisticated proposal to sending a sim-ple letter requesting funds. Even with the addi-tion of ADF’s African staff, most request let-t e r s and app l i ca t ions come d i rec t ly toWashington, although in a few cases the Re-gional Liaison Officer has seen the request orspoken with the potential applicant first,

Screening Proposals

The program assistant, under supervision ofthe Foundation Representative, first screensproposals and determines whether or not therequest meets basic eligibility standards. These

42

Figure 3-1. -ADF Project Approval Process

I No I8

Program

●

review comm. (PRC

Grant

YES

6

notice

NO[

11Budget office

8

SOURCE: Teixeira Nash and Curtis Boykin, ‘The ADF Funding Prmess or How the Izuni Coop got an ADF Grantl ” Bepnd Fte/k#, VOI 1, No 3, November 1985, pp 1-4

eligibility criteria, with the exception of thelegislated limit of $250,000, reflect the ADFBoard’s evolving policies and interpretation ofADF’s mandate: the applicant must be a non-governmental entity (while public entities arespecifically allowed in the legislation, ADFBoard policy is more restrictive); the benefici-ary must consist of two or more individuals orfamilies; large capital projects and scholarshipsare not eligible. An estimated 85 percent of ap-plicants are screened out at this stage. SinceADF has not systematically recorded the num-bers of applicants and reasons for their rejec-tion, it is not known if this percentage haschanged over time.5

The program assistant informs rejected ap-plicants of the reasons why their proposals wererejected. Then ADF asks remaining applicantsto complete ADF’s grant application if theyhave not already done so. Applicants are askedto submit four to five pages of information an-

5ADF is setting up a system to track numbers of applicantsand reasons for rejection beginning in early 1988. A computer-ized management information system (PROMIS) will track in-formation on applicants and funded projects.

swering questions about their organization andproposed project. Most organizations fundedby ADF submit proposals longer than requestedbut ADF has funded a few short, handwrittenproposals. Proposals are usually submitted inEnglish or French but proposals in other lan-guages are eligible for consideration.

Review

The next step is a review of the proposal bythe Foundation Representative, who generallyasks applicants for additional information. Usu-ally site visits occur during this stage. Althoughvisits are commonly conducted by the Repre-sentative, sometimes a consultant visits the ap-plicant. After reviewing all information, theFoundation Representative decides whether ornot to recommend the proposal for funding.Representatives’ reasons for rejection usuallyrelate to the project’s feasibility and ability ofthe applicant organization to carry it out. How-ever, ADF has not documented the number ofrejections at this stage and reasons for them.

The Representative then prepares a ProjectAssessment Memorandum (PAM) recommend-

43

ing the project. The format for this 10 to 15 pagememo includes a brief summary of the pro-posal, the reasons for the recommendation, andbrief sections designated for discussing sus-tainability, replicability, and environmentalconcerns. The Representative’s concerns maybe found in a section on conditions to be placedon the grant. In practice, the purpose of thememo is to convince the staff Project ReviewCommittee to approve the proposal for funding.

After clearance by the director of the Officeof Field Operations, the PAM and proposal aresent to the staff Project Review Committee, thenext step in approval. The committee is headedby the vice president and consists of the presi-dent, directors of the three ADF offices, the gen-eral counsel, and one Foundation Representa-tive other than the ones presenting proposalsfor approval at the weekly meeting. Prior to themeeting, members review the proposals andPAMs. During the meeting the Foundation Rep-resentative makes a brief presentation and com-mittee members then question the Represent-ative. The Representative defends the proposaland acts as an advocate for it. At the end ofthe discussion, committee members (but not theFoundation Representative) complete a ProjectRating Sheet. An average of 70 points of a pos-sible 100 is required for approval. These rat-ing sheets are kept by the vice president ratherthan in the project file; however, the represent-ative receives a copy of the meeting minutes.Proposals may be approved, approved with con-ditions, sent back for further information, orrejected, But the rejection may not be final asthe representative can present the same projectlater if it scores between 65 and 69, either mod-ified, with more information, or with more per-suasive arguments. According to the vice presi-dent, the Project Review Committee rejectsproposals for two major reasons: 1) they seemto be a violation of ADF policy or mandate, or2) they are not conceptually sound or feasible.Over the past 4 years, the committee has re-jected approximately 1 of every 10 projects.

Board Approval

The next step in the process is approval bya majority of the three members of a separate

Project Review Committee at the Board of Di-rectors level, which meets at least monthly. Themembers of the Board selected for this com-mittee live in Washington, saving travel ex-penses. One is the U.S. Department of Statemember, who is usually represented by adelegated foreign service officer. In all but fourcases, the Board review committee approvedproposals sent to it by the staff review commit-tee. The views of the Board committee, how-ever, have shaped the types of activities andorganizations funded beyond this interventionin project approval, For example, their viewsput forward in formal and informal policies andconversations have affected project proposalsbefore they are submitted to the Board com-mittee.

Early on, the Board rejected the suggestionthat it only approve grants greater than $75,000.The Board committee has approved all grantsand amendments to grants for most of ADF’shistory. However, the Board agreed in early1987 that grant amendments less than $10,000could be approved by the Director of Programand Field Operations, and those between$10,000 and $25,000 could be approved by thevice president with concurrence by thepresident.’

Congressional Notification

Next, the project approval process requirescongressional notification, as mandated by ap-propriations laws. The Foundation sends briefsummaries of each project to the Senate andHouse Appropriations Committees and theirSubcommittees on Foreign Operations. If ADFhears nothing from the committees within 15days, the grant can be obligated. No proposalhas been rejected at this stage, but delays oc-cur because ADF holds notifications wheneverCongress is recessed.

‘In mid-December, the Board approved a small project furld-ing procedure for similarly funding grants of these sizes. Nei-ther require staff Project Review Committee approval. In addi-tion, the Board agreed to delegate to the president authority forapproving projects of less than $125,000, but limited this authorityby requiring a 15 day notification period during which a majorityof members of the Board Project Review Committee could dis-approve funding.

44

Signing the Grant Agreement

After the two week wait, ADF’s presidentsends the applicant a letter informing them ofthe approval and two copies of the Grant Agree-ment for their signature. The agreement in-cludes the approved proposal and budget andmay include conditions which must be met be-fore ADF will award the grant. Announcementsof the grant are sent to the ambassador in theUnited States of the nation concerned, to theU.S. ambassador, and, since 1986, to the AIDdirector.

The average time elapsed between the firstsubmission of the applicant’s proposal and fi-nal approval (the signing of the Grant Agree-ment) is 9 months, a period longer than for otherorganizations that fund projects of compara-ble size, such as Ford Foundation and IAF(29,32). This period includes an average 3months between ADF staff approval in theproject review committee and the signing ofthe Grant Agreement. Some of this time maybe required for the recipient to consider andcomply with conditions on the grant. But thisperiod is followed by another period of severalmonths before the first check is disbursed fromADF. And transfer of funds can take severalmonths to reach Africa because of long delaysin disbursal of funds from Washington throughthe U.S. government budget and fiscal officerbased in Paris. In 1987, ADF began to sendfunds through commercial banks to speed uptransmission to Africa.

Process of Monitoring Grants

Monitoring includes program and financialoversight and facilitation of the grantees’ ef-forts by the funder. According to ADF’s presi-dent, “an appropriate monitoring strategy doesnot burden or intimidate grantees (but) en-courages self-evaluation” (7). While manygroups share this attitude, ADF’s monitoringapproach is unusual in that it gives its gran-tees much greater control of funds than gov-ernment funding programs and most U.S.PVOS. Once the ADF Grant Agreement issigned and the first check sent, the recipientgroup has control of implementation, includ-

Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles

Most AD F-funded agricultural projects involve produc-tion of crops primarily for sale. The Agricultural FinanceCorporation in Zimbabwe received ADF funds to pro-

vide loans to small farmers growing coffee.

ing purchasing equipment and hiring techni-cal assistance. Unlike recipients of other U. S.-funded programs, ADF grantees are not re-quired to purchase American-made equipmentand materials. This flexibility allows them topurchase equipment that may be less expen-sive, more readily available, more appropriate,or easier to maintain because of availability ofspare parts. For example, ADF has, on behalfof the grantee, disbursed funds directly to acompany in a country other than the recipients’in order to purchase imported equipment morequickly.

45

The ADF monitoring process, however, issimilar to most other funders’ in that quarterlyreports and site visits are required, In the quar-terly progress report, the project manager isasked to list project accomplishments andwhether or not the activities occurred on time,and to identify any problems, plans to solvethem, and those who participated in internalevaluation during the quarter. The quarterly fi-nancial report is based on a cash accountingmethod; recipients must list their expendituresand cash balances at the beginning and end ofthe quarter. To facilitate recordkeeping, ADFrequires project managers to keep ADF fundsin a separate bank account. Also, grantees arerequired to keep ADF funds in non-interestbearing accounts like other recipients of U.S.funds (program income generated from thegrant, however, is excused from this require-ment), This regulation lowers the value of grantfunds, especially when inflation and currencydevaluations occur,

Project managers send these reports to Wash-ington, but not to ADF’s African staff. Nor dothey necessarily keep a copy for themselves.Often these reports are late and important in-formation reaches Washington slowly. TheFoundation now asks project managers to re-quest checks 6 weeks before they need them.Thus, in a few cases, a grant’s second checkmay be processed before ADF receives the firstquarterly report, reducing ADF’s leverage overthe projects.

However, ADF exercises some control overgrant funds through its monitoring and disbur-sal practices. Funds are disbursed during thegrant period according to a schedule deter-mined by project funding needs. The fact thatmany projects have high equipment budgetsspent in the beginning of the grant period re-duces ADF leverage over grant implementation,however . The Founda t ion uses Af r icanaccounting firms to conduct reviews and au-dits at the end of major projects, and mid-termfor certain projects. In some cases, ADF asksthese firms to check on the accounting meth-ods and capacities of grantees before disbur-sal of ADF funds. To date, 24 audits have beencompleted. The Foundation may also provide

grant funds for training and assistance in book-keeping or financial and general management.

Once the quarterly reports arrive in Wash-ington, they are handled by a number of per-sons. The Foundation Representative and thebudget and fiscal officer each review the quar-terly report; the Representative will discussproblems with the budget officer and the di-rector of the Office of Field Operations. Thegrants coordinator and program assistants arealso involved. The Foundation Representativemay communicate back with project managersby letter or telex; they also talk by phone withthe Regional Liaison Officer about once a week.ADF policy is that their staff visit each fundedgroup in the first quarter of the grant year (inpart to make sure that the grantee understandsADF monitoring forms and procedures) andonce toward the end of the first grant year. Theschedule of visits to Africa sometimes has notpermitted this policy to be implemented, how-ever. With the addition of African staff, ADFexpects that projects will be visited more fre-quently.

ADF has been flexible in permitting revisionof the activities, schedules, and budgets speci-fied in the Grant Agreement. A number ofprojects have been extended and/or receivedadditional funds with grant amendments. A feworganizations were initially awarded a planninggrant and subsequently a larger project grant,

Funds for end-of-project evaluations are pro-vided in the original grant budgets. ADF ear-marks 2 percent of the total grant for an exter-nal, end-of-project evaluation and another 2percent for an audit of project funds, althoughit only requires audits of certain grantees, Inaddition, ADF includes the expenses of moni-toring by its African staff as part of its overallgrant commitments (table 3-I),

ADF Portfolio of Funded Projects:September 1984 Through

September 1986

At the beginning of this assessment, OTA re-quested information from ADF on the 86 grantscommitted through the end of September 1986

46

(listed in the ADF Congressional PresentationFY 1988, app. A). The total committed to theseprojects in 19 countries by spring 1987 wasslightly more than $7 million, with the averageawarded to each project $81,500.7 Six of thesewere terminated by ADF by August 1987 fora variety of reasons including substantial prob-lems with project start-up or performance.Others received grant amendments increasingthe amount of ADF funds. Zimbabwe andKenya had the largest number of fundedprojects: 13 each.

Grants ranged in size from $7O O to apastoralist in the Sahel for a small trading cen-ter to the legal maximum of $250,000 for a watersupply for three communit ies in Kenya.Twenty-four percent (21 projects) were less than$25,000; and 38 percent (33 projects) were atleast $100,000. Ten projects were at or near the$250,000 ADF maximum limit.

Two-thirds of these projects deal with agri-culture in a significant way. Of these, most aimto increase food production for sale and domes-tic consumption (figure 3-2). A large number(70 percent) involve production of cash cropsprimarily for marketing, such as vegetables,fruit, peanuts, coffee, tea, and rice. One-thirdinvolve livestock production and 13 percent in-volve poultry. Although 89 percent of agricul-tural projects are production-based, marketingis an important function in at least one-half (fig-ure 3-3). Processing and storage are involvedin 28 percent and 22 percent of projects, re-spectively, while resource conservation activ-ities are only present in 10 percent. The tech-nology profile of ADF’s agricultural projectsis equally diverse. Perhaps not surprising giventhe critical shortage of water and irrigation inmuch of Africa, 78 percent of the projects deal-ing with crop production include small-scaleirrigation systems (figure 3-4). Many includethe use of improved seeds (36 percent) or fer-tilizer (32 percent). More unexpectedly giventhe resources required to make tractor use sus-tainable, 36 percent of the agricultural projects

‘By the end of fiscal year 1987, the average total amountawarded to each project, including grant amendments, had in-creased to $90,755.

Figure 3-2. -Sectors of ADF-FundedAgricultural Projects

70 —

60 —

50 —

40 —

30 —

20 —

10 —

o —

70%

5296

33%

Live-crop stock

sectors

13%

acrops grown primarily for sale including vegetables, fruit, peanuts, soybeans,sunflowers, coffee, and tea.

SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987

90 —

00 —

70 —

60 —

50 —

40 —

30 —

20 —

10 —

o —

52%

Production Mar-keting cessing - vation

FunctionsSOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared

for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987

47

Figure 34.-Technological Components ofADF-Funded Agricultural Projects ●

100,

90t

Irrigation Seed Tractors Fertilizer AnimalTraction

Technological Components

aT~ble refers Only to projects lnvolvlng crop ProductIon

SOURCE Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report preparedfor the Off Ice of Technology Assessment, August 1987

involve the use of tractors, while only 12 per-cent make use of animal traction.

A majority of the agricultural projects havemultiple sectors, functions, and technologicalcomponents. Nearly two-thirds involve morethan one agricultural sector (table 3-2) and func-tion (table 3-3) and 55 percent have more thanone technological component (table 3-4). Look-ing at the sectors in another way, half of theADF-funded agricultural projects deal with sin-gle or various combinations of crops only, 22percent with animals only, and 27 percent withmixed crop and animal activity.

Forty-four percent of ADF’s agriculturalprojects work with communally-owned farmsonly; 22 percent only with private farms; and35 percent with a combination of communaland private farms (25). Several projects supportagricultural-related enterprises, e.g., two assistfishers’ cooperatives by repairing boat motors.Generally, credit programs use revolving loanfunds to support numerous sub-projects, some

Table 3.2.—Number of Sectors of ADF-FundedAgricultural Projects

Sector(s) Percent of projects

One-sector projects

Two-sector projects

Three-sector projects

Four-sector projects

Cash Crop 11Livestock 9Fish 9Food Crops 7Cash/Food Crop 32Cash Crop/Livestock 7Cash Crop/Poultry 5Livestock/Poultry 2Poultry/Fish 2

Cash/Food Crop/Livestock 11Cash Crop/Livestock/Poultry 2

Cash Crop/Food Crop/Livestock/Poultry 2

99a

36

48

13

2—99

aTotal less than 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report preparedfor the Off Ice of Technology Assessment, August 1987

Table 3-3.—Number of Functions of ADF-FundedAgricultural Projects

Function(s) Percent of projects

One-function projects

Two-function projects

Three-function projects

Four-function projects

ProductionConservationProcessing

Production/MarketingProduction/ProcessingMarketing/Storage

Production/Marketing/StorageProduction/Marketing/ProcessingProduction/Processing/Storage

Production/Marketing/Processing/Storage -

Production/Marketing/Storage/ConservationProduction/Marketing/Processing/Conservation

2964

2482

10

6

2

6

2

2

101a

39

34

18

10

101aTotal greater than 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987

of which involve agricultural production, andothers involve non-agricultural small-scale ru-ral enterprises. The one-third of the ADF grantsnot classified as agricultural have gone to sup-port non-agricultural activities in rural areas,such as potable water supply projects, or to fund

48

Table 3-4.—Number of Technological Components ofADF-Funded Agricultural Projectsa

Technologies Percent of projects

One-component projects

Two-component projects

Three-component projects

Four-component projects

Five-component projects

IrrigationTractors

424 1

46

Irrigation/Tractors 8Irrigation/Seeds 8Seeds/Fertilizer 8

I

32Tractors/AnimalTraction 8

Irrigation/Seeds/Fertilizer 8Irrigation/Tractors/Fertilizer 4

116

Seed/Tractors/Fertilizer 4Irrigation/Seed/Tractors/Fertilizer 4 4

Irrigation/Seed/Tractors/Fertilizer/Animal Traction 4 4

102b 102alnCIU&S Only projects involving crop production.bTotal greater than IO() percent due tO rounding

SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant<s Report to OTA,” contractor report preparedfor the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987.

organizations in major cities and regionaltowns. ADF estimates that about 20 percent ofits projects through fiscal year 1987 providefunding to urban organizations.

ADF has awarded two-thirds of its grants forperiods of two or three years. Of the 86 grants:

● 15 (1 7°/0) were for 1 year,● 31 (36°/0) for 2 years,● 28 (32°/0) for 3 years,● 7 ( 8%) for 4 years, and● 5 ( 6°/0) for 5 years.

Projects differ in their geographic scope.Two-thirds (56 projects) were classified as lo-cal, encompassing a village or a number of com-munities in a given area. Twenty-two percent(19 projects) were regional projects coveringa large area within a country; and 13 percent(11 projects) were national in scope.

EVALUATION, RESEARCH, AND PUBLIC EDUCATI0N:HOW ADF IS SHARING WHAT IT LEARNS

The Foundation’s legislated purposes includethe development of self-evaluation techniques,support for relevant development-related re-search by Africans and sharing lessons learnedwith others in Africa and the United States.Over the past 2 years, ADF has initiated vari-ous activities to carry out these functions.

Evaluations of Its Funded Projectsby ADF

The Foundation’s Office of Research andEvaluation was established in 1986, as envi-sioned in ADF’s Five Year Plan. At the sametime, ADF asked three American journalists fa-miliar with African development issues to visitADF-funded projects in six African countries.Each spent several weeks interviewing projectparticipants and others in two countries; to-gether they visited 18 ADF-funded projects.Their report, Fulfilling the Mandate: An Assess-ment Report by Three Development Journalists,described the concerns, activities, and results

of the projects visited (3). Their conclusionspoint to the strength of grassroots movementsin Africa and the positive potential of ADF’ssupport for them.

A number of ADF’s first projects were near-ing completion by 1987, thus more formalproject evaluations could be carried out. ADFhired a consultant to design a methodology andidentified five projects in West Africa and fourin Kenya for this evaluation (however, 67 per-cent or less of the total grant had been disbursedto four of them). The Foundation selected 2teams of African consultants, several based inthe United States, to each spend 3 weeks visit-ing the projects between April and June of 1987.Earlier, ADF agreed to co-sponsor an evalua-tion with the Ford Foundation of a fifth Ken-yan ADF-funded project , Partnership forProductivity (PFP), because it had received FordFoundation funding also (31). These evaluationswere conducted by and for ADF and in thissense are internal ADF evaluations even thoughthey were external to the projects.

49

Soif-Evaluations by Funded Groups

One of ADF’s first efforts to stimulate self-evaluation by project participants was to hostan evaluation conference for some 50 repre-sentatives of ADF-funded community groupsin East and Southern Africa. Participantsshared insights and experiences during a 3-dayconference in Nairobi in January 1987. Theyexplored problems and potential solutions;made recommendations to ADF about its fund-ing program and procedures; and discussedtheir ideas about planning development activ-ities, seeking financial and technical assistance,and planning for self-sufficiency to avoid de-pendence on donors (5,19). A similar confer-ence is planned for representatives of West andCentral African ADF-funded projects in early1988.

The Foundation also is planning to trainmanagers of ADF-funded projects to carry outparticipatory evaluation within their own orga-nizations. A workshop on this topic was heldduring the fall 1987 meeting of the Foundation’sAfrican Regional Liaison Officers in Washing-ton; follow-up technical assistance with repre-sentatives of funded groups is being planned.

ADF has provided funds so that leaders ofADF-funded projects could visit and provideassistance to more recently funded projects. Forexample, the director of a project that providedtechnical assistance and credit to small farmersin Kenya was sent to review a similar projectstarting up in Tanzania and make recommen-dations to increase its effectiveness. One grantin Botswana includes funds for a visit to a sim-ilar ADF-funded project elsewhere.

Research Grants

In 1986, ADF implemented a program to fundresearch by Africans on development issues re-lated to the ADF mandate.’ The Senior Fel-

lowship program has supported 5 Africans tocarry out 18-month research projects in Africa(obligating $250,000 for these research grantsin 1986). Their research topics included ruralnon-formal education in Uganda, health carein Nigeria, international PVOS in Somalia, foodself-sufficiency in Malawi, and a communitydevelopment program in Cape Verde. Of thesefive countries, ADF has a grant program onlyin Somalia. Research funding was suspendedin 1987 pending Board approval of a policy pa-per clarifying funding objectives, criteria, andprocedures. An additional $250,000 is projectedfor 1988. The Foundation’s Office of Researchand Evaluation intends to support research onbroad issues of relevance to efforts of fundedgroups.

ADF began a Doctoral Fellowship programin 1987 to support research in Africa by Afri-cans studying for their PhDs in U.S. universi-ties. So far, 2 African graduate students havebeen funded for 12 months. Their work is exam-ining ujamaa policy in Tanzania and refugeepolicy in Somalia. Three additional fellows areprojected for 1988, with a total of $78,500 forthe five, pending approval of the Foundation’sresearch position paper. Proposals for fellow-ships are screened by an external ResearchAdvisory Review Panel consisting of five ex-perts on Africa (three Africans, two Americans)based at universities in Washington, D,C. be-fore being submitted to ADF’s staff Project Re-view Committee.

Public Education

ADF has made a number of efforts to edu-cate Americans and others about its work inAfrica. In addition to its publications, the Foun-dation’s staff have participated in conferencesin the United States, Europe, and Africa. ADFhas hosted educational visits to its fundedprojects in Africa by ADF Board members, con-

‘ADF’s research programs differ from those of the FellowshipProgram of the Inter-American Foundation in several ways. Whilethe majority of IAF awards fund field work in Latin Americaby American graduate and postdoctoral researchers, ADF re-stricts its program to Africans. In 1982 IAF began granting fel-lowships to Latin American junior researchers and developmentprofessionals to obtain advanced training in U.S. universities;

on the other hand, ADF research grant recipients are not neces-sarily affiliated with an American university. Unlike ADF, IAFhas funded projects of overseas research organizations in its regu-lar grants program. Also, IAF has contracted with developingcountry research organizations and universities to provide tech-nical assistance and conduct feasibility and evaluation studiesof their funded projects to a greater extent than ADF.

50

gressional staff, and others. In several in-stances, it has supported visits by its Africanstaff and project leaders to the United States,primarily for their own learning but also toshare their experiences with Americans. Also,ADF has provided funds for its project leadersto attend meetings about grassroots develop-ment in Africa.

The information officer is responsible forADF publications: a 12 page newsletter, BeyondRelief; a professional journal dealing with is-sues of grassroots development in Africa, Ad-vance; and 1986 and 1987 ADF-Funded Projectsbooklets. Three issues of Beyond Relief werepublished in 1985, one in 1986, and one in 1987.An average of 6,000 copies were distributed inEnglish; one issue, featuring ADF’s fundingprocess, was published in French (3,500 copies).The newsletter features articles about ADF-funded projects, ADF programs, and develop-ment topics written by Africans, staff, andBoard members. The newsletter is distributedfree to a diverse readership including develop-ment organizations, PVOS, interested membersof Congress, the media, Federal agencies, Afri-can embassies in Washington, and individualsand academic institutions with an interest inAfrica.

The first issue of Advance, published by theGovernment Printing Office in June 1987, con-tained articles by several ADF-funded projectmanagers, the head of the African DevelopmentBank, a professor at American University, andADF’s director of research and evaluation. The5,000 copies were distributed to U.S. PVOS, offi-cials in development assistance agencies, Afri-can government officials and private organi-zations, and individuals. Several members ofthe ADF Advisory Council and the State De-partment representative on the Board are onthe Advance Editorial Board. Advance will bepublished with French summaries to facilitateits wider dissemination in Africa. The book-lets with short descriptions of ADF-fundedprojects are available in English and French.

The Foundation also is exploring new waysto inform people about its activities. In twocases visited by OTA, ADF demonstrated itsinterest in the audio-visual documentation ofits projects. Twenty-three percent of the bud-get for its Dakoro project in Niger is slated fora documentary film. Also, ADF has contracteda Kenyan film company to record the story ofan ADF-funded community water supplyproject.

Chapter 4

OTA's Findings AboutAD,., •• cleci Prolecls

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Beneficiary and Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55project and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Grassroots and Intermediary Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

What Is Participation and How Can It Remeasured?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Assessing Participation in 12ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Factors Fostering and Constraining Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

What Are Results and How Can They Be Measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Assessing Results in 12ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70What Is Sustainability and How Can It Be Measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Assessing Sustainability in 12 ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . .. 72Factors Fostering and Constraining Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Replicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75What Is Replicability and How Can It Be Measured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Assessing Replicability in 12ADF-Funded Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Factors Fostering and Constraining Replicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Relationships Among Participation, Results, Sustainability,and Replicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Project Findings, Program Choices, and ADF’s Mandate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

BoxesBox Page4-1. A Look at ADF’s Files: Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564-2. A Look at ADF’s Files: ADF’s Use of Renewable Resource

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

TablesTable Page4-1. Rating the Critical Issues in 12ADF Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534-2. The12ADF Projects Visited by OTA Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544-3. Rating Participation in 12 ADF Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574-4. Rating Results of 12 ADF Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664-5. Rating Sustainability of 12 ADF Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724-6. Rating Replicability of 12 ADF Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Chapter 4

OTA's Findings AboutADF-Funded Projects

●

●

SUMMARY

The four critical issues addressed here areparticipation, results, sustainability, andreplicability (table 4-1), These issues werechosen because of their importance to ADF’smandate and the interests of the congres-sional committees that requested this work.

One-half of the 12 African groups visited byOTA teams were judged to have a high de-gree of overall participation in the ADF-funded project activity; one-third, however,were rated low on participation. In a majorityof projects, participants did not share inevaluation and financial decisionmaking andwomen rarely participated in project man-agement.

Table 4-1 .—Rating the Critical Issuesin 12 ADF Projects

No. of projects rated

Critical issue High Moderate Low

Overall degree of participation . . . . 6 2 4Overall results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 2Overall sustainability (for next

3 to 5 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 1Overall replicability in region or

country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 2

●

●

●

Most of the projects visited were in earlystages of implementation so OTA’S teamsestimated future results when possible; ac-tual impacts could be observed in only halfof the projects. Ten projects were judgedlikely to have a positive impact on the sociaIand economic development of the poor inthe locale. But the level of expected impactranged from significant to negligible.

Eleven ADF-funded activities had a high ormoderate potential to be sustained over thenext 3 to 5 years, although not necessarilyin the same form as in the approved proposal.Community support and the self-help natureof the projects were the strongest reasons forsustainability. But the lack of careful eco-nomic and environmental planning werecommon constraints threatening sustainabil-ity, especially in the longer term.

Ten of the projects had a moderate or highdegree of replicability in the region or coun-try but two were rated low. Self-help proc-esses were judged more replicable than manyof the technologies used. The relatively highcost of the technologies involved was a ma-jor constraint to replicability of projectactivities.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the results of site visits siders links between these issues and theirto 12 ADF-funded projects (table 4-2). It is orga- relationship to ADF’s funding program. De-nized around the four critical issues that Con- tailed descriptions of these projects are in ap-gress asked OTA to investigate: participation, pendix B. Since these projects were selectedproject results, sustainability, and replicabil- to be representative, chapter 5 discusses the im-ity. In each case, ADF’s approach to the issue placations for ADF’s program and gives sug-introduces the discussion. Then OTA’S opera- gestions about how ADF can improve the ef-tional definitions follow, along with the over- fectiveness of its funding program.all and detailed findings. The final section con-

53

54

-0

, .

0

U-3a l

\Ln

r--w

m

0

.m N

.ml

‘ . ..

co

%

Lnm

u-)co

ml\

—v

zcow

0000

c-w

00w

m

m

mr.0Lcm

D0r3

0

r lx (x-J -J

vm

i m

uc (%

r. co m 0 Cu— —

55

Throughout this work, OTA makes importantdistinctions between: a) beneficiary and par-ticipant, b) project and organization, c) grass-roots and intermediary organizations.

Beneficiary and Participant

Project “beneficiary” and project “partici-pant” are often used interchangeably andvaguely, A beneficiary gains from the projectactivity; the benefit may be direct or indirect,and intended or unintended (10). Participantstake part in or contribute to project activitiesbut they do not necessarily benefit. For exam-ple, in one credit project more women havetaken part by contributing to local savings clubsthan have received loans from them. In othercases, people benefit from projects without par-ticipating, such as receiving irrigation waterfrom systems which they did not help build.Participation in project activities and directlybenefiting from them are included here in meas-ures of “participation,” but the two are con-sidered separately,

Proiect and Organization

The term “project” refers to the activity oractivities supported by the ADF grant (as de-scribed in the approved proposal). The groupsponsoring the activity andlor receiving thegrant funds is the recipient “organization.” Thisdistinction is especially important when con-sidering sustainability and replicability. Some-times organizations are sustainable but specificactivities are not. Organizational processes may

be replicable but certain activities too site-specific for repetition. OTA’S assessment ofthese two critical issues included project andorganizational elements.

Grassroots and IntermediaryOrganizations

Grassroots organizations (sometimes calledprimary or base groups) are defined as “smallaggregations of individuals or households whoregularly engage in some joint developmentactivity as an expression of collective interest”(11). Most are community-level associations, al-though they may include members from sev-eral communities. Intermediary organizations,or grassroots support organizations, provideservices to grassroots groups. One type hasprofessionals in leadership positions; anothertype consists of higher level membership orga-nizations, such as confederations of coopera-tives or associations of community organiza-tions (11). In this assessment, intermediaryorganizations may refer to national, regional,or local private voluntary organizations (PVOS),church-based groups, associations of coopera-tives, or parastatal organizations. OTA visitedfour grassroots organizations and eight inter-mediary organizations. The intermediary orga-nizations consisted of three regional PVOS, twoassociations of village cooperatives, twochurch-related groups, and one parastatal.Grassroots groups and intermediary organiza-t i ons a re d i s t i ngu i shed th roughou t t h i sassessment.

PARTICIPATI0N

What is Participation and How Can direction into operational criteria. Some ofIt Be Measured? these criteria deal primarily with the timing of

participation in the project cycle, others withThe Foundation’s legislation specifically em- modes of participation. ADF examines the fol-

phasizes participation, directing ADF to give lowing components of participation in itspriority to projects in which community groupsfoster their own development and which have

project approval and monitoring checklist:

“the maximum feasible participation of the ● participation of beneficiaries in project de-poor in project initiation, design, implementa- sign, implementation, management, andtion, and evaluation. ” ADF has translated this evaluation;

56

community members contribute to the a lack of specific ADF data on participation,project and share in benefits; and especially gender-disaggregated data; raised is-achievement of project objectives enhances sues about participation in intermediary orga-continued participation. nizations; and highlighted decisionmaking as

a probable critical element of participation (boxHowever, ADF recently stated it gives priority 4-I). The specific data that field teams collectedto self-determination and local control, allow- to evaluate project participation are includeding recipient organizations to select their own in appendix D, “Field Team Methods: Themodes of participation (8). Assessment Materials.”

The elements of participation ADF uses in Participation in ADF-funded projects wasits appraisal checklist were considered appro- assessed on the basis of multiple factors. Thepriate but OTA found that some additional ele- following were most useful in comparingments were needed for its field assessment. A projects in different regions and in reachingcareful review of ADF’s project files identified

—overall project ratings:

Box 4-1.—A Look at ADF’s Files: Participation

OTA examined ADF’s files of projects related to agriculture and renewable resources to gatherinformation on the way ADF is implementing its congressional mandate for participation. Overall,it appears that ADF has pursued the spirit of its mandate. For example, ADF has hired Africans torepresent the Foundation in Africa, Africans provide most of its technical assistance, and Africancontractors perform its evaluations. Unfortunately, however, ADF does not document how it is in-creasing the participation of people as decisionmakers in the projects it funds. Existing files lackthe data necessary to say if projects are as participatory as Congress intended.

OTA’S review of ADF’s files identified these major findings:

1. ADF has little specific documentation to support the Foundation’s claims of participation byAfrican community members in project decisionmaking. For example, questions regarding keyaspects of participation in ADF’s grant application form are vague and seldom answered byapplicants. ADF staff say they evaluate participation during the project approval process butdo not document it. As a result, ADF has little documentation of the amount and type of partici-pation that occurs.

2. ADF does not make an organized attempt to gather gender-disaggregated data. Therefore, ADFdoes not know whether women participate fully in project activities.

3. Methods of participation in ADF-funded projects differ according to the type of organizationreceiving the grant. Grassroots groups, which provide benefits directly to their members, tendedto have strong participation by their membership or the members’ representatives, sometimeswith a special place for community elite. Intermediary organizations, which provide benefitsto grassroots groups that pass benefits along to members, seemed to have less participationby potential beneficiaries and more by the groups’ Boards of Directors, management, and staff.These differences have as-yet unexamined implications for how ADF assesses participation.Since a significant portion of ADF grants goes to intermediary groups, these implications aresignificant.

4, Effective participation means participation as a decisionmaker, not only as a beneficiary. Forexample, women were beneficiaries but not decisionmakers in the Kenya Beekeepers Orga-nization; their needs were ignored, and the project was failing as a result. Women’s role asdecisionmakers can be problematic because OTA’S data suggest that women tend not to bedecisionmakers in projects in which both men and women participate. Again, this is somethingthat ADF needs to address in its work.

SOURCE: Virginia DeLancey, “Aspects of Participation in Projects Funded by the African Development Foundation,” contractor report pre-pared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987.

57

1.

2.

3<

4.

Participation in project identification anddesign: who originated the project, identi-fied the need, proposed the activity, de-signed the project, and made technologychoices? Were participants consulted, anddo they agree to the activity and with theproject design?How participatory is the organization re-ceiving the grant: What is the structure oflocal groups? How do members share in de-cisionmaking? Do they agree with leaders’decisions, and do members’ suggestions re-sult in changes? How, and how often, dointermediary organizations relate to localgroups? How are group leaders selected?who has access to the project: Do partici-pants represent the community? Do womentake part? Is any group (ethnic, age, etc.) ex-cluded and why? Who are selected to be par-ticipants and how? Do the poorest one-thirdin the locale and country participate?Participation in decisionmaking, payingcosts, and sharing in benefits: What do par-ticipants contribute and gain? How do par-

ticipants share in decisionmaking and man-agement of the project?

5. Participation in technical assistance: Whomakes initial and ongoing technologychoices? Who provides technical expertiseand how? Is the process based on two-waycommunication; is the advice imposed?

6. Participation in project evaluations: Whotakes part in evaluation? When and how?

Each project was rated using severalaspects of the factors listed above (table 4-3). Then, a rating for overall participationwas given to each project. The following fac-tors were given greater weight than others:participant input into decisionmaking; theirunderstanding and support for the projectactivity; and, in the case of intermediaryorganizations, the quality of the relationshipbetween the intermediary organization andcommunity groups. The ratings took into ac-count the local context, since the 12 projectstook place in varying settings with a variety

Table 4.3.—Rating Participation in 12 ADF Projects

No. of projects rated

Elements of participation High Moderate Low

Overall degree of participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 41. Participation in project identification and design

Input into origin of project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 4participants identified/agreed to need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 2participants proposed/agreed to activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 4

Input into design of project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5participants agreed with design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 3participants made/accepted technology choices . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 4

Participants understand and agree with project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 12. How participatory is organization receiving the grant?

local organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 2intermediary organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4

3. Who has access to the project?Participants are representative of community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 1Women have equitable access to project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4

4. Participation in decisionmaking, costs and benefitsParticipants share in project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 4Members have access to fiscal decisions and records. . . . . . . . . 3 2 7Women share in project management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 6Members share equitably in costs and benefitsb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 0Women bear equitable share of project costsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 1Women have equitable share of project benefitsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 0

5. Participation in provision of technical assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 46. Participation in project evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 4NOTESaElght grant ~eciplerlts visited were i ntermedlary organizationsbThls refers t. ~qultable share within male or female subgroups lt Was too soofl to evaluate distribution Of prOJeCt benefits

in one case, In another case, insufficient data was available to judge.clt was too soon to judge In one casedin the other seven ~ro,ects, part[clpants did not share irl project evaluation

58

of modes of participation, all far from theAmerican cultural context,

Assessing Participation in12 ADF-Funded Projects

Finding: One-half of the ADF-funded projectsvisited were judged to have a high overall de-gree of participation, but one-third were ratedlow overall.

Six of the twelve groups had a high degreeof participation in the ADF-funded projectactivity (table 4-3). The six represented a widespectrum of modes of participation. For exam-ple, projects rating high in overall participa-tion included a herder group with a traditionalhierarchical system of decisionmaking (Dakoroin Niger) and an intermediary organization withseveral thousand members in nearly a hundredlocal groups (Partnership for Productivity/Kenya, PfP). Another strong example is thepoultry and vegetable growing project by theBoiteko Agricultural Management Associationin Botswana, notable because of its open man-agement style. The 10 women members sharein all project decisionmaking, the financial re-port is presented on the blackboard at monthlymeetings, and leadership rotates. While tech-nical assistance is provided by a man (theproject manager of the ADF grant) and onewoman is acknowledged to be “the mother”of the group, training has been provided for allmembers so they are able to share fully in deci-sionmaking regarding project activities,

The fact that a third of the projects rated lowoverall on participation is a serious concerngiven the importance assigned to participationin the legislation establishing ADF. Two of thelow-rated projects appeared to have consider-able problems related to participation (Kikatitiin Tanzania, and Union Kaoural in Senegal);interviews at the other two low-ranking projects(Dagnare in Niger, and Tutume in Botswana)raised even more fundamental concerns abouttheir appropriateness for ADF funding ex-plained below. The Dagnare project was re-jected twice by ADF’s Project Review Commit-tee before it was approved,

Another reason for concern is the trend overtime. Of the 12 projects visited, 5 were awardedgrants in 1986, 6 in 1985, and 1 in 1984. Yetof the most recent grants, those awarded in1986, only one of the six projects rated highon participation overall and three rated low,

Finding: The ADF projects visited generallyrated well on some aspects of participation,such as meeting recognized needs and en-couraging contributions of labor, but poorlyon other aspects. In a majority of projects,participants did not share in financial deci-sionmaking or evaluation, and women rarelyparticipated in management.

1. Participation in ProjoctIndentification and Design

To assess the elements regarding project iden-tification and design included in table 4-3, OTAbegan by asking who originated the project. Inevery case either a local group leader or an in-digenous intermediary organization originatedthe project, in this sense, fulfilling the legisla-tive intent that projects be designed by Afri-cans. Typically a local leader worked with aregional PVO to propose the project; in severalcases, the local leader was a member of thelarger organization. Sometimes outsiders pro-vided help at early stages. For example, a PeaceCorps volunteer linked a tri-community watercommittee with ADF and with the Kenyanwater officials who designed the technicalaspects of the project. But the NGK committeeoriginally had the idea to obtain water from theslopes of Mt. Kenya. Additional groups, suchas Boiteko, conceptualized their project, butsought technical help from outside to designthe project and select specific technologies.ADF funded a grant for technical assistancein Dakoro, Niger, and the provider designedthe project. Usually African professionals pro-vided external technical assistance.

Identifying the need for the project is anotherimportant element in project origination. Par-ticipants took part in this step or agreed thatthe project addressed a real need to a high de-gree in seven cases, a low degree in two. If theproject addressed a strongly felt need, such as

59

Photo credit: ADF/Wendy Wilson

Successful participation takes many forms.ADF-funded activities build on traditional systems ofcommunity decisionmaking in the Dakoro Herders

Cooperative in Niger.

for water or increasing food production, thebeneficiaries generally supported it.

In the cases studied, the participants usuallyagreed with the project activity and design.However, one-third of the projects received afairly low degree of support for the activitiesproposed and technologies selected; one-fourthof the projects faced a low acceptance of theproject design. For example, the farmers agreedwith the concept of a credit program in the Zim-babwe Coffee and Tea project but not with therepayment schedule or pesticides proposed bythe Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC).Sometimes participants supported one activ-ity over others: Kikatiti members were muchmore interested in obtaining water from a re-stored borehole than in the reforestation partof the project strongly supported by the inter-mediary organization. In the Dakoro project,herders were dissatisfied with changes imposedby local government officials. In these twocases, where participants supported only someproject objectives, those objectives were judgedto be the ones most likely to be achieved.

Lack of participant involvement in projectdesign was a major problem in some cases. Forexample, two cases where participation wasjudged unacceptably low, the Tutume and Dag-

nare projects, were designed with minimal in-volvement of the intended beneficiaries, whohad virtually no idea of what was to come, Inthe Union Kaoural project, the intermediarygroup designed the project and decided whichvillages would participate and how.

In other cases, however, the lack of activeinvolvement by the beneficiaries in the earlystages of project design was not a problem. In-volving everyone in detailed project design gen-erally is infeasible. Participants in these in-stances agreed with technology choices evenif few were involved in actually designing theproject. Decisions usually were made either bya small group of leaders with external techni-cal assistance available locally or by the inter-mediary organization staff, In several cases,ADF personnel decisively shaped the projectproposal,

A key consideration was the quality of therelationship between the initiators, designers,and participants. Positive participation ratingsin project identification and design were mostoften related to participants’ support of choicesmade by their leaders or by the African inter-mediary organizations,

2. How Participatory Is the OrganizationReceiving the ADF Grant?

Overall participation generally was rated highin organizations judged to have the support oftheir members, whether the recipient organiza-tion was a grassroots organization or an inter-mediary group. OTA visited four grassrootsorganizations; two were rated highly participa-tory organizations and two were rated moder-ately participatory. Three of these four projectshad high ratings on overall participation, sug-gesting that grassroots groups may have anadvantage in achieving participation. The man-agement structure of these highly-rated groupsranged from elected representatives (from threecommunities to a central management commit-tee in NGK), to traditional leadership (Dakoro),to open meetings of all participants (Boiteko).Leadership style varied from a small group oftightly disciplined elected leaders who made

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 3

60

decisions (Ross Bethio in Senegal) to consensus-building approaches.

Participation in the eight intermediary orga-nizations was more problematic, confirmingthe findings of the review of ADF’s files. Allfour projects with low ratings for overall par-ticipation were intermediary organizations.However, three of the eight intermediary orga-nizations did receive high overall ratings in par-ticipation; two were the church-related inter-mediary organizations (Silveira House in Zim-babwe and Morogoro Diocese in Tanzania),the third (PfP) was begun and led by Kenyans,most of whom are Quakers. The three highly-rated intermediary organizations have a longhistory of sponsoring development projects andproviding training to local groups and have anexplicit philosophy to foster participation.

High overall participation was strongly cor-related with the quality of the relationship be-tween intermediary organizations and localgroups. In the two projects with the poorestoverall participation ratings, the intermediarygroups were not actually working with localgroups. In the Dagnare project in Niger, a groupof retired civil servants nominally agreed toshare the benefits of the ADF grant with twoother communities, thus making themselvestechnically an intermediary organization andmore likely to receive ADF funding. The projectprimarily will benefit the retired civil servants.In Tutume, Botswana, a private organizationsponsored a tractor hire and demonstration plotto serve individuals they selected, but thesefarmers had no role in project design, nor dothey have a role in implementation, decision-making, or evaluation. They are not membersof the organization receiving the ADF grant,nor, after several years of receiving the serv-ice, have they joined any group. While the proj-ect may be considered self-help in the sense thatit is run by Botswana, it is not self-help in thesense that beneficiaries have a role in its man-agement or decisionmaking.

Different types and levels of participation areappropriate for intermediary organizations andlocal groups, as well as for different stages inthe development of the intermediary organiza-

tion, the local groups, and the project activity.However, problems in the relationship betweenthe intermediary organization and local groupscan arise from many sources:

●

●

●

●

●

the two may have different objectives andperspectives about the project;too much financial and technical controlmay be given to the intermediary orga-nization;intermediary organizations may make de-cisions without the input and acceptanceof local groups;intermediary organizations may not under-stand the need for participatory develop-ment; orintermediary organizations mav not havethe experience and capability fieeded towork with local groups.

The assessment teams looked at differentaspects of the relationship between the inter-mediary organizations and local groups andthey judged how each functioned. They foundthat the local groups had little input in the in-termediary organization’s decisionmaking inseven of eight projects. Only in Morogoro, Tan-zania, had the intermediary organization estab-lished a working structure for the local groupto share decisionmaking regarding the project.There, village-level congregations elect a “con-tact” committee for development projects;officers of several committees comprise a par-ish committee, whose officers sit, in turn, onhigher-level committees. This interlocking com-mittee structure, developed over a number ofyears and recently applied to the tractor hireand maize production project funded by ADF,builds on a democratic church structure andallows for two-way information flow.

In determining the level of participation inprojects involving intermediary organizations,learning how decisionmaking occurs can bemore critical than knowing management struc-tures. Intermediary groups without formalstructures for direct local input into project de-sign were able to compensate for these struc-tural deficiencies if they had good relationshipswith local groups. For example, the PfP projectin Kenya received good ratings for being a par-

61

ticipatory intermediary organization eventhough it had no formal structure for local in-put. This organization has a large number ofextension agents who are in close contact withthe local groups and have generally good rela-tionships with them. This provides an infor-mal mechanism for participants’ suggestionsto influence decisions made by the intermedi-ary organization. The Silveira House projectin Zimbabwe similarly maintains extensive ex-tension and training programs; while Kenya’sPfP works with pre-existing groups, SilveiraHouse programs encourage local participationamong previously unorganized groups. In thecase of the Union Kaoural in Senegal, however,the existence of formal structures for represen-tation was not sufficient to provide for adequateparticipant input into decisionmaking. Thesestructures tended to be used for one-way, top-down communication.

Some intermediary groups do not seem toknow how to relate to local organizations. Forexample, farmer groups taking part in the AFCproject have little influence on AFC policy de-spite a directive from the Zimbabwe govern-ment that AFC work with communal farmers.The AFC is attempting to shift its emphasisfrom large-scale commercial farmers to thoseof the communal areas, but it has not yet de-veloped an organizational response to thisdirective, although it has established a work-ing relationship with local cooperatives. In thiscase, the local groups themselves are strong andparticipatory, but the intermediary organiza-tion’s relationships with the local groups arenot,

3. Who Has Access to the ADF-FundedProject?

Access to ADF-funded projects is open inmost cases, but women have a low degree ofaccess in one-third of the projects visited. Other-wise, participants generally represent the com-munity in all but one case (Dagnare, Niger).

In some cases, a certain amount of exclusionmay be justified, even necessary, for group co-hesion and identity. For example, donor effortsto include persons other than the group propos-

ing the activity (which occurred in the Dakoroproject) can weaken participation and nega-tively affect results. But sometimes exclusionis not justified, and often it is implicit or hid-den. The most common problems related to ac-cess include: lack of access by the poorest thirdof the population and women, land tenure is-sues, religious affiliation of participants, andthe criteria for selecting participants, especiallythose used by intermediary groups.

The Poorest One-Third of the Population. OneADF goal is to reach poor people in Africa. Inthis review, the poorest one-third of the peo-ple in the area seemed able to participate inADF-funded projects, although no reliablesocioeconomic data have been collected byfunded groups or ADF to prove this. The oneclear exception is Dagnare, Niger, where par-ticipation in the core project was limited to rela-tively better-off civil servants and their families.

Trade-offs sometimes exist between accessof the poor and other important aspects suchas projects’ economic viability. For example,the entry fee for a piggery subproject of SilveiraHouse in Zimbabwe restricts participation tothe affluent because each entrant is requiredto purchase a costly pig. Similarly, conditionsfor receiving AFC loans exclude some poor peo-ple, such as Mozambican refugees because they

62

lack long-term access to land. Exclusion fromthe piggery subproject may not have been justi-fied because it could have been designed so thatparticipants contributed labor or other re-sources, or purchased their pigs over time. How-ever, ADF was justified in supporting the AFCproject because the participants are poor andrepresentative of small farmers in the area.

The answer to a related question—do theproject participants represent the poorest one-third of the people in the country or region?—is more difficult to determine. In only a thirdof the cases could the assessment teams re-spond with a firm “yes,” based on interviewswith local officials and others outside theproject. The other cases involved better-off par-ticipants, either because the project was situ-ated in a part of the country with higher rain-fall and/or better infrastructure, or it wassponsored by a relatively affluent group (for ex-ample, owners of farm plots in a Kenyan landresettlement area in the NGK project).

Land Tenure and Displacement. Schemes toexpand cultivation or provide irrigation alsocan be ways to secure rights to lands that cus-tomarily were under the use of others. Researchon development projects in Africa has shownthat pastoralists are especially vulnerable to lossof grazing rights and access to land caused bydevelopment schemes. Women’s plots can belost when cultivation is expanded for crops thatbring cash to men. Irrigation projects may dis-rupt downstream crop production or grazinglands. Projects that increase the land’s value(e.g., irrigation) in areas where sales of land oc-cur can increase the chance that more marginalfarmers will lose land to the more politicallyand economically powerful.

Development projects can exacerbate theseproblems if the funder does not have a detailedunderstanding of local patterns of landholdingand use. In certain cases, ADF does not seemto have sought this information. Rights to useof the land put into crop production by theYouth Association of Ross Bethio in Senegal,for example, were previously held by a minor-ity group of Fulani herders. The youth grouplegally acquired those rights. The herders, pro-vided with alternate but poorer grazing land,

tried to block installation of the group’s irriga-tion system. Eventually, local authorities witharmed guards dislodged the herders. In theMorogoro project, block farms will be culti-vated by tractors on land that is traditional graz-ing land of the Maasai in Tanzania. In bothcases, herders are a different ethnic group fromthe farmers and most project participants.

Women’s Access to Projects. Women con-stituted at least 90 percent of the participantsin 2 of the 12 projects visited, Boiteko and PfP.The sample of projects visited is representativeof ADF’s portfolio in this respect. Grants towomen’s projects or organizations also repre-sent 17 percent of total ADF-funded grantsthrough fiscal year 1987.

Women had a high degree of access to theproject relative to local norms in 2 other projectsvisited, a moderate degree in 4, and a low de-gree of access in 4 of the 12. Access was judgedby whether or not women were or could be-come eligible to participate in project activi-ties and to receive project benefits at least inthe same proportion as their involvement in theactivity in the locale.

In some cases, women were able to partici-pate in activities from which they usually wereexcluded and which often result in their dis-placement from land. In Ross Bethio, for ex-ample, Senegalese women were given accessto irrigated land. In AFC, a few women weregiven credit for coffee and tea production ineastern Zimbabwe. Women are a majority ofparticipants in Ross Bethio, and although theyreceive far lower benefits than the men, theirinclusion in the project was judged an advancein the local context. But in Zimbabwe, wherewomen commonly are eligible for rural creditprograms, the small number included in theAFC project was not sufficient to be consid-ered an advance, and women were judged tohave a low degree of access to the project.

In the four projects where women’s accesswas rated low, the fact that the projects addresswork done by women could negatively affectachievement of project objectives. Women inKikatiti, Tanzania, for example, are excludedfrom the committees directing a village project

63

that focuses on water and fuelwood, areas oftheir responsibility.

Issues of access for minority ethnic or reli-gious groups can be similar to those involvingwomen,

Lack of Clear Criteria for Project Access, Thelack of clear criteria for selecting participantswas identified as a problem for ADF-fundedintermediary organizations in particular (e.g.,Tutume; AFC). When the service provided isone that many individuals or groups want, orga-nizations need clear criteria and a fair processfor selecting who will and will not participate.Some groups required participants to register,others included only dues-paying members, andothers considered anyone who contributed la-bor to be project members. OTA’S assessmentteams noted that ADF often did not verifywhether project participants were representa-tive of the local community, nor identifywhether selection criteria and processes wereperceived as fair.

The two religious-based intermediary orga-nizations visited by the teams were rated highlyparticipatory and appropriate for ADF fund-ing because participants were representativeof the general community. Nevertheless, fund-ing such groups raises additional questions re-garding access. In these cases, access to projectbenefits was open to eligible participants with-out regard to religious affiliation. While mostparticipants in the tractor hire project inMorogoro are Anglicans (because church com-mittees register members and the demand forservices is far greater than the supply), a sig-nificant portion of small farmers in the areawere Anglican and management and resourceconstraints justified the focus. With the excep-tion of the piggery sub-project of the revolvingfund of Silveira House whose high entry feerestricted access to the affluent, participantsof both projects were representative of the com-munity and poor.

4. Contributing to Costs, Sharing inBenefits, and Participating inDecisionmaking

Costs and benefits were equitably sharedamong participants to a high or moderate de-

gree in every case studied. Distinguishing be-tween project participants and beneficiaries,however, shows that in some projects the twogroups are different people. For example, fewerpeople helped build the water systems in EastAfrican projects than will receive water; in PfP,more women contributed to the savings clubsthan have been able to receive loans.

Also, OTA specifically examined how womenparticipants shared in project costs and bene-fits (table 4-3). This was judged to be equitablein most cases, even when women did not re-ceive precisely equal benefits. For example,women participants in Ross Bethio did not con-sider their lesser share of project benefits un-fair. The one low rating was given to the Tu-tume project in Botswana because female,single heads of households in practice had tocontribute more labor to receive the same ben-efit as male-headed households.

However, equitable sharing in costs and ben-efits alone, without sharing in project manage-ment and decisionmaking, constitutes a lowlevel of participation. OTA judged the formera necessary but not sufficient condition formeeting the ADF participation mandate.

A low degree of sharing in decisionmakingduring project implementation existed in one-third of the projects (table 4-3). This rating washighly correlated with the rating for overall par-ticipation. A special problem for intermediaryorganizations and grassroots groups was thelack of participation in financial decisionsfound in more than half the cases. Often thelocal group had accurate records of time andfunds contributed by its own members, but lit-tle access to the financial records of the inter-mediary organization or the technical assis-tance provider who controlled funds providedby outside donors.

Women’s participation in management anddecisionmaking rated low in half the projects,including PfP, which provides credit to 3,000women. One reason for this is because all mem-bers of the PfP board of directors and themajority of the staff are men, Thus, funding awomen’s project or women’s organization doesnot guarantee that women participate appro-priately in management. In only one case, the

64

Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles

Women participate in many ADF-funded projects, suchas this successful one in Botswana (Boiteko).

other predominantly women’s project of the 12,Boiteko, was women’s participation in manage-ment rated high. An ADF-sponsored evaluationof five Kenyan projects concluded that the lackof women’s participation in managementharmed project results, especially those witha majority of women participants (22).

S. Participation in ProvidingTechnical Assistance

All 12 ADF-funded projects received sometechnical assistance during their design and im-plementation stages. ADF policy encouragesrecipients to select their own technical assis-tance and pay the provider with ADF grantfunds. This policy is unique and consistent with

the Foundation’s mandate. So is their attemptto have technical assistance provided by Afri-cans where possible. Africans provided tech-nical assistance in 10 of the 12 cases. Often anintermediary group will provide technical assis-tance to its local groups. But the roles of thetechnical assistance providers and their rela-tionship with the local group and participantsdiffered among the projects studied.

OTA found that technical assistance was pro-vided in a non-participatory way in one-thirdof the projects (table 4-3). Project managers orparticipants had little two-way interaction withtechnical assistance providers, they were notgiven an opportunity to provide input to tech-nology choices, or they were dissatisfied withproviders’ methods. Providers were represent-atives of intermediary organizations in two ofthe cases ranked low, a Dutch volunteer in oneand local government officials in one. Threeof the projects with non-participatory techni-cal assistance also had a low rating on overallparticipation.

6. Participation in Project Evaluations

One consistent problem noted was the lackof participation in internal project evaluations.Until recently, ADF did not encourage or helpfunded groups participate in evaluations. OnlyPfP had even a moderate level of member par-ticipation in its evaluation process. Althoughonly half of the projects studied were fully oper-ational, their grants had been committed forat least 12 months. Preliminary evaluations,based on early project activities, would havebeen appropriate by this point.

Factors Affecting Participation

Finally, OTA teams assessed factors foster-ing and limiting participation in each project.Sometimes external circumstances helped par-ticipation, such as good markets, rainfall, androads. Others, such as illiteracy, hindered. Com-monly cited positive factors include:

● effective and trusted leadership,● group cohesion,● building on existing traditions of commu-

nal effort,

65

●

●

●

●

project activity matching needs of com- ●

munity,using familiar technologies, ●

regular meetings, and ●

clear project scope.

Factors constraining participation in the 12●

●

projects included:●

● unclear membership criteria,

exclusion of women from project manage-ment committees,overly complex organizational structure,production system requiring centralizeddecisionmaking,inadequate information sharing,too prominent a role for outsiders, andcentralized decisionmaking in intermedi-ary organization.

RESULTS

What Are Results and How CanThey Be Measured?

A main purpose of ADF is social and eco-nomic development. The Foundation weighsthe social and economic impacts of its projectsin terms of:

● achieving project objectives,● attaining community needs,● effects on the environment and health, and● benefits to participants and others.

Like most donors, however, ADF directs mostof its post-approval efforts toward tracking itsown project inputs (e. g., monitoring expendi-tures of grant funds for purchases of materialsand technical assistance) and the projectoutputs—the goods and services that the ADFgrant was expected to produce (a working irri-gation system, credit provided to small farmers,or tractor-hire services, etc.). Little systematicattention is given by ADF or its projectmanagers to project outcomes, i.e., what thebeneficiaries actually do with the service andhow it changes their lives and the life of thecommunity and of the organizations to whichthey belong. Tracking outcomes is an impor-tant way to determine a project’s progress, iden-tify gaps where other resources are needed, andinvolve participants in evaluating project activ-ities. It also is a way to determine whether theproject is attaining the broader developmentgoals of the grantee and funder.

Project outputs and outcomes both were in-cluded in OTA’S assessment of project resultsand data on a wide variety of relevant indica-

tors were collected (app. D). The following cri-teria were used to assess results:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Degree to which the project is meeting itsobjectives: how well is the ADF-fundedproject doing relative to similar projectssupported by other funders; what fostersand what hampers achieving objectives?Actual or likely economic impacts on par-ticipants: how many beneficiaries arethere; what are the amount and the valueof benefits and contributions per person?Actual or likely social impacts on commu-nity and organizational impacts on the lo-cal groups and intermediary organizations.Actual or likely environmental impactsduring the grant period.

OTA attempted to quantify intended andunintended results and their economic, social,organizational, and environmental impacts onparticipants and the community. Data were dis-aggregate by gender. If an activity was meet-ing its objectives and had, on balance, positiveeconomic, social, and organizational effects forpoor people and no serious negative environ-mental impacts, OTA rated its overall resultspositively in terms of achieving social and eco-nomic development.

Assessing Results in 12 ADF-FundedProjects

Finding: OTA judged that 10 projects were likelyto have a positive impact on the social andeconomic development of the poor people in

66

the locale. However, the level of impactranged from significant to negligible.

Because of the early stage of implementationof the projects visited, OTA teams were re-quired to estimate likely results. Some actualresults could be seen in only one-half of theprojects. However, 10 were judged likely tohave a moderate to high positive impact on thesocial and economic development of poor peo-ple (table 4-4). Overall ratings were similar forprojects with some actual results comparedwith those starting up; however, grants com-mitted in 1985 were rated somewhat higher (3high, 2 moderate, 1 low) than those committedin 1986(1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low). In addition,grassroots groups rated significantly better thanintermediary organizations (3 high and 1 mod-erate vs. 1 high, 5 moderate, and 2 low).

Participants from several projects told OTAteams about dramatically increased productionand incomes, e.g., a 30 percent increase in in-come for women who received PfP’s farm in-put loans. In addition to a significant impacton individuals in this project, a large numberof people in other communities in westernKenya were affected positively. Similarly, mostfamily incomes increased considerably follow-ing the completion of the water and irrigation

system in the NGK project in Kenya, the oneproject visited which had completed its ADFgrant period. Additional specific informationon project results is included in the projectdescriptions (app. B).

Benefits to poor people in two cases, how-ever, were judged likely to be low. Dagnare andTutume were judged likely to achieve some oftheir objectives, but not benefit the poor seg-ment of the population very much. The Tutumeproject in Botswana provided free tractor plow-ing. However, no longer-term benefits to thesponsoring organization were evident, agricul-tural production had not increased, and soil ero-sion threatened to lower future production. Inaddition, participants were relatively affluentin both projects.

1. Degree to Which ADF-FtmdedProjects Are Meeting TheirObjectives

Despite the preliminary stage of one-half theprojects visited, 11 were judged to be meetingor likely to meet their objectives to a high ormoderate degree. However, a project can meetits objectives, in the sense of providing theplanned service or outputs, but have little im-pact on improving peoples’ lives or achieving

Table 4-4.—Rating Results of 12 ADF Projects

No. of projects rated

Elements of results High Moderate Low

Overall resultsActual or likely positive impact on social and economicdevelopment of the poor in locale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 2

1. Degree to which project is meeting or is likely to meet itsobjectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 1

No. of projects rated

Positive No Change Negative

2. Actual or likely economic impacts on participants . . . . . . 10 2 03. Actual or likely social and organizational impacts

Actual or likely social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2 1Actual or likely organizational impacts overalla . . . . . . . 9 1 1

Impacts on local groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 1Impacts on intermediary organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 1

4. Actual or likely environmental impacts during grantperiod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 3

NOTES:aln one case, impacts Were rated positive on local groups but negative on the intermediary organization SO nO Overall rankingwas given

bEight grant recipients visited were intermedia~ 0r9aniZatiOnS.

67

other development goals , as seen above(Tutume).

Conversely, a project can be behind sched-ule in meeting objectives, or only partially meetthem, and still have important impact, For ex-ample, the one project with a low rating onmeeting its objectives (Morogoro, Tanzania)had notable impact on many participants dur-ing the first agricultural season. participantswho received the entire range of project serv-ices (tractor plowing, improved seeds, fer-tilizers, pesticides, and extension advice) in-creased their maize production significantly ina year of lower-than-average rainfall. But pro-jected numbers of participants were overam-bitious and one tractor arrived rather thanthree, and that one late. Only 150 acres wereplowed, less than one-tenth of what wasplanned for the first year. Overall, however, theOTA team assessed this project’s likely futureimpact favorably. Thus, the types and valuesof actual benefits and the number of benefici-aries are more important than rigidly meetingproject objectives. To measure impact ac-curately, baseline data and data on specific ef-fects on beneficiaries must be collected, but inonly one case had any attempt been made tocollect this information (PfP).

OTA teams assessed what factors helped andhindered projects in achieving their objectivesand goals. Common positive factors were goodleadership, organizational strength, a readymarket for production, simple available tech-nology, and either government support or com-plementarily with government policies. Com-monly cited factors constraining results werelack of markets, poor production plans, and thelack of provision for maintenance and repairs.Feasible strategies to meet recurrent costs andreplacement reserves did not exist in mostprojects. In a number of instances, organiza-tional and management weaknesses were alsocited. Finally, delays in project startup and indisbursal of funds affected five of the agricul-tural projects visited.

Team members also attempted to evaluatewhether ADF’s projects achieved, or were likelyto achieve, their objectives more often than sim-

ilar projects funded by others. Based on inter-views with outside researchers, donors, andgovernment officials, this was judged true intwo-thirds of the projects, but not in the otherone-third. The comparison, generally, was topast bilateral or multilateral governmental pro-grams rather than to programs supported byPVOS or other private funders because few ex-amples of the latter were available. This find-ing needs to be placed in a broader context,however: many of these types of projects (irri-gation, tractor-hire, rural water supply, and ru-ral credit) have a poor track record in Africa.

2. Actual or Likely Economic Benefits

Ten projects had, or were likely to have, posi-tive economic outcomes for the participants

—

68

and no change was probable in two (table 4-4).The specific benefits, the number of people re-ceiving them, and their value are described inthe project summaries (app. B). These valueswere estimated based on interviews with par-ticipants because the projects had neither col-lected baseline data nor data about increasedproduction and income resulting from projectactivities.

A project’s economic effect in most cases wasgreater beneficiary income due to increasedproduction of crops or livestock. In 7 of the 12projects, an important component of the in-creased production was (or will be) provisionof water; in 4, provision of credit; in another4, provision of agricultural inputs with exten-sion advice.

Other economic benefits include increasesin the value of land or in saving time collect-ing firewood, carrying water, or plowing. Forexample, the value of land in one communityin Kenya rose from $625 per acre to $1,250 anacre as a result of construction of the NGKwater supply. But the distribution of the eco-nomic benefits ranged widely.

Beneficiaries totaled fewer than 100 personsin 4 of the projects; in 2, more than 2,000 (table4-2). The value of the increased yearly produc-tion caused by the ADF-funded activitiesranged from $540 per year per person in theBoiteko project to $14 in the Morogoro project.But the $14 represented a 10 percent increasein annual income for the participating farmersin Gairo, Tanzania. Usually other members ofhouseholds benefited indirectly in some way.

Finally, OTA calculated the cost to ADF perparticipant by dividing the grant amount bynumber of participants. The cost to ADF perparticipant averaged $650—Morogoro’s was$624 in the first year–and ranged from $50(Union Kaoural) to $3,507 (Boiteko). After theseprojects have completed several years, it willbe possible to calculate the ratios of ADF-costs-per-participant to benefits-per-participant toprovide a measure of the economic efficiencyof ADF’s funding. The Foundation as yet hasnot used simple cost/benefit analysis as an ele-ment in making funding decisions.

3. Actual or Likely Social andOrganizational Impacts

Three-fourths of the projects that OTA visitedwere judged to have, or be likely to have, posi-tive social and organizational impacts. Thepositive social impacts on the community prin-cipally flowed from the concrete benefits theproject brought or would bring. Less tangibleeffects identified by project leaders andlor par-ticipants and communicated to OTA teamswere a sense of pride in themselves and theircommunity, the skills learned while implement-ing the project, and the sense of power that ac-companied the knowledge that the group couldsuccessfully carry out development activities.Negative social effects included actual or po-tential conflicts with those who lost control ofassets or were left out such as herders in RossBethio and Morogoro and farmers downstreamfrom NGK’s water project. But because of othereffects in these cases, the net social benefits tothe local community were still rated positively.

Likewise, projects had positive effects onfunded organizations related to the experienceof planning and implementing their projectsand from the organization’s ability to delivergoods or services to members. The ADF proj-ects were judged to have positive effects on allfour grassroots groups, but only one-half of theintermediary organization seemed likely to ben-efit. In one case, the project activity strength-ened participating local groups but contributedto divisiveness between some groups and theintermediary organization (Union Kaoural). Inothers, benefits principally flowed to the localgroup with little organizational effect on theintermediary organization.

4. Acutual or Likely EnvironmentalImpacts During Grant Period

The findings on environmental impacts wereless positive than on economic and organiza-tional effects (table 4-4). Only one project (AFC)was judged to have a positive environmentalimpact because planting tea on mountain slopesin Zimbabwe can help prevent erosion. Simul-taneously, however, coffee planting is increas-ing due to declining tea prices and the erosion

69

potential of coffee can be high. Negative envi-ronmental impacts could already be seen inthree projects. In installing its 100 hectare irri-gation system near the Senegal River, the Ross-Bethio Association bulldozed a considerablenumber of trees and shrubs and destroyed somegrassland. This degradation was poorly bal-anced with only modest reforestation efforts.Removing tree stumps and plowing during lowrainfall years has led to soil erosion in Tutume,Botswana. Compaction is beginning to affectsoil structure in the Boiteko project in Bot-swana. Eight projects were judged likely to haveno significant negative environmental impactduring the rest of the grant period. However,negative impacts may appear in the mid- t olong-term.

What Do ADF and the Community PutInto ADF-Funded Projects?

Since project results should be considered inrelation to their costs, or inputs, OTA alsosought to identify the resources contributed byADF, the community, and other donors.

The Foundation’s grant funds were allocatedto the 12 projects for the following uses:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

46 percent for equipment: construction, in-frastructure costs for wells and/or irriga-tion systems in 7 projects, tractors in 2;5 percent for vehicles/transportation:trucks or motorcycles were purchased in5 projects, rented in 1;18 percent for revolving credit funds, acomponent of 4 projects;10 percent for agricultural inputs: seeds,fert i l izer, implements for individualfarmers in 4 projects;9 percent for salaries and office expenses:while 9 projects had staff, ADF funds paidstaff salaries in only 5 cases;4 percent for training and technical assis-tance obtained outside the project; and9 percent for other expenses: ADF auditsand evaluations, contingency funds, andan ADF documentary film.1

‘Total greater than 100 percent because of rounding,

Typically, ADF provides money for materi-als and the community provides labor. Oftenthe community also provides funds, throughindividual fees, community fundraising effortsand materials. The community contributionsto the ADF projects are measures of their sup-port of the project. Contributions include:

●

●

●

labor: in nine projects most participantscontributed labor; in two others, one-halfdid. For example, in the NGK water projectparticipants contributed an average of 115days’ labor digging trenches in a year andone-half. At Boiteko, the women continueto contribute substantial labor in vegeta-ble production and raising chickens. Butin Dagnare, members hired laborers towork for them.money: in one-half the projects most par-ticipants contributed some money in sup-port of project activities. Usually this wasa small amount in relation to total projectCost.material: in one-half the Proiects more thanhalf of the participant; contributed ma-terial.

Tbe Role of Other Donors inADF-Funded Projects

All 12 organizations visited had externalfunding sources in addition to ADF, and 4 usedthose funds for the ADF-funded project. In 9of the 12, more than one outside donor sup-ported the organization and/or ADF-fundedproject. The outside donors included U.S. AID(PfP; Ross Bethio), the World Bank and Afri-can Development Bank (AFC), other bilateraldonors (Dakoro; Union Kaoural; PfP), Europeanreligious donors (Morogoro; Silveira House),European PVOS (Ross Bethio; Union Kaoural),U.S. PVOS (PfP; Malihai), private foundations(Dakoro; PfP), and the U.S. Ambassador’s Self-Help Fund (NGK; Ross Bethio),

OTA teams found that in four cases somealternative funding was available for the projecthad ADF funds not been provided. Alternativefunding was less certain in six cases; in twocases, no viable alternative funding was avail-able for the project.

70

Therefore, the Foundation is not the only fun- few cases, ADF-funded activities also obtainedder of its grantee groups nor, in many cases, some African government funding (Tutume) orof their projects, Often its money is being used government-supplied technical assistance. Forwith that of other donors to provide larger example, district water officials in Kenya de-amounts of funding than would be available signed the NGK water system and supervisedfrom a single source or to provide for continu- technical aspects of its construction.ity of projects from one grant to another. In a

SUSTAINABILITY

What is Sustainability and How CanIt Be Measured?

Sustainability is generally understood tomean that the project activity and/or its posi-tive results will continue after the grant periodends. It can be judged on several levels: sus-tainability of the resource, of certain activities,of the project, of the local group and/or the in-termediary organization. Also, sustainabilityhas economic, environmental, technical, andsocial elements, and policy factors can inter-vene. Therefore, sustainability depends onmany dimensions of an activity and failure inone area can jeopardize sustainability overall.

The Foundation includes most of these ele-ments in its project appraisal checklist:

●

●

●

●

financial sustainability;project self-sufficiency, generating enoughincome to cover costs;probability that the funded organizationwill pursue other projects after the fundedone; andeffects on the environment.

These criteria were expanded for this assess-ment. For example, expecting that environ-mental sustainability might be a problem forADF as it has been for other donors, OTA basedits considerations of environmental sustaina-bility, in part, on questions that emerged fromthe reviews of ADF’s project files regardingrenewable resource technologies (box 4-2).Teams sought a range of specific data duringsite visits and other interviews in Africa (app,D).

Key elements of sustainability for rating the12 projects were:

●

●

●

●

economic aspects, including market for theproduct, provision for recurrent costs,preparation of business plans, and finan-cial management capabilities;organizational/social aspects, includingquality of leadership, track record of theorganization, participation of members indecisionmaking, access of the organizationto financial resources, and whether or notcurrent activities would continue and otheractivities were planned, how the fundedactivities contributed to growth of thegroup;environmental aspects over the next 3 to5 years and longer, including positive andnegative impacts on renewable resourcesand identification of any measures to mit-igate negative impacts;technological aspects, including site speci-ficity (whether or not the technology wassustainable in the locale), access to train-ing and technical assistance, and confor-mity to national development plans andpolicies regarding the technology.

Ultimately, sustainability can be judged onlyafter a grant is completed. Just 1 of the 12projects visited (NGK) had completed the ADFgrant period, and that only recently. But plan-ning and decisionmaking for sustainabilityshould occur throughout the project cycle,Therefore, the presence or absence of these ele-ments often are indicators of what will happenin the future. These rankings define the nearfuture as 3 to 5 years.

Box 4-2.—A Look at ADF’s Files: ADF’s Use of Renewable Resource Technologies

OTA examined ADF’s files of projects relating to agriculture and renewable resources, identify-ing the types of technologies used and attempting to determine how ADF accounts for environmentalsustainability.

ADF’s grassroots mandate appears to have high potential. ADF is well placed to become the pri-mary assistance agency that blends ecological concerns with the urgency for Africans to raise ade-quate food and to provide adequate water. The Foundation is positioned to help Africans “break theinfernal cycle of people being forced to misuse their natural resource base, ” as one African foresterdescribes it. Even without such an ambitious goal, however, ADF could make improvements in itswork to avoid environmental problems.

This review’s most important finding is that ADF project documents contain little informationon field-tested and accepted technologies that could:

● mitigate additional stress on existing resources, and● help increase farm yields and incomes on a sustainable basis via proven methods such as water

conservation, windbreaks, terracing, native trees, sand stabilization, and agroforestry plantations.

Files tend to yield incomplete and insufficient information to determine what resource-relatedactivities are underway and to identify the environmental impacts of agricultural projects. Evidenceis strong, however, that ADF-funded organizations could use resource-related technologies much moreoften as primary and adjunct project activities.

Yet the Foundation is not ignoring the need for environmental protection and the use of resource-related methods. For example, ADF has funded several activities that integrate resource concernsinto predominantly agricultural projects. Of 56 projects examined, 3 dealt significantly with resource-related activities and 9 projects had resource activities as accompanying measures. The Foundationcould do more, however, to account for such concerns on a more sophisticated level, more thoroughly,and more systematically. Agricultural projects that involve mechanical soil preparation, land clear-ing, or water development efforts where yields are large should raise flags in the minds of ADF staff.

The Foundation’s position is difficult because it responds to local initiatives and many Africans,like many other agriculturalists and donors, presently do not give environmental protection high pri-ority. Yet, according to the OTA desk reviewer:

“Any organization dispensing development funds, regardless whether local people, at present, placeany emphasis on the ecological sustainability of their resource base or not, needs some sort of “ecologicmalpractice protection”. . . , If this is not done, those who authorized funding. . . may be responsible (after.5, 10, or 20 years) for having contributed to making matters worse instead of better; good intentions andfocusing on other, important criteria notwithstanding.”

The key is providing new information so that local people are more completely informed aboutalternatives that might better serve them. The Foundation’s expanding outreach and training activi-ties could help fill this need,

SOURCE: Fred R, Weber, “Desk and Office Review of ADF Activities: Renewable Resource Technologies, ” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, August 1987.

72

Assessing Sustainability in12 ADF-Funded Projects

Finding: One-half the ADF-funded projects werejudged to have a high potential to be sustainedover the next 3 to 5 years; another 5 werejudged to have a moderate chance to be sus-tained over the same period, although not nec-essarily in the same form as proposed.Longer-term sustainability was not ascertain.

Finding: Strong community support for theactivity and the local organization was iden-tified as an important factor fostering sus-tainability of the projects visited, while thelack of careful economic and environmentalplanning were common constraints to sus-tainability.

Six ADF-funded projects were judged to havea high potential for sustainability over the next3 to 5 years (table 4-5). Sustainability means theproject activity was judged likely to continuefor this period. Overall, projects sponsored bygrassroots organizations were rated more sus-tainable than those of intermediary organiza-tions, and projects awarded grants in 1985 ratedslightly better than those funded in 1986.

These six projects are more likely to reacha greater number of people and/or have an ex-panded impact on those involved. An excellentexample is the recently completed water andirrigation system in Kenya (NGK). Vegetableand milk production has significantly increasedas a result of the water supply to each farm.The management committee is discussing plans

for vegetable marketing and milk processing.They have hopes of purchasing a truck andbuilding a storage cooler for produce. Only oneproject was judged to have a low chance of be-ing sustained: the team identified economic,organizational, technical, and environmentalfactors that jeopardized sustainability of the Tu-tume tractor-hire scheme in Botswana. Theother five projects may be continued but withtheir effects decreasing over time.

In some cases, a particular activity within theproject is more likely to be sustained thananother, however, suggesting that projects oftenwill change with time. For example, OTA teamsfelt that the activities most strongly supportedby participants would have a better chance tocontinue: herd reconstitution rather than liter-acy in Dakoro, Niger; water supply rather thanreforestation in Kikatiti, Tanzania. Flexibilityin adapting to new circumstances was assumedto be an important component of sustainability.

1. Economic Sustainability ofADF-Funuded Activities

Three-quarters of the ADF-funded projectswere judged to have a moderate to high chanceof being sustained economically, but one-quarter faced a low chance (table 4-5). For ex-ample, OTA found a good to very good marketfor the products of four projects, an adequatemarket in four, and a poor market in two. Butwhen OTA teams asked whether or not formalor informal, simple market analyses and busi-ness plans had been prepared for the activities,

Table 4=5.—Rating Sustainability of 12 ADF Projects

No. of projects rated

Elements of sustainability High Moderate Low

Overall sustainability for next 3 to 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 11. Economic sustainability of activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 32. Organizational/social sustainability

Local group/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 2Intermediary organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 1

3. Environmental sustainabilityFor next 3 to 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 1After 5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 1

4. Technological sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 1NOTES:aE1ght grant recipients visited were intermediary ovlanizations

73

they found that only three had market analy-ses and only one a business plan (AFC).

A greater problem was lack of provision forrecurrent costs of the activity after ADF fund-ing ended: five projects rated low, three aver-age, and four high. While six projects had for-mal or informal strategies to cover costs, toooften it was not based on careful or accurateeconomic analysis. Recurrent costs of the activ-ity were expected to be covered by incomeproduced by the project activity, income froma related activity (e.g., rental of the truck in twoprojects was not only paying for itself, butwould provide income for the project), outsidedonors (PfP), African government subsidies(Tutume), or community fundraising efforts.

While criticizing the lack of financial plan-ning to cover future costs of maintaining projectactivities, OTA teams still judged severalprojects to have a moderate chance of beingsustained because of the level of support of thecommunity and their past record in raisingfunds internally and externally (e.g., the Kikatitiwater system). Traditional community fund-raising efforts can best meet sporadic needs,such as the breakdown of a pump, but not regu-lar expenses such as paying the monthly elec-tric bill and the system’s guard. But the localgroups’ affiliation with an intermediary orga-nization, in this example the National MalihaiClub, could assist them obtain additional out-side resources.

Financial management was rated high in fourprojects (all southern Africa projects), moder-ate in six, and low in two. In both the low cases,problems centered around accountability be-tween the intermediary organization and localgroups regarding use and control of ADF funds.For example, intermediary organizations didnot communicate openly and share decision-making with local groups regarding ADF funds.Eight groups had received some financial tech-nical assistance or training, and three had plansto receive financial training.

2. Organizational and SocialSustainability

Sustainability of the project activity often isclosely linked to the future of the group funded.

OTA’S assessment teams considered a numberof factors related to the organizational sustaina-bility of grassroots groups, intermediary orga-nizations and their local sub-groups. The or-ganizational sustainability of 1ocal groups wassimilar to that of the intermediary organizations(table 4-5). But the two had different strengths.For example, seven of eight intermediary orga-nizations were rated high on leadership; sixwere low on members’ decisionmaking; sevenhad high or moderate access to financial re-sources. Local groups, on the other hand, ratedbetter on members’ decisionmaking (10 of 12projects were high or moderate) but lower onleadership (one-half were high) and access tofinancial resources (4 were low and 6 moder-ate). Intermediary groups have certain advan-tages for sustainability, such as access to out-

Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles

Sustainability is implicit in ADF’s mandate: futuregenerations should benefit from current development

projects.

74

side resources; however, they also have specialproblems. PfP, for example, maybe unable tocontinue successful work because externalfunds are shrinking.

Artificial organizations established with lit-tle rationale other than obtaining an ADF grant(e.g., Dagnare) had a poor chance of being sus-tainable. Other groups’ continuation may bemore certain than that of their project activi-ties, especially if such activities are new to them(Malihai, AFC). Long-established groups (Sil-veira House) were judged to have a betterchance of survival than a project sub-group pri-marily organized to carry out one activity withresources from the intermediary organization.

Management training can help promote or-ganizational sustainability and innovation.Eight projects had received such assistance andanother three had plans to obtain it. For exam-ple, one of NGK’s project leaders received com-munity development training from a Kenyantraining institute and his skill was an impor-tant reason for the success of the water project.

3. Envirnmental Sustainability ofADF-Funded Activites

Environmental sustainability was assessed inthe short- and medium-term and a number ofconcerns were identified. Two-thirds of ADF-funded projects were judged to have a high po-tential for short-term environmental sustaina-bility (table 4-5). Far greater uncertainty existsabout their long-term environmental sustaina-bility.

The kinds of agricultural projects that ADFfunds are known to have a variety of negativeenvironmental impacts. Government officials,outside experts, and project managers variedin their awareness of this. The Foundation andproject managers often made no clear assess-ment of potential problems. A few organiza-tions, however, had carried out some activitieswhich increased awareness or helped improveconditions. For example, one project helpedparticipants practice intercropping (PfP) andtwo conducted some conservation education(Kikatiti, PfP). Several ADF-funded organiza-tions mentioned plans to plant trees or shelter-

belts (Kikatiti, Morogoro, Ross Bethio) or useintegrated pest management methods (Boiteko)to minimize negative environmental effects inthe future. But implementation of these planswas disappointing.

A number of specific concerns warrantgreater consideration by ADF and projectmanagers:

for tractor hire projects: the danger of in-creased soil erosion and weeds and con-comitant risk to farmers’ future produc-tion; destruction of grasslands and trees;for irrigation projects: the danger of water-logging, salinization, soil erosion and com-paction; destruction of trees, grasslands;and potential health problems;dangers to health and soil fertility with in-creased pesticide use;dangers of monocropping to soil fertility,pest resistance and diversified diets andincome; andthe potential of increased water suppliesto cause overstocking and overgrazing bylivestock.

The differing judgments between short- andlonger-term environmental sustainability wereclosely related to an assessment of the appro-priateness of the technologies chosen byprojects.

4. Technological Sustainability ofADF-Funded Activites

The Foundation’s funded activities were tech-nologically sustainable for 11 of 12 cases (ta-ble 4-5). Teams judged that 5 of the 12 projectsentailed relatively high-technology approaches,another 5 used relatively high-cost technologies,and 9 included relatively high-risk technologies.The latter, especially, seemed to call long-termsustainability into question. But based on in-terviews with local researchers, other experts,and government officials, the teams consideredthat technology choices were probably appro-priate in every case but one, and that they werenot too high-risk to the participants involvedgiven the context.

Team members in one case were convincedby local experts that a technology known to

75

have detrimental effects elsewhere was sus-tainable in their locale. Researchers at SokoineUniversity in Tanzania felt that tractor-hireschemes could be an appropriate way to in-crease sustainable agriculture in parts of theMorogoro region because of rainfall, popula-tion density, compensating practices to con-serve the land, government policy, and otherfactors, But questions about long-term environ-mental impacts remain, and a need exists to1) document effects on soil and grasslands ofthe tractor plowing schemes being imple-mented now by the government and others, 2)design and carry out mitigating measures, and3) do comparative studies with ox-plow use todetermine in which areas, and with whichfarmers, animal traction is more advantageous,While this tractor-hire program was judgedappropriate, the other one visited in Botswanawas not. Tutume was the one project where thetechnology did not seem sustainable for envi-ronmental and economic reasons, even thoughit was government-subsidized.

In judging sustainability of the technologies,OTA teams also considered whether the spe-cific activity was in conformity with nationaldevelopment plans because a favorable policyenvironment and supportive public servicescan complement an activity. For example, Tan-zanians interviewed argued the tractor schemesof the 1980s would be more successful than thefailed ones of the 1960s and 1970s in part be-cause spare parts and petroleum were availablefrom government programs favoring mechani-zation. Technologies were in conformity with

government priorities in all cases but one (PfP).In that case the activity had the strong supportof local Kenyan officials interviewed preciselybecause it was meeting a recognized gap in pub-1ic programs by providing rural credit forwomen.

Factors Fostering and ConstrainingSustainability

OTA teams identified the following factorsthat contribute to the sustainability of a num-ber of ADF-funded projects:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

availability of technical assistance andtraining,strong intermediary organization withgood track record,good local leadership,environmentally sound activities,adequa te f inanc ia l management andplanning,good markets,low-risk technologies for participants, andcomplementary government policy.

The following were identified as constraintsto sustainability:

●

●

●

lack of or poor financial or environmentalplanning,intermediary organization deficiencies intarget group identification and monitoring,andwomen not involved in management ofprojects relating to their work.

REPLICABILITY

What Is Replicability and How Can Replicability usually refers to extending theIt Be Measured? impact of the funded activity, or its benefits,

beyond the group originally included in the pro-

Replicability is often desired by donors be- posal. Some experts consider replicabiIity asthe “multiplier effect.” Often, replicabilitycause it can increase the impact of their project

funding, Groups such as ADF that fund small-refers to adoption of an activity or technologyby non-participants or by those in other geo-scale projects intend not only that the projects

will benefit local people, but also that they willgraphic areas without additional funding from

have larger impacts on social and economic de- the donor.

velopment. The assumption is that the activity Replicability rarely means an exact duplica-is beneficial and should be replicated. tion of projects using a “cookie cutter” model

76

or “blueprint” approach. Such attempts havefailed in the past because of ecological, social,cultural, economic, and other differences be-tween regions and groups.

ADF is concerned that its projects be replica-ble; its criteria for replicability include:

● results are likely to be disseminated, and● the project is likely to be repeated.

OTA expanded ADF’s criteria and collectedinformation on several elements of replicabil-ity for the 12 projects visited (app. D). Replica-bility of project activities, technologies, and or-ganizational processes were each consideredseparately because the same or other groupsmight replicate the problem-solving or planningprocess used for a project, but not the projectactivity itself. And the process of taking bestadvantage of a situation and recognizing theunusual conditions necessary for an activity tosucceed can be replicable even though uniquesocial, cultural, physical and other aspects ofeach particular situation might make projectactivities non-repeatable. The following meas-ures were incorporated into the final assess-ment of replicability:

technological replicability: the degree towhich other groups have financial andphysical resources (including infrastruc-ture) to use the technology; whether tech-nologies can be readily learned;organizational replicability: which man-agement structures, processes, and stylescould be used by others;level of dissemination: efforts by fundedorganizations to spread what they learned;

adoption of technologies by non-partic-ipants.

Evidence of project impacts on national pol-icies and institutions was also sought.

Assessing Replicability in12 ADF-Funded Projects

Finding: Ten of the ADF-funded projects wererated to have a moderate or high degree ofreplicability, and two a low chance of beingreplicated. Self-help processes were judgedmore replicable than the technologies sup-ported. The relatively high cost of the tech-nologies and high equipment expenses weremajor constraints to replicability of projectactivities.

Replicability of technologies and of organiza-tional processes was weighed in overall ratingsfor each project (table 4-6). These overall rat-ings were similar for grassroots groups and in-termediary organizations. Projects awardedgrants in 1984 and 1985 rated higher in replica-bility than those committed in 1986. For exam-ple, PfP’s project was judged highly replicable.Since 1980, PfP in Kenya had tested methodsto work with and train local women’s groups,to help them establish savings clubs and loancommittees, and to administer revolving loanfunds. Many staff had worked with PfP for atleast a decade. PfP recently had applied thismethodology to credit for agricultural inputsand its methodology was applicable to othergroups.

Table 4-6.—Rating Replicability of 12 ADF Projects

No. of projects rated

Elements of replicability High Moderate Low

Overall replicability in region/country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 21. Technological replicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 2

other groups have access to financial resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 7other groups have needed physical resource base . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 2technologies readily learnable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 1

2. Organizational replicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 33. Level of dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2NOTES:aDue t. the ~reliminay stage of two projects, it was impossible to judge dissemination of Project results.

77

Replicability is not the only measure ofproject impact, however. One successful project(NGK) was rated low on replicability. Anotherproject, the Tutume project in Botswana, wasbeing replicated by the sponsoring intermedi-ary organization using government subsidies.But the OTA team found that the flaws of theproject were serious enough to quest ionwhether replication was desirable.

1. TechnoIogical RepIicability

Almost all of the technologies used by ADF-funded projects can be replicated (table 4-6).The greatest constraint, however, is that manycould not be repeated without a large grant fromADF or another external funder. There was alow chance in seven cases that other groupscould implement the activity since they did not

have access to funds. Thus, for those who con-sider repetition of the technology or the spe-cific sector activity by another group as the coreof replicability, more than half of ADF projectswere not replicable.

The lack of other suitable physical settingsor infrastructures generally was not a seriousconstraint to technology transfer, nor were thetechnologies too difficult for other local peo-ple to learn. In one case, lack of capability tocontrol access to the benefits of the activity wasidentified as a constraint to replicability. WhileNGK successfully completed its water and ir-rigation system, OTA’S assessment team gaveit a low rating on overall replicability becauseself-help construction of gravity-fed water sys-tems is possible in only a few regions in Kenya.More important, none of these regions are in

.,. - ,... . .

● * -

~... . .

Not all projects should be replicated

Photo credit: OTA/Scott McCormick

Unacceptable levels of soil erosion may result because the tractor-hire projectin Tutume, Botswana, plowed this land.

.

— — —

78

newly resettled areas where local groups cancontrol access to the water. Also, the water sys-tem was expensive and few funders, includingthe Kenyan government, provide such largeamounts of funding to small communities.Thus, the circumstances critical for successlimited the project’s ability to be replicatedelsewhere.

2. Organizational Replicability

Aspects of the sponsoring group’s manage-ment structure, function, or style could be ben-eficial to other groups in three-quarters of theprojects (table 4-6). Examples of promising or-ganizational elements included the open man-agement style of Boiteko, the interlockingchurch committee structure of Morogoro, thetri-village management committee of NGK, andnational union membership to share informa-tion illustrated in Ross Bethio. Generally, OTAfound that the processes, like project activities,cannot be rigidly repeated. For example, oneweakness of the Union Kaoural project in Sene-gal was that the intermediary organization’sleaders imposed an inflexible project model onall participating villages.

Few, if any, project activities or technologiesfunded by ADF were innovative in themselves.Using the technologies was often an innova-tive experience for the project participants oran innovative activity for the locale, however.The uniqueness of each group and its settingmeans that each group must develop its ownactivity, assess its own resources and needs,and make decisions about the best way to reachits goals. These activities are at the core of thedevelopment process. Enabling other groupsto engage in these activities may be the mostreplicable work ADF funds.

3. Level of Dissemination

A majority of the funded groups made someeffort to spread what they learned (table 4-6).Most intermediary organizations, for example,intend to implement the ADF-funded activityin a number of locations, then to expand fur-ther. PfP, for example, expected to train 30women’s groups in managing small revolving

loan funds during the 2-year grant period. In-stead, it provided training and loans to 92groups and cannot meet further demand. Grass-roots organizations can disseminate resultsthrough active membership in larger organi-zations. For example, Ross Bethio is sharingwhat it learned about the organization of ir-rigated rice production through its membershipin FONGS, a national association of villagegroups in Senegal.

However, in only three cases (PfP, Morogoro,and Ross-Bethio), was there evidence that non-participants had adopted the technologies in-troduced by ADF-funded projects. Demon-strated yield increases in these examples ledoutsiders to begin to copy some of their neigh-bors’ successful activities.

Finding: Three of the projects had some posi-tive impact on national-level institutions.

Three projects had an impact on national in-stitutions; all were successful projects run bysmall grassroots organizations. Ross Bethio inSenegal was among the first village associationsto obtain credit from a new National Agricul-tural Credit Bank; its success has led to the ex-pectation that others can follow. In Botswana,Boiteko’s success with its vegetable garden andpoultrylegg production has influenced think-ing in the Ministry of Agriculture where it isseen as a successful pilot project. Leaders haveprovided technical assistance to a similar hor-ticultural project funded by ADF in Botswana.Water and agriculture officials from other dis-tricts in Kenya are looking at NGK with inter-est. Government water/irrigation projects oftenare not completed and are more costly thanNGK’s project.

Factors Fostering and ConstrainingReplicability

In addition to the constraints listed previ-ously, another problem is that organizationsrarely documented concrete results that projectactivities brought to the participants, limitingtheir ability to publicize results to other com-munities and outsiders, including governmentofficials and outside donors. ADF promoted

shared learning in several cases by fundingtravel costs for exchange visits between projectsand for managers to attend meetings. Goodcommunication of project leaders with localofficials enables the officials to bring the projectto the attention of others.

RELATIONSHIPS AMONGSUSTAINABILITY,

An analysis of the interconnections betweenparticipation, results, sustainability, andreplicability has implications about what ADFfunding can accomplish. It also can improveADF’s ability to select and monitor projects.Although this sample is too small to providea rigorous test of correlation, some interestingpatterns emerge from this review of 12 projects.Complementarities, or positive correlationsamong the four critical issues, suggest that morethan one desirable outcome can be achievedsimultaneously and that proposal analysis andproject monitoring must be done holistically.Trade-offs, or negative correlations, identifydilemmas for the Foundation and other devel-opment organizations because they may sug-gest that achieving certain results can have un-desirable costs in other areas.

Complementarities

ADF’s legislation is based on the assumptionthat increased participation improves results.Generally, this report confirms that assumption.For example, projects that rated high on par-ticipation also rated high or moderate in results,while projects that rated low on participationalso rated low or moderate in results. NGK’ssuccessful completion of the water system wasdue, in large part, to the labor and other con-tributions of the residents. High levels of par-ticipation allowed local groups to overcomedeficiencies in other areas in all cases, but espe-cially in Dakoro and NGK. In these cases, asense of “ownership” by the local group in-creased the potential for the continuation ofactivities. Since the activities meet real needs,people work to maintain them, even if the ini-tial external investment was beyond their

79

Replicability often depends on conditionsoutside of a group’s control, such as marketprices. For example, late government paymentsfor maize were limiting PfP’s ability to assistnew groups in Kenya.

PARTICIPATION, RESULTS,AND REPLICABILITY

means. Nevertheless, participation alone is notalways enough to ensure the success of anactivity.

Success in bringing benefits to participantshelped sponsoring organizations gain supportand widen participation in the activity andgroup. Examples include the large numbers oflocal women’s groups who want to join PfP’scredit program and farmers who want to reg-ister for Morogoro’s tractor-hire/input programand AFC’S credit program. The positive effectof results on participation is consistent withdevelopment literature and the experience ofschools that provide training and technicalassistance to community organizations in theUnited States (e.g., the Industrial Areas Foun-dation in New York City, New York). Accord-ing to this view, organizations develop by iden-tifying realistic actions that bring participantsconcrete benefits due to their collective effort.Thus, OTA’S team members were concernedthat some ADF staff believe that ADF-fundedgroups grow as much through failure as suc-cess and attributed some problems in ADF’sgrant monitoring to this attitude.

Success in bringing concrete improvementsto participants was found to be a condition ofreplicability. For example, the financial successof the Boiteko group is the reason other groupswant to start similar projects in Botswana. Butnot every successful project is consideredhighly replicable.

Trade-offs also exist, however, between par-ticipation and results. If board members orother decisionmakers are chosen from elite

80

groups, such as more highly-educated personsand government officials, they often can helplocal groups gain access to financial and tech-nical resources, but they also tend to dominategroups. This was seen in the Kikatiti, Tutume,and Union Kaoural projects. The same ten-dency is true for technical assistance providers,although OTA also saw exceptions to both, forexample, in the Boiteko project.

Placing too great an emphasis on achievingambitious project results in too short a timeperiod can restrict participation, just as toomuch emphasis on participation can lessen re-sults, at least in the short-term. Slowing downthe pace of change and gradually increasingparticipation can help bring about longer-lasting results. Since cultural norms, such aswomen’s low participation in decisionmaking,do not change quickly, ADF should be expectedto fund groups in which women’s participationmay not be equal but which are at least mov-ing in the direction of becoming more participa-tory within the local context. The perceivedconflict between participation and results maybe, in fact, only a problem in the short-term.

Another apparent conflict, between replica-bility and participation, was seen in attemptsto impose external models, which hamperedachieving results in one project, Union Kaoural,precisely because the desires of the local groupswere not taken into account. This inflexible ap-proach to replicability was a problem for someintermediary organizations as they attemptedto expand their programs to new sub-groups,and for some persons selected to provide tech-nical assistance to grassroots groups. Flexibil-ity in adapting to new circumstances, by projectmanagers and funders, was identified as im-portant in achieving results, sustainability, andreplicability.

Funding intermediary versus grassrootsgroups also involves trade-offs. Projects of in-termediary organizations may have the poten-tial for broader results, greater sustainability,

and better replicability than those of grassrootsgroups but these advantages are not automaticand often occur at the cost of less participa-tion of beneficiaries in project design and im-plementation. But possible advantages of grass-roots groups in participation may correspondwith lesser results. In certain instances, theirimpact, while affecting fewer people directly,may be deeper. Given the proper context andcareful effort, successful grassroots projects canbe models for others and even affect nationalpolicy. Alternatively, changing the ways inter-mediary organizations do business may havea profound impact on the national setting andalter the structures that constrain or enhancelocal efforts. Understanding these potentialdifferences is important for tapping the actualstrengths of each.

Also trade-offs exist between participationand sustainability, particularly environmentalsustainability. Often the environmental prob-lems presented by new technologies are dimlyperceived and take a back seat to the immedi-ate, pressing need for increased water or agri-cultural production. For example, the peoplein Tutume, Botswana, wanted tractor plowingbut the OTA team concluded that the long-termresults of plowing are likely to be disadvanta-geous. While this is a problem for all donors,it poses an especially difficult challenge forADF because of its mandate to support self-helpefforts.

A related trade-off is evidenced in the likeli-hood that the success of some project activi-ties can cause environmental problems, e.g.,Ross Bethio’s irrigation of 100 acres and theacreage plowed by the Tutume and Morogoroprojects. Typically project beneficiaries will notexperience the negative economic impact ofenvironmental damage for some time, eventhough in Tutume the harm is sufficient tothreaten short-term economic benefits. Thedonor’s role is to help project managers see thepotential dangers and plan ways to minimizethem.

81

PROJECT FINDINGS, PR0GRAM CHOICES, AND ADF’S MANDATE

OTA’S assessment of 12 ADF-funded projectsidentified many areas where the projects’ per-formance is good. But in several key areas, ADFis falling short of its mandate, This is especiallytrue for important aspects of participation, sus-tainability, and replicability. One-third of thevisited projects had low overall levels of par-ticipation, even considering the local context;ADF’s decision to fund two of them was ques-tionable. Although ADF-funded projects visitedwere judged likely to attain short-term objec-tives and benefit some people, a number raisedquestions regarding the overall impact andaspects of longer-term sustainability. Of spe-cial concern to OTA was the portion of agri-cultural projects using relatively high-risk tech-nologies and the lack of consideration ofenvironmental impacts. Only two projects ratedlow in overall replicability, using a generousmeasure that includes replicability of manage-ment processes. By a more conventional defi-nition, over half of the projects would be diffi-cult to replicate.

Participation, sustainability, and replicabil-ity are fundamental to ADF’s mandate, mak-ing weaknesses in these areas a particular con-cern. The need for participatory developmentpermeated congressional testimony and debateduring the long process of the Foundation’s in-ception and is a recurring theme throughoutthe authorizing legislation. Sustainability andreplicability were implicit in the discussionspreceding ADF’s establishment. Appreciablepositive impacts over time and across locationswere expected to be a major outcome of sup-porting grassroots development. Congress codi-fied these expectations by specifying that ADF’sfunded efforts contribute to “social and eco-nomic development. ”

The findings regarding the 12 ADF-fundedprojects discussed here appear to be applica-ble to the Foundation’s larger portfolio. First,

OTA’S review of ADF’s files in Washington,which looked at 58 projects, pointed to a simi-lar lack of attention to participation and con-cerns regarding financial or economic viabil-ity, technical soundness, and environmentalsustainability, Second, interviews with U.S. am-bassadors, AID mission staff, representativesfrom other public and private developmentagencies, and ADF’s in-country staff led to theconclusion that the projects visited were typi-cal of the country programs in at least five ofthe six countries visited. In the sixth country,Kenya, the 2 projects visited seemed to be per-forming better than all but 1 of the 13 otherADF-funded projects, based on information in-cluding ADF’s own evaluations of its projectsin Kenya. Third, OTA’S findings parallel andconfirm many conclusions reached by theauthors of ADF’s 1987 evaluations of 10projects,

The Foundation has had just 4 years to turnits legislative mandate into an operational pro-gram. ADF faced difficult choices along theway, given the complexity of its mandate andthe challenges of African grassroots develop-ment. It has had to balance the distinct and,at times, apparently contradictory aspects ofthe mandate in allocating resources (time,money, and staff) and setting priorities. TheFoundation’s choices sometimes were influ-enced by external factors such as congressionalpressure to quickly obligate funds following itsown false start, staff and budget limitations, andthe varied circumstances it faced in each Afri-can country. These combined choices arereflected in the project results discussed here,The next chapter presents OTA’S findings onhow ADF’s choices have produced both posi-tive and negative results for its funding pro-gram. Also, chapter 5 suggests how differentchoices may improve ADF’s performance inrelation to its mandate.

Chapter 5

OTA's Findings AboutADF's Funding Program

CONENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Introduction 85What’s Working Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Areas for Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

High Priority Improvements 88I. ADF’s Relationship With Applicants and Grantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Z. Improved Analysis Before Funding Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903. Project Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994. Use of African Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........1015. Plans, Communication, and Coordination at the Country Level. .. ...103

Lower Priority Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l. Timeliness of ADF’s Practices2. Agreements With African Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. Program Evaluation

The Cost of Implementing

Box5-1.5-2.5-3.

and Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OTA’s Suggestions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B o x e s

A Look at the Files: ADF’s Use of Agricultural TechnologiesFactors in Assessing Agricultural Technology . . . . .A Renewable Resource Decision Tree . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table5-1. Desk Reviewer’s Assessment

Table

of Agricultural

. , 0 . . . 6 ●

. * * * * * . .

PageSoundness . . . . . . . 94

Chapter s

OTA's Findings AboutADF's Funding Program

SUMMARY

● ADF has a committed staff with consider-able African experience and has contractedwith qualified Africans to help carry out itsprogram. It has supported the growth ofgrassroots leadership and organizational ca-pacity and the majority of the projects it hasfunded are agricultural projects.

● A number of high priority changes would im-prove ADF’s ability to meet its mandate:—revise and clarify the roles of staff in their

working relationships with applicants andgrantees;

—improve ADF’s social, organizational, tech-nical, environmental, and economic anal-ysis and facilitate better planning byapplicants during the project approvalprocess;

—improve communication with project man-agers and be a more active facilitator toassist them identify problems and re-sources during project implementation;

—progressively enhance the responsibilities

of ADF’s African staff in project identifi-cation, approval, and monitoring; and

—increase communication with other devel-opment organizations, especially those thatassist similar recipients, in the countrieswhere ADF has programs. The Foundationshould begin to develop country strategies,identifying its niche in each country.

● A number of lower priority but importantchanges also would contribute to ADF’s ef-fectiveness:—streamline the project approval process

and reduce unnecessary delays,—conclude agreements with African govern-

ments where appropriate, and—address issues regarding the scope of

ADF’s current portfolio of funded projects,e.g., consider funding a more balanced mixof social and economic development activ-ities and projects, and linking research andfunding programs more closely.

INTRODUCTION

The project findings presented in chapter 4 Although one function of OTA’S assessmentare an important starting point for looking at was to provide a snaphot of ADF’s current pro-ADF’s program in detail. This chapter inte- gram, a more important goal was to identifygrates that information on ADF-funded projects ways that ADF could improve its program. Thewith information gained from interviews with emphasis of this chapter, then, is on areasADF staff in Washington and Africa, the re- where ADF could enhance its ability to meetview of ADF’s Washington files, recent ADF its congressional mandate. However, a discus-evaluations of 10 projects, and meetings with sion of possible improvements in ADF’s fund-other donors and technical assistance pro- ing program is best placed in the context ofviders, researchers, and African officials. what the Foundation is doing well.

85

WHAT’S WORKIN6 WELL

ADF has a strongly committed staff with con-siderable African experience. Most of theWashington-based staff have lived and workedin Africa, typically as Peace Corps Volunteersor staff and, thus, know something of the localcultures and languages in at least one Africancountry. In addition, ADF is selecting qualifiedAfricans to be Regional Liaison Officers (RLO),Country Resource Facilitators (CRF), and tech-nical consultants to support its program.

Most significantly, relative to its mandate,ADF-funded projects have enhanced grassrootsleadership and the capacity of funded organi-zations to manage their own activities. TheFoundation makes a laudable effort to allowcontrol of the project to remain in the handsof funded groups. For example, ADF disbursesmoney directly to African organizations, whichmanage their own funds. In most cases, ADFallows the groups to choose their own techni-cal assistance for project design and during im-plementation. Three groups have used ADF-funded planning grants to design their projects.Generally, project leaders interviewed by OTAsaid they had cordial relations with ADF.

The Foundation provided helpful support andsuggestions while some of the 12 visited groupswere developing their proposals: ADF awardeda planning grant to the Dakoro project in Ni-ger, suggested that participants provide laborat NGK in Kenya, and wrote or helped writeproposals based on suggestions of the groupin the projects from southern Africa. Also, ADFasked the director of a successful agriculturalproject, Farming Systems Kenya, to adviseanother project being developed in Morogoro,Tanzania.

Usually, the Foundation has been flexible andresponsive to changes suggested by projectleaders during project design and implemen-tation. In Ross Bethio in Senegal, for example,ADF allowed project managers to switch to newproviders of technical assistance and to differ-ent models for pumps and the project vehicleafter signing the Grant Agreement. ADF’s flex-ibility in allowing grant amendments, increas-

Photo credit: ADF/Tom Katus

Paul Maina, shown examining seedlings with farmers,directs the Farming Systems Kenya (FSK) project but

he has shared FSK’S experience with additionalADF-funded organizations.

ing funding for revised activities or costs andextending the grant period, assisted severalprojects. In at least one case, ADF used its sim-plified procedures for approving amendmentsunder $25,000.

OTA found some additional examples of help-ful actions by ADF while monitoring grants.Concerns about financial accountability andreporting, including sending outside consul-tants to check on use of ADF funds, resultedin improved recordkeeping and bookkeepingin several projects. ADF follow-up on the roleof technical assistance helped a male advisorprovide more participatory help to a group offemale participants at the Boiteko project inBotswana. Visits by the ADF African CountryResource Facilitator helped improve relationswith local officials in the Dakoro project inNiger.

The high proportion of agricultural projectsin ADF’s portfolio is appropriate given the per-

87

centage of the African population engaged inagriculture. The focus on increasing food pro-duction and rural incomes is consistent withthe goals of many African national developmentplans and other U.S. development assistanceprograms. Using the simple yardstick of meet-ing stated objectives, OTA’S team members feltthat the performance of ADF-funded projectsis at least equal to that of most funding pro-grams in Africa.

The Foundation has begun a promising evalu-ation process by contracting African profes-sionals to conduct evaluations of 10 projectsand by sponsoring the first evaluation confer-ence of project managers. Its funding of re-

search by African development professionalsis different from and more flexible than mostother research funding programs; the recipi-ents need not be affiliated with an African gov-ernment agency or university or, during theirresearch, with an American university.

In addition, ADF has made an effort to spreadits work through publications such as Advance,Beyond Relief and the Assessment by Devel-opment Journalists. It has taken the need forgood congressional relations seriously. ADFhas established and maintained good relationswith many African government officials, on na-tional and local levels, and with African am-bassadors in Washington.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

This assessment also identified significantareas for improvement. Overall, OTA deter-mined that ADF could be making better deci-sions about what projects to fund, and that ADFstaff often has ineffective contact and commu-nication with applicants and grantees and couldbetter support their self-help efforts. Recurringproblems are identified in the findings that fol-low, but each is not applicable to all projects,or to the same degree, or equally relevant toall countries where the Foundation has pro-grams. Of necessity, the findings and the sug-gestions for dealing with them often overlap.

The areas identified for improvement arelisted in two groups: the first five are of high-est priority and reflect a broad consensusamong the OTA assessment’s participants. Staffroles in relation to applicants and grantees,project approval and monitoring practices, andreponsibilities of African staff were most com-monly cited as areas needing improvement.Considerations about country-level communi-cation and planning, also included in the firstgroup, can help improve project selection andfollow-up. The second group includes lower pri-ority issues, such as the need to reduce the aver-age time taken for project approval and startup, reach agreements with African govern-ments where appropriate, and increase ADF’s

own internal assessments of its funding pro-gram and portfolio.

Each of the following sections identifies ac-tions ADF should take and suggests ways thatthey can be accomplished. Also, a variety ofadditional ideas are provided to supplement theinitial suggestions. The suggestions are drawnfrom the experiences of a variety of private andofficial development assistance programs.Much of this experience is relevant to ADF butthe Foundation has a unique mandate thatdiffers from other official U.S. developmentassistance organizations. Fulfilling its mandateshould include learning lessons from others andapplying them creatively. Also, ADF should beable to suggest additional ways to meet the con-cerns discussed.

The analysis in this chapter is based largelyon a late 1987 “snapshot” image of ADF’s pro-gram, which continues to evolve. ADF has in-dicated it is aware of and in the process of ad-dressing many of these issues.

Every suggestion carries a price tag in timeor money. In some cases, suggestions wouldadd to ADF’s non-grant costs and to the alreadylong grant approval process. In other cases,these suggestions could make better and moretimely use of existing resources. Such consider-ations are noted below.

88

High Priority Improvements

1. ADF's Relationship With Applicants andGranteess

Finding: Too often ADF has had an ineffectiverelationship with applicants and grantees.Often ADF is too passive, but at times it istoo involved. In the former case, potential toassist the group’s development is neglected.In the latter, the self-help process may bebypassed inappropriately. The resultinginadequate information, insufficient analy-sis, and inappropriate follow-up action haslimited the degree to which the Foundation’sfunded projects are meeting ADF’s mandate.

Discussion.— ADF often takes a passive,hands-off approach to its applicants and gran-tees. As a result, the Foundation’s working rela-tionships are often less effective than they couldbe. This approach is in part the outgrowth ofa valid rejection of other approaches whichdeny participants control; it is also due to animplicit and debatable assumption that the lackof capital is the only constraint to rural devel-opment. And it is the outcome of logistical limi-tations imposed by distance. One major con-cern is ADF’s handling of the approval process.Often ADF is too accepting of proposals, in partbecause it too strictly interprets its mandate tosupport self-help projects designed by Africangroups. ADF assigns priority to local control,assuming that local participation accompaniesit. This focus on local control also leads themto doubt the need for technical expertise on staff(8). However, this lack of balance in ADF’s ap-proach works against its fulfillment of its man-date to foster participation and support self-helpefforts.

In other cases, ADF has not hesitated to sug-gest and require changes in project design. Thisinconsistency causes some confusion amongADF staff and its grantees about ADF’s role inrelation to project design and implementation,Although some efforts have been taken to clar-ify and explain ADF’s expectations, more needsto be done.1 OTA teams found instances whereADF provided helpful advice, but they also

‘Workshops held in Togo and Zimbabwe in early 1988, withsessions for applicants on how to prepare a proposal for ADFand for grantees on ADF’s monitoring procedures, are a stepin this direction.

found as many cases of inappropriate interven-tions with negative consequences and poorfollow-up on good recommendations.

ADF made major changes in project designin several cases without significant input fromparticipants. In each of these cases, ADF hadsome basis for making the changes and theproject leaders formally accepted the changesby signing the grant agreement. But the altera-tions hurt the project’s ability to meet ADF’sgoals to foster local participation in self-helpefforts.

For example, in a project in Senegal, ADFremoved the participants’ highest priority—cereal banks—from Union Kaoural’s originalproposal and dropped another element—phar-macies—in one-half of the villages. Unionleaders continue to disagree with the consul-tant’s findings that these two priorities wouldduplicate existing services. ADF’s decision wascited by the Union’s leadership as one factorthat increased tensions among its members;ultimately a majority of the member groups leftthe association.

In another case, ADF compromised with lo-cal government officials who insisted on sub-stantial changes to the project proposed by aherders group in Niger. Placed in an awkwardposition by mistakenly bypassing these officialsearlier, ADF agreed to several unnecessaryproject modifications and to placing an inap-propriate degree of control in the hands of theseofficials. ADF accepted a budget for technicalassistance prepared by the officials which in-cluded payments for services that already wereincluded in their government job descriptions.Project leaders and participants were unawareof these provisions and expressed disagreementafter details of the technical assistance budget(which represented at least 20 percent of thetotal project budget) were described.’

2ADF had a different understanding than local officials inDakoro regarding payments to the government technicians.ADF’s understanding was that the technician would be removedfrom the government payroll during project implementation.Since the departure of the OTA team the government techni-cian has been transferred and ADF reports that a private techni-cian has been identified to fill that position.

OTA’S concerns regarding government involvement duringthe purchase and distribution of livestock to participants havebeen lessened with more active involvement of ADF’s Niger staffmember during those operations.

89

Inappropriate design changes were made inother cases in response to justifiable ADF con-cerns. For example, in the Dagnare project inNiger, an artificial organization was establishedof groups with little previous organizationalconnection but including poorer farmers toovercome ADF’s reservations about the incomelevel of the original applicants.

Sometimes good recommendations to dealwith valid ADF concerns were not followedthrough effectively. The Kikatiti project in Tan-zania offers several examples: ADF put condi-tions on the grant requiring that a maintenanceplan for the water system be developed and thata Tanzanian firm audit the village treasurer’sbooks before funds were disbursed. ADF alsorecommended that the group receive trainingand technical assistance from two related Ken-yan projects. But a year later the maintenanceplan bore little relationship to the actual costsof maintaining the system, parts of it were notfeasible, and the proposed users’ fee was notaccepted by the beneficiaries. ADF disbursedgrant funds to the Malihai Arusha organizationbased on an audit showing village books in ar-rears for 13 months, but did not require a timeta-ble for turning over the management of projectfunds to the community which would have tomaintain the system. Project leaders did not at-tend the planned training at the GreenbeltMovement headquarters in Nairobi nor wassome recommended technical assistanceprovided.

Suggestions for Improvement.—Because ofthese problems, ADF should reconsider the im-plications of the various aspects of its mandateconcerning its relationships with applicants andgrantees. In particular, ADF should better bal-ance the various parts of its mandate. For ex-ample, elements of participation (in additionto local control) and contributions to social andeconomic development should be addressedmore effectively in those relationships. To dothis the Foundation will need to revise theresponsibilities of its staff in project approvaland monitoring.

Although specific relationships should ac-commodate each situation, one staff role dur-ing approval would be that of facilitator. Thiswould entail informed, active, and sensitive dia-

log with applicants, helping ensure that vari-ous options have been considered. It assumesthat leaders of local organizations are capableof analyzing their needs and selecting amongoptions if provided with adequate information.Another staff responsibility would be to evalu-ate critically the appropriateness of ADF’s fund-ing of the project relative to the various aspectsof its mandate and the Foundation’s accounta-bility as a publicly-funded institution. This en-tails obtaining independent verification of theinformation received from project leaders,

ADF should also revise its approach to projectmonitoring. The Foundation should develop aclearer policy regarding staff responsibilities,including guidelines about when and how to be-come involved that are consistent with the en-tirety of its mandate and its responsibility asa funder.

In this process, the Foundation should reviewand revise job descriptions for the FoundationRepresentatives, the Regional Liaison Officers,and the Country Resource Facilitators to reflectmore conscious roles as facilitators and evalu-ators. Also, ADF should determine and discusswith potential grantees the nature of their rela-tionship early on, for example, agreeing howactively ADF will be involved during the ap-proval and implementation periods. This rela-tionship should be flexible and renegotiablebased on periodic review.

Other ways that ADF could examine the im-plications of all aspects of its mandate for staffresponsibilities include:

●

●

●

hold a staff retreat to discuss the relation-ship between the various components ofADF’s mandate and revised staff roles inrelation to applicants and grantees,examine how other organizations with sim-ilar funding programs work out the poten-tial conflicts between responsibility as afunder for ensuring that money is wellspent and responsibility to grantees to sup-port their control of their own projects, andinvite organizations, such as the Councilon Foundations or the Ford Foundation,to provide staff training on reviewing andmonitoring grants, emphasizing methodsappropriate to the evolving relationshipsbetween ADF and its grantees.

90

2. Improved Analysis Before FundingGrants

Finding: ADF’s pre-funding analysis of projectproposals is often inadequate in one or moreof several critical areas: the social-politicalcontext, organizational factors, technologi-cal choices, environmental implications, andeconomic constraints and opportunities.

Discussion. —ADF has neglected some impor-tant elements in pre-funding analysis, in partbecause of a lack of financial and staff re-sources. Also, its reluctance to engage appli-cants in dialog and one-sided emphasis on lo-cal centrol of ten have d i scouraged moreeffective pre-approval analysis. The resultinglack of information and adequate analysis hasled to funding at least some projects whose abil-ity to meet their own objectives and ADF’s goalsis problematic.

Every ADF-funded project does not have aIIof the weaknesses discussed here, nor do theyexist in the same degree in every instance.Therefore, the suggestions should be appliedon a case-by-case basis. The ability to selectappropriate approaches for each funded projectis one that every successful funder needs andADF needs to strengthen its skills in this area.

Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF shouldimprove pre-funding analysis, stressing simpleand inexpensive methods of gathering and an-alyzing data. This analysis then needs to be bet-ter incorporated into funding decisions.

To accomplish this better pre-approval anal-ysis, the Foundation should make better use ofits existing Project Approval Guidelines, Rat-ing Sheet, and the Project Assessment Memo(See ch. 3). For example, the Foundation Rep-resentatives and field staff should provide bet-ter supporting documentation for major orproblematic aspects of a project. Also, staffshould spend more time (e.g., 3 days) in the fieldprior to presenting a proposal to ADF’s ProjectReview Committee, meeting with prospectiveproject leaders and participants separately andverifying the information received from appli-cants with independent experts. In addition,staff should receive training in analytical meth-ods such as rapid rural appraisal so that theycan quickly obtain the most needed infor-mation.

Also, ADF could:

●

●

●

use planning grants more extensively to en-able funded groups to take part in pre-grantanalysis and improve preparation of theirprojects,review the adequacy of the Grant Appli-cation Form, Project Approval Checklist,Rating Sheet, and the Project AssessmentMemo, andstudy and adapt the pre-funding analysismethods used by other funders with simi-lar mandates.

Finding: Critical elements of participation, suchas participants’ involvement in decisionmak-ing and their support for project activities,as well as access to projects by women, mi-nority groups, and poor people often are notsufficiently addressed in ADF’s pre-fundinganalysis. OTA’S review of ADF’s funding pro-gram indicates that it is only partially ful-filling its congressional mandate to foster theparticipation of poor people in their own de-velopment.

Discussion.— ADF’s emphasis on local con-trol has not been supplemented with sufficientanalysis of these and other issues relating toparticipation. Key data are not collected and,therefore, cannot be included in ADF’s ongo-ing evaluation of its work. For example, ADFhas made little attempt to disaggregate data col-lection to reflect the participation of significantsubgroups, particularly women, in its projects.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should more carefully analyze participants’support for, access to, and decisionmaking inthe proposed activities and in organizationsseeking funding. Also, ADF should encourageimproved participation in all projects based onthis analysis.

To make these changes, ADF should disaggre-gate its data collection regarding project par-ticipants, decisionmakers, and beneficiaries bygender, ethnic group, and economic status.’Also, ADF should establish standards for re-

3ADF plans to collect this data in its computerized informa-tion system beginning in 1988.

—

91

jecting proposals on the basis of a lack of par-ticipation; its standards should be linked tocommunity norms. ADF should also t r ackchanges in participation during its monitoringprocess,

The Foundation could use these methods toimplement this suggestion:

● revise the grant application form so thatapplicants themselves provide disag-gregated information about project leaders,participants, and the community, and

● hold workshops for project leaders to de-velop ways to encourage participation.

Finding: ADF’s pre-approval analysis of appli-cant organizations is often weak, especiallyregarding their social-political context, stageof development and, in the case of intermedi-ary organizations, their relationship with lo-cal groups. As a result, ADF sometimesmakes inappropriate funding decisions.

Discussion. —ADF needs better informationregarding organizational history, strengths,weaknesses, and local context of applicant orga-nizations. Lack of knowledge of local realitiesin some cases led ADF to accept problematicaspects of proposals without question. For ex-ample, in the Ross Bethio project in SenegalADF accepted farmers’ assertions of their landclaims and was unaware of the existence or ve-hemence of the rival claim. Had it been betterinformed, ADF could have encouraged medi-ation or, like the Ford Foundation, decided notto fund the group at that time.

While establishing a working relationshipwith local government officials is the respon-sibility of the applicant, ADF can play a brokerrole and verify that an acceptable relationshiphas been established prior to project approval.This can bring increased access to resourcesneeded by the project. For example, local waterofficials designed and supervised the construc-tion of the NGK water system in Kenya. Butin Kikatiti, Tanzania, because such a relation-ship could not be worked out, ADF justifiablyfunded a private contractor, leaving local offi-cials without an investment in maintaining thesystem. Poor relationships with local officials

were also a problem in two other projects(Dakoro, Niger; Union Kaoural, Senegal). ADFdid not seem to identify the extent of the prob-lem or incorporate it in funding decisions.

The lack of in-depth knowledge about thefunded groups could be a factor in the highproportion of intermediary group projects inwhich participation is low. For example, sev-eral of the intermediary organizations visitedhad difficulty working with subgroups (AFC,Malihai); had this been identified as a problemearly on, some provision could have beenagreed on to assist the intermediary organiza-tion, Knowledge about the larger organizations’track record, stage of development, experiencewith the proposed activity and local groups, andother sources of funding are critical in makingappropriate decisions regarding the timing andlevel of funding. Without such knowledge, de-termining the best level of interaction with agrantee during project planning and implemen-tation is difficult.

Finally, since each of the 12 organizationsvisited had received outside funds, more con-sideration of the relationship of the ADF grantto the work supported by other funders and therate of growth of the organization would havebeen important. ADF grants need to be con-sidered in relation to each other as well, Forexample, in Senegal ADF gave one small com-munity (5 kilometers from Union Kaoural’sheadquarters) a grant of $80,000 at the sametime it awarded Union Kaoural a $106,000 grantfor similar activities in 25 communities in thearea. Tension among villages increased as a re-sult. Funding an activity without consideringits impact on other development efforts in thelocale may inadvertently undermine widerefforts.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should improve its analysis of organiza-tions’ strengths and weaknesses and the likelyimpact of the funded activity on them beforeapproving grants. This involves analyzing thesocial and political setting in which the orga-nization works, including its relationship withlocal officials, funders, other development ef-forts, and local groups. Also, ADF should in-

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 4

92

volve prospective grantee organizations in pre-funding analysis, which would help build in-stitutions, an important aspect of ADF’smandate.

To better understand organizations’ strengthsand weaknesses, the Foundation shoulddifferentiate between intermediary organiza-tions and grassroots groups in its pre-fundinganalysis, modify its current forms to reflect thisdistinction, and obtain information about theirstage of development and future plans. Also,ADF should contact other funders of prospec-tive grantees more consistently to assess thegroup’s track record, its access to other re-sources, and the relationship of the new grantto ones already funded or proposed.

In addition, ADF could:

●

●

●

●

use planning grants to build institutionalcapacity, especially to increase grantees’management and technical skills and theability of intermediary organizations towork with local community groups,provide ADF’s African staff with smallbudgets to assist applicants with training(e.g., for bookkeeping, management) asneeds become apparent,consider disbursing funding to train proj-ect managers prior to funding other aspectsof project activities, such as providingequipment and materials, andconsider increasing funding for trainingcomponents of grants where appropriate.

To foster institutional capacity, ADF couldsupport steady growth of an organization asopposed to supporting overly ambitious short-term plans. In some of the projects reviewedby OTA, the ADF grant more than doubled theorganization’s budget. The Foundation couldconsider the applicant’s experience managingincreasing amounts of funds, and not awardlarge grants to organizations without adequateexperience. It could use a series of increasinggrants to help build capacity gradually. Also,ADF could review the impacts of its currentpractice of disbursing the majority of its fundsearly in the grant period.

Finding: Pre-funding analysis of technical andenvironmental factors by ADF and applicant

organizations often is inadequate, resultingin decisions to fund some projects with ques-tionable technical soundness and, often,problematic environmental sustainability.Also, ADF’s approach has not worked to ex-pand the choices of technologies available topotential grantees.

Discussion. —ADF’s project approval processinadequately provides for verifying the tech-nical soundness of proposals (box 5-I; table 5-1). Potential problems and negative evidenceare rarely identified in appraisal documents.Foundation staff currently lack sufficient tech-nical skills for some of this analysis. Generally,ADF has not facilitated the use of alternativetechnologies nor has its funding program ad-vanced the development of improved indige-nous technologies. While several ADF-fundedgroups gained improved access to technical in-formation as a result of ADF’s approval proc-ess, such cases are in the minority. Some ex-amples of the consequences of insufficienttechnical analysis include: unrealistic well-repair plans (Dakoro, Niger), overly optimisticproduction projections (Union Kaoural, Sene-gal), overlooked environmental degradation(Tutume, Botswana), and unknown capacity ofwater source (NGK, Kenya).

Many agricultural technologies that ADFfunds are those with a poor track record inAfrica, e.g., irrigation, rural water supply, ru-ral credit, and tractor-hire programs. This pro-vides ADF an opportunity to demonstrate theeffectiveness of the self-help approach whereothers have failed but it also adds to the bur-den of verifying feasibility. Nine of the projectsvisited used relatively high-risk technologies.Much current research questions the sustaina-bility of higher-risk technologies. OTA teams,after conducting interviews with local research-ers and other experts, judged that technologychoices were probably appropriate in 11 of the12 projects, but were concerned that in mostcases ADF apparently had not attempted to con-firm whether or not they were appropriate.More appropriate technologies might have beenavailable but ADF had not asked project man-agers if they considered other options, nor pro-vided information on low-cost technologies

——

93

Box 5-1.—A Look at the Files: ADF’s Use of Agricultural Technologies

OTA examined 27 ADF project files in depth and an additional 30 less intensively to evaluatethe types of technologies used in ADF-funded projects and to determine the technical and economic

soundness of these projects. Certain findings Were positive: project documentation shows consistentimprovement over time, the Foundation uses an excellent checklist for approving projects, and ADF’ssenior management recognizes and is willing to correct Weaknesses in technical staffing. Other, seri-ous concerns remain.

No rigorous analytical framework is applied consistently to assess a project’s technical coher-ence and feasibility and economic soundness, sustainability, and replicability (table 5-I). The qualita-tive application of the approval checklist allows criteria to be met Without providing supporting dataor analysis. The generally poor performance of ADF-funded irrigation projects in Kenya and Mali,documented in ADF evaluations, demonstrates ADF’s lack of understanding of technical factors thatcan make or break a project. Apparently, ADF has not fully learned the lessons of these early problemsand the Foundation continues to give too little priority to ensuring technical soundness. The files,for example, do not address explicitly the complex factors that determine whether tractors make tech-nical sense. Yet one-third of ADF’s agricultural projects include support for tractors. Also:

● Many ADF-funded projects include multiple-sectors but the combinations sometimes are notthe most advantageous. For example, irrigation projects also could introduce fertilizer and im-proved seeds, but most apparently do not. ADF could support more integrated cropllivestocksystems, a particularly appropriate type of multiple-sector activity. But since this work is verydemanding of technical and managerial resources, it is often advisable to pursue single sectorprojects or sequence sectors over time.

• Technical assistance is used infrequently during project preparation, although it is more com-mon during implementation.

• Production and marketing activities dominate ADF’s portfolio. Natural resource-related activitiesplay a relatively minor role in ADF’s portfolio (only 10 percent of projects) relative to the mag-nitude of environmental problems in Africa where agricultural intensification is increasingpressures on the resource base.

Some of these problems can be attributed to the ADF staff’s lack of training and experience inthe key technical areas of a majority of ADF agricultural projects: agronomy, crop and livestock science,agricultural engineering, and hydrology. Senior management notes that budget limitations preventhiring additional technical staff, The Foundation chooses to hire generalists with community develop-ment and cross-cultural experience for the Representative positions and has recently hired part-timein-country staff with technical skills. OTA’S examination of ADF’s files shows clearly that ADF doesnot adequately increase grantees’ access to improved technical advice.SOURCE: Peter J. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987.

blending indigenous and outside approaches Some ADF staff resist improving in-housein new ways.

Other evaluators looking at different ADFprojects came to the same or even stronger con-clusions. The ADF team evaluating five WestAfrica projects recommended that “no projectshould be financed” until the applicant con-ducts a feasibility study, addresses the prob-lems identified, and has the revised plan ap-proved by an ADF expert consultant.’— . . —

4Abdoulaye Djegal, “A Report on the Evaluation of Five ADFProjects in West Africa,” ADF, July 1987, p. 26 (Dalakana Project),and pp. 27-28 (Narena Project).

technical capacity. They are mistakenly con-cerned:

. , , that emphasis in key design and implemen-tation issues would shift away from local“responsibilization’ and capacity building—to which they give highest priority amongproject objectives—toward technical feasibilitywhich they appear to associate with a top-downimposition of foreign expertise and loss of lo-cal control. . . . this is a false dichotomy whichcan be solved through more imaginative ap-proaches. , . . if done properly, solid technicalinput to assess project feasibility and to refine

94

Table 5-1 .—Desk Reviewer’s Assessment of Agricultural Projecta Soundness

Percent of ProjectsUncertain/

Adequate/ Inadequate/ Not lackfeasible infeasible done information

A. 12 projects with major irrigation component1. Quality of technical assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 582. Use of technical assistance in

—

performing assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 25 423. Desk reviewer’s assessment of

technical feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —4. Economic cost/benefit analysis done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—8 92

5. Economic sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 176. Environmental sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—42 — —

B. 5 projects with major tractor component1. Quality of technical assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 602. Use of technical assistance in performing assessment . . —

—20

3. Desk reviewer’s assessment of—

technical feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 —4. Economic cost/benefit analysis done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—20 80

5. Economic sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 406. Environmental sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—— —

C. 8 projects with major seed/fertilizer component1. Quality of technical assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 502. Use of technical assistance in

—

performing assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 13 253. Desk reviewer’s assessment of

technical feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 134. Economic cost/benefit analysis done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

—12 88

5. Economic sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 38 —6. Environmental sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 — —

aBaSed On 25 projects reviewed in depth

SOURCE” Peter J. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987

elements in design do not contradict the foster-ing of local competence and confidence. Ratherit can contribute directly to it.5

As another team of ADF’s evaluators of a fail-ing project in Kenya said:

Projects should have feasibility studies car-ried out before they are funded to determinetheir viability. Unsuccessful projects tend todiscourage people, lower their morale, and killtheir initiative. They also lose confidence in themanagement and the sponsor and it becomesdifficult to motivate them again for similaractivities.G

The Foundation’s lack of attention to issuesof environmental sustainability and risk are

SPeter J. Matlon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractorreport prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Au-gust 1987, pp. 18-19, and 23.

‘Hilda Kohnhiriwa, et al. “KWAHO/Taita Integrated RuralCommunity Water Project (TIRCOWAP), Project Evaluation Re-port,” ADF, July 1987, p. 25.

42

33

75—5858

4080

80—40100

50

62

62—3850

striking in a continent where the limits of pro-duction systems make such concerns of criti-cal importance. Potential negative impacts onthe environment, and measures to mitigatethem, have not been identified early enough ina number of ADF projects. For example, ADF’send-of-project evaluation of NGK in Kenyanoted that irrigation could lead to soil erosion.The suggested mitigating measures would havebeen easier to implement if this study had beenconducted before the construction of the watersystem began. Projects including tractor-hireand irrigation schemes raise red flags for thosewith experience in conservation of renewableresources. Too often, ADF has failed to recog-nize such flags.

Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF shouldperform sufficient technical analysis to be rea-sonably certain that proposed technologies areworkable and sustainable. Also, ADF should en-courage applicants to consider a range of tech-

95

Photo credit: OTA/George Scharffenberger

Improved pre-funding analysis would have identifiedtechnical problems in the plans to repair this well at

Bundu Eggo, Niger.

nologies and suggest alternatives where appro-priate. In this process, ADF should identify thepotential environmental effects of project activ-ities and encourage applicants to minimize neg-ative effects and build on positive changes. ADFshould devise various ways to ensure that suffi-cient analysis is done by applicants themselves.

ADF should develop a variety of ways to ver-ify technical soundness and decide whichwould be appropriate for each project. For ex-ample, ADF could ask applicants to obtain writ-ten verification from local researchers or ex-perts testifying to project soundness anddetailing what additional planning may beneeded. ADF staff should itself obtain such ver-ification during the pre-approval process. OrADF could hire in-country consultants to checkon project plans, spending a day or two on site.

OTA is not recommending expensive AID-typefeasibility studies, but brief, independent veri-fication by a qualified professional, usuallyavailable in-country. Outside verification isneeded even if the applicant organization hassome technical expertise. If an applicant showssufficient promise, but insufficient planning,a small planning grant would enable them toobtain technical or other help needed to plantheir project adequately or test various ap-proaches on a small scale. The plan would thenbe reviewed by ADF or a local contractor withrelevant expertise.

The Foundation can improve its technicalanalysis of project proposals by increasing thestaff’s capability for making technically soundfunding decisions, especially Foundation Rep-resentatives. ADF should initiate a training pro-gram to familiarize the Representatives and theAfrica-based staff with a broader range of tech-nologies, including “low-resource” and othermethods that build from local resources andskills.

ADF staff needs additional skills in issues re-lated to technical and economic feasibility andtraining in sharpening community develop-ment skills. The addition of African CountryResource Facilitators to provide technical assis-tance is a step in the right direction, althoughthe experience and skills of the people selectedshould reflect the types of projects funded ifthey are to best fulfill their responsibilities.

Additional training could be offered to ex-isting staff in a number of substantive areas,depending on the priority needs of the individ-ual. ADF could invite technical experts to pro-vide workshops to its staff, or ADF could sendstaff members elsewhere for training. TheFoundation could identify institutions in Africawhich provide training in rural organizing orcommunity development and attend the train-ing alongside community leaders, or they mightbenefit from attending intensive 7 to 10 daytrainings at one of the community organizingschools in the United States, for example.

ADF staff may lack qualifications necessaryto appraise the work of technical consultantsfor some projects, even with additional train-

ing. Some of OTA’S contractors felt this couldbe corrected with contracts for activity-specifictechnical skills. Others felt that ADF needsmore staff with technical backgrounds to de-fine and assess the work of technical contrac-tors and who could be trained in participatorycommunity development if needed.

At the same time, ADF should emphasize toits technical consultants and providers of tech-nical assistance that, although local decision-making is to be respected, they have the respon-

sibility to suggest options to grantees andprovide ADF with a critical analysis of theproject plans. Revised work statements and ori-entation sessions could accomplish this. ADFcould develop guidelines for what should b eincluded in these analyses (box 5-2) and for thequalifications of persons conducting them. Theanalysis suggested is to verify that applicants’plans are adequate and sound, and identifywhere improvements are needed. It is not a sub-stitute for the applicants’ own planning. Theapproach should stress dialog among equals

Box 5-Z.—Factors in Assessing Agricultural Technology

A complex set of factors determine the success of agricultural projects. Irrigation, tractor, and seed/fer-tilizer projects are unlikely to have their intended results if these factors are neglected. ADF and itsfunded groups need to take them into account for their activities to be sustainable. Expensive or elaboratestudies are not needed. Instead, ADF and applicants should seek a brief independent review, i.e.,external professional verification that the proposed project plans adequately account for the follow-ing factors. ADF might award a planning grant if further analysis is warranted, While problems insome areas could be resolved at once, others might require monitoring and project changes through-out the grant period.

(1) Irrigation project components:

● hydrological parameters,● cro p mix and extent of complementary input use,• expected input levels and yield response,● rules for water access and water management procedures,● water quality, drainage, and possibility of long-term salt build-up,● labor conflicts with rainfed activities,• farmers’ familiarity with irrigated agriculture, and● market depth, factor and output prices, and price impacts of the project.

(2) Tractor project components:

● initial capital costs without subsidies (non-replicable attribute),● access to fuel, spare parts, maintenance,● field size distributions, fragmentation, and dispersion,● soil types and crop mix (yield response),● rules determining access to tractor services,● density and quality of secondary roads,● slope and topography, and● soil erodibility and rainfall intensity.

(3) Seed/fertilizer project components:

● availability of improved cultivars—their input, response and yield stability (source of perform-ance information: research station results or on-farm tests?),

● types and amounts of fertilizers,● crop/fertilizer price ratios, and● long-term effects of fertilizer use,

SOURCE: Peter j. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987,

97

and two-way communication between ADF’scontractors and project managers. The scopeof work could include recommendations to im-prove the project activity and an assessmentof the degree to which these recommendationsare acceptable to participants. ADF could alsoprovide training in community developmentmethods for these experts, stressing the need

● identify several in-country technical ex-perts to review project proposals in theirindividual areas of expertise, e.g., irriga-tion, agronomy, animal science,

● identify several U. S,-based technical ex-perts who could provide a technical reviewof proposals, and

to include the group in all stages of their work. ● require that the Project Assessment Memo

ADF could use additional means to improve include information on technical analysis,

technical analysis, such as: whether or not the applicant has exploredother technology options, tried a small pi-

. implement streamlined ways of making de- lot project, knows of others who have con-cision regarding environmental impact, ducted similar activities; and whether ore.g., Webter’s decision tree (box 5-3), not a small planning grant is preferable.

Box 5-3.—A Renewable Resource Decision Tree

Avoiding resource degradation requires that project-related decisions be made knowledgeablyand consciously. A decision tree such as the one below could help ADF and its funded groups ensurethat this is the case.

1. Does the proposed activity alter renewable resources?

la. If no, resource sustainability is not an issue; make a statement to that effect in project docu-ments, No further action is required on the subject.

lb. If yes, go to #2.

2. Determine the extent of planned or expected environmental consequences. Whether changes are“small” or not, depends on the eco- or agro-climatic zone the project site is in. Develop and usesimple field guidelines with illustrative criteria such as:

● Normally, total land-clearing less than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) is not severe, provided slopes aregentle (under 10 percent).

● Normally, irrigation schemes less than 5 hectares (12.5 acres) do not have significant adverseconsequences, especially if trees and shrubs are planted along drainage canals, roads, etc.

● Water development schemes delivering less than 5 cubic meters of total, additional water perday are sufficiently small not to cause additional stress on other resources.

Do these guidelines indicate that the effects of the project are minor?

2a. If yes, ascertain that basic mitigation techniques have been added (if they are not incorporatedinto the program already).

2b. If no, or if, based on experience with similar projects, other reasons exist to suspect potentiallyadverse impacts on natural resources, go to #3.

3. Undertake an expanded resource analysis. Elaborate the magnitude of adverse consequences andrecommend specific, practical ways to avoid or mitigate problems. For example, suggest that wheretractors are introduced, all ground preparation be done along contours (instead of in the fall-lineof slopes). Or introduce trees and shrubs along drain ditches and access roads and provide eachfarm unit with a corner for fruit and food trees in irrigation schemes. Where land clearing is in-volved, leave strips of natural vegetation: 10 meters wide every 50 or 100 meters of cleared land;if slopes are cleared, these strips should be placed parallel to the contour lines, etc.

SOIJR(; E Fred R Weber, “Desk and Offlc.e Re\iew of ADF Actlv!tles Renewable Resnurce Technologies, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Tef hnolu~yAssessment, August 1987

98

Finding: Pm-approval economic analysis by ap-plicants and ADF has been lacking or poorfor many ADF-funded projects. Therefore,ADF has funded a number of projects withquestionable economic and financial viabil-ity.

Discussion.— Income-generating projectsneed simple market analyses and businessplans. All projects need plans to cover mainte-nance and repair, especially of vehicles andwaterlirrigation systems, and other recurrentcosts. Such plans do not exist for a number ofADF funded projects. Where done, they areoften inadequate and ADF had not verified theiraccuracy.

Project documents show little attention toanalysis of whether or not project benefits willbe sufficient to ensure participants’ continuedinvolvement. ADF does not verify assumptionsregarding availability of inputs, estimates ofrecurrent costs and potential market demand,and production and selling price. Consideringthe 12 projects visited by OTA, simple eco-nomic analysis of key proposal components

would have raised questions about the Dakoroproject’s cooperative store (such stores have apoor track record in the Sahel and previousstores run by the same managers failed);Morogoro’s plan to purchase maize producedby project participants (dropped by projectmanagers as unrealistic by the time of the OTAvisit); and the plans to maintain the NGK andKikatiti water systems (fundraising plans ap-proved by project leaders would not meet pro-jected costs of maintaining the systems). Theneed to include economic and financial analy-sis in proposals was also noted in ADF’s inter-nal evaluations of projects in West Africa andKenya. Finally, in making choices among pro-spective grantees, the Foundation has not in-cluded calculations of benefits and costs perparticipant or overall economic return.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should do more to encourage and help ap-plicants do better pm-grant economic planning.Simultaneously, ADF should do better economicanalysis of project proposals. The methods usedshould be simple, straightforward, and inex-pensive.

Photo credit: ADF/Tom Katus

The products of many ADF-funded projects are sold in markets such as this one in Morogoro, Tanzania. Ensuring thatapplicants have adequate marketing plans should be a crucial part of ADF’s project approval process.

99

ADF should require applicants to use simplefinancial and economic planning appropriateto the project proposal, i.e., simple market anal-ysis, production plans, and plans for obtain-ing inputs, maintaining and replacing equip-ment, and providing for recurrent costs. ADFcould require applicants to submit these planswith their application. The Foundation shouldindependently verify the economic sustainabil-ity of projects by its own analyses, either byADF staff or consultants, or others outside ofthe project. ADF’s evaluation of project finan-cial planning should be documented in theProject Assessment Memorandum. Also, ADFshould explore realistic ways to integrate roughestimates of costs and benefits per participantand overall economic return into the Founda-tion’s funding decisions.

Also, the Foundation could consider:

●

●

●

providing training and technical assistanceto project managers to assist them in de-veloping their economic plans,providing planning grants or written ma-terials, such as how-to guidelines of whateconomic plans to include in projectproposals, andtraining ADF staff in simple economic.analyses,

3. Project Monitoring

Finding: The way that ADF monitors projectsdoes not provide enough information for ADFto be an effective facilitator during projectimplementation. Therefore, ADF missestimely opportunities to assist grantees andincrease the likelihood of project success.

Discussion.—All funders find that grantmodifications must be made as projects are im-plemented, especially if pre-planning has beenless than ideal. ADF has shown a high degreeof flexibility y in some cases in the face of chang-ing project circumstances and this should becontinued. However, in other cases, ADF’s lackof information and passivity at critical junc-tures let opportunities slip away to assist gran-tees in addressing problems and to reinforcetheir success.

Omissions during monitoring can affect theability of the group to carry out its plannedproject. For example, lack of close monitoringand dialog with project managers led to confu-sion over the role of the intermediary organiza-tion in Kikatiti, Tanzania. The Foundation’s dis-tance was also at least partially responsible forlack of follow-upon developing realistic plansto finance repair and maintenance for Kikati-ti’s water system. More seriously, ADF was un-aware of major differences developing betweenthe proposal and actual project activities in sev-eral cases. The most dramatic instance wasRoss Bethio, Senegal, where ADF was unawareof the conflict over land rights and the fact thatits funds were used to remove Fulani herdersfrom the lands they traditionally used for graz-ing. In the Union Kaoural project, two-thirdsof the recipient groups were changed withoutADF’s awareness.

Generally, systematic follow-up was lackingregarding participation in decisionmaking, eco-nomic and financial planning, technical assis-tance needs, negative environmental impacts,and self-evaluation. Many problems and sug-gestions identified by ADF evaluators who re-viewed 10 projects in West Africa and Kenyacould have been identified and dealt with earlierif ADF’s monitoring was stronger,

parallel to pre-funding analysis, confusionabout ADF’s monitoring role is due in part toa “hands off” approach, an outcome of ADF’sperception of its mandate to maintain local con-trol. Determined not to diminish local controlor foster dependency, ADF has often shunnedthe more active role of a facilitator duringproject implementation, opting instead for themore cautious role of observor. Although ADFhas developed a good monitoring checklist, itis not completed by ADF staff after readingprogress reports or making site visits. Nor arestaff required to document information on thischecklist.

Lack of funds for staff travel to project sitesin Africa at times contributes to inadequatemonitoring. While most projects are visitedonce a year, often it is a quick visit. ADF staffaccompany project managers, especially of the

100

intermediary organizations, and have little timeto talk privately with participants or outsideexperts.

Quarterly progress reports could be an im-portant monitoring tool but the instructions ofwhat project managers should include in thesereports are sketchy and they usually do not con-tain critical information. Project informationflows to Washington too often without theFoundation providing constructive feedback tograntees. Many project managers, and at leastone African staff member, complained of thelack of feedback on these reports. The Foun-dation’s own evaluation of East African projectsfound the same need for improved monitoringand increased feedback.

The Foundation is aware that monitoring can-not be done from afar and decided to contractwith staff who are closer to the funded groups.However, ADF has not optimized their role inproject monitoring. For example, Country Re-source Facilitators have been instructed not tobecome involved in issues related to projectmanagement and they do not regularly receivecopies of quarterly reports.7 Nor do they havesufficient funds for transportation to visitprojects regularly.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should increase and improve its projectmonitoring. At a minimum, this means thatADF should spend more time with grantees,especially with project participants other thanleaders and with non-participants. Also, ADFshould make better use of its monitoring check-list (for example, to review quarterly reports,document findings of field visits, and suggestfollow-up actions) and increase timely feedbackto project managers. ADF should evaluate theeffectiveness of the technical assistance pro-vided with grant funds.

7ADF reports that their African staff now receive copies ofproject quarterly reports. ADF staff, at a conference in October1987, made a number of additional suggestions about the moni-toring system including improving information received in thequarterly reports, use of the computerized management infor-mation system to improve follow up, and more frequent visitsby the Country Resource Facilitators. ADF plans to implementthese suggestions in 1988.

In general, ADF should give higher priorityto monitoring by spending additional time andresources in the field. ADF projects could bevisited at least twice a year (at least once bythe Foundation Representative). Sufficient timeshould be allowed for dialog with projectmanagers, local project committees, and par-ticipants as well as for meetings with personsoutside of the project to obtain independentviews. The degree and kind of monitoring de-pends on the needs of each project. For exam-ple, when serious problems arise, more frequentmeetings could be planned between ADF staffand project managers.

Also, ADF should continue to develop andimplement its plans for internal and externalevaluation of funded projects, recognizing thedifferent purposes and timing of each. Inter-nal evaluation and monitoring procedures areprimarily designed to help the funded grouplearn and to assist in its planning. Thus, suchevaluation should be conducted by the groupthroughout the project cycle. External evalua-tions are primarily for accountability and learn-ing about project impacts by the donor andothers. They are normally conducted at the endof projects or midstream in longer projects.Both can be done in participatory ways and re-quire collection of baseline data so that progresscan be checked against the situation beforeproject activities began.

The Foundation could also address concernsregarding monitoring by:

●

●

revising its quarterly progress report formto clarify what information is needed andreducing the processing time (and steps)in Washington,organizing workshops for project manag-ers that address common issues such asproject management and participatoryevaluation. a For example, a workshopcould help grantees develop ways to col-lect information on socio-economic char-acteristics of the people served and on

‘ADF’s workshops for project managers, held in Togo and Zim-babwe in early 1988, helped explain ADF’s monitoring pro-cedures.

101

project impacts on yields, the environment,and participants (30,9), and

● studying monitoring systems of other fundersof community organizations, such as theworkshops that the Kellogg Foundationsponsors for its overseas grantees, and ex-ploring ways to reduce reporting require-ments when there are several funders ofone project.

4. Use of African Staff

Finding: ADF African field staff are underusedin pre-funding analysis of projects and inproject monitoring. As a result, ADF’sdecisionmaking procedures are slowed, theFoundation misses helpful analysis regard-ing applicants and grantees, and the projectsmiss the benefits of closer facilitation. Also,ADF is losing important opportunities to

strengthen Africans’ capabilities, anotheraspect of its mandate.

Discussion.—An improved project appraisaland monitoring process would be difficult toimplement without having ADF staff in-country. African staff now play primarily anadministrative role with little analytical or deci-sionmaking responsibility for project approvaland monitoring. The terms of the new cooper-ative agreements with the Country ResourceFacilitators address only some of these issues.For example, the current agreements with bothRegional Liaison Officers and Country Re-source Facilitators emphasize monitoringresponsibilities, but do not mention a role inanalysis during the approval process. In fact,one African staff person understood his respon-sibility was to pass proposals to Washingtonwithout comment on their merits. ADF staff

Photo credit: ADF/Joe Kuria

The Foundation could tap the expertise of its African staff by assigning them greater responsibility. Here, Gilbert Maeda(Country Resource Facilitator for Tanzania) and Tom Katus (Foundation Representative) discuss the Albalbal Water De-

velopment Project in northern Tanzania with Maasai project participants.

102

has discussed expansion of the roles of the Re-gional Liaison Officers and Country ResourceFacilitators, but current emphasis is placed onfamiliarizing new staff with ADF.

African field staff could play a key role inworking with applicants during developmentof their projects and/or in helping ADF weighproject proposals. This will require carefullybalancing responsibilities to two clients: the ap-plicants, to whom the field staff could provideassistance directly or indirectly, and ADF, towhom the field staff would provide criticalevaluations of proposals’ merits. Like staff ofany funding organization, they would be ex-pected to disclose previous associations withapplicants, and in case of conflict of interest,decline to take part in decisions regardingfunding.

African and American staff would need ad-ditional resources for training and transporta-tion to assume these increased responsibilities.Training in working with community groups,techniques for rapid rural appraisal, and spe-cific technical training would be particularlyhelpful. Giving increased responsibility to itsfield staff would make ADF a more participa-tory organization and add another dimensionto ADF’s role of building African institutions.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should progressively increase its Africanstaff’s responsibilities for outreach, projectidentification, assistance to applicants, pre-funding analysis, monitoring, and evaluation.In the process, ADF should restructure otherstaff responsibilities, especially those of theFoundation Representatives, to reflect the in-creased responsibilities of African staff. Also,ADF should explore giving its African staff in-creased responsibilities for project approval, forexample, for projects below a specified fund-ing level.

This will require that ADF revise job descrip-tions for staff to reflect new responsibilities andmake other institutional adjustments. For ex-ample, upgrading the Country Resource Facili-tator job description could eliminate the needfor Regional Liaison Officers, since one fieldstaff person per country is sufficient given the

size of ADF’s program. ADF is already mov-ing to merge the two positions. Also, ADFwould need to increase contract time and sup-ply African staff with budgets adequate to carryout their greater responsibilities.

Careful recruitment, selection, and trainingof African staff to fill the new country coordi-nator positions would be an opportunity to im-prove ADF’s analytical abilities. For example,the new ADF country coordinators could fur-ther develop a roster or talent bank of techni-cal consultants and research groups in thecountry to help ADF review proposals, helpapplicants develop proposals, and provide on-going technical support, monitoring, and evalu-ation. Each could identify an expert agrono-mist, livestock scientist, and irrigation specialistto provide an in-country review of relevantproposals. While ADF could request these ex-perts to providepv bono services, they shouldbe prepared to pay professional rates. Also,Country Resource Facilitators could help bro-ker other support services, including those oflocal governments, PVOS, and other funders.

The new country coordinators could be givendiscretion over a small fund to provide train-ing or technical assistance to groups, or to as-sist ADF in project appraisal. For example, fieldstaff could use these funds for exchange visitsof project managers or to allow recipients toattend conferences. They could also identifyinformation relating to technologies used bygrantees or their other needs and resourcecenters where this information is available.ADF could also explore giving the African staffa greater role in project approval beyond pro-posal analysis.

As the responsibility of African staff in-creases, the responsibilities of the Washington-based Foundation Representatives would needto be adjusted accordingly. They could, for ex-ample, supervise and train field staff, developregional funding and training strategies, andcoordinate the development of country plans.The Representatives could provide generaldirection and oversight but leave increaseddecisionmaking to the country coordinators,for example for small grants.

103

A related issue involves decentralization offunding decisions. Eventually ADF might con-sider establishing formal regional offices inAfrica. One option would be to move the Foun-dation Representatives from Washington to thefield to head up such offices.’ However, sucha major change in ADF’s structure is unwar-ranted at this time because it would be prohibi-tively expensive in relation to the size of ADF’sproject portfolio. A sufficient number of skilledAfricans exist to make Africa-based Americansunnecessary at the country level.

Another option would be to allow regionalstaff (Foundation Representatives and countrycoordinators) to assume larger roles in grant-making decisions while the Washington reviewcommittee’s power was reduced, The FordFoundation, for example, allows regionaloffices in Africa to make funding decisions be-low $50,000. All applications are received andacted on at the regional office. Proposals overthis amount require approval in New York, butmonitoring is done by the regional office.

S. Plans, Communication, andCoordination at We Country Level

Finding: ADF’s inadequate communication andlack of coordination with other private andofficial development groups limit its abilityto learn from their experience and help ADF-funded projects obtain additional resources.

Discussion.—The Foundation has been lax incontacting other donors about prospectiveprojects. There has been insufficient commu-nication in Africa between ADF and privatefunders, including U.S. and European PVOS,and between ADF and official U.S. develop-ment efforts such as the Agency for Interna-tional Development (AID). Often there is littleor no interaction even when ADF is fundingthe same African organization or project. Asa result, critical information has been over-

‘ADF, like the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), has decidednot to establish full regional offices. But IAF Foundation Repre-sentatives are responsible for one country (and a number of coun-tries have more than one IAF representative). ADF FoundationRepresentatives have responsibilities for three to four countrieswith active programs (i.e., where ADF has awarded grants).

looked and opportunities for greater impacthave been lost.

While it is common for a new organizationto stress its uniqueness and difference fromother programs, this “go it alone” approach hasprevented ADF from taking advantage of ex-periential learning of others committed tosimilar goals. It has resulted in missed oppor-tunities for the Foundation to improve its per-formance and for ADF to share valuable in-sights with others.

Insufficient communication exists betweenADF and the U.S. embassy and AID in mostcountries. In certain circumstances, such aswhen a dispute exists between the African andU.S. governments, it is advantageous for ADFto maintain distance from other official U.S.programs. But adopting an arm’s length ap-proach for all countries is not always advanta-geous. Several ambassadors and AID directorsfeel that ADF’s grant size, falling between thesmall grants of the Ambassador’s Self-HelpFund and large AID grants, gives ADF a natu-ral niche in U.S. development assistance. AIDofficials, likewise, consistently mentioned thelack of communication with ADF, even whenADF funded a group AID had previouslyworked with or was currently funding. AIDstaff felt that its experience and technical ex-pertise could be useful to ADF. At least one mis-sion director felt that they would have muchto learn from the Foundation,

Better communication does not mean, how-ever, a loss of independence. ADF’s legislatedmandate and its status as an independentagency not tied to short-term U.S. foreign pol-icy objectives make it inappropriate for AIDofficials to expect ADF funding to conform toAID development assistance strategies, suchas those enunciated in the Country Develop-ment Strategy Statements, Nor should AID orthe U.S. Embassy have a role in project approval(13).

Communication with the Peace Corps i ssomewhat better and has been helped becausemany ADF staff formerly worked for the PeaceCorps, including two of the Regional LiaisonOfficers and at Ieast one Country Resource

104

Facilitator, and many staff maintain profes-sional ties with their former colleagues. In onecase visited, a Peace Corps Volunteer was thecontact who informed the community aboutADF (the NGK project in Kenya).

Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF shouldincrease communication with other develop-ment agencies. At a minimum, the Foundationshould meet with those groups that share fund-ing of projects and organizations to discussplans regarding funding and to determine if col-laboration is appropriate.

ADF was established as an independent butcomplementary organization which should co-ordinate with other U.S. development assis-tance activities “to the extent possible” (Sec-tion 504b) and share its learning with others.

Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle

Efforts to promote tractor use have a mixed record inAfrica and ADF should learn from other donors’ suc-

cesses and failures with tractor projects.

Some experts feel ADF could best fill gaps inU.S. development assistance by emphasizingits complementarities with rather than differ-ences from other groups. For example, coop-erating with some private agencies could en-able ADF to take advantage of its specialarrangement with U.S. government and Afri-can officials; cooperating with official pro-grams could allow ADF to take advantage ofits greater flexibility to be an innovator.

Improved communication might become col-laboration in some cases. Who to collaboratewith and how would differ from country tocountry, based on each project’s particularneeds and the resources of ADF and the otherdonors.

For example, ADF could meet with the ad-ministrator of the Ambassador’s Self-Help Fund(or representatives of the small grants programsof the Canadian government and the EuropeanEconomic Community) to review portfolios.This might help ADF locate local organizationsthat have successfully planned and carried outa project with a small amount of outside fundsand that are ready for a larger grant that ADFcould provide. Or ADF could consider tappingthe technical expertise of AID or other privateor official donors familiar with similar activi-ties or organizations in the locale of a ADF ap-plicant to verify the potential sustainability ofactivities proposed by the applicant. ADF couldbenefit from checking with other donors famil-iar with the ADF applicant or its proposed activ-ity in the locale to obtain additional sources ofinformation on the project. However, U.S. agen-cies or other donors should not have any ap-proval authority.

AID and ADF might consider cofundingprojects at the same time, or AID might funda project after ADF funding has been com-pleted. This, however, could entail some lossof local control by the funded group. The sameconstraint might apply even if AID fundingwere provided indirectly through a PVO. Butthe problem of donors exercising too much con-trol over a project is not restricted to officialprograms and ultimately the African organiza-tion must choose which constraints are accept-

105

able. In the case of the women’s credit programof PfP/Kenya, AID’s Women in Developmentoffice funded it directly before ADF and AIDis continuing to fund it after ADF throughanother organization, World Education’s Ru-ral Enterprise Program, with good chances ofPfP’s maintaining local control,

Also, ADF could consider other ways of in-creasing coordination:

●

●

●

compile information on other funders’ pro-grams to refer applicants not eligible or lesssuitable for ADF funding to others,explore opportunities to share office spaceand technical resources, including techni-cal libraries and resource data bases, withorganizations such as the Peace Corps, in-ternational research programs, and PVOS,andstudy the funding processes of otherdonors, especially-those funding similarkinds of organizations and activities.

Finding: ADF does not prepare country-specificplanning strategies to guide its use of re-sources and relate its work to the context ofother local development efforts. Therefore,the Foundation’s impact is lessened and it hasyet to find its niche in each country.

Discussion.—Little evidence exists, despiteclaims, that the Foundation is seeking and find-ing funding opportunities untapped by otherdonors, ADF’s funding portfolios do not appearto be tailored to each country’s needs and, insome cases, seem to be overly influenced bystaff preferences. Outreach and project iden-tification are haphazard and not well linked tolong-range planning.

The Foundation Representatives prepare re-gional strategy memos that vary in format anddepth. These internal memos are more likework plans containing information on the sta-tus of ADF’s funding program, on particulargrants, travel plans, budget, and selection ofAfrican staff, In only a few instances do theyidentify funding program priorities.

Annual country plans are best placed in thecontext of long-range planning. The Founda-

tion’s Country Profiles come closest to beingcountry-specific long-range plans. However,ADF has not prepared Country Profiles for 16of the 19 countries where it has funded projects,The profiles for Senegal and Tanzania containbasic information available elsewhere and someinsightful interpretation (e.g., references towhat certain official policies have meant forpoor people), but give a fairly superficial anal-ysis of the context of grassroots developmentefforts. Both profiles were based on interviewswith African, American, and European repre-sentatives of non-governmental organizations(NGOS), grassroots organizations (not in Sene-gal), research and training organizations, anddonors. Although both profiles made some im-portant program recommendations (e.g., iden-tified opportunities for ADF involvement), nei-ther included preliminary funding prioritiesnor proposed an outreach strategy for ADF inthat country. Nor has there been follow up tofill in the gaps. ADF makes little attempt to re-late each country’s funding program to itsprofile.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should develop brief (10-20 page) annualcountry plans and use them to guide its fund-ing program in each country. These papersshould present a profile of the Foundation’sfunding program that year and project its direc-tion for the next year, e.g., identify priority pro-gram areas and perhaps geographic areas andtypes of groups for funding. Also, ADF shouldattempt to develop a clear niche in each country.

ADF staff should more carefully identify itsniche in each country and how it can effectivelyfill it. That niche will be different for each coun-try, since it should be tailored to the needs, op-portunities, and government situation of each,and it should be developed in concert withothers concerned with grassroots development.The rationale for the suggested program focusfor the year could include discussion of howADF’s funding strategy complements those ofother donors in the country. These can onlyemerge after much communication with othersin each country. The program areas identifiedin the country plan then become the basis for

106

Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle

A country strategy should identify a few high priority funding areas to best use scarce resources. In Zimbabwe, for ex-ample, ADF funds are helping the national Agricultural Finance Corporation carry out its strategic plan to help small

farmers’ groups such as this one in the Pungwe Valley.

designing an outreach program and/or select-ing among a large number of applicantproposals.

The country plans would sharpen and updatethe general funding goals identified in the Coun-try Profiles, where these exist. The countryplans or strategies could also build on the Coun-try Profiles by specifying the best overall ap-proach or mix of approaches to support localdevelopment. Of critical importance are deci-sions about ADF’s levels of operation (i.e., fund-ing community groups, intermediary organi-zations, parastatals, individual enterprises, andeven the possibility of collaborating with gov-ernment programs).

The profiles and plans should identify fund-ing gaps without narrowing the focus to a sin-gle sector or issue, which would be inconsist-ent with ADF’s purpose to support localinitiatives. Nor should they be inflexibly appliedand prevent ADF from responding to new op-portunities.

Plans for outreach to specific kinds of grass-roots groups in specific areas of the countryfor certain kinds of activities could be part ofthe country strategy, as could be plans for co-ordination with other donors and governmentofficials. The Foundation could provide its staffwith a budget (in addition to the allocation forproject-related expenses) to carry out activitiesto support the development of the country plan,

such as funds to attend workshops, interviewresearchers, and visit projects funded by others.ADF’s African field staff could have majorresponsibility in developing country plans.

The revised profiles also could identify anyunique social-political characteristics of thecountry that might affect ADF’s work. For ex-ample, the OTA team that visited SouthernAfrica concluded the present approach of ADFto official U.S. programs characterized by lackof contact was appropriate in Zimbabwe, wherethe U.S. political presence is not entirely wel-come, but inappropriate in Botswana, wherethis constraint does not exist. The country pro-files and plans could include a discussion ofhow ADF can cooperate most advantageouslywith local authorities, which must be based onan understanding of the government’s devel-opment plans. For example, Kenya’s “DistrictFocus on Rural Development” presents an op-portunity for ADF to support activities of grass-roots groups for which complementary serv-ices and resources are available at the locallevel. If ADF decides to continue actively in-volving senior staff in the preparation of therevised profiles, it could prepare only one ortwo a year. ADF could delegate the prepara-tion of the new profiles to Foundation Repre-sentatives and African staff. Also, the Founda-tion could benefit from:

● studying the planning processes used byothers. The Ford Foundation’s regional

107

●

strategies and IAF’s biannual country “re-viewlpreview” processes might suggestideas, ’[) andpreparing streamlined profiles, identifyingits particular niche and funding prioritiesin each country (focusing on the types ofinformation now included in Volume 11 ofthe Country Assessment Profiles), withhelp from ADF’s African field staff.

Lower Priority Improvements

In addition to the high priority suggestionsfor improving ADF’s operations, several otherareas were identified. These include shorten-ing the time taken for project approval and start-up, completing operating agreements with Afri-can governments of countries where ADF hasfunded projects, and directing more attentionto evaluating ADF’s own funding portfolio andfunding program.

1. Timeliness of ADF's Pratices

Finding: An unnecessarily long time passesbetween ADF’s receipt of project proposalsand first allocation of funds to successfulapplicants. As a result, some project resultsare jeopardized and ADF’s credibility is de-creased.

Discussion.—ADF’s approval process is un-duly long compared to other funders whichfund grants of comparable size (e.g., privatefoundations, IAF, PVOS). For the 12 visitedprojects, an average of 12.5 months elapsed be-tween the date the proposal was first submittedto ADF and the date the first check was dis-bursed (table 4-I), Within this period, an aver-age of 5.5 months elapsed between submissionand approval by the Project Review Commit-tee (PRC) and seven months between such ap-proval and the date the first check was sent.Following approval by the PRC, approval is re-quired by the Board of Directors, followed bycongressional notification, and then the GrantAgreement is sent to Africa for signature. Fur-

IoFor an example of applying an IAF country strategy and ra-tionale for program priorities, see Bradford Smith, “Why Funda Day Care Center in Sao Paulo?” Grassroots Development.’ Jour-nal of the Inter-American Foundation, vol. 11, No. 2, 1987.

ther internal processing and preparation forstartup took an average 3.5 months betweenADF signing the Agreement and disbursal ofthe first check.

The long time required for project approval,start up, and actual transmission of funds neg-atively affected projects in nearly half of thecases visited; two projects lost a year’s produc-tion (Dagnare in Niger, Morogoro in Tanzania).Delays also discouraged participants and un-dermined support for project leadership in theDakoro project in Niger; led to a hastily con-structed irrigation system in Ross Bethio, Sene-gal, which may result in technical flaws; andgenerally contributed to internal tensionswithin groups. Delays in disbursing ADF fundsalso were identified as a serious problem bythe ADF team evaluating Kenyan projects,

These delays were costly because of currencydevaluations in Botswana and Tanzania andinflation in Zimbabwe and other countries. Asa result, project costs to the applicants wereincreased and funding was effectively lowered,In at least one case (Boiteko), ADF did not ad-just the grant following a currency devaluationand thereby the group suffered a loss in thegrant’s value.

Some delays are outside of ADF’s control. Butother delays are caused by the inefficient exe-cution of and/or the many steps in the ADF ap-proval process in Washington and faulty com-munication with project managers in Africa.Some delays could be avoided by working moreclosely with promising applicants,

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should streamline its project application,review, and approval processes. At a minimum,ADF should publicize what it does not fund asa way to decrease the number of ineligible ap-plications received. Then it should improve theapplication screening process to eliminate theapplications with the least promise for meet-ing ADF’s mandate early so staff will have moretime to spend working with the more promis-ing candidates. The key is for ADF to developways to streamline this process while at thesame time improving its approval and monitor-ing practices. Also, the Foundation should con-

108

tinue to identify ways to speed transmission offunds to grantees.

Better initial data collection and increasedinvolvement of African field staff could speedthe consideration of proposals. For example,spending more time up-front in site visits, re-quiring better planning by applicants beforethey submit proposals, and clearly identifyingand dealing with problems early in the proc-ess can save time in the long run.

The Foundation should be more selective ateach stage of the approval process, starting withproject identification. A more systematic ap-proach to outreach and initial screening wouldenable ADF to reduce the amount of time spenton inappropriate funding requests. For exam-ple, ADF could study the large number of re-quest letters and initial applications that havenot been funded and publish lists of what it gen-erally does not fund in the ADF brochure, flyer,and newsletter.

Also, ADF could work more with others toidentify groups that best meet ADF criteria,especially after identifying country programpriorities. A good example is ADF’s identifi-cation of the Morogoro Diocese project. AnADF team interviewed staff of the DevelopmentServices Department of the Christian Councilof Tanzania, who provide technical services tograssroots development projects, while devel-oping the Tanzania Country Profile. ADF’s Rep-resentative reviewed a number of proposalsfrom the Council’s member organizations, iden-tified one as a likely candidate for funding, andthen met with the Development Department ofthe Morogoro Diocese to discuss projectfunding.

Also, ADF could streamline its processes inthese ways:

●

●

examine other funders’ pre-applicationprocesses for ways to design its own. De-velop pre-application forms used to makethe first screening decisions before prospec-tive grantees submit complete proposals,send project notifications to Congress evenduring recesses and work with the Ap-

●

●

propriations Committees to simplify notifi-cation procedures further,monitor how recent changes in the Boardof Directors’ approval of projects affect thetime involved and whether sending moneythrough the commercial bank selected byADF speeds the transmission of funds fromADF to projects in every country, andidentify the reasons causing the average3.5 month delay between ADF’s signing theGrant Agreement and actual disbursal ofthe first check to develop ways to speedthe process.

2. Agreements With Afician Governments

Finding: ADF has not yet completed accords orreached informal understandings with 13 ofthe 19 countries in which it funds projects.11This can lead to confusion regarding Africangovernments’ roles in ADF-funded projects,delay project implementation, and mayhamper the Foundation’s ability to resolveconflicts with local officials.

Discussion.—For most official and majorPVO funding programs, agreements spellingout the purposes of funding and the roles ofdonors, recipient organizations, and govern-ment officials are generally reached beforefunding begins. These agreements could helpclarify the roles of local officials in relation toADF projects. ADF has suspended new fundingin Kenya since early 1987 due to the lack of anofficial accord. In certain cases, an African gov-ernment may prefer an informal writ tenunderstanding, eliminating the need for aformal agreement.

Suggestions for Improvement.–ADF shouldcomplete formal and informal agreementsexpeditiously, continuing to communicate withand use the assistance of the American embassyin negotiating the accord.

llIn early 1988, ADF signed agreements with Sierra Leone andGhana, reducing the number of countries without agreementsto 11 of 19.

109

3. Program Evaluation and Research

Finding: ADF’s funding portfolio does not re-flect the full range of possibilities granted inits legislation. While some of these limitationsmay be justified, the Foundation may benarrowing its impact unnecessarily.

Discussion.—The vast majority of ADF’sproject portfolio emphasize economic develop-ment, while its legislative mandate also includessocial development. Nearly 75 percent of 86project abstracts reviewed had a small-enter-prise component and 25 percent a revolvingcredit component. Many ADF-funded eco-nomic projects contain social developmentcomponents, such as training, but these areasusually receive a small percentage of the ADFgrant funds. A high proportion of funds go toconstruction, equipment, and vehicles (5 I per-cent in the 12 projects visited) versus skill de-velopment (4 percent for training and techni-cal assistance).

ADF’s decision to emphasize income-gener-ating activities over social development projectshas major implications for the way it is imple-menting its mandate. While income-generatingprojects certainly can be consistent with themandate, the Foundation’s expectation thatincome-generating projects become completelyself-supporting within a 2 to 3 year averagegrant period seems unrealistic. Evaluations ofother funding programs show how difficult itis for economic development projects to be-come self-sustaining. Grants and loans to eco-nomic projects of low-income groups have arelatively high failure rate (24,33,36).

Applying the same standards to social devel-opment efforts is even more unreasonable.Most successful social programs in the UnitedStates could not have fulfilled a similar cri-terion. The Foundation has not funded socialdevelopment projects because of concerns thatthey are not sustainable without continued de-pendency on donors or governments. This isnot always true, however. Some social devel-opment projects may be short-term, e.g., aleadership training course. For others the realquestion might be less that of self-sufficiencyand more of developing realistic plans detail-

ing how project expenses will be raised afterthe grant period ends from a variety of sourcesincluding program income, grassroots fundrais-ing, support from other donors, governmentprograms, and membership dues.

The Foundation has made no loans or loanguarantees, although both are allowed by itslegislation.]’ While the Board of Directors hassupported making loans, budget and OMB-determined staff ceilings prevented ADF fromhiring personnel with the expertise to analyzeloan applications. In addition, ADF is dis-couraged by the fact that loan repaymentswould go to the U.S. Treasury. Thus, ADF hasdecided to award grants to African intermedi-ary organizations for revolving loan funds in-stead of making loans or loan guarantees (23).

Current ADF practice is to fund only privatenon-profit groups. ADF policy now disallowsthe funding of parastatals” (although ADFfunded two parastatals in Zimbabwe in 1985).The legislation, however, also allows fundingfor public and for-profit groups. The Board ofDirectors’ decision has constrained ADF fund-ing to some intermediary organizations, espe-cially in countries with socialist governments,and has exacerbated tensions among intermedi-ary organizations, local groups, local officials,and ADF. For example, the major reason forthe delay in start-up of the Kikatiti grant in Tan-zania was the 9 months it took the organiza-tion to obtain its non-profit status so it couldmeet ADF criteria. Such projects managed byvillage officials may be de facto projects of lo-cal governments. Designating such groups asPVOS may obscure important issues relatingto local participation.

Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda-tion should periodically evaluate the sectors itfunds, the types of projects it funds, and the usesto which its funds are put. For example, ADFshould examine the balance between projectsthat have economic versus social developmentgoals and between expenditures on capital goods

IZIAF a]50 has not made any loans or loan guarantees.13A Parastata] organization has a mixture of public and Pri-

vate ownership or management, usually with public control.

110

(such as equipment) versus those that build peo-ple’s skills and the capacity of their organiza-tions. Also, ADF could consider eventually de-veloping loan and loan guarantee programs. TheFoundation could develop guidelines for fund-ing public entities and private for-profit groupswhen local realities make that desirable.

Social development projects include commu-nity organizing projects, programs of networksor coalitions, leadership training programs, le-gal assistance/advocacy programs, self-help cul-tural and educational projects, and alternativehealth education projects. They also includetraining in management, organizational devel-opment, human resource development, mem-bership development, fundraising, and finan-cial planning—activities designed to strengthena group’s capacity to carry out its purposes.

ADF’s Board of Directors and staff could dis-cuss the mixture of social and economic de-velopment activities in ADF’s portfolio and con-sider a wider range of perspectives ongrassroots development. The Foundation couldtap the experience of its Advisory Council todevelop criteria for funding social developmentprojects. ADF staff could visit organizationsproviding training to grassroots groups andPVO coalitions while developing its countryprofiles and strategies.

In the future, ADF could consider makingloan guarantees to encourage African banks orother institutions to provide credit to smallfarmers or community groups which the insti-tutions might otherwise be reluctant to make.This would reduce ADF’s responsibility for it-self managing a loan portfolio as well as useADF funds to leverage additional resources forgrassroots groups. For example, the Ford Foun-dation is developing a loan guarantee programto encourage Senegal’s National AgriculturalCredit Bank to increase loans to members ofa national federation of village and regionalPVOS. Later, ADF might consider making loanson a pilot basis to grantees that have alreadysuccessfully implemented activities. Or ADFcould combine grants and loans to groups witha solid track record. A change in ADF’s legis-lation would allow loan repayments to returnto ADF and thus facilitate ADF’s initiation of

loan guarantees and/or loans. However, ADFshould first implement priority improvementsin its grants program, making it inadvisable tobegin a loan program in the immediate future.

ADF’s Board of Directors and staff also coulddevelop guidelines for funding organizationswhich are public in some respect. This wouldprevent confusion and misunderstanding be-tween ADF and the applicants who now mustpresent themselves as totally private entities.The guidelines, especially those related to par-ticipation of beneficiaries in decisionmaking,need not be substantially different from thosefor private, non-profit entities. Guidelines mighthave to be country-specific, however, sinceeach country differs in designating public andprivate status. Similarly, guidelines could bedeveloped for funding private for-profit enti-ties where appropriate.

Finding: The Foundation has not paid sufficientattention to evaluating its own funding pro-gram (as opposed to evaluating its fundedprojects). Nor is its research program re-sponding to the issues raised by its fundingprogram. As a result, ADF is losing opportu-nities to make the most effective use of itsown experience and to share that knowledgewith others.

Discussion.— ADF has not yet examined thestrategic choices about development impliedin its funding portfolio, such as its emphasison economic over social development activi-ties and the technology choices it is support-ing, particularly within agricultural projects.The Foundation has yet to tailor its researchfunding programs to its regular funding pro-gram. Research grants have had little relevanceto the issues of participation, sustainability, andtechnology choices of the groups ADF is fund-ing. Nor has the Foundation critically analyzedits expansion into new countries, the distribu-tion of funds among regions, and among coun-tries within regions. Despite, or perhaps be-cause of, the criticism it has received about itsadministrative costs, ADF has not done its ownanalysis of the optimal balance between grantand non-grant costs.

Suggestions for Improvement.–ADF shouldperiodically review its portfolio and address

111

some of the major policy issues identified heresuch as the technologies it supports, the alloca-tion of funds among and within regions, andthe balance between grant and non-grant ex-penses. ADF should postpone expansion intonew countries until it has made high priorityimprovements, then received a significant in-crease in congressional appropriations. TheADF research program should be redirected torespond to the needs of the funding program.

Reviewing its portfolio and redirecting its re-search program are both issues for strategicplanning and may be appropriate issues forADF to address as it prepares its next Five YearPlan,

ADF’s research program has an importantrole to play as ADF faces these and other pol-icy issues, ADF could:

● do brief (5-10 page) biennial assessmentsof its country programs and use them toprovide guidance for the research program,

●

●

●

broaden its portfolio by using the researchprogram to support research related totechnologies appropriate for grassroots de-velopment. Previous OTA reports haveidentified the need to bridge the technol-ogy gap for PVOS and grassroots groups,establ ish information banks on low-resource technologies, and collect andstore traditional knowledge before it is lost.For example, few donors are supportinglocal resource management, such as in-digenous grazing and irrigation efforts,ADF could study its funded projects for les-sons in these areas that might be applica-ble to other projects,develop a rationale to guide regional andcountry-by-country distribution of ADFfunds, andprepare criterianew countries.

to guide expansion into

112

THE COST OF IMPLEMENTIN6 OTA’S SUGGESTIONS

This chapter has identified priority areaswhere changes would improve ADF’s abilityto more fully implement its mandate. Withineach section, “shoulds” (general approachesand measures that are likely to be necessaryfor ADF to better meet its mandate) are distin-guished from “coulds” (other complementaryways to address the same issues). Also, the dis-cussions covered how time can be saved, whileaccomplishing more, especially during projectappraisal and planning.

Implementing these suggestions, however,will be costly. Using existing resources moreefficiently would enable ADF to implementsome of these suggestions at minimal cost.Nevertheless, added resources are needed tosupport the suggested changes to enable ADFto do improved pre-funding analysis and to takea more active facilitator role with promisingapplicants and grantees. The major recommen-dations cited here could be implemented foran additional $500,000 to $700,000 a year,according to OTA’S review of ADF’s estimatesfor salaries, workshops, travel, and contracts.An apportionment reflecting the priorities setout in this report would result in a majority ofthe increase going to ADF’s African staff, ap-proximately 25 percent for additional Washing-ton staff and their travel, and the remainderfor short-term contracts for technical analysis,training for staff and consultants, and the re-search program.

The additional funds going to Africa wouldincrease African staff time and the resourcesthey would need to take on the suggested newresponsibilities (funds for salaries, office space,travel, and a small amount for project support).Additional Washington staff could includemore program assistants, a Foundation Rep-resentative, and/or technical expertise. Somefunds could be used for short-term contracts,principally in Africa, for appraising proposals

for ADF and providing more extensive assis-tance to applicants and grantees. Some fundswould cover increased travel to Africa, espe-cially by Foundation Representatives.

Using funds for these purposes will temporar-ily increase the proportion of costs that ADFspends for non-grant purposes, yet some peo-ple maintain that these costs are already toohigh. While a thorough review of ADF’s ex-penditures for overhead and grant-making wasbeyond the scope of this study, OTA found thatconcerns regarding ADF’s proportion of non-grant costs may be overstated. Two organiza-tions provide guidelines on appropriate levelsof overhead costs for philanthropic organiza-tions, which ADF resembles in some ways. TheCouncil of Better Business Bureaus advocatesthat at least 50 percent of all income be spenton programs and activities directly related tothe organization’s purposes (14). The NationalCharities Information Bureau expects manage-ment and fundraising costs to be less than 40percent and program expenses at least 60 per-cent (27). ADF’s non-grant costs (43 percent infiscal year 1987) are not unreasonable by thesemeasures.

Often ADF’s non-grant costs are comparedinappropriately to PVO levels. The Foundationdoes not stretch its staff with volunteers and,as a U.S. government agency, pays salariesmandated by the U.S. Civil Service. ADF usesfederally-controlled regulations for travel,which is inherently expensive because of thedistances involved. Monitoring more than 100small-scale, grassroots efforts in 19 countriesis staff- and travel-intensive by nature. Also,the Foundation’s congressionally-mandated ef-forts to disseminate its results are costly. In.addition, start-up periods, which often stretchfor several years, are administratively expen-sive for any new organization.

—- —-

Chapter 6

Lessons for Other DevelopmentAssistance Organizations

CONTENTSPage

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................115Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................115Lessons About Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........116Lessons About the Role of African Staff and African Organizations . ......117A Lesson About Relationships with Capitol I-Ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119Lessons About Boards of Directors and Advisory Groups .. .. .. ... ... ...119Lessons fo r Others Conduc t ing Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 119

BoxBox Page6-1. The Common Problems of Groups Similar to ADF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Chapter 6

Lessons for Other DevelopmentAssistance Organizations

●

●

✎

OTA’S findings regarding the African Devel-opment Foundation’s (ADF) funding pro-gram are similar to those of the Foundation’s1987 internal evaluations of 10 projects aswell as recent evaluations of AppropriateTechno logy In te rna t iona l , t he In te r -American Foundation, the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development, the U.N.Development Fund for Women, and U.S. pri-vate voluntary organizations.

ADF can serve as a model for other groupsin certain aspects of its funding program, forexample, maximizing local control of exter-nally funded activities, using Africans to pro-vide technical assistance and to conductevaluations, and awarding grants for plan-ning to local groups. Also, the Foundation’swork with African intermediary organiza-tions provides an example for other organi-

●

●

●

zations wishing to contribute to grassrootsdevelopment.

The Foundation has established effectiveworking relations with Congress, character-ized by direct communication, that are in-structive for other official or publicly fundedgroups.

Many organizations face similar issues re-garding the composition and roles of theirBoards of Directors.

This report contains lessons that could help.others ‘who seek to evaluate developmentassistance programs. For instance, conduct-ing both program and project assessmentscreates complementary pictures of an orga-nization’s status while external evaluationsare useful additions to internal ones.

In many ways, ADF and its funded projectsshare the problems faced by others; in someways ADF can be an example for other devel-opment assistance organizations. The strengthsand weaknesses of ADF-funded activities, ana-lyzed in chapter 4, are common to similar ef-forts funded by others. Chapter 5 highlightedwhat OTA learned about ADF’s funding pro-gram and suggested possible improvements re-garding the role of African staff, pre-grant so-cial, economic, technical, and environmentalanalysis, project monitoring, and other issues.The Foundation’s deficiencies in these areas,too, are shared with other development assis-tance organizations and recent evaluations ofsimilar organizations raise many of the sameconcerns (box 6-l).

Private voluntary organizations also oftenshare common problems: limited replicability,lack of sustainability, isolated programmingcontext, insufficient planning and manage-ment, and weak databases and evaluation (40).Because ADF in some ways resembles a pri-vate funder more than governmental develop-ment agencies such as AID (e.g., projects andgrants are generally small and its operating styleis flexible and participatory) it is not surpris-ing that ADF shares some of the problems iden-tified as common among PVOS, especially thosethat fund community groups in Africa. Gov-ernmental funders, PVOS, and others havemuch to learn from each other in tackling theseshared problems and ADF can contribute to,as well as learn from, such a discussion.

115

— —

116

Box 6-1.—The Common Problems of Groups Similar to ADF

Chapter 2 notes four agencies that have programs in some respect similar to ADF’s. Recent evalu-ations show that the groups share many common problems such as the need to work out relationshipswith other funders and the need to address project impact and replicability. These evaluations raisedthe following concerns:

Appropriate Technology International’s (ATI) evaluation was conducted by AID. It noted ATI’sneed to: improve its technical and commercial appraisals of projects; give higher priority to “soft”technologies such as market analysis; improve the management of field operations, monitoring, andevaluation; strengthen attempts to replicate its work; increase efforts to disseminate lessons learned;consider making mid-course adjustments more often; and find ways to maximize its impact (16).

Inter-American Foundation. This internal evaluation highlighted concerns regarding: the lackof clear articulation of funding priorities within Latin American countries, economic sectors, anddevelopment objectives; ad hoc project selection; and the relationship of the Foundation to other orga-nizations (50).

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). This evaluation, conducted by AID,raised concerns about: IFAD’s relationships with other donors (e.g., finding its own niche and provid-ing co-financing); the sustainability of its efforts; how well it is reaching women; problems with moni-toring and evaluation; dissemination of its knowledge; and sponsoring a program potentially withtoo broad a focus (39).

The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Important program issues aris-ing from this internal evaluation include: links between UNIFEM’S activities and those of other devel-opment groups; fuller involvement of local experts and leaders; improved delivery systems; concen-tration on projects with the greatest potential impact; support for a variety of multi-faceted projects.Project-related concerns also were raised, including:

• the impacts of external factors on project success or failure,Ž monitoring local and national activities,● accounting for divisions of family labor in project design,● assessing and building institutional viability, and● providing technical training for extension workers (38).

.

Grassroots development efforts in Africa have ample by relying on Africans to provide tech-had some success i-reproving food production nical assistance and conduct evaluations, byand conserving natural resources (20,37,48) and providing planning grants to local groups, andthe Foundation is among the funders support- by leaving control in the hands of funded orga-ing creative approaches and achieving positive nizations. These are the kinds of lessons thatresults. In particular, ADF is setting a good ex- ADF can share with other organizations.

LESSONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION

Many development assistance groups claim of ownership in the work. Larger donors, suchto support grassroots development, which en- as U.S. AID, differ from ADF in importanttails the effective participation of beneficiaries ways—size of funded activities, pressure fromin development. However, ADF often succeeds various interest groups, government-to-in maximizing the control of local groups and government funding, legal framework, andorganizations over their projects, which en- other factors. Thus they cannot duplicate ADF’shances the results because people feel a sense approach entirely. However, they could adapt

117

certain of ADF’s methods, such as favoringAfrican initiatives and ensuring that importantproject-related decisions are made by Africanparticipants. Other ADF approaches to localcontrol—such as encouraging funded groupsto select their own technical assistance—aremore directly transferable to private grant-makers, including some PVOS and others work-ing at the local level.

The Foundation’s experience shows that sup-porting participatory development requirescareful analysis of who participates, when andthe various ways that people participate. Avoid-ing approaches that place expatriates in de factocharge of African projects is an important firststep. Although giving funds directly to Africanorganizations can reduce the problem of exter-nal control, participation by beneficiaries canstill be lacking and additional efforts may beappropriate to foster broad participation. Par-ticipation in decisionmaking is key to effectiveoverall participation but funders often fail toassess roles of all the people involved in enoughdetail to determine whether the beneficiariesreally take part in this process. It is also impor-tant to measure progress in enhancing partici-pation in terms of the local context. This re-

quires understanding the local context andsound baseline data on factors such as income,gender, social relations, ethnic groups, and thelocal political context, as well as informationon project activities. Although ADF has muchto improve in addressing these more difficultaspects of participation, its experience tryingto balance different aspects of its mandate—supporting local control and stimulating ex-panding participation of the poor—will be rele-vant to other organizations.

Like participation, other key concepts in de-velopment assistance require redefinition andmore effective implementation in the face ofa history fraught with less-than-expected re-sults. The Foundation and OTA agree thatreplicability, for example, depends less onreplicating actual project activities than on thereplicability of the processes that the projectshad engendered. The Foundation, with its ex-plicit mandate to learn from and share its ex-periences, its access to U.S. Governmentresources, and its opportunity to forge connec-tions with private groups, is well-placed to takepart in defining and implementing approacheswith impacts beyond the projects themselves.

LESSONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF AFRICAN STAFF ANDAFRICAN ORGANIZATIONS

Encouraging Africans to take positions asstaff members or consultants in developmentassistance groups has real benefits. Africansknow the local situation, especially its cultural,political, and macroeconomic contexts; theirsupport is more cost-effective because housing,overseas travel, and per diem costs are oftenless (not because they are paid less for theirprofessional services but because other ex-penses can be less); and impacts beyond theimmediate project results snowball as ever-greater numbers of Africans are given oppor-tunities to use and enhance their skills andspread their knowledge. The Foundation hasdemonstrated that it is possible to find a widevariety of African experts for tasks many otherfunders assign to expatriates and that clearstatements of their work increase the likelihood

that expectations will be met. ADF’s ability toidentify and contract with Africans deservesrecognition; other groups could follow itsexample.

Many African non-governmental groups areattempting to forge new relationships with theirAmerican counterparts. African organizationsseek to use their growing expertise to helpAmerican and European organizations plan,manage, and evaluate externally funded activ-ities. Often, this requires that U.S. PVOS andprivate donors reconsider how they work inAfrica: how should they shift more responsi-bility to African staff; how should they supportAfrican groups rather than or in addition totheir own activities?

Simultaneously, additional U.S. developmentassistance money is being used to help developpublic and private African institutions. For ex-ample, larger amounts of official developmentassistance are being channeled via U.S. PVOSto assist in strengthening local organizations.Thus, questions like these will need to be an-swered within the official U.S. and private de-velopment assistance community. ADF hasbeen in the vanguard of American funderswhich support private African organizations.Thus, ADF’s experience is likely to become in-creasingly important to others given this on-going evolution of African/U.S. PVO rela-tionships.

The Foundation’s experience can highlightspecific areas to address as these new relation-

ships form. For example, ADF has an opportu-nity to further learn about, then share, theresults of its work with private African inter-mediary organizations. This assessment ofADF’s work shows that projects of intermedi-ary organizations require different approachesto pre-funding analysis and monitoring thanthose for local organizations, especially whenparticipation is a goal of the donor. Moreover,intermediary organizations commonly havespecial technical assistance needs as they be-gin to work with local groups or poor farmers.

Also, intermediary groups, American andAfrican staff of U.S. groups, and providers oftechnical assistance all need clear guidance re-garding ways to relate to local groups that fos-ter self-reliance. This has been a focus of the

119

ADF funding program from the beginning. to help bring about that awareness. Also, ADFLong-term institutional change can be facili- may be able to share its positive experiencestated as African government officials become working with African governments with out-aware of the successes of grassroots develop- side development assistance organizations thatment efforts. ADF can use its special status as have been cautious about entering into closera U.S. Government-funded organization and relationships with local officials.good relations with many African governments

The Foundation has nurtured its relationshipwith Members of Congress and staff on Capi-tol Hill. ADF’s senior staff have a good work-ing relationship with high-level officials bothin Congress and the Administration and havean admirable and unusual directness in pro-viding information. As a result, ADF has a repu-tation for cooperation and responsiveness sim-ilar to some PVOS that receive government

funds. The Foundation’s small size and its his-tory of congressional support may contributeto this situation, factors that larger organiza-tions such as U.S. AID do not share. Whateverthe reasons, however, ADF’s work is not ham-pered by the quasi-adversarial attitude thatsometimes shapes AID’s congressional rela-tions (46).

LESSONS ABOUT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ANDADVISORY GROUPS

Many organizations are reconsidering theroles played by their boards of directors andadvisory groups. In some cases, they are find-ing that advisory functions can be filled morecost-effectively without official groups (e. g., bybringing in individuals to conduct seminars onstate-of-the-art topics). In other cases, members’unavailability for frequent meetings may sug-gest giving more responsibility to staff. Staffplanning retreats, for example, can sometimessubstitute for the strategic planning that aboard”or advisory committee might provide.

The Foundation’s experience with a newboard and one shaped to a large degree by par-

tisan considerations suggests some importantlessons. A politically balanced board, forexample, can be an asset to publicly fundedorganizations and can help avoid program dis-ruptions during changes of administrations,Appointing board members with an under-standing of a group’s mandate can reduce thetime it takes to educate new board members,In addition, defining clear roles for the boardthat focus on policy oversight is a way to tapthe strengths of members and help prevent in-appropriate micromanagement.

This assessment has shown how important broader program, many things were learnedit is to conduct program assessments in con- that might not have been evident by studyingjunction with project evaluations. The results the project level alone. At the same time, theof each highlight different aspects of an orga- findings about the functioning of the fundingnization’s work and suggest different ways to program were obtained by a careful examina-improve its effectiveness. By examining ADF’s tion of specific projects.

—

120

Unfortunately, the costs of combined pro-gram and project assessments are high andgrassroots groups and private funders oftenlack the resources to undertake such a compre-hensive assessment. Therefore, every effortshould be made to draw on previous work andto communicate with others before undertak-ing new assessments. Defining critical issuesand selecting minimum data sets can be doneon the basis of past and similar assessmentsat little expense.

Also, this effort illustrates ways for internallyconducted assessments to complement thosedone by external groups. For instance, someissues identified by OTA’S work were raisedin ADF’s first project evaluations, thus provid-ing partial confirmation of the Foundation’s in-ternal evaluations. Although internal efforts arealways important, occasional external exami-nations can provide information that only out-siders, with fresh viewpoints, are likely toprovide.

Certain of OTA’S methods, such as conduct-ing a single brief visit to each project, areappropriate only for comparable outside evalu-ators. Alternately, self-evaluations conductedthroughout an individual project’s lifetimecould be more participatory and provide morespecific, helpful, and timely feedback to projectmanagers, for example, and be a significantaspect of project management. Methodologi-cal lessons from this work that are applicableto most outside assessments include the needfor: placing Africans and women on every fieldteam to increase understanding of the local set-ting and to ensure access to the greatest num-ber of project participants; allowing enoughtime to visit each project to accommodate theprofessional and social needs of the evaluatorsand the people being visited; interviewing par-ticipants, managers, and others independentlyof each other to get beyond the “official” viewof project activities; and providing for reviewand feedback by the staff of the organizationunder examination.

Appendixes

Appendix A

ADF Projects1984

Awarded From Fiscal YearThrough Fiscal Year 1987

ADF Projects Obligated Through Fiscal Year 1986Country Project Name *Type/Sector Grant

BeninBeninBotswanaBotswanaBotswanaBotswanaCameroonCameroonCameroonEgyptGhanaGhanaGhanaGuineaGuineaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaKenyaLesothoLesothoLesothoLesothoLesothoLesothoLesothoLiberiaLiberiaMaliMaliMaliMaliMaliMaliMaliNigerNiger

L’Amicale des Ressortissants de Houndjohoundji . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 10Songhai Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Tutume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4Boiteko Agricultural Management Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4Tswelelopele Production Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Blockmaking Production Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9Binshua Water Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 10CEDAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:4,7NDU Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 10Integrated Rural Technology Center (IRTECTAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . /1:2,3Osu Canoe Fishing Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9LMK Labadi Community Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9Rural Small Scale Dev. Scheme and Swine Project . . . . . . . . . . . . C: 4,9Kaback Village Fishing Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Kindia Pineapple Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9ATAC Appropriate Technology Advisory Comm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,7Kenya Beekeeper’s Association (KBA)/Kibwezi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,7,9KWAHO/TIROCOWAP Taita** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,5,10Farming Systems Kenya, Ltd.** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A C: 2,4Mwenda Women’s Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A C: 4,9Kenya Dental Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,5Human Care Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 5,6Kenya Women Financial Trust** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,7Njoguini, Gitero, and Kabati** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 3,10Partnership For Productivity** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,7Ushindi Youth Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9Songa Development Committee Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 3,10GBM Green Belt Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2LDTC Research on Group Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2Levi’s Nek Training Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,9Morija Vocational School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AB: 2Moteng Women in Self-Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,9Ramosebo Village Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,7,9Ha Sematle Village Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A C: 9Lesotho Handspun Mohair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9Agro-Industrial Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Boys Town** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,10L’Association Malienne d’Assistance Technique Villageoise . . . . A: 4COPCC Sewing and Training School** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2Narena Village Dev, Project** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:4,1oUNFM Segou/Soke Cooperative** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4GTB Women’s Dye Craft Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 9Private Agricultural Coed Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2Dalakana Integrated Village Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,5,10Dagnare Agricultural Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 4,10Iniminak** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4

$ 26,613150,87240,14427,288

3,40037,523

123,457250,000

48,826119,545

32,02562,40039,637

189,388225,687

83,04075,871

108,773111,245

3,42840,11525,794

152,625247,313198,478

34,50011,58558,745

100,71921,77742,80415,02225,34717,584

105,41517,784

141,93134,15250,774

242,703109,687

14,50074,830

250,00089,61913,463

123

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 5

124

ADF Projects Obligated Through Fiscal Year 1986Country Project Name *Type/Sector Grant

NigerNigerNigerNigerRwandaRwandaRwandaSenegalSenegalSenegalSenegalSenegalSierra LeoneSierra LeoneSierra LeoneSomaliaSomaliaTanzaniaTanzaniaTanzaniaTanzaniaTogoZambiaZambiaZambiaZambiaZambiaZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabweZimbabwe

Association of Nigerian Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,4,10Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative (DHC) Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,4Small Trader Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 9EPAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:9,1OIWACU -Training and Credit Extension Coop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C: 4EPR Small Animal and Seed Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C: 4APESA School Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,4Dialambere Community Development Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,5,10Diego Peasant Farm Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,7,10Horndolde. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:4,1ORoss Bethio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,10Union Kaoural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,7,10Eastern Clinic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,5,9Cheshire Self-Help. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:4,2Yendeh Village Development Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Haqabtir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 4,2Weaving, Marketing, and Revolving Fund Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9Malihai Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 10,4Mufundi Educational Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,4Presidential Trust (PNFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:9Morogoro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,7FUCEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C:8Desai Revolving Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,9VIS Scotch Cart Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,9AME Mechanical Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 2,9ZFDS Water Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 10,5ZCSDSelf-Help Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABC:4ORAP Technologies** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC:4NCDPZ Self-Help Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4Honda Valley Fish Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4,9Environment, Development, Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B: 7Oneness Youth Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 9Silveira House Dev. Fund** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 8Tabudiria Training Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2Beatrice Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 4Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC: 4Tariro Poultry Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,4Talent Consortium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 1,2Art Roots Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 7,9ChiPinRe Water District and Sanitation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A: 2,10,5

249,2007,255

70040,115

233,000102,747

39,74977,739

119,01151,163

162,095104,770247,684

3,77419,37155,98976,28465,616

104,75210,900

236,998112,874

14,02566,35720,68620,79581,198

114,49812,80367,183

2,11559,984

3,298122,027

24,392101,537

10,848112,700

14,238138,934

*Type: A=Development Assistance, B=Research Assistance and C=Third Party Revolving Loans

Sector:l = Communication 4 = Agriculture/Crops/Animals 7 = Management/Capacity Building2 = Education 5 = Health Care 8 = Multi-Sector3 = Energy 6 = Housing 9 = Small Business

10 = Water Resources**Grant amendment providing additional fundsto FY 1984 and/or FY 1985 projects.

SOURCE: African Development Foundation, Congressiona lPresentation: F’iscal Year 1988 (Washington, DC: February 1987)

.125

ADF Projects Obligated in Fiscal Year 1987Country Project Name Grant $

BeninBotswanaBotswanaBotswanaCameroonGhanaLesothoLiberiaLiberiaMaliNigerSenegalSenegalSierra LeoneSierra LeoneSomaliaSomaliaTanzaniaTanzaniaTanzaniaTogoTogoTogoTogoTogoTogoZimbabweZimbabwe

Agricultural Community Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,5 00

Backyard Gardening Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,152Micro-Enterprise Credit Project. ..,...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133,488Nthoo Typing School Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,999CEDAC Food Production and Marketing Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000Peki-Dzogbati Oil Palm Nursery Project. ......,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,133Village Workshop and Revolving Fund Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,143Self-Help School, Health and Agricultural Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,365United Liberia Inland Church Academy Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,694Agro-Nord Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,488Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative Project II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,922Post-Symposium: Development Alternatives Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,387Revolving Loan Fund for Grassroots Initiatives Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,301YEA Agricultural and Food Production Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000Yele Rural Electrification Project . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000Daryeel Planning Study Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,864Gum Resin Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159,947Feasibility Study for the Albalbal Water Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,822Albalbal Water Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,077Marangu Schoolmarm Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,588Agoto-Godo Agricultural/Livestock Infrastructural Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,740FUCECs Baseline Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,672Novissi Onion Production Project .,....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,395Produce Storage Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,006UNICOOPEMA Pilot Credit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000Watsidome Gardening/Small Animal Husbandry Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,087Furniture Manufacturing project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,624Matsvaire Village Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,270

SOURCE: African Development Foundation, January 1988.

Appendix B

Summaries of 12 ADF-Funded ProjectsVisited by OTA1

Farm Rehabilitation for theAgricultual Society of Dagnare

Organization: Dagnare Agricultural SocietySite: Three sites in western Niger (Dag-

nare, Lamorde, and Ganky-Bassarou)Activities: Rehabilitate irrigated fields (pumps,

pipes, canals, control gates, wells)and provide tools and technicalassistance.

Grant Size: $88,817

The Setting.—The fields of the Dagnare Agricul-tural Society (a form of village-level cooperativeknown as a mutuel in French) are the first that willbe rehabilitated under this project; they are locatedacross the Niger River from Niger’s capital, Niamey.The lands to be irrigated for the Lamorde Agricul-tural Society are located several kilometers upstream,on the outskirts of Niamey. Those of Ganky-Bassarouare approximately 45 miles south.

The OTA team visited two of the three sites. Thecontrast between the membership of the two groupsis striking. In Dagnare, the participants are rela-tively well-off civil servants (mostly retired) or othersalaried workers; poor farmers predominate inGanky, although a definitive profile is impossiblesince eventual participation in the project for theGanky Mutuel is still undetermined. Dagnare mem-bers describe the participants in the LamordeMutuel as falling somewhere between the other twoin terms of socio-economic profile.

The mutuel form of agricultural organization isencouraged by the Niger government as the mostappropriate ownership/management formula to im-plement its strategy of small-scale productionprojects. The Dagnare MutueZ is one of the oldestmutueh in Niger. It began in 1965 with a govern-ment grant of land and credit to its originalfounders—a small group of 13 influential civil ser-vants. The breakdown of its pump in the mid-1970sand a decline in political favor following the fallof former President Diori disrupted the irrigation

IThese 12 summaries provide an overview of the 12 ADF projects inAfrica that were visited by OTA’S field assessment teams. Each containsdetails about the project, its setting, the sponsoring organization, andthe findings of the OTA team.

Photo credit: OTA/George Scharffenberger

Leaders of the project at Dagnare.

scheme. Despite the fact that little production hastaken place over the decade, the group remains well-organized, cohesive, and participatory due largelyto dynamic leadership, the educational level of itsmembers, and the improved prospects provided byADF funding. The group has regained much of itslost influence and includes members of several ofthe capitol’s most powerful families. Six of the four-teen members are women, most widows of origi-nal members. Several are active in group manage-ment and decisionmaking.

By contrast, the Ganky MutueZ is new and poorlyorganized, and has uncertain objectives. The vil-lage received brief fame 2 years ago when the Ni-ger government held up the community’s initiativein dry-season manioc production as a model for therest of Niger. In fact, however, production and mar-keting was largely on an individual basis rather thanthrough the mutuel.

Interviews with community members show thatthey have poor information about the proposedADF-sponsored activity (especially women), a lowlevel of participation in project design and a con-centration of control in decisionmaking in one fam-ily (the family of the president of the Dagnaregroup). A mutuel does exist in Ganky but writtenrecords were inaccessible or non-existent and itsofficers were uncertain as to who was or was not

126

127

a member or how membership was determined.Group leaders estimated the members at 300. Com-munity members made little distinction between thelocal cooperative (a larger unit grouping several vil-lages) and the village-level Ganky Mutuel, The ques-tion of access to the irrigation scheme was equallyunclear.

Increased variability in the timing and quantityof rainfall across Niger has exaggerated the vulner-ability of its rainfed cropping systems. For the in-dividual farm household, this has translated intoerratic and generally lower income and food sup-plies, Although Niger has performed better thanmany Sahelian nations facing similar conditionsand its exports of uranium did provide some res-pite, the decline in agricultural production hasmeant increased fiscal and trade deficits. Tappingthe irrigation potential of the Niger River is seenby both farmers and the government as one meansof breaking this decline. As a host of problems havesurfaced to dampen the high level of expectationsassociated with large irrigation schemes, Niger hasbegun to encourage small-scale irrigation as a via-ble alternative.

The Project.—The Dagnare project began as a pro-posal from the Dagnare group to finance the reha-bilitation of their existing irrigation scheme—principally by providing new electric pumps andrepairing canals, gates, and other facilities. Thegroup attempted to get commercial credit since1976 but was unsuccessful. A number of privatevoluntary organizations (PVOS) were also contactedbut the proposal was rejected because of the group’srelative wealth. Encouraged by the ADF Founda-tion Representative, Ganky and Lamorde were in-cluded in the proposal after ADF had rejected ittwice because of inappropriate economic level ofthe Dagnare participants. A new organization wasproposed which would link the three agriculturalsocieties. Dagnare is to play a leading role and pro-vide technical assistance and support to the othertwo areas.

The details of the Dagnare efforts are the best doc-umented in the proposal but many aspects remainto be worked out by the Dagnare group with thehelp of ADF-funded technical assistance. Details ofthe other groups’ plans have been left to a later date.A key element of the proposal is that each groupwill pay back 20 percent of its grant into a revolv-ing fund that would be used to support future creditneeds for the three groups or others,

As of the OTA visit, little had been accomplished.Although the Dagnare group had received funds af-ter considerable delays (caused by problems with

the group’s legal status and ADF’s fund transfermechanism), the funds remained untouched in thegroup’s account for 2 months. The Dagnare presi-dent felt they had not received clear instructionsfrom ADF that they could begin. The group had heldplanning meetings and made contacts with theequipment suppliers and technical services theywould need to implement their scheme. In Ganky,four meetings on the ADF project had been heldbut the level of understanding and preparation forthe project is low among the members of the com-munity. One reason for the delay is that the familyhead on whose land the project is to be installedis ill. Related to this, the OTA team raised questionsabout the security of land rights for the project, sinceeveryone in the community referred to the area as“the old man’s land.” The land is currently beingfarmed during the dry season by women who useit to grow vegetables. When asked, village leadersinformed the team that only family heads (i.e., men)would be given plots in the new irrigation scheme,Women, they said, would be given other land togrow their vegetables.

Conclusion.— OTA’S assessment team was unani-mous in its conclusion that the Dagnare projectshould not have been funded in its present form.Although the logic of ADF’s argument in fundinga relatively better off group of people who woulduse their higher level of education and organiza-tion to assist poorer farmer groups is persuasive,the team felt that such an outcome was unlikely inthis case. The Dagnare group has not proven them-selves to be effective farmers, they view the irriga-tion scheme only as a supplement to their incomerather than a principal economic activity, the eco-nomic viability of their own scheme is questiona-ble, and the group members expressed serious res-ervations about their role as advisors to othergroups. Finally, the Dagnare members were largelyunaware of and opposed to the idea of reimbursing20 percent of the grant sum for loans to othergroups. Since there is little likelihood that Dagnarewill be an effective catalyst to help poorer farmersdevelop their productive potential, there is littlejustification for supporting them under ADF’smandate.

One alternative ADF could have used would havebeen to fund the other groups directly without go-ing through Dagnare. Providing those groups witha technical assistance fund to pay for the servicesthat the Dagnare group is supposed to provide couldhave been as effective and certainly less expensiveif the main objective of the project were to help thesepoorer groups. This solution would have been

128

equally problematic, however, because the Gankygroup clearly lacks organizational strengths, it hasshown a low level of participation in program de-sign, and questions exist about that scheme’s tech-nical and economic feasibility.

The OTA team’s prognosis for the future of theDagnare project is not enthusiastic. The dynamismand know-how of the Dagnare core group will prob-ably lead them to reach their own objectives in theshort to medium term, but these objectives are muchless grandiose and altruistic than those in the projectdocumentation. Ganky’s and Lamorde’s fate are lesscertain and much more problematic. z

Dakoro HordersF Cooperative

Organization:Site:Activities:

Grant Size:

Dakoro Herders’ CooperativeBundu Eggo, NigerReconstitute livestock herd, repairwell, establish cooperative store, pro-vide literacy training, and improveanimal and human health.$7,255 (planning grant); $108,275

The Setting.–Bundu Eggo (literally Eggo’s well)is a nomad camp consisting of a 74-family commu-nity founded by the ancestor of the current popula-tion who dug the well and gave it his name. Thewell is also used by other communities living in thesurrounding valley. During the rainy season, BunduEggo is home to only a few members of the com-munity who live in its four mud and thatch huts.During the dry season, depending on that year’sgrazing and watering strategies, other members ofthe community come to stay, building temporarystructures from poles, hides, canvas, and cloth. Thecamp is 60 kilometers north of the local adminis-trative town, Dakoro, which in turn is a l0-hourdrive, mostly on good paved road, east of Niger’scapital, Niamey. Bundu Eggo is connected withDakoro by a dirt track in generally poor condition.Just outside Dakoro, rainfed cultivation ceases be-cause rainfall is too scarce and uncertain. It is anarea of wide undulating plains punctuated bywidely dispersed sand dunes—the border zone be-tween the true desert to the north and the arablesavannah.

The vast majority of the participants involved inthe Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative project (50 of the74 families) are from the Bundu Eggo camp and arenomadic herders of the Kasasawa group of woodabe—a sub-family of the Fulani ethnic group. The other

2ADF reports that subsequent to the OTA team visit, the LamordeAgriculture Society has been dropped from the Dagnare project.

participants (10 from the Farfarou sub-family of theFulani and 14 of the Touareg ethnic group) are fromother camps in the same valley. All participants aremen selected for participation by the traditionalhierarchies of the individual groups. For theKasasawa, need as well as willingness to maintainlivestock were major factors in selection for par-ticipation, according to the project’s leader. A dis-advantaged minority in a very poor country, the no-madic herders who will participate in the projectare easily among the poorest one-third of the totalpopulation.

The project idea originated with the Kasasawawho, in response to the loss of large proportionsof their herds in the early 1980s, had formed “Kun-gal Fado Mango” or KFM—literally, “the organiza-tion born of large strides.” KFM built on andstrengthened traditional family and communitybonds to seek common solutions to their threatenedway of life. The other groups were added as benefi-ciaries of what came to be called the DakoroHerders’ Cooperative project at the insistence of theadministrative authorities in Dakoro, who fearedpotential difficulties in favoring one ethnic groupover the others. Although the other groups were ac-cepted by the Kasasawa as beneficiaries of new live-stock, the Kasasawa did not plan to include themin other components or in decisionmaking. Nomeetings uniting all participants or beneficiarieshad taken place other than those organized by ADFor its contractors.

As stated above, the project is primarily in re-sponse to a major loss of livestock experienced inthe drought years of 1983 and 1984. An ADF-fundedtechnician calculated this drought killed nearly 40percent of all livestock. Its other components ad-dress additional concerns which support a strategyof increased sedentarization. The negative experi-ence of having to flee with their herds into Nigeriaseveral years earlier had motivated several of thegroup’s leaders to seek external support to lowertheir vulnerability during drought years and per-mit the Kasasawa to stay in their own grazing areas.The Bundu Eggo group has a longstanding relation-ship with an American photographer, Carol Beck-with, whose book and articles have provided themwith special access to the outside world. It was Ms.Beckwith who introduced the group to the futureADF Foundation Representative, who was then inNiger working for a different organization. Thesecontacts provided the avenue that led to ADFsupport.

The Project.–The Dakoro project represents twoADF grants. In late 1985, ADF approved a $7,255planning grant to provide technical assistance to

129

the cooperative to formulate a specific proposal.Financing delays, problems in finding appropriatetechnical assistance, and the logistical challengesof working with a distant nomadic group meant thata proposal was not completed until 1 year later. Atthat point, local government officials who had beenbypassed in the project design process objected andthreatened to block the project. At their insistencechanges were made which substantially altered theshape of the project. In addition to the inclusionof the other ethnic groups mentioned above, the offi-cials insisted that the dry season agriculture com-ponent be dropped, and that purchases of goats andsheep be substituted for cattle. A local governmenttechnical service agent was designated as the tech-nical coordinator of the project and counterpart tothe cooperative’s leader, Project participants agreedto these changes when informed by ADF that theyhad little choice. Due to overestimates in the origi-nal planning grant budget, only half of that firstgrant was actually disbursed.

The second Grant Agreement for approximately$85,000 to implement the new plan was signed justprior to the OTA team visit in September 1987. Nofunds from the second grant had been received. Theproject budget, developed by the Dakoro local gov-ernment officials, contains five main components:$35,ooo for the purchase of sheep, goats, camels,and donkeys to replace approximately 10 percentof the herd lost in the recent drought; $8,250 to buildand stock a cooperative store that would providebasic necessities for the community; $6,750 for aliteracy program; $8,550 for repairs to the commu-nity well; $1000 for basic medicines for both live-stock and people; and $17,500 for the technicalassistance to support the project (approximatelyone-half for local government technical serviceagents). Over $26,000 (nearly 30 percent of the to-tal grant amount) is earmarked for ADF’s documen-tation of the project.

Interviews with the project participants indicatedthat the replacement of livestock was their highestpriority and there was considerable disappointmentthat the cattle had been replaced by sheep and goats.Milk from cows is the main element in the Woo-dabe diet. The repair of Eggo’s ancient well wastheir second priority. Few community memberswere aware of the project’s other components andmany expressed opposition to the idea of literacytraining, which they saw as an imposition on theirway of life. There was an equal degree of confu-sion and disagreement regarding the role of the lo-cal government technical agent in the project al-though some felt that the government presencewould assure a fairer distribution of livestock. The

distribution plan, according to the cooperativeleader, had only been discussed with those whowould receive livestock and not with the entiregroup. Local experts interviewed by the OTA teamfelt that this type of indirect decisionmaking, involv-ing considerable one-on-one interactions ratherthan large public meetings, was consistent withtraditional norms.

Conclusion. —The OTA team found numerousflaws in the Dakoro project design but were unani-mous in their high rating of the project as consist-ent with ADF’s mandate. ADF is one of only a feworganizations in Niger which support initiatives ofsemi-nomadic herders to modestly adapt theirthreatened lifestyles and systems of production.Herder groups such as the Kasasawa are clearlyamong the poorest of the poor throughout the Sa-hel and have been bypassed by most governmentand foreign donor development programs, ADF isnotable in its attempts to maintain a modicum ofcontrol in the hands of the herders themselves, thecompromise with local officials notwithstanding,It was readily apparent to the OTA team that theherders of Bundu Eggo feel deep appreciation andrespect for ADF and its Representative.

The largest concern raised by the OTA team withrespect to the Dakoro project was that of the rolegiven local government authorities. The oppositionengendered by ADF’s lack of contact with local offi-cials and ADF’s determination to do something forthe Bundu Eggo group left ADF in a poor bargain-ing position. It is ironic that the conflicts engen-dered by ADF’s approach in Niger have led to moregovernment control in several ADF projects thanin those of PVOS which have been willing to “playthe game” by involving officials in their program-ming activities from the beginning.

Specifically, the OTA team had concerns that un-less closely supervised by ADF’s local Country Re-source Facilitator, the purchase and distribution oflivestock could result in an undue portion of thebenefits accruing to merchants and officials ratherthan participants.3 The OTA team found the salaryand benefits expected by government officials todo what is already their job as inappropriate.4

Other problematic aspects included: the technical

3ADF has subsequently reported that ADF’s Country Resource Facili-tator in Niger did indeed actively participate in the purchase and distri-bution of livestock and that the concerns expressed by the OTA teamwere not realized.

~ADF had a different understanding than the local officials in Dakororegarding payments to the government technicians, ADF’s understand-ing was that the technician would be removed from the government pay-roll during project implementation. Since the departure of the OTA teamthe government technician has been transferred and ADF reports thata private technician has been identified to fill that position.

130

feasibility of the proposed well repair (dangerousat best and likely to be impossible given the stateof the existing well); the financial viability of thecooperative store, given limited management/com-mercial experience and the negative experiencesof previous, much smaller stores run by the sameindividuals; and the disagreement regarding theneed for literacy. A more gradual approach, withmore training at its earlier stages would have hadfewer financial and management risks. Experts con-sulted in Niger could not reach consensus regard-ing a final concern, the problem of the long-termenvironmental impact of the grazing systems be-ing perpetuated by this project. Nor was there agree-ment on the significance of the change from cattleto sheep—a point felt by some to be immaterial sincethe Kasasawa were likely to sell a portion of thesmall ruminents received from ADF to buy cattleanyway.

These concerns notwithstanding the team felt thatthe most important component of the project, thepurchase of livestock, would meet its objective.Once received, the herders were likely to managethem successfully according to traditional systemswith or without the advice of the government tech-nician. The other components are more problematicbut also of less significance to the beneficiaries. The“bottom line” for the Dakoro project is whether ornot the project will provide or at least move towarda long-term solution to the vulnerability of theherders’ current existence. It is too early to tell theoutcome, but the fact that the project has given thecommunity a temporary respite, experience in prob-lem solving, and most of all, hope, is more thanenough justification.

Equipment So Strengthen theAgricultural Activities of the Youth

Association of Ross Bethio

Organization: Youth Association of Ross BethioSite: Ross Bethio, SenegalActivities: Irrigated agriculture—rice, tomato

and vegetable production.Grant Size: $158,639

The Setting.—Ross Bethio is located on the Sene-gal River in the north of the country, four hoursdrive on paved roads from the capital, Dakar. It islocated in an area where rainfed agriculture hasbeen particularly hard hit by the downward trendin rainfall and where irrigated agriculture has takenon growing importance. As a center for a state-owned agricultural development organization

(SAED), many Ross Bethio farmers have had accessto irrigated lands for two generations. AlthoughSAED’S strategies have often resulted in high debtfor many farmers, access to irrigated land and thepossibilities of salaried positions with sugar andtomato canning operations nearby and in the re-gional capital of St. Louis, translate into higher aver-age income levels in Ross Bethio than many otherareas of the country. All people have not, however,benefitted equally. Access to irrigation and to em-ployment is restricted and is becoming more criti-cal with population growth and general economicdecline. Local herders have been particularly hardhit by recurrent drought and have had generally lessaccess to irrigation or employment alternatives.

The Youth Association of Ross Bethio is amongthe more dynamic of many similar organizationsof young adults throughout the country. The vastmajority of its 265 members (100 men and 165women) are between the ages of 15 and 35. About35 percent (mostly men) have attended primaryschool and 20 participants have gone on to second-ary school.

The problem of access to irrigated land is particu-larly acute for this age group. Although many ofthem come from families with access to irrigation,those plots are still in the hands of their elders orrisk being divided into uneconomically small plotswhen passed on to this generation. For many peo-ple, the solution has been to seek local salaried em-ployment or emigrate to the urban centers of St.Louis or Dakar—strategies that are proving to beincreasingly unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the currentdevelopment of water and salinity control along theSenegal River and the government’s land policiesregarding the development of irrigation have raisedfears that outsiders, either Senegalese or foreign,will be given rights to land around Ross Bethio.

The Youth Association of Ross Bethio was formedin 1974 in response to the challenges posed bydrought. Its well-organized structure, active mem-bership, group discipline, and capable leadershiphave led to a series of successful activities in small-scale irrigation, reforestation, livestock, and the im-provement of community infrastructure (roads,mosque, village pharmacy, women’s center, etc.).Its activities have attracted attention and financialsupport from a number of external donors. TheAssociation’s success with its first 40 hectare irri-gation system (financed by the Dutch organizationNOVIB) led them to seek funding for expansion. Theambitiousness of their plan caused them to beturned down by several donors before coming toADF,

131— .

The Project.—The AD F-funded project has addedover 100 hectares of irrigated land to the Associa-tion’s fields, thus providing a major increase in theland available to its members. ADF’s grant has paidfor two irrigation pumps to draw water from a largeirrigation canal; the clearing and preparation of thenew irrigated fields, including the construction ofcanals and dikes; and a small pick-up truck to trans-port supplies, produce, and participants.

Rice production began in September 1987 despitemajor delays in the transmission of funds from ADFto the Association, low levels of water in the sourcecanal, and a land dispute involving the local herderswho had traditional grazing rights to the area de-veloped under the project. The Association followeddue process to gain title to the land and an eventual“amicable settlement” was reached, but the disputerequired the intervention of armed police to removethe herders from the land—an operation partiallyfinanced by ADF-supplied funds according to anAssociation official. On the more positive side, theAssociation’s determination to succeed is shownin their tremendous efforts to begin production, de-spite limited water in the source canal, by movingtons of mud by hand to dig channels to feed theirirrigation system.

Production is impressively organized, Male mem-bers of the Association run the irrigation system,supply 200 hours of work per season in collectiveteams. Land access rights for men and women aswell as the distribution of benefits to each are orga-nized differently. Men are given individual fieldsaveraging 3/4 hectare. Production is on an individ-ual basis, although operations where timing is crit-ical such as planting are performed by the collec-tive work groups. Allocation is on a year-to-yearbasis and considers the number of mouths to feedand the level of effort contributed to collective workteams. The 165 women involved have been allocatedonly 20 hectares to be worked collectively in teams.Although production, cost, and total benefits arestill uncertain, project staff estimate benefits on theorder of $90 for men and between $50 and $115for women. Division of benefits on the women’sfields will be made on the basis of the number ofdays worked and the amount of effort contributed.Cost and production estimates used by the Asso-ciation to arrive at these figures were judged real-istic by local experts, although the fuel costs of thepumps chosen by the group were not known sincethe model of pump is new to the area.

All inputs (diesel fuel, seed, fertilizer, etc.) are be-ing provided by the Association through its ownbudget (bolstered by funds from the Dutch organiza-

tion NOVIB) and through credit arranged throughSenegal’s new National Agricultural Credit Bank.The Association is one of the first to receive pro-duction credit from the bank.

Although women expressed the hope of havingaccess to more land in the future, they favored thecollective formula for working their land and didnot complain about the disparity of access and ben-efits between men and women. In fact, for manythis was their first access to irrigated lands of theirown,

Conclusion. —The Youth Association of RossBethio fits well into the ADF mandate. While per-haps not among the poorest of Senegal’s poor, thegroup’s identification of access to irrigation as amajor determinant of future well-being is correctand farsighted. The project already has begun toachieve one of its principal goals—the return of vil-lage youth from the urban centers. Apart from theregrettable incident of forcing the herders off theland to make way for the irrigation project and theunresolved long-term impacts of irrigation on landand water resources, the project gives evidence ofattaining the kind of sustainable results and expan-sion of opportunity called for in ADF’s mandate.

The Association’s operations are based on a highdegree of centralized decisionmaking and dis-cipline, but it is an effective and probably unavoid-able management method given the high degree ofcoordination and timing inherent in a 100+ hec-tare irrigation scheme. Participants expressed highlevels of confidence in the group’s leaders and therewas evidence that leadership was responsive to andheld accountable by the members.

Organization issues are likely to become acute inthe short to medium term, especially the on-goingallocation of land within the irrigated area. Will theleadership’s method for allocation according toneed and effort continue to go unchallenged? Howwill new members be accommodated? What willhappen as the “youths” grow older? The Associa-tion’s proposed solution (further expansion of theirrigated area) may be unrealistic because few out-side organizations are willing to commit the levelof funding provided by ADF. Also, several expertsbelieve that at 150 hectares the scale of operationsis already beyond the maximum point of efficientproduction,

A further challenge will be to maintain access toshort-term credit to finance the high costs of inputs.The credit from the National Agricultural Bank thisyear cannot be assumed to be on-going and, accord-ing to Association officials, was far less thanneeded. The unproven cost and maintenance rec-

—

132

ord of the Association’s choice of pumps is an ad-ditional cause for concern. The OTA team’s feel-ing is, however, that the group’s performance in thepast, the resourcefulness and dynamism of itsleadership, and the dedication of its members willfind solutions to these problems. The prognosis forthe long-term future is clouded only by the eco-nomic and ecological uncertainties facing irrigatedrice and tomato production along the Senegal River.

Organization:Site:

Activities:

Grant Size:

Union Kaoural

Kaoural Federation of CooperativesTwenty-five village associations inthe Kolda region of SenegalCollective orchards and gardens;dairy cattle feeding centers and vil-lage pharmacies.$103,832

The Setting.—The Union Kaoural is an associa-tion of village youth groups based in the village ofMedia Koundie (30 kilometers to the east of Kolda).The Kolda Region, although connected by goodroads to the rest of Senegal, is among the country’smost isolated and disadvantaged areas in terms ofsocial and productive infrastructure. This is partlyexplained by the distance to Dakar (8 hours by road),and partly due to the fact that, for political and eco-nomic reasons, it had been relatively neglected bygovernment development programs. Outside atten-tion to agricultural development in the zone has alsobeen lacking despite the fact that the region is lessconstrained by rainfall patterns, depleted soils, andpopulation densities than much of arable land inSenegal. It is a zone where a sedentary branch ofthe Fulani ethnic group is traditionally dominant.

The Union Kaoural is estimated by its leaders toinclude over 3,000 members in 79 village groups.Observations and interviews by OTA team mem-bers indicate that a considerably lower number areactually active in the group’s activities. Approxi-mately 45 percent of the members are women, and75 percent are between the ages of 15 and 30. Inthe Medina Koundie village group, fewer than 10percent have gone to school. All but a few villagegroups are predominantly Fulani. Members broadlyreflect the income level of their communities butthe leadership comes from relatively more affluentand powerful families.

Low income and underemployment, particularlyduring the dry season, are major facts of life in theKolda region, even more than in other areas of Sene-gal. The lack of alternative employment and gov-ernment assistance to farmers through extension

services and input support has left people with fewoptions beyond moving to other regional capitalsor Dakar.

Village-level youth associations are traditional inSenegal. In recent years, many of these groups havebeen energized anew and have formed regional andnational level associations. The Association ofYoung Farmers of the Casamance (AJAC in French)has been one of the more dynamic regional asso-ciations. It in turn has encouraged the formationof sub-regional unions of village groups such as theUnion Kaoural, which began in 1982. The UnionKaoural is highly structured with a Board of Direc-tors and a constituent assembly with representativesof its member groups. The reality, however, is lessparticipatory or cohesive with a high degree of cen-tralized control resting in a few individuals and con-siderable instability of membership.

Thirty-nine village groups were in the Unionwhen ADF negotiated its grant. Since then, 63 newgroups have joined but 27 have withdrawn (themajority leaving with some rancor and despite thefact that they were slated to receive benefits fromthe ADF project). Two additional segments of theUnion are in the process of being spun off moreamicably. The village-level associations visited bythe OTA team expressed confidence in the Unionleadership (OTA did not visit any groups that hadwithdrawn) and showed evidence of being par-ticipatory and enthusiastic about the proposedactivities. The dedication and hard work of severalof the Union’s leaders was evident. The Union hasreceived operational and project funding from arange of NGO donors, mostly through the aegis ofAJAC.

The Project.—The Union Kaoural project beingfunded by ADF is designed to provide collective op-portunities for income generation. The project isa scaled down version of the original proposal pre-sented to ADF. The Union’s first priority (a cerealbank) was dropped from the proposal at the sug-gestion of an ADF consultant and a second compo-nent, village pharmacies, was reduced by one-half.The remaining project includes four principal activ-ities that have been allocated among the 25 villageschosen by the Union’s leadership to benefit fromthe program.

ADF funding will provide materials for 10 col-lective orchards, 10 collective gardens, 2 dairy cat-tle feeding centers, and 5 village pharmacies, Bothdairy centers (15 percent of the project budget) arebeing built in Medina Koundie—one for an asso-ciation of herders who are not members of theUnion. The other components are identical “cookie-cutter” activities where the Union provides mate-

133

rial inputs and the local village association provideslabor. All purchasing of materials and their distri-bution is being handled by the Union, including thecontracting and payment of salaries for the well dig-gers and masons. The Union has used ADF fundsto provide bookkeeping training to the treasurersof the local groups. Its leaders also talked of pro-viding some technical assistance and further train-ing in vegetable gardening and fruit tree produc-tion directly or in conjunction with AJAC.

As of the OTA visit, wells and basins had beencompleted and tools and fencing delivered to 8 ofthe 10 villages that are slated to receive gardens.Wells had been started in two others. The buildingsfor the two dairy centers also were complete, butin the opinion of the OTA team one of the build-ings and both of the wells shown were built priorto ADF funding. Purchase of the cattle was partiallycompleted. The team was told that materials for theorchards were ordered and would be soon de-livered.

Overall, the project is behind schedule. Part ofthe delay was reported to come from slowness incommunciations and especially in the transfer offunds from ADF to the Union. Opposition from lo-cal government officials, particularly over the villagepharmacies, was another problem which, althoughnot altogether resolved, gave indications of beingaddressed. A further problem has been the tight con-trol exercised by the Union’s manager (animateurin French). His illness and lack of a deputy at onepoint in the negotiations caused significant delay.Poor planning was a final problem. Adequate al-lowance was not made for the costs of transport-ing the materials from the purchase point to Me-dina Koundie and then out to the remote villagemembers.

Financial records on the use of ADF funds werenon-existent or “not available. ” Those records thatdid exist, combined with interviews with projectstaff and participants, as well as observation, all in-dicate the possibility that substantially less materi-als and money were being used in construction andequipment than was planned for in the projectproposal,

Conclusion. —The individual village-level organi-zations and their members seem to fit the ADF man-date, but OTA team’s visit raised questions regard-ing significant aspects of the project’s design. TheUnion Kaoural appears to be going through a periodof instability where the exigencies of a project ofthis magnitude give evidence of having a negativeinfluence. The centralization of its de facto struc-ture, internal management and organizational defi-ciencies, the lack of basic financial records, and the

logistical difficulties in implementing a project in25 villages spread across an area of hundreds ofkilometers with only one good road and one smallvehicle raise tremendous questions as to ultimateoutcomes. The fact that some progress can be seenis to their credit.

The lack of effective individual input into projectplanning and implementation is equally disturbing.Each component was designed by the core groupin Medina Koundie, which also decided which vil-lage should get what activity. Each is being imple-mented according to an identical plan with theUnion controlling all the funds, hiring all the skilledlabor, and supervising all the work. Not only is thismethod likely to cause difficulties given the differ-ence between the membership, environments, andorganizations of the individual village groups butit also precludes the development opportunity thatcould have been provided by giving the local groupsa greater role in project design and implementation.Although village participants seemed generallyknowledgeable about the project, they were una-ware of its financial aspects and several were un-clear about what was expected from them. Therewere several instances where the village groupsfailed to take important action while they awaitedinstructions from the Union.

The lack of basic feasibility studies raises addi-tional questions, No evidence exists to show thatthought had been given either at the village or Unionlevel to eventually marketing what will be produced,Poor transportation infrastructure and the lack oflocal markets could cause disappointing returns.Records from the vegetable production activities ofthe Medina Koundie village group showed netlosses for the past two years despite their locationon a paved road and in closer proximity to the largermarket town of Kolda than many of the other par-ticipating villages. The distribution of any proceedsgenerated is a further unresolved and potentiallythorny issue. Most groups talked of all proceeds re-maining in the group for investment in communityinfrastructure or to be used for social obligationsof the members (a common practice in small incomegenerating activities of village youth groups, butmore problematic with larger projects). This formof distribution might be inconsistent with the ob-jective of increasing income possibilities and stem-ming rural to urban migration, The proposed planof the Union’s leaders to “tax” village groups 40percent of their profits to establish a revolving fundthat could be used to do similar projects in othermember villages was not known by many groupsand not popular with those that were informed. Twoadded cautions: the success of village pharmacies

—

134

and cattle feeding centers has been extremely lowelsewhere in Senegal.

Given these uncertainties, the future prognosisis less than bright for the type of profitable collec-tive group enterprises envisioned in the project pro-posal. A number of the groups however, showeddetermination and creativity. The high quality ofthe wells being built, and the benefits of good fenc-ing and quality tools will undoubtedly benefit atleast some of the participants. The opportunity toundertake the individual micro-projects (the heavyhanded control of the Union notwithstanding) isalso likely to benefit many of the individual villagegroups, giving them experience in management,new production techniques, marketing, and orga-nization. A more thoughtful, realistic, and gradualapproach to assisting the Union Kaoural would haveenhanced these benefits.

Integrated Food DovelopmentProgram

Organization: Diocese of Morogoro, DevelopmentDepartment

Site: Morogoro, TanzaniaActivities: Tractor hire; credit for inputs for

maize production.Grant Size: $248,378

The Setting.—The Anglican Diocese of Morogoroencompasses nearly 400 villages in 3 districts in cen-tral Tanzania, a region including productive areaswith sufficient rainfall for farming and drier areasseverely impacted by drought. The area where theADF project was first implemented in 1986 and1987 lies at the edge of the vast rolling plains of theMaasai Steppe. The town of Gairo is halfway be-tween Morogoro and the new capital Dodoma. Mostof the people farm plots averaging several acres andgraze small herds of cattle on communal lands.

A charismatic minister, Reverend Chitemo, is amain force behind local development efforts. He be-came bishop when the new Anglican diocese wasformed shortly after Independence in 1964. Angli-cans are the predominant Christian religion in thearea. The Development Committee of the diocesehas sponsored a variety of agricultural projectssince 1970 to improve the nutrition and standardof living of the Uluglu people. Rabbit, poultry, cit-rus tree, and beekeeping projects are on-going.More recently, the diocese began a dairy and goatproject. Missionaries working in the diocese ob-tained support for these activities from English andAustralian religious funders such as Christian Aid.

Early failures taught the Bishop important les-sons—the need for technical expertise and training,and especially, the active participation of the peo-ple in development efforts. As a result, a participa-tory church structure was developed to encouragea two-way information flow between the dioceseand the local villages. Each congregation, which in-clude several villages, elects a contact committee;three leaders of several congregation committeesform a parish committee; representatives of severalparishes form a deanery-level committee; the sev-eral deanery committees feed into the diocesanPlanning and Development Committee. Farmers,women’s groups, youth groups, and pastors fromeach parish are involved in planning and carryingout projects.

The Project.—The project the Development Com-mittee submitted to ADF, which it met through theChristian Council of Tanzania (a coalition of pro-testant churches], is its most ambitious yet. It aimsto introduce modern farm inputs—mainly improvedseeds, fertilizer, and pesticide—and tractor hireservices together with extension advice and creditto farmers to increase production of their majorcrop, maize. The Development Committee initiallyplanned to purchase, store, and market the maizeproduced. The goal is to increase productivity peracre and acreage under cultivation.

ADF funds would buy 3 tractors to plow groupfarms for congregations (3 acres each), women’sgroups (2 acres), youth groups (1 acre), and indi-vidual farms (1 acre each). The first year, each trac-tor was to plow 10 to 20 acres per day, for a totalof 1,080 to 1,800 acres; a specific package of seed,fertilizers, and insecticides was to be applied by reg-istered farmers who would get one acre plowed ata charge of about $10. Maize yields were projectedto increase from an average of 1.5 bags per acre to10 bags. ADF funds would build storage depots andbuy a truck. Shortly after awarding the grant ADFsent a representative of another ADF-funded proj-ect, Paul Maina, director of Farming SystemsKenya, to review plans and make recommendationsto the Development Committee. Since the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) was sending sev-eral hundred Fiat tractors to the Morogoro region,the diocese decided to purchase Fiat tractors, to takeadvantage of the supplies of spare parts in garagesset up to service the FAO tractors.

The project was late getting started: a director andagronomist were not recruited until February 1987;only one tractor arrived and that in the middle ofthe planting season; the fertilizer also arrived late,Thus, only 156 acres were plowed, an average of

3.5 per day due to breakdowns and the fact that thesites were scattered. Some farmers had more thanone acre plowed; some who were not registered inthe program hired the tractor or purchased inputs.Not all farmers accepted the whole package, giventheir aversion to the risk of adopting radically newfarming practices. Maize yields of project partici-pants averaged 5 bags per acre, which were higherthan past yields but lower than planned, mainly be-cause of lower than usual rainfall in the area. House-hold incomes thus increased $14 (less than the $44planned), roughly equivalent to a 10 percent in-crease.

The OTA team arrived before the second plant-ing season and found participants enthusiasticabout the results and many more wanting to par-ticipate than could. The management had learnedvaluable lessons: more careful planning and recordkeeping; better training of the contact committeeswho selected participants; better effort to recruitwomen farmers (nearly one-third of the individualfarmers registered for the second year), some ofwhom would obtain inputs on credit; farmers wouldsell maize through regular marketing channelsrather than to the diocese committee and repay theirloans to the committee; if the two tractors did notarrive on time, project managers would considerrenting them. They would plow at least one “blockfarm” on uncultivated land, which they told theOTA team would not disturb the persons whograzed their cattle herds since there was plenty ofopen land. (Most Maasai, among the herders usingthe area proposed for the block farm, are not An-glican.)

Conclusion.—The OTA team was especially im-pressed with the mechanism for two way commu-nication and input from participants as well as theincreased yields of the first year participants. Al-though most beneficiaries were Anglicans, theywere a representative group of the area and in-cluded poor people. In general, the team felt theproject had been overambitious in its proposal, butthe new managers were making corrections basedon the first year. OTA concerns about participationwere the lack of clarity on how to register and care-ful supervision of plowing. The interlocking com-mittee structure would help replicate the projectwithin the diocese, extending its impact. In someinstances, neighbors already imitated farming prac-tices that participants learned from the project ex-tension agents.

The church’s long experience with developmentprojects should help ensure sustainability after theBishop retires in late 1987. The team’s main con-

135

cerns related to sustainability were economic andenvironmental. Careful financial planning abouthow to continue the project has not been done. Forexample, a market analysis would determinewhether the plan to purchase and market farmers’produce is realistic or would lead to major lossesfor the Committee. Estimating the costs of main-taining, and eventually replacing, the tractors wouldhelp determine if the current rate charged to ploweach acre, somewhat less than the market rate, isfeasible,

Nor has the Development Committee clearly iden-tified potential negative environmental impacts, al-though the project managers’ plan to plant citrustrees on the block farms to improve the people’s dietcould also help prevent erosion. OTA membersasked if they considered ox plows for some areas,and expressed concern about monocropping (whichcould eventually reduce soil fertility, decrease pro-duction of pulses which provide protein, and in-crease risk if the price of maize was to decline].Some danger exists of losing sight of the value ofthe integrated food program envisioned by the Bishopand overlooking the other agricultural projects inthe enthusiasm for maize and tractors.

Conservation Education Project

Organization: Kikatiti Village Malihai ClubSite: Kikatiti and Arusha, TanzaniaActivities: Water supply and reforestationGrant Size: $66,168

The Setting.—Kikatiti, situated at the base of themountains between Mount Meru and MountKilimanjaro about 22 kilometers from Arusha, hasa growing population estimated at 1,300 families.Because of its higher elevation and rainfall, the areanear Arusha was favored by the white settlers andremains an area of high agricultural potential inTanzania. Most of the Chaga people in the commu-nity are small farmers, with about 2 to 5 acres ofland, and in conformity with government regula-tions to reduce pressure of cattle herds on the land,admit to raising one cow per acre. Water is a press-ing problem. Women wait in long lines at the well.Sometimes they must draw water for household usefrom the nearby spring-fed pond used by cattle, withnegative consequences for health of their far-dies.The women also walk long distances in search offuelwood.

In nearby Arusha, a group of environmentalistsestablished the Malihai (“living wealth”) Club of

136

Tanzania to educate Tanzanians, especially throughboys clubs in secondary schools, to appreciate thewildlife in Tanzania’s national parks and help pre-serve them. Originally within the National Parks(headquartered in Arusha), the Malihai Club of Tan-zania was established in 1983 and obtained fund-ing from the African Wildlife Foundation andWorld Wildlife Fund/IUCN. The staff still is on thepayroll of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Re-sources. Awareness of the need to deal with the de-velopment problems of people living adjacent to theparks, to prevent their poaching of wildlife, wood,and water from the parks, led to the concept of help-ing communities in “buffer zones” near the parks.Malihai Arusha picked Kikatiti as their first villageproject for several reasons, including that theythought it was an area where wood was beingpoached from Arusha National Park. And a formerprincipal, whose school had sponsored a MalihaiClub, moved to Kikatiti and came to the nationalorganization of Malihai for assistance.

Malihai Arusha showed audiovisual materialsabout the need to preserve the parks and plant treesduring town meetings. In 1985, Kikatiti set up theirown club, consisting of all members of the villageand headed by the elected leaders of the village, tobe in charge of environmental issues. While womencould be dues-paying members, they were excludedfrom management committees,

The Project.—The director of the Malihai Club ofTanzania first wrote ADF seeking funding for thenational organization. Later, after ADF explainedthat Malihai’s proposed work with villages wasmore appropriate for funding, he submitted a pro-posal for an improved water supply and reforesta-tion project in Kikatiti. The water project had sev-eral components: a borehole previously dug withAID funds, 4 kilometers away, would be linked tothe village, with separate waterpoints for domesticuse and for livestock. The people would dig thetrenches; ADF funds would provide pipe, electricpump, technical assistance, a motorcycle, and re-pair and spare parts for a van for Malihai Arusha,The forestry component was a small part of thegrant. Since the Tanzanian Forest Department pro-vides seedlings, ADF funds would help build a vil-lage nursery.

ADF awarded the grant to Kikatiti Malihai Clubwith a condition that they develop a maintenanceplan. But following a review by ADF’s auditors,Coopers and Lybrand Tanzania, which showed vil-lage books were 13 months in arrears, ADF decidedto disburse funds to Malihai Arusha. (While tech-nically ADF funds were in a joint account, actualcontrol of these funds was given to the national

organization.) Since the district government waterengineer would not provide services without pay,Malihai Arusha eventually contracted a private firmfor an engineer, who added a 20,000 gallon waterstorage tank to the plans. Thus, much of the con-trol of the project rested in Malihai Arusha, eventhough ADF continued to address its communica-tion to the Kikatiti Chairman. For example, Mali-hai Arusha prepares all quarterly reports. The newADF Country Resource Facilitator lives nearby andhas visited the project often, but his role is limitedto technical matters; he was instructed not to getinvolved in problems related to project man-agement.

The delays in project start-up were in part dueto problems in obtaining engineering services andthe needed equipment (pipes, pump) from Nairobi,Kenya, since the supplies were not available in Tan-zania. The main problem, however, was the longtime it took for the Kikatiti Club to obtain tax ex-empt status needed to import materials tax free. Atthe time of the OTA visit, the trenches had beendug by most of the men in the village on severalSaturdays of collective action, and the pipes hadjust arrived from Nairobi. The pump had not yetarrived, and the storage tank and water points werenot built. Still, public support for the water systemwas high.

However, less support was evident for the forestrycomponent. The nursery near the pond was in poorcondition, the fence broken by cattle, with few smalltrees. Community leaders agreed the nursery wasnot working as planned; but might do better whenthe water supply was completed. ($4,000 in ADFfunds are for a future nursery, perhaps on the samesite.) OTA team members noted that planting treesaround the pond, while it could help protect thepond, would not affect the watershed. Kikatitileaders said most seedlings were planted on indi-vidual plots and denied that women obtained fuel-wood from the national park since it was some dis-tance away.

Kikatiti leaders had no idea how much it wouldcost to maintain the water system (e.g., pay themonthly electric bill, hire someone to oversee thesystem, and set up a fund for eventual replacementof the pump) and noted that during a town meetingmembers had not accepted the monthly fee (about$1.00) proposed by the committee and substituteda $1.25 annual fee per household. Nor did they planto charge fees from users from outside the village.OTA team members were unable to meet with theKikatiti treasurer. Despite repeated requests, OTAteam members were also not able to speak to womenin Kikatiti.

137

Conclusion. —Kikatiti was recognized as a localgovernment when it registered under the Tanzaniagovernment-sponsored ujamaa program. Since thecommunity had successfully completed a numberof on-going projects (e.g., grain mill, cattle dip, andstore) and would have to maintain the water sup-ply, OTA team concluded that (1) a planned disen-gagement of Malihai Arusha from management andfinancial control of the project would have helped;(2) the water should not be connected until Kikatitidevelops an economically feasible plan to sustainthe system. Despite the lack of financial planning,the fact that the community successfully managedother projects and that water was such a criticalneed led the OTA team to conclude that the waterproject would probably be sustained by the people.It was unlikely that the district water officials wouldprovide much support. However, the nursery didnot seem to have strong support, even though manyrecognized the need for more trees. Involvementof women in the committees could have helped.

Within the district, few communities have builttheir own water supply. Since the government ofTanzania does not have the resources to providewater to many rural communities, self-help waterprojects definitely meet a need. However, replica-bility of this system is limited because few villageshave access to the relatively large amount of out-side funds needed for construction, or reliablesources of electricity. Better relations with the dis-trict water officials might help others reduce costsof technical assistance and maintain the system.

The Malihai Club of Tanzania’s plan to help peo-ple who live in buffer areas near the national parksmeet their needs is innovative. But to work moreeffectively with other village development projects,they need to improve their community developmentskills, learn to work in concert with local leaders,and establish a relationship of trust with them.

Njoguini, Giteroo, and K a b a t iSelf-Help Water Project

Organization: NGK Self-Help Water Project Com-mittee

Site: Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati, KenyaActivities: Water supply for domestic use and

irrigated plots.Grant Size: $250,000

The Setting.—The village of Njoguini is locatedbelow the forest in the foothills of Mount Kenya,snowcapped year round. The villages of Gitero andKabati are down in the dry plains which were oncevast wheat farms held by British settlers. Follow-

ing independence in 1963, this area of the highlandswas part of the Million Acre Resettlement schemeintended to compensate white settlers and redistrib-ute their land to African farmers. But public fundsand donor contributions fell short and so privateland buying companies were formed to combine in-dividuals’ savings, purchase large farms, and sub-divide them among the new owners. Gitero was thefirst of the three communities to begin resettlementin the late 1970s. By the early 1980s, 250 familieshad settled on the 350 plots in 3 new communities.Shares were for 1 acre in Njoguini, 2 in Kabati, 3in Gitero; but half the families obtained 3 to 5 acresand a few up to 20, Most of the new settlers wereKikuyu, but about half in Njoguini were Meru.

The Gitero Self-Help Committee was formed in1982 to obtain water needed by the new residents.Before he left, the white settler who had owned thelarge estate sold the windmill that had been theprincipal source of power for the old borehole, theonly water source. The community raised funds torepair the well and diesel pump. A Peace CorpsVolunteer assigned to the adjoining district’s wateroffice put the committee in touch with the U.S. Am-bassadors Self-Help Fund, which provided $10,000to replace the windmill in 1983. But the droughtof 1984 was devastating. Crops failed, three-fourthsof the communities’ cattle died, and the people wereforced to depend on food aid for survival.

The Project.—To better ensure water supplies, thepeople decided to pipe water from a river fed byglaciers on Mount Kenya so that each householdcould have enough water for domestic use, for theirlivestock, and to irrigate I acre of land. The man-agement committee expanded to include sevenelected representatives of each of the three commu-nities, Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati (NGK). The lo-

Photo credit” ADF/Michael Maren

NGK’s first water tank nearing completion in 1986.

138

cal chief and community development assistantwere added as the government’s representatives.Each committee coordinated fundraising and workfor its village and elected representatives to the cen-tral committee. The central committee approachedthe Provincial Water Engineer who began to con-duct a survey and design a gravity-fed water sys-tem and asked the Peace Corp volunteer to preparea proposal to ADF and be the project manager.ADF’s representative suggested that the labor becontributed by the residents, rather than paid bythe grant, The residents began to clear the courseand dug 3 kilometers of trenches by the end of 1984,

In spring 1985, ADF awarded $149,000 for theproject’s first phase and later another $98,000 forthe second two phases. The objectives were to diga 13 kilometer trench for the main trunk line downthe mountain and 18 kilometers of distribution lines;to build two 50,000-gallon storage tanks and an in-take. The design allowed each household to havean individual tap and for 200 acres to be irrigated.ADF funds paid the salaries of the manager and acounterpart who would be trained to manage thesystem, pipes, and materials for the storage tanks.

Each community worked one day a week and allthree worked on Saturdays, when large meetingswere held; committee records show each personworked an average of 115 days. The communityraised money for the intake high in the rainforest(which had to be protected from roving elephants)though harambee fundraisers and a $31 subscrip-tion fee. Large boulders were cracked by warmingthem with fire and then throwing cold water overthem. They received permission for the pipeline tocross the Kenyan Vice President’s very large farmand for the second storage tank to be located on it.District water officials who designed the system su-pervised its construction,

By the time of the OTA visit, the main distribu-tion lines, intake, and two storage tanks were com-plete, and many residents had completed water in-stallation (but not hooked up household water taps)to their farms at their own expense. The trainedcounterpart was supervising the system. About 100to 130 acres were being irrigated. It was unknownif the approximately 100 absentee landowners couldafford the hookup fee ($425) to pay for the 115 daysof labor and the additional costs of bringing the lineto their farms. While the system was designed for200 irrigated acres, some people were irrigating 2or 3 acres, and there are 350 farms. Local exten-sion agents had provided training in irrigated pro-duction prior to arrival of the water, and lush vegeta-ble gardens were in evidence on the irrigated plots.

Women were growing cabbage, pepper, carrots, andtomatoes in the dry season. Cattle were producingmore milk.

There were benefits in addition to increased in-come from the sale of vegetables. Women no longerspend long hours carrying water, and they complainof fewer backaches; children have improved hy-giene, diets, and time to attend school. In addition,land values doubled as a result of the water supply:rising from $625 to $1250 an acre in Gitero (cur-rent land values in Kabati were cited as $750 to $950an acre; in Ngoguini, $1818 an acre).

Bouyed by success, the central management com-mittee plans to build a storage shed to marketvegetables in nearby cities, form a dairy coopera-tive with a milk processing plant, and bring electri-city to the area.

Conclusion. —The OTA team was impressed bothwith the participation of the people and the resultsof their effort. The tri-village management structure,providing a voice for people of different ethnicgroups and geographic areas, could be replicatedin other areas. Other factors fostering participationwere the fact that it is a new settlement without en-trenched social or political factions, a clearly de-fined area, the leaders are perceived to be honest,and the chief had community development training.

The team had some concerns about sustainabil-ity of the project, although the track record of thegroup indicates they will probably meet future chal-lenges. The proposed maintenance charge bears norelation to the costs of repair, replacement, and pay-ment of supervisors of the system. A careful analy-sis of these costs has not yet been done. Nor hasa market analysis been done of the impact of theincreased vegetable production that could result inlower prices. Not much consideration has beengiven to mitigating negative environmental impactsof irrigation on soil fertility, such as waterloggingand erosion. Nor has a soil analysis been done todetermine which areas are more suitable for irriga-tion. Terracing and agroforestry could be con-sidered.

The management committee also needs to planfor competing claims on the system in the future.Residents across the road have complained to lo-cal officials they do not have access to water forirrigation; others have complained of the diversionof their potential water source. Also, householdscurrently irrigating will be reluctant to cut backtheir irrigated acreage once new households comeon line.

According to research by government water offi-cials, only 1 in 15 self-help water projects in Kenya

139

is completed. But few have direct access to the out-side resources that NGK received from ADF. Whilea gravity-fed system is relatively simple, there arelimited sites available for gravity systems in Kenya.Areas for new settlement of entities with the abil-ity to control access to the water and manage itsuse are equally scarce. Still, water and agricultureofficials have looked with interest at NGK, recog-nizing the contribution of the residents was one-third the cost of the project. At least one other com-munity in the district has begun its own waterproject.

Kenya Small Enterprise andCredit Training Project

Organization:

Site:Activities:

Grant Size:

Partnership for Productivity (PfP)/KenyaNairobi and Kakamega, KenyaProvide women’s groups with train-ing and credit for small-scale enter-prises and agricultural inputs,$228,800

The Setting.—Partnership for Productivity(PfP)/Kenya is a private voluntary organizationwhich was started by some American Friends(Quakers) in the Western Province of Kenya in 1969.Since 1975, it has been autonomous with a KenyanBoard of Directors and staff, many of whom areQuakers. Yet PfP/Kenya continued to receive train-ing and other support from the U.S.-based PfPthrough 1986. Its purpose is “to promote both socio-economic development and human potential devel-opment in rural Kenya by focusing on income-generating” projects.

Most activities have been centered in three west-ern provinces, densely populated areas with highrainfall and high potential for rainfed agriculture,Cash crops such as sugar, tea, and coffee are replac-ing production of food crops, especially near LakeVictoria.

PfP’s early efforts were to provide managementassistance to individual small-scale business oper-ators. In 1974, PfP began a rural extension serviceto help small entrepreneurs with legal assistance,training in business management and financialplanning, as well as some specialized assistance inagriculture and energy conserving technologies,Credit was provided to complement the training andtechnical assistance. By 1980, PfP decided to workwith groups so it could reach more people.

In 1981, PfP initiated a successful pilot project,funded by AID’s Women in Development program

and the Ford Foundation, to help rural women be-come more self-sufficient. Since credit and commer-cial institutions in Kenya require land title deeds,traditionally in the name of the husband, as col-lateral for loans, rural women are unable to obtaincredit. PfP provided women with business manage-ment training and access to credit. During the pi-lot project 18 women’s groups received loans, witha loan recovery rate of 90 percent, and 54 groupsreceived farm inputs on credit. PfP demonstratedthat it had developed a methodology that helped im-prove the incomes of rural women.

The Project.—ADF awarded a 2-year grant toPfP/Kenya in 1985, which was later increased to$229,000, to provide: 1) training in credit and busi-ness management to 30 women’s groups in threedistricts and 2) credit to these groups for income-generating projects and agricultural inputs. InitialADF grant funds were to provide for staff salaries,including eight new extension agents, and the creditfund. Since PfP’s Board of Directors consists of 8men and its 5 field supervisors are men, it recruitedwomen extension agents for this program (by 1987,8 of 20 extension agents were women). The ADFgrant was amended to allow the purchase of fourmotorcycles so the agents can visit the women’sgroups more frequently,

At the time of the OTA visit near the end of theADF grant period, about 4,000 women were activein credit groups in western Kenya. PfP had providedtraining and credit to 92 groups, more than threetimes the number projected. Three officers fromeach of the groups had attended special businesstraining workshops sponsored by PfP. The localgroups vary in size from 20 to 45 members and in-clude landless women, heads of households, andnon-literate persons. Although group leaders appearto be more affluent than members, the team did notsee this as a problem, Each group has a constitu-tion and is registered with the Ministry of SocialServices. Building on traditional savings clubs andthe harambee tradition, the groups demonstratedcohesion and the ability to handle complex finan-cial transactions and loan repayments. Most of thewomen understand simple cash flow analysis andnon-literate women have mastered a red-bag/green-bag system of money management, in which theirworking capital is kept in red bags and the surplusin green bags, The records of the 15 groups visitedby OTA team members were clear, up to date andopen to all.

PfP capitalized 50 revolving loan funds with $625each. Since the individual loan size allocated is $62,only 10 women in each group could get loans at first.

140

Each group was expected to show savings of 15 per-cent (about $100) before PfP capitalized the fund.With repayments, monthly savings contributions,and group fundraising, new loans are made as fundsare available. Each group sets its own interest rate,some charging as much as 120 percent interest, sothe loan fund will appreciate more quickly. PfPcharges the market rate, increasing its charge onthe initial loan to the groups to 14 percent. An in-ternal evaluation by PfP in 1986 indicated that re-cipients of these loans have increased their incomeby 30 percent.

The OTA team was particularly interested in theloans for agricultural inputs made to 62 groupswhich received the inputs on credit. Interviews con-firmed the finding of the internal evaluation thatthese loans led to an increase in productivity.

• pre-loan: average yield per acre was 3 to 5 bagsof maize ($45).

Ž post-loan: average yield per acre was 18 bagsof maize ($205).

OTA team members were impressed with the exten-sion advice that combined conservation techniques,such as multicropping, rotation, planting trees,using oxen and contour plowing, with improvedinputs.

OTA found that most of ADF’s $80,000 in thecredit fund had been disbursed and repaid principaland interest had begun to be given out as new credit.If the past track record is any indication, a three-fold multiplier can be expected. However, loanrepayment of the local groups to PfP is currentlylow, especially when compared to past PfP pro-grams. Some 63 percent of the groups were latepayers, though only 3 of every 10 members werelate. The primary reason for the lateness, accord-ing to PfP staff, was that the government nationalmaize buying board had not paid farmers for theirlast season’s crops 6 months after the harvest.

Conclusion.— Informed sources confirmed thatfew, if any, other organizations currently operat-ing in Kenya provide rural credit as well as PfP.OTA team members concluded that project out-comes could be enhanced in two ways. First, PfPcould develop a more coherent strategy for takingits advanced members into higher income-generating activities, either in the formal or infor-mal sector. Second, PfP needs a donor who can as-sist it over an extended period of time in develop-ing ways to be more self-supporting. Currently PfPis in desperate need of outside financing; 94 per-cent of its budget comes from outside donors andthose who funded PfP (e.g., PACT, IBM, Ford, FAO)did not continue their grants ending in 1986-87,

Since early 1987, budget reductions had forced ADFto lay off half of its staff, some of whom had beenwith the organization for years. The only new funderat the time of OTA’s visit was Kenya’s Rural Enter-prise program which channeled AID funds to PfPfor an agricultural service center designed to pro-vide income to PfP.5

The mechanism by which women can get loanswithout collateral depends on their participationin a group. This model, developed in Latin Amer-ica and tested elsewhere, has proven replicable.This is its first use in East Africa, and it is likelyto work elsewhere in Kenya. But whether the funds,and local groups, can maintain themselves withoutPfP oversight is not known.

Poultry-Market Gardon Project

Organization: Boiteko Agricultural ManagementAssociation

Site: Serowe, BotswanaActivities: Vegetable, poultry, and egg pro-

duction.Grant Size: $35,072

The Setting.–The Boiteko Agricultural Manage-ment Association (AMA) conducts a horticulturaland poultry project in the village of Serowe, in east-ern Botswana, approximately 300 kilometers northof the capitol of Gaborone. Nine women and oneman from the village comprise the AMA group thatruns the project, with assistance from a technicalmanager and a financial consultant.

The area surrounding Serowe, known as the hard-veld, is semi-arid. Arable agriculture normally isconstrained by inadequate and variable precipita-tion during most rainfall seasons. In a good year,the area can expect to receive between 400 and 450millimeters of rain. Reliable supplies of water can-not be depended on for any production activity,especially horticulture, and the situation has beenexacerbated by a six year drought that has deci-mated the country’s cereal production,

During the last 3 years, the Ministry of Agricul-ture has strongly encouraged the development ofhorticulture projects as a means of increasing ru-ral employment while decreasing dependence onSouth Africa for the importation of most of the coun-try’s vegetables. The Ministry supports small scaleproducers by limiting the importation of vegetables

51n January 1988, ADF’s Project Review Committee approved a newInstitutional Revolving Credit grant of $248,000 to PfP which addressesboth OTA points.

141

that are grown domestically and by providing tech-nical assistance.

The Project.—The Boiteko project attempts to pro-vide a reliable income source and employment forrural people while providing a reliable source ofvegetables and eggs for the local market withinSerowe.

The Boiteko group has a long history of projectexperience, The present AMA represents the re-maining core of a group started in the early 1970sas a production unit of the Serowe Brigades, a pri-vate vocational training/income generating move-ment started by a teacher from South Africa, PatrickVan Rensburg. The original Boiteko group was in-volved in weaving and vegetable gardening and hadover 100 members, However, with the decline ofthe Serowe Brigades throughout the late 1970s andearly 1980s, and some inappropriate technical assis-tance, the Boiteko group disintegrated.

During 1984, the Southern Region Field Repre-sentative for ADF heard from Van Rensburg, thenthe head of a non-governmental organization, thatthe remaining members of the Boiteko group hadhired a technical advisor and wished to continuetheir horticultural scheme and add an egg layingoperation. The objectives of the group were to pro-vide members with a consistent supply of incomeand provide the village and the group withvegetables,

The group so far has accomplished a great deal.With the original ADF grant, the group has been ableto purchase wire fencing to enclose a 1 hectare plotfor the vegetable and egg production operations aswell as build a chicken house. Other grants froman AID-sponsored appropriate technology projectand from the Canadian University Service Orga-nization provided a windmill for the irrigation bore-hole, a mechanical tiller, and netting for the vegeta-ble nursery. From the proceeds of the project, thegroup pays its members approximately $45 permonth and the members have expanded their oper-ations to include a citrus orchard. The vegetableoperation grosses between $120 and $240 per monthand the egg laying operation between $420 and $540per month.

One recurring problem has been a reliable sourceof water. The windmill, purchased with a grant tothe group, is a prototype for Botswana and has fre-quently broken down. Recently, the group asked forand received from ADF an amendment to theiroriginal grant for a diesel engine pump and irriga-tion piping, which will alleviate their immediatewater supply problems.

The group feels they have accomplished their ob-jectives, but have hope further that the operation

will eventually increase their present incomes, Theyalso hope to become self-sufficient in technical andfinancial management of the project.

Conclusion.—The group and the project both facea potentially very productive future because of thestrength of the group’s organizational and participa-tory structure. Their open style of management andsharing of responsibilities have become models forgroup development in Botswana. The project facessome obstacles because of environmental concernsover the resistance of pests to insecticides and thecompaction of the soil. In addition, the group facessomewhat severe undercapitalization which forceslag periods in production while waiting to replaceinputs.

The most encouraging sign for sustaining theproject is the support the group gets from otherdonors and the Ministry of Agriculture. Boiteko hasbecome a symbol of success for horticultural pro-jects and there appears to be a committed effort toensure its longevity. The ministry hopes thatprojects similar to Boiteko can be replicated, andit appears that other non-governmental groups inthe country are following the model. Other horticul-tural groups have formed in the villages ofRamotswa and Kanye. However, the one powerfulforce of the Boiteko group is its solidarity. Manypeople have commented on the uniqueness of thegroup and it maybe that because of the conditionsunder which it formed and sustained itself, the suc-cess of this project may be difficult to replicate.

Tutume Tractor Hire Project

Organization: Tutume McConnell CommunityTrust

Site: Francistown, BotswanaActivities: Rent tractors for plowing and

hauling.Grant Size: $40,604

The Setting.—The Tutume McConnell Commu-nity Trust is an enterprise of the brigade locatedin Tutume, a village 110 kilometers northeast ofFrancistown, in northeast Botswana. The brigadesare private training programs for school leaverswhich also provide some employment opportuni-ties and sponsor some businesses to cover theircosts. The brigade’s mandate is to provide voca-t i o n a l t r a i n i n g w i t h i n p r o f i t - m a k i n g p r o d u c t i o nu n i t s .

Arable agriculture in Botswana is rarely a ful l t imeo c c u p a t i o n . M o s t h o u s e h o l d s f o l l o w a v e r y d i v e r s es t r a t e g y o f i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n , r e l y i n g o n f o r m a la n d i n f o r m a l e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d l i v e -

142

stock production supplemented by food production.Households face significant constraints because ofthe paucity and variance of rainfall and the lack ofdraught power for plowing. The draught power con-straint severely affects female-headed householdsas they are generally the last to be able to borrowor hire oxen for plowing. Since plowing must betimed to coincide with unpredictable rainfall pat-terns, those who plow last suffer diminished or in-significant harvests.

The government of Botswana has initiated sev-eral programs in attempts to become more self-sufficent in food production. Both of the principleprograms, the Arable Lands Development Program(ALDEP) and the Arable Rainfed Agricultural Pro-gram (ARAP), provide grants and subsidies fordraught power. ALDEP is an on-going program andARAP is a drought relief program intended to en-courage farmers to plow during the drought.

The Project.—In April 1984, the Tutume McCon-nell Trust Brigade proposed a tractor hire schemeas a solution to the draught power constraints offarmers in the Tutume area, The objectives of theproject were to alleviate the shortage of draughtpower, to increase food production in the area, tohaul manure during the season, and haul bricks andsand for the brigades during the off-season. Theproject was intended to improve the agriculturalincomes of the area’s farmers and the operating in-come of the brigade. An amendment to the originalgrant provided for a 10 hectare demonstration plotfor the brigade.

The project has provided plowing for approxi-mately 60 farmers during the initial season of oper-ation. On average, each woman has had approxi-mately 1.8 hectares ploughed and each man 2.4hectares, However, the results of the project mustbe viewed in the light of some of the complicatingfactors, First, the success of the project depends onthe affordability of the tractor service. Presently,ARAP provides any farmer a subsidy of $30 per hec-tare for hiring draught power, The subsidy meansthat during the drought, the Tutume area farmersreceive the tractor service at no monetary cost. Theproject is therefore demand driven based on the sub-sidy offered by the government. In addition, eventhe first farmers who received the service did notget their lands plowed until late December, far intothe agricultural season and decreasing their chancesof realizing a productive harvest.

The project has operated for one agricultural sea-son, The objectives of the brigade have only beenpartially fulfilled: tractor plowing has been providedto several farmers in the area and the brigade hasbeen able to use the tractor to haul materials dur-

ing the off-season. However, there is no evidencethat food production has, or will be, increased be-cause of the project for several reasons. First, thebrigade intends to use the tractor to plow its owndemonstration plot before proceeding to plowfarmers’ fields. Because agricultural production isso dependent on the timing of plowing coincidentwith the start of the rains, it is questionable thatthis pattern will allow any increase in local produc-tion. Second, the brigade has had a serious prob-lem matching the technology to the soil conditionsof the area. A moldboard plow could not be usedsuccessfully because of the predominance of tree-stumps in most of the fields. In switching to a discplow to offset the problem, the upper horizons ofthe soil structure of the plowed fields has beendamaged leaving them susceptible to wind andwater erosion.

Conclusion. —The project appears to be economi-cally sustainable only as long as the subsidy makesthe project affordable to the farmers, Several plan-ners at the district and the national level have com-mented that the subsidy is intended as drought re-lief and will be discontinued in the near future.There is also the question of who will be able to af-ford the plowing services after the removal of thesubsidy. Definitely, the poorer farm householdswere not able to afford such a service before thedrought and it is unlikely that they will be able toafford it in the future.

Environmentally, the project faces an evenbleaker future. Even though the technical problemsleading to increased soil erosion maybe worked out,it is still questionable whether increased farmlandshould be opened up to monocropping in a fragilesemi-arid ecological zone, The removal of trees andthe plowing of large areas of land may have alreadymade the area more susceptible to environmentaldamage.

Organizationally, the project is not sustainable,The farmers receiving the services of the brigadehave no say in the decisionmaking of the projector in the demonstration plot research being con-ducted by the agricultural unit of the brigade. Thistop-down form of consultation does not allow in-put from the farmers and makes later field trials ir-relevant with respect to meeting the needs offarmers. There is no learning or process of groupempowerment, as no primary groups exist.

Finally, the project has passed on the large riskof farming in a semi-arid environment to thefarmers, Any increase in soil erosion, or financialrisk due to planting increased hectarage, is passedon through ADF and the brigades to the rural house-holds. Past demonstration tractor hire schemes in

143

Botswana have not increased agricultural produc-tion sufficiently to cover the costs of production.

At present the project appears to be replicable be-cause the brigades and other NGOS have embracedthe idea and are promoting it. At least two otherbrigades in Botswana have expressed interest in atractor hire scheme in their area. As long as the sub-sidy remains, such a project has the potential fortremendous popularity. However, the question hereis not “Can the project be replicated?” but “Shouldthe project be replicated?” From available evidenceand past experience in Botswana, the answer ap-pears to be negative.

Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea Project

Organization:Site:

Activities:

Grant Size:

Agricultural Finance CorporationH o n d e a n d P u n g w e V a l l e y s ,ZimbabweRevolving credit fund for coffee andtea production.$101,537

The Setting.—After independence in 1980, thegovernment of Zimbabwe faced the difficult taskof restructuring the rural economy of the countryto provide services to the African smallholders pre-viously excluded from participating in economicdevelopment. Agricultural production in pre-independent Zimbabwe favored the large-scale com-mercial sector and institutionally the delivery of in-puts and services was directed toward the largerfarmers, The present objective is to provide accessto inputs and services for the smallholding low-resource farmers of the country.

The Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) ofZimbabwe is a parastatal credit institution that wasfounded to provide loans for agricultural activities.Previously, its experience was mostly with t helarger commercial agricultural sector. For the lastseven years, the AFC has been redirecting its at-tention to provide loans to smallholders for bothmarketable food and cash crop production. Theymake loans available for the short-, medium-, andlong-term for crop production expenses includingland preparation, the purchase of fertilizers andchemicals, harvesting, transportation and mar-keting.

The Project.—The ADF funds for the ZimbabweTea and Coffee Project allowed the group to estab-lish a revolving credit fund for the production o ftea and coffee by smallholders in the Honde andPungwe Valleys of eastern Zimbabwe, The Hondeand Pungwe Valleys stretch from the N y a n g a -Mutare road northeast to the Mozambique border.

The area provides a favorable region for the pro-duction of tea and coffee in addition to severaldifferent food crops.

The AFC has two important credit schemes in thevalleys, one of which is funded with European Eco-nomic Community funds and the other financed byADF. The ADF project provided medium- to long-term loans for the purchase of tea and coffee seed-lings, and expenses related to land preparation andfertilizers and chemicals. Initially, approximately144 farmers received loans of approximately $600spread out over 3 years. The interest rate chargedis 13 percent per year. The projected numbers offarmers to receive loans under the revolving creditfund are 214 in 1986-87 and 383 in 1987-88. In to-tal, there are 500 farm households in the area.

Because both tea and coffee take a number ofyears to mature, no returns to the farmers have beenmeasured. Estimates made by the AFC and AGRI-TEX, the government agricultural research and ex-tension agency, anticipate returns per farmer of ap-proximately $700 to $1,000 per heciare per year fortea and a higher return for coffee. With the averagesize of a combined tea/coffee plot being one hec-tare per household, the expectations are that eachhousehold will be able to repay the loan starting inyear 3 or 4 and have a reasonable profit.

The project has not been able to yet recover thevalue of the loans because they are not yet due forrepayment. However, it is anticipated that there willbe a high repayment rate because of the favorableconditions under which the farmers operate, be-cause of the potentially high returns for coffee, andbecause the AFC will be repaid directly by the mar-keting societies before the farmers receive anyreturns from the sale of crops.

Conclusion. —The possibility of sustainability forthis project is relatively high. Economically, thefunds are being used to support fairly high-valuecash crops. As long as coffee prices paid to thefarmers offset the depressed price of tea, theprospects for increased income and for the contin-uance of the revolving credit scheme are high. How-ever, it is not clear if the economic feasibility plansof the project accurately reflect the changing con-ditions for the marketing of these cash crops. In thearea, several farmers who have long-term experi-ence with the production of tea have had to sell foodcrops to repay AFC loans.

The project has increased the potential of or-ganizational sustainability at the primary coopera-tive level and for the AFC. The cooperatives asso-ciated with the project appear very democratic andparticipatory, except possibly with respect towomen’s access to the project. As institutions, they

144

have experienced substantial empowerment be-cause of their involvement in the production of teaand coffee.

The AFC has also benefited from the shift in em-phasis from the large-scale commercial to the small-holder sector. The ADF funds contributed to sus-taining this shift, but did not produce the majorincentive for it.

Environmentally, the replacement of food cropsgrown on steep slopes by the more soil-protectingtea crop benefits soil conservation. However, it isnot clear how the continuing shift from tea to cof-fee will affect the degree of groundcover in the area.Alternatively, little or no research has been doneon the possibility of intercropping the tree cropswith food crops for soil conservation. There has alsobeen no analysis of the potential for surface andground water contamination (or the potential for in-creased incidence of health problems) caused bythe increased use of pesticides in the area.

The last issue of sustainability involves the lackof monitoring being done by the AFC, ADF, or theprimary organizations. The AFC is attempting toincrease their computer capability to track loansand recipients, but they must also ensure that datais collected on who is being served and the impactson the target group.

The AFC revolving credit scheme for tea and cof-fee production has little potential for replicabilityin the rest of Zimbabwe because of the specific eco-logical conditions necessary for the production ofthese crops. However, the lessons learned by theAFC with regard to repayment procedures and thesuccess of the primary groups could be adapted forother crops and situations within Zimbabwe. Thisproject has the potential for a significant impact onthe income levels of low-resource farmers and forthe growth of indigenous institutions involved inimproving access to previously excluded portionsof the farming sector, but efforts must be made tobuild in monitoring procedures that allow organi-zations to determine the populations actually be-ing served and the benefits to them.

Silveira House Development Fund

Organization: Silveira HouseSite: Nine communities, ZimbabweActivities: Dressmaking cooperative; animal

and storage facilities; store; farm in-puts and equipment.

Grant Size: $20,808

The Setting.—Zimbabwe contains a plethora ofnon-governmental organizations (NGOS) involved

Women learn dressmaking as part of theSilveira House Project

in rural development. Some are non-denomina-tional, while others are religiously based. One ofthe more respected religious-based institutions isSilveira House. It began as an institution in 1964with the major objective being to provide a placewhere people could gather to discuss political is-sues. In 1970, Silveira House started an agriculturalprogram centered around groups using the tradi-tional nimbe cooperative labor group for organiz-ing purposes. Within several years their activitiesexpanded to cover over 500 groups within theirdiocese.

Silveira House derives most of its present budgetfrom lay contributions solicited by institutions rep-resentative of the German Catholic Bishops (MIS-EREOR) and from funds awarded by a Dutch Cath-olic development organization (C EBEMO). Its totalbudget is approximately $500,000 per year. Theiragricultural program is one of the most expensive,approximately $120,000 per year.

The Project.—In 1983, the director of SilveiraHouse felt that a discretionary fund would be a use-ful method of providing loans and grants to com-munities for small-scale projects. This fund wouldallow rapid responses to groups’ and communities’needs. ADF approached Silveira House at the sug-gestion of an Oxfam staff member familiar with theidea, and in March 1985, ADF gave a grant for$15,510. Subsequent grant amendments brought thetotal up to $20,808.

With the ADF money, Silveira House has pro-vided funds for dressmaking cooperatives, livestockdip tanks, piggery construction, the stocking of acommunity store, building sheds for the storage offarm inputs, and purchase of farm inputs and proc-essing equipment, In all, groups from 10 commu-nities are scheduled to be assisted with ADF funds.

The results so far have been concentrated in nineof the communities and interest-free loans havebeen made totaling approximately $8,000. The re-maining monies of the discretionary fund will bedispersed when the groups’ projects are ready forfunding. An additional $3,298 is budgeted for thepurchase of a motorcycle for the agricultural fieldstaff; however, some problems with the transfer offunds between the ADF and Silveira House havedelayed its purchase.

ConcIusion.— Silveira House remains one of themost stable and respected NGOS in Zimbabwe, thusensuring the sustainability of the group beyond theend of the project. It is also likely that because ofthe training and organizing skills transferred fromSilveira House to local communities that the recip-ient groups will continue to prosper after the ADFfunds have been used. Finally, the activity of arevolving credit scheme being funded by ADF en-courages the sustainability of the project’s activities.

Several pros and cons of this use of ADF fundsare apparent. The advantages are those of sustaina-bility listed above, plus the probability that the fundsare being used by an institution with a mandate sim-

145

ilar to ADF’s. Silveira House has a strong trainingprogram and works closely with government groupdevelopment programs and the groups themselvesto strengthen local institutions. However, little dataexist to suggest that the target groups reached bySilveira House represent the poorer segments of thecommunities. Of the several activities visited by theOTA teams, for example, the piggery project atMwanza and the cattle dip in Chishawasha, prin-cipally benefited the more affluent small farmers,those who could afford the entry fee for the piggeryproject and those who owned cattle. Another con-cern is that some of the projects encourage womento learn traditional skills such as dressmaking whichare less remunerative than agricultural activities.

On the positive side, Silveira House has a fairlylarge and consistent budget commitment of whichthe ADF grant is a very small portion, Were the ADFfunds not available, Silveira House most likelywould have been able to secure funds for the dis-cretionary credit scheme from other sources, Whenthe ADF grant is disbursed, Silveira House willlikely be able to use its contacts with other donorsto raise additional funds.

Appendix C

Desk Reviewers, Participants in theMethods Workshop, and Members of

OTA Field Assessment Teams

Desk Reviewers

“Aspects of Participation in Projects Funded by theAfrican Development Foundation” by

Dr. Virginia DeLanceyAssociate ProfessorInstitute of International StudiesUniversity of South CarolinaFort Jackson, SC

“Consultant’s Report to OTA” byDr. Peter J. MatIonPrincipal EconomistInternational Crops Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)I-Iyderabad, India

“Desk and Office Review of ADF Activities:Renewable Resource Technologies” by

Dr. Fred R. WeberOwner and ManagerInternational Resources Development and

Conservation ServicesBoise, ID

Participants in the Methods Workshop

Ms. OluBanke AkereleDeputy DirectorU.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)New York, NY

Dr. George HonadleConsultantRockville, MD

Ms. Caroline PezzullopresidentCaroline Pezzullo AssociatesNew York, NY

Members of Field Assessment Teams

West Africa Team: Niger and Senegal

Team Leader:Mr. George ScharffenbergerConsultantWashington, DC

Team Members:Dr. Judith A. CarneyConsultantBerkeley, CA

Ms. Marthe Doka DiarraChiefDepartment of SociologyInstitute for Research in the Human Sciences

(IRSH)Niamey, Niger

Ms. Anne Mendy-CorreaConsultantDakar, Senegal

Mr. James W. RughConsultantSevierville, TN

East Africa Team: Tanzania and Kenya

Team Leader:Ms. Kathy DesmondConsultantArlington, VA

Team Members:Dr. Haidari AmaniSenior LecturerDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of Dar es SalaamDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Dr. Shirley BuzzardConsultantTakoma Park, MD

146

147

Dr. Gideon-Cyrus MutisoMutiso Consultants, Ltd. (Development Man-

agement)Nairobi, Kenya

Mr. Emery RoeAssistant to the DirectorSurvey Research CenterUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA

Southern Africa Team Botswana andZimbabwe

Team Leader:Dr. Scott McCormickEnvironmental AnalystAssociates in Rural DevelopmentBurlington, VT

Team Members:Dr. George HonadleConsultantRockville, MD

Ms. Yvonne MerafeSenior Rural SociologistMinistry of AgricultureGaborone, Botswana

Dr. Anita SpringAssociate DeanCollege of Liberal Arts and SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL

Mr. Lovegot TendenguPrincipalChibero Agricultural CollegeNorton, Zimbabwe

Field TeamThe Assessment

Appendix D

Methods:Materials

Appendix D contains the forms used by the OTA field teams in their assessments of participation,results, sustainability, and replicability in 12 ADF projects; for their assessment of ADF’s country pro-grams; and for their assessment of ADF concerning congressional options.

148

149

PROJECT COVER SHEET(To be f i l l e d o u t f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d i n i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p r o j e c tm a n a g e r s , c r o s s - c h e c k e d w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m o t h e r s . )

1 . P r o j e c t N a m e s t a r t d a t e :

Organizat ion N a m e s t a r t d a t e :

2 . Amount of money received to date f rom ADF: US $

O t h e r f u n d i n g s o u r c e s o f p r o j e c t / a m o u n t / p u r p o s e :

O t h e r f u n d i n g s o u r c e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n / a m o u n t / p u r p o s e :

P e r c e n t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s b u d g e t r e c e i v e d f r o m A D F :

3. N u m b e r a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p e r s o n s i n v o l v e dT o t a l N o s . A v e r a g e i n c o m e l e v e l / o c c u p a t i o n

m a l e f e m a l e male f e m a l e

B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s

S t a f f ( o f p r o j e c t )

S t a f f ( o f o r g a n i z a t i o n )

Member s o f o rgan i za t i on

P r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s

B e n e f i c i a r i e s

Community

Comments:

4. Who makes major decis ions?B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s O f f i c e r s o t h e r ( s p e c i f y )● h o w s e l e c t e d ? : e l e c t e d ' a p p o i n t e d , assumed• frequency of meetings:• minutes of meetings: y e s no

5. S t a f f v i e w o f p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e s ( i n p r i o r i t y o r d e r )a .

b .

150

c .

D o p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ v i e w o f o b j e c t i v e s d i f f e r f r o m s t a f f ’ s ? y e s no I fSO, h o w ?

6. L i s t r e c o r d s k e p t ( e g . , m e e t i n g m i n u t e s , f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s ) a n d r a t e

q u a l i t y ( e x c e l l e n t , a d e q u a t e , p o o r ) . E x p l a i n r a t i n g .

7 . L i s t p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n s ( o f p r o j e c t a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , b y w h o m a n d w h e n

8. L i s t a n y d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m d a t a o n c h a r t ( A D F F u n d e d P r o j e c t s : S e p t e m b e r1 9 8 4 t h r u S e p t e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 8 6 )

9. Rela t i onsh ip w i th ADF

● When and how d id t he o rgan i za t i on come in con t ac t w i th ADF?

● n u m b e r o f A D F v i s i t s i n l a s t y e a r

● v i s i t s b y w h o m ?

● W h a t d o r e c i p i e n t s f i n d h e l p f u l a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h A D F ?

• What do recipients think could be improved?

10. N o t e s r e : i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s a n d r e l i a b i l i t y o f d a t a o n t h i s f o r m .

151

WORKSHEET 1 -– MINIMUM DATA SET: PARTICIPATION

Name o f p ro j ec t :

1. W h o i s d e f i n e d a s a p a r t i c i p a n t ? W h o i s d e f i n e d a p r o j e c t b e n e f i c i a r y( i f d i f f e r e n t f r o m p a r t i c i p a n t s ) ?

2 . N u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s ( u n d e r e a c h c a t e g o r y ) o f p r o j e c t m a n a g e m e n t t o t h ef o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :

H o w m a n y p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s , , . . .a ) m o s t , b ) h a l f , c ) v e r y f e w , d ) n o n e

( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d )

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

i d e n t i f i e d t h e n e e dp r o p o s e d t h e a c t i v i t i e su n d e r s t a n d t h e p r o j e c tc o n t r i b u t e l a b o rc o n t r i b u t e m a t e r i a lc o n t r i b u t e m o n e yr e c e i v e b e n e f i t ss h a r e i n d e c i s i o n ss h a r e i n e v a l u a t i o na r e o n p r o j e c t c o m m i t t e e s

3 . N u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s ( y e s a n d n o ) o f p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h e f o l l o w i n gq u e s t i o n s o n t h e c h e c k l i s t f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s :

Yes No

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

p a r t i c i p a t e d i n d e s i g np a r t i c i p a t e d i n e v a l u a t i o nh a v e a c c e s s t o p r o j e c t r e c o r d sc o u l d b e a n o f f i c e h o l d e rh a v e e l e c t i o n s f o r o f f i c e r sn e w p e o p l e g e t e l e c t e de f f o r t s t o g e t n e w p e o p l e i n v o l v e du s u a l l y a g r e e w i t h l e a d e r s ’ d e c i s i o n ss o m e g r o u p s h a v e m o r e i n f l u e n c e

If yes , who and why?

Comments on data:

152

4. W h o o r i g i n a t e d t h e p r o j e c t ?

l o c a l l e a d e r ( t y p e : )l oca l i nd igenous PVOi n t e r m e d i a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n

c h u r c h indigenous PVO ( r e g i o n a l , n a t i o n a l )

p a r a s t a t a l f o r p r o f i tADFo t h e r ( s p e c i f y )

5. E v i d e n c e o f c h a n g e s i n p r o j e c t d i r e c t i o n d u e t o p a r t i c i p a n t / b e n e f i c i a r yi n p u t : y e s n o . I f y e s , g i v e e x a m p l e s

6. S p e c i f i c b e n e f i t s t o p a r t i c i p a n t s ( e . g . , c a s h , i n k i n d ) a s a r e s u l t o fa c t i v i t y

B e n e f i t N o . o f p a r t i c i p a n t s Ave rage va lue / amt(men) (women) (men) (women)

a .

b .

c*

7 . Specif ic contr ibut ions of par t ic ipants (e.g., cash, labor) materials) toa c t i v i t i e s

C o n t r i b u t i o n N o . c o n t r i b u t i n g Average va lue / amt(men) (women) (men) (women)

a .

b .

8 . N u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s o f n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s t o q u e s t i o n s o n c h e c k l i s t :Yes No

● f a m i l i a r w i t h p r o j e c t● w e r e i n v i t e d t o b e i n p r o j e c t● b e n e f i t f r o m t h e p r o j e c t● c o u l d j o i n t h e p r o j e c t n o w● f e e l b e n e f i t s d i s t r i b u t e d f a i r l y

S u m m a r y o f r e a s o n s p e r s o n s a re no t p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d / o r w h y t h e y t h i n kp r o j e c t i s u n f a i r .

—

153

9. M e e t i n g s / a c t i v i t i e s i n p a s t y e a r ( n a m e o f g r o u p , c o m m i t t e , e t c . )

Date Type o f mee t i ng N o . a t t e n d i n g N o . p o s s i b l e M i n u t e s / d e c i s i o n s( M ) ( F ) ( M ) ( F ) r e f l e c t i n p u t ( Y , N )

Number at meeting with OTA team: men , womenp e r c e n t s p e a k i n g : men , women

10. P e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g r o l e o f o u t s i d e r s ( i n t e r v i e w p r o j e c t s t a f f / l e a d e r s )R a t i n g : 1 ) h e l p f u l ; 2 ) i n e f f e c t i v e 3 ) h a r m f u l

a . T e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e r sType O r g a n i z a t i o n Comments on TA relat ionship A v e r a g e r a t i n g

e f f e c t i v e n e s s1)

2 )

3)

b. O t h e r o u t s i d e r s

Comments

11. F o r p r o j e c t s o f i n t e r m e d i a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s

a . N o . o f s u b g r o u p s r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e a s r e s u l t o f p r o j e c tb . How a re t hey s e l ec t ed?

c . Subgroups’ r e l a t i o n t o i n t e r m e d i a r y o o r g a n i z a t i o n :● r e p r e s e n t e d o n b o a r d o f i n t e r m e d i a r y ( y e s ) ( n o )● f r e q u e n c y o f c o n t a c t : t i m e s p e r Who madec o n t a c t ?

● c h a n g e a d o p t e d i n i n t e r m e d i a r y g r o u p p r o g r a m d u e t o i n p u t f r o ms u b g r o u p s : ( y e s ) ( n o ) e . g .

Comments

12 . O t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n :

154

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PARTICIPATION

N a m e o f p r o j e c t

1. In w h a t w a y s a n d t o w h a t e x t e n t h a v e i n t e n d e d b e n e f i c i a r i e s p a r t i c i p a t e di n t h i s p r o j e c t ? A s s e s s f a c t o r s f o s t e r i n g a n d l i m i t i n g t h a tp a r t i c i p a t i o n .

2 . A r e t h e p o o r e s t o n e - t h i r d a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m ? Have anyg r o u p s b e e n e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e p r o j e c t ? I f so , why and how?

3* H o w e q u i t a b l y h a v e b e n e f i t s a n d c o s t s b e e n d i s t r i b u t e d ?

4. W h a t s p e c i f i c m e a s u r e s o r a c t i o n s w o u l d e n h a n c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f p r o j e c tp a r t i c i p a n t s / b e n e f i c i a r i e s ? H o w can the impac t o f t he se measu re s onp a r t i c i p a t i o n b e m o n i t o r e d a n d m e a s u r e d ?

5* H a s t h e l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f f e c t e d p r o j e c t i m p a c t ( r e s u l t s ,s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d r e p l i c a b i l i t y ) ? D e s c r i b e .

155

WORKSHEET 2-–MINIMUM DATA SET: RESULTS

Name o f p ro j ec t :

10. P r i n c i p l e g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s d e l i v e r e d b y p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n s t o d a t e :

o u t p u t Amount/Value I n t e n d e d Da ta Sou rce( y e s / n o )

a .

b .

co

d .

2. W h a t i n t e n d e d o u p u t s h a v e n o t b e e n a c h i e v e d ?

am

b .

3. I s t h e r e a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e b e t t e r o f f t h a n n o n -p a r t i c i p a n t s a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s p r o j e c t ? I f SO, g i v e d e t a i l s . Arec e r t a i n g r o u p s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ( e . g . , e l i t e s ) b e n e f i t i n g m o r e t h a no t h e r s ?

4. S u m m a r y o f p e r c e p t i o n s o f i n c r e a s e d w e l f a r e a m o n g p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d n o n -p a r t i c i p a n t b e n e f i c i a r i e s ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) i n t e r v i e w e d . ( G i v e n u m b e r s ) .

P a r t i c i p a n t s N o n - p a r t i c i p a n t b e n e f i c i a r i e sMen Women Men Women

F e e l p r o j e c t w i l l m a k ethem much be t t e r o f f

F e e l p r o j e c t w i l l m a k et h e m a l i t t l e b e t t e r o f f

F e e l p r o j e c t w o n ’ t h e l pthem o r w i l l make wor se

H o w w e r e d a t a o b t a i n e d ( e . g . , g r o u p o r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s ) .

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 6

5. H o w has t he p ro j ec t documen ted r e su l t s ? How comple t e i s t he i n fo rma t ion?*

6 . C h a n g e i n n u m b e r o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s m e m b e r s ( a n d / o r p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s )s i n c e p r o j e c t b e g a n . G i v e n u m b e r s o f n e w p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d d r o p o u t s .P r o v i d e d a t a s o u r c e .

7* L i s t s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e o f o u t c o m e s ( i m p a c t s , r e s p o n s e s , w h a t p e o p l e a r ed o i n g d i f f e r e n t l y ) t h a t c a n b e r e l a t e d t o p r o j e c t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o ro u t p u t s .

Outcome I n t e n d e d Da ta Sou rce(Y) (N)

a . Economic

b . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

c* S o c i a l

d . E n v i r o n m e n t a l

e . L o c a l o r n a t i o n a l p o l i c y

f* T e c h n i c a l

8. O t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g r e s u l t s :

757

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT RESULTS

N a m e o f p r o j e c t

1 . T o w h a t d e g r e e ( h i g h o r l o w ) i s t h e p r o j e c t a c c o m p l i s h i n g i t s s t a t e do b j e c t i v e s ? Why?

2 . H o w d o e s p r o j e c t p e r f o r m a n c e c o m p a r e t o t h a t o f s i m i l a r p r o j e c t s b y o t h e rgroups?

3. What might have happened had there not been ADF support?

4 . W h a t a r e t h e k e y f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o j e c t o u t c o m e s o r e f f e c t s ?

a .b .c .d .e .f .

economico r g a n i z a t i o n a ls o c i a le n v i r o n m e n t a ll o c a l / n a t i o n a l p o l i c yt e c h n i c a l

5. How could project outcomes be enhanced?

158

WORKSHEET 3 -- MINIMUM DATA SET: SUSTAINABILITY

Name o f p ro j ec t :

1.

2*

30

a .

b .

c .

d .

e .

f .

g .

h .

W a s t h e r e p r o j e c t a c t i v i t y b e f o r e t h e A D F g r a n t ? Yes NoI f s o , w h a t ?

I s t h e A D F f u n d e d a c t i v i t y i n t e n d e d t o c o n t i n u e a f t e r g r a n t ?

P r o j e c t a n d g r o u p ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) h a s :P r o j e c t Group Comments

( y ) ( N ) (Y , N , N A)S t r a t e g y t o m a i n t a i n l e a d e r -s h i p , m e m b e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,g r o u p c o h e s i o n

S t r a t e g y t o c o p e w i t h n e g a -t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s

S t r a t e g y t o c o p e w i t h n e g a -t i v e s o c i a l i m p a c t s

P l a n t o m a i n t a i n a c t i v i t yf i n a n c i a l l y / e c o n o m i c a l l y a f t e rA D F g r a n t ( e g , r e c u r r e n t c o s t s )

I f s m a l l - s c a l e e n t e r p r i s e- - m a r k e t a n a l y s i s- - b u s i n e s s p l a n

T r a i n i n g p r o g r a m--management- - t e c h n i c a l- - f i n a n c i a l

Strategy to gain access totechnical assistance/know-how

P l a n t o d o o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s

i . S t r a t e g y t o d e a l w i t h p o t e n t i a lo p p o s i t i o n t o p r o j e c t / g r o u p

159

j. S t r a t e g y t o m o b i l i z e a n d g e n e r a t ecomplemen ta ry r e sou rce s

4 . E v i d e n c e o f a d a p t a t i o n i n p r o j e c t d e s i g n / g r o u p o r g a n i z a t i o n ( o b j e c t i v e s ,a c t i v i t i e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , e t c . ) i n r e s p o n s e t o c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s

What Why

b .

c .

5 . R e s o u r c e s c r i t i c a l t o c o n t i n u a t i o n o f p r o j e c t / e f f o r t a n d s o u r c e ( l o c a l ,n a t i o n a l , e x t e r n a l )

6 . P r o s p e c t s f o r c o n t i n u e d s u p p o r t o f p r o j e c t a c t i v i t y . O r , i f p r o j e c t i sn o t i n t e n d e d t o c o n t i n u e , p r o s p e c t s f o r o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s b y t h e g r o u p .

7 . O t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s u s t a i n a b i l i t y :

160

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

N a m e of project

1. W h a t s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s i n d i c a t e t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t p r o j e c t o u t c o m e s( e c o n o m i c / f i n a n c i a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l / s o c i a l , e n v i r o n m e n t a l ,t e c h n o l o g i c a l , p o l i c y o u t c o m e s ) w i l l b e s u s t a i n e d o v e r t i m e ? Wha t a r ec o n s t r a i n t s t o s u s t a i n a b i l i t y ?

2 . W h a t s p e c i f i c c h a n g e s w o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f s u s t a i n a b l eoutcomes? How can they be monitored by ADF?

3. T o w h a t e x t e n t h a s t h e p r o j e c t c h a n g e d l o c a l t e c h n o l o g i e s a n d m a n a g e m e n t ,a n d w h a t i n f l u e n c e d o e s t h a t h a v e o n p r o j e c t / g r o u p c o n t i n u a t i o n ?

161

N a m e o f p r o j e c t

WORKSHEET 4 -- MINIMUM DATA SET: REPLICABILITY

1. p r o m i s i n g p r o j e c t e l e m e n t s ( t e c h n o l o g i e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p r o c e s s , e t c . ) :

Element I n n o v a t i v e C o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r w i d e r u s e( y ) (N)

a .

b.

c .

Comments:

2 . I n c i d e n c e o f a d o p t i o n o f s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t m e t h o d s o r t e c h n o l o g i e s a m o n gn o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s

What Who Where

3 . E f f o r t s m a d e b y t h e g r o u p o r A D F t o s p r e a d k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d ( e . g . , r a d i o ,n e w s p a p e r , c o n f e r e n c e s , e x c h a n g e v i s i t s )

a . b y p r o j e c t

b . by ADF

c* b y o t h e r s

4 . O t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g r e p l i c a b i l i t y :

162

ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT REPLICABILITY

N a m e o f p r o j e c t

1. W h a t p r o m i s i n g p r o j e c t e l e m e n t s ( e . g . , p r o c e s s , o r g a n i z a t i o n m o d e ,t e c h n o l o g i e s ) a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o o t h e r g r o u p s a n d / o r t of u r t h e r a c t i v i t i e s b y t h i s g r o u p ? W h y ?

2 . W h i c h o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s a r e i n n o v a t i v e c o m p a r e d t o t h o s e u s e d i n o t h e rp r o j e c t s a d d r e s s i n g s i m i l a r i s s u e s o r s i t u a t i o n s ?

3 . W h a t e f f e c t s ( i f a n y ) h a v e t h e r e b e e n ( o r a r e t h e r e l i k e l y t o b e ) o u t s i d et h e l o c a l e o f t h e A D F - f u n d e d p r o j e c t ? How can t he se e f f ec t s be enhanced?

4 . W h a t l e s s o n s h a v e b e e n l e a r n e d ( b y A D F , p r o j e c t m a n a g e r s , p a r t i c i p a n t s ,a n d o t h e r s ) f r o m t h i s p r o j e c t ?

163

COUNTRY PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

( T e a m r e s p o n s e s b a s e d o n a l l p r o j e c t d a t a , o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d i n t e r v i e w sr e l e v a n t t o A D F p r o g r a m i n t h i s c o u n t r y ) .

Name

1.

2 .

3 .

4 .

5*

6 .

o f C o u n t r y :

Wha t i s you r ove ra l l a s s e s smen t o f ADF in ? What impacti s i t h av ing on soc i a l and economic deve lopmen t and how cou ld i t b eenhanced?

I s t h e r e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o j e c t s y o u v i s i t e d a r e / a r e n o t t y p i c a l o fo t h e r A D F p r o j e c t s i n t h e c o u n t r y ? E x p l a i n .

W h a t i s A D F ’ s t r a c k r e c o r d i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r d o n o r s ?

W h a t a l t e r n a t i v e p r o j e c t ( s ) m i g h t t h e s a m e f u n d s h a v e s u p p o r t e d w h i c hc o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n g r e a t e r i m p a c t s a l o n g t h e l i n e s o f A D F ’ s m a n d a t e ?

D o e s A D F a p p e a r t o r e s p o n d t o r e a l n e e d s ?

I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g u n i q u e o r d i f f e r e n t a b o u t A D F ? Comment on thee f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h a t c o n t r i b u t i o n .

—

164

CONGRESSIONAL ASSESMENT

Name of team member:

1 . O n the basis of a l l you have learned, w o u l d y o u r e c o m m e n d t h a t A D F ’ sf u n d i n g l e v e l b e i n c r e a s e d , d e c r e a s e d o r r e m a i n t h e s a m e ? W h y ?

2 . Wha t a r e you r spec i f i c r ecommenda t ions f o r i m p r o v i n g A D F ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e ?( YO U m a y i n c l u d e c h a n g e s i n A D F i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h el e g i s l a t i o n a s w e l l a s c h a n g e s i n t h e L e g i s l a t i o n . ) L i s t a s m a n y a s y o uw i s h , a n d i n d i c a t e y o u r p r i o r i t i e s .

3 . W h a t l e s s o n s c a m e o u t o f t h e A D F a s s e s s m e n t t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t t o o t h e ragenc i e s (AID , U . S . P V O S , o t h e r s ) w o r k i n g i n A f r i c a n d e v e l o p m e n t ?

Appendix E

Field Interviews

The OTA field teams interviewed ADF staff in Africa and spoke with nearly 800 people associatedwith the 12 projects visited. Project managers, participants, staff and board members of funded organiza-tions provided OTA with a great deal of information about their activities. While too numerous to list,they all have our appreciation. The directors of the 12 projects are listed here.

WEST AFRICA

Mr. Macao bii GaoChief

Dakoro Herders CooperativeDakoro, Niger

Mr. Diallo MoctarPresident

Agricultural Society of DagnareNiamey, Niger

Mr. Samba Der GayeCoordinator

youth Association of Ross BethioRoss Bethio, Senegal

Mr. Demba DiaAnimator

Union KaouralMedina Koundie, Senegal

EAST AFRICA

Mr. Phares MakauProgramme Coordinator

Planning and Development CommitteeDiocese of MorogoroMorogoro, Tanzania

Mr. Andrew PeppettaGeneral Manager

Partnership for Productivity/KenyaNairobi, Kenya

Mr. Lawrence MurageChairman

NGK Water Project CommitteeNaro Moru, Kenya

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Mr. Ditshwanelo MakwatiProject Manager

Boiteko Agricultural Marketing AssociationSerowe, Botswana

Mr. Bigboy ChavaphiBrigade Coordinator

Tutume McConnell Development TrustFrancistown, Botswana

Mr. Clem MachingaifaProvincial Manager

Agricultural Finance CorporationMutare, Zimbabwe

Mr. A.K. Ayo Fr. Harold Barry, S.J.chairman Executive Director

Kikatiti Village Council Silveira HouseKikatiti. Tanzania Harare, Zimbabwe

165

166

The field teams also met with others in Africa who are not associated with ADF or the 12 ADF-fundedprojects visited. These included officials of the host governments, U.S. and other development assistanceagencies as well as representatives of private organizations. This group of interviewees is listed here.

WEST AFRICA

NIGERMr. Boubakar Ali

Deputy PrefectDakoro, Niger

Mr. Mahamadou IssakaChief of Livestock Service

Mr. Idi GonhahDakoro Co-operatives Officer

Mr. Salisou IlliassouDakoro Representative

Ministry of PlanningDakoro, Niger

Mr. Amadou Seini MagaPrefect

Maradi, Niger

Mr. Sani BakoMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Abdoulaye Moumouni DjermakoyeDirector of International Organizations andConferences

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and CooperationNiamey, Niger

Mr. A. El Hadji HabibouMinister of Agriculture

Mr. DourahamaneSecretary General

Ministry of AgricultureNiamey, Niger

Mr. Hamid AlgabitPrime Minister

Niamey, Niger

Mr. Hama AbadouDirector of Office of Head of State

Niamey, Niger

Mr. Almoustapha SoumalaMinister

Mr. Tankari AbdouDeputy Director, Regional Development andSmall Projects

Mr. Abdou GaladimaSmall Projects DivisionMinistry of PlanningNiamey, Niger

Ms. Cathy TilfordRegional Technical Advisor

Mr. Doug SteinburgForestry Program

CARENiamey, Niger

Mr. Richard W. BogosianU.S. Ambassador

Mr. Joseph SaloomDeputy Chief of Mission

Ms. Cynthia AknettehEconomic Officer

U.S. EmbassyNiamey, Niger

Ms. Lynne GrayDirector

Mr. Mamadou IssaDeputy Director

Mr. David BlainAssociate Director

Peace CorpsNiamey, Niger

Ms. Carol BeckwithAnthropologist/Photographer

Niamey, Niger

Mr. Dayton MaxwellActing AID Director

Mr. John HeermansForestry Consultant, Forestry Land Use andPlanning Project

Mr. Frank CaseyMs. Cynthia MooreDr. Fred Sauer

AID TechniciansDr. Rinus ven den EndeMr. Mark Matlin

Integrated Livestock ProjectU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentNiamey, Niger

Ms. Gretta ShultzAFRICARENiamey, Niger

Ms. Amy O’NeillMr. Didier AlleyLutheran World ReliefNiamey, Niger

167

Mr. Abara DjikaDeputy Prefect

Say, Niger

SENEGALMr. Walter Williams, Jr.

DirectorAFRICAREDakar, Senegal

Mr. George CarrierDeputy Mission Director

Mr. Khoi Nguyen LeU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentDakar, Senegal

Mr. Lanon WalkerU.S. Ambassador

Mr. Michael SykesEconomic and Commercial Affairs Officer

U.S. EmbassyDakar, Senegal

Mr. Richard HorowitzRegional Representative

Ford FoundationDakar, Senegal

Mr. Frank ConlonLutheran World ReliefDakar, Senegal

Mr. Ibrahima SyDirector

Mr. Pascal N’DongChief of Multilateral Division, Departmentof Economic and Technical Affairs

Ministry of Foreign AffairsDakar, Senegal

Mr. Gary EnglebergMs. Lillian BaerAfrica Consultants, Inc.Dakar-Farm, Senegal

Mr. Cherno KanePresident

CONGADDakar, Senegal

Mr. Khasoum WoneDeputy Prefect

Arrondissement of Ross-BethioDepartment of DaganaRoss-Bethio, Senegal

Mr. Abdoulaye Dioppresident

Walo youth AssociationRoss-Bethio, Senegal

Mr. Aly wade GueyePresident de la Communaute Rurale

Arrondissement of Ross-BethioDepartment of DaganaRoss-Bethio, Senegal

Mr. Khayar KaPrefect

Department of KoldaKolda, Senegal

Mr. Sami DaniffHead of Centers for Regional Expansion

Department of KoldaKolda, Senegal

Mr. Adama FayeMr. Cheikh BoyMr. Abdou FallMr. Baba Koita

Coordinator of ADF-funded DialambereProject

Senegalese Government AgriculturalResearch Institute (lSRA)Kolda, Senegal

Mr. Thiousso DialloAgricultural Engineer

Government Regional Development Agency forthe Senegal River Valley (SAED)St. Louis, Senegal

Mr. Martin FanghaenelMr. Amadou wadeFoster Parents Plan InternationalSt. Louis, Senegal

Dr. Jean-Francois TourrandDr. Moussa SowDr. Papa FallSenegalese Government Agricultural ResearchInstitute (lSRA)St. Louis, Senegal

Mr. Famara DiedhiouPresident

FONGSThies, Senegal

168

Mr. Ali BolyPeace Corps Training Consultant (formerADF Consultant)

Peace CorpsThies, Senegal

EAST AFRICA

TANZANIAMr. Makara

Project WaterPLANCONSULTArusha, Tanzania

Mr. David BabuDirector

Tanzania NationalArusha, Tanzania

Ms. Joyce Hamisi

1Engineer Consultant

Parks

Executive SecretaryPresidential National Trust Fund (ADF-fundedProject)Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. L.C.M. MususaPartner

Coopers and LybrandDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. Donald PettersonAmbassador

Mr. Joseph SeagarsDeputy Chief of Mission

Mr. John KauffmanProgram Officer, U.S. Ambassador’s Self-Help Fund

U.S. EmbassyDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. Joseph StepanikDirector

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Professor R. MabeleSenior Research Fellow

Economic Research BureauUniversity of Dar es SalaamDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. F. KihunwraSecretary, Chief Manager, Planning andResearch

Mr. H.I-I. AkileMechanization Officer

Cooperative and Rural Development BankDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. Yves MorneauSecond Secretary

Canadian International Development AgencyDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Mr. Charles N. KeenjaPrincipal Secretary

Ministry of Local Government and CooperativeDevelopmentDodoma, Tanzania

Dr. M.E. MlambitiHead of Department of Rural Economy

Mr. S.C. LugeyeActing Director of Institute for ContinuingEducation

Mr. I.J. LupangaHead of Department of AgriculturalEducation and Extension

Dr. Aku O’KtingatiSenior Lecturer, Forest Economics

Sokoine University of AgricultureMorogoro, Tanzania

Mr. O.M. IshumiRegional Agricultural Development Officer

Ministry of Agricuhure and LivestockDevelopmentMorogoro, Tanzania

Mr. R, MwsambashiHeadmaster

Reverend Raymond AustinReverend Herb HafermannLutheran Junior SeminaryMorogoro, Tanzania

Mr. Joseph J. MungaiProject Director

Mufindi Educational Trust (ADF-funded Project)Mafinga, Mufindi DistrictTanzania

KENYAMr. N.K. Mberia

District Commissioner, KakamegaOffice of the PresidentKakamega, Kenya

Ms. Catherine WitukaMr. Francis KimaMr. Oscar OyaloMs. Mary Kekorle

ExtensionistsKenya Woodfuel Development ProgrammeKakamega, Kenya

169

Mr. George GriffinDeputy Chief of Mission

Mr. Daniel WatermanCounselor for Economic Affairs

Mr. J. Anthony HolmesSecond Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. EmbassyNairobi, Kenya

Mr. Steven SindingDirector

Mr. Derek SingerChief, Human Resources Development

Mr. M. Peter LeifertProgram Officer

Mr. K. TohSenior Economist

Dr. Maria MuleiWID Program Officer

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentNairobi, Kenya

Mr. Fred O’ReganManaging Director

world Education Rural Enterprise ProjectNairobi, Kenya

Mr. S,0. MakondiegeDeputy Chief Engineer

Operations and MaintenanceMinistry of Water DevelopmentNairobi, Kenya

Mr. John CohenSenior Planning

Ministry of National Planning and DevelopmentNairobi, Kenya

Mr. Michael WestlackProgram Specialist

Commodity Analysis and Policy PlanningMinistry of AgricultureNairobi, Kenya

Mr. S,K. MarisinExecutive Director

Kenya National Council of Social ServicesNairobi, Kenya

Mr. William SaintRepresentative

Ms. Jennifer SebstadProgram Officer

The Ford FoundationNairobi, Kenya

Mr. David KniffenTrainer

Peace Corps Training Center at NaivashaNairobi, Kenya

Mr. C.O. AmondeDistrict Officer

Mr. Paul GathogoChief

Mr. G, WambuguExtension Officer

Mr. J.K. MbogoIrrigation Officer

Mrs. F.W. WangoHome Economist and Horticulturalist

District Department/Naro-Moru DivisionNaro Moru, Kenya

Mr. M.M. NaivashaDistrict Water Engineer

Ministry of Water DevelopmentNyeri, Kenya

SOUTHERN AFRICA

BOTSWANAMr. Natale Bellochi

U.S. AmbassadorMr. Johnie Carson

Deputy Chief of MissionU.S. EmbassyGaborone, Botswana

Mrs. MotsumiChairperson

Mrs. Rossina MannotokoSecretary General

Botswana Council of WomenGaborone, Botswana

Mr. John HummondDirector

Mr. John RobertsDeputy Director

Mr. Paul DaleyAgricultural Officer

Dr. David NormanChief of Party, Agricultural TechnologyImprovement Project (ATIP)

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentGaborone, Botswana

. .

170

Ms. Ruth MotseteSocial Concerns Officer

Botswana Christian CouncilGaborone, Botswana

Mr. Rob Van den BoomDeputy Representative

SNV-Netherlands Development OrganizationGaborone, Botswana

Mr. Kim WardProgram and Training Officer/ActingDirector

Ms. Binkie RamologaAPCD, Agriculture and Women’sDevelopment

Mr. Steve GibsonTraining Officer

U.S. Peace CorpsGaborone, Botswana

Mr. Israel MatengeCommissioner of Agricultural ManagementAssociations

Mr. J, LarsenSenior Agricultural Economist

Ms. Elizabeth MuggeridgeAgricultural Economist

Mr. GulubaneHead of the Small Dam Unit

Mr. JettenTechnical Advisor

Mr. Howard SekweleAgricultural Economist

Mr. G.D. HorspoolAgricultural Engineer

Mr. K.K. MmopiALDEP Coordinator

Ministry of AgricultureGaborone, Botswana

Mr. SekateMr. Anderson

RepresentativesFoundation for Education for Progress/CORDEGaborone, Botswana

Ms. T.C. MoremiCoordinator of Rural Development

Rural Development UnitMinistry of Finance and Development PlanningGaborone, Botswana

Mr. K. V. MoreiGeneral Manager

Mr. Percy MaribeChief Extension Officer

Rural Industries Innovation CentreKanye, Botswana

Mr. 1. MalobiDistrict Agricultural Officer

Mr. G.L. MogetshoIncoming District Agricultural Officer

Mr. LetinaDistrict Poultry Officer

Mr. TabinaDistrict Horticultural Officer

Ministry of Agriculture, Central DistrictSerowe, Botswana

Captain KgositauGeneral Manager

Serowe BrigadesSerowe, Botswana

Mr. F.J. SigweleDistrict Agricultural Officer

Ministry of AgricultureTutume, Botswana

Mr. C.C. MolomoCommercial Tractor Owner

Tutume, Botswana

ZIMBABWEMr. Nyamayaro

ChairMwanza Development AuthorityEast Harare, Zimbabwe

Dr. Brian MarshallLecturer

Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of ZimbabweHarare, Zimbabwe

Mr. Peter JohnsonChief of Crop Production

Mr. TekieChief Horticuhuralist Extension Officer

AGRITEXHarare, Zimbabwe

171

Mr. Ed FugitDeputy Chief of Mission

U.S. EmbassyHarare, Zimbabwe

Mr. Eric WittAgricultural Officer and Acting AIDDirector

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentHarare, Zimbabwe

Mr. Chris KanyuchiDirector of PVOINGO Coordination

Ministry of FinanceHarare, Zimbabwe

Dr. Liberty MhlangaGeneral Manager

Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentAuthority (ARDA)Harare, Zimbabwe

Ms. Lucy ThomasResident Representative

Mr. McDonald HomerProgram Manager, Southern Africa

AFRICAREHarare, Zimbabwe

Mr. L. N. MbigiPersonnel Manager

Eastern Highlands Tea EstateJuliasdale, Zimbabwe

Mr. L. MuchatutaAgritex Officer

Mr. D. ChikandeCoffee Extension Worker

Mr. M, ChigwandeCoffee Extension Worker

AGRITEXJuliasdale, Zimbabwe

Mr. S. DubeChair

Chikomba II CoopChikomba SchoolMutare, Zimbabwe

Mr. Marcus HakutangwiAssistant Provincial Agricultural andExtension Officer

AGRITEXMutare, Zimbabwe

Mr. L. MatikinyidzeCooperative Assistant

Ministry of Cooperative DevelopmentNyanga, Zimbabwe

Appendix F

Reviewers of OTA's Draft

In addition to the 15 members of the OTA field teams, the following staff members of ADF, outsidereviewers, and members of OTA’S Advisory Panel on Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa reviewed thedraft report.

The African Dovelopment Foundation

Mr. Leonard Robinson, Jr.President

Mr. Percy WilsonVice President

Mr. Paul MagidGeneral Counsel

Ms. Lynn Herbon-GwinnCongressional Liaison

Ms. Jennifer DouglasPolicy Planning Officer

Mr. Tom WilsonDirector, Administration

Ms. Constance JenkinsPersonnel Officer

Mr. Scott BoudreauFinancial Specialist

and Finance

Dr. Paula Donnelly RoarkDirector, Research and Evaluation

Mr. Francis Kornegay,Research Specialist

Ms. Teixeira NashInformation Officer

Ms. Cheryl JonesEvaluation Consultant

Ms. Sandra Robinson

Jr.

Director, Program and Field Operations

Mr. Leonard FloydFoundation Representative,

Ms. Christine FowlesFoundation Representative,

Mr. Thomas KatusFoundation Representative,

Mr. Leslie PeanFoundation Representative,

Dr. Wendy WilsonFoundation Representative,

172

Central Africa

Southern Africa

East Africa

West Africa

Sahel/North Africa

Ms. Jeanette WhitfieldGrants Coordinator

Mr. Curtis BoykinProgram Assistant

Ms. Kerry HanrahanProgram Assistant

Ms. Lori PearsonProgram Assistant

Ms. Sithabile NdiweniRegional Liaison Officer for Southern AfricaHarare, Zimbabwe

Mr. Ibrahima NiangRegional Liaison Officer for the SahelDakar, Senegal

Mr. Joe KuriaRegional Liaison Officer for East AfricaNairobi, Kenya

Mr. N’Gade AmadouCountry Resource FacilitatorNiamey, Niger

Mr. Gilbert MaedaCountry Resource FacilitatorArusha -, Tanzania

Outside Reviewers

Dr. Gerald CashionSocial Science AdvisorOffice of Development PlanningBureau for AfricaU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Mr. Jim CotterAdjunct ProfessorInternational Development ProgramSchool of International ServiceAmerican UniversityWashington, DC

173

Dr. Paula GoddardDeputy DirectorCenter for Development Information and

Evaluation,Bureau for Program and Policy CoordinationU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Mr. Doug HellingerCo-DirectorThe Development Group for Alternative PoliciesWashington, DC

Dr. J. Kathy ParkerConsultant--Social EcologistNewtown Square, PA

Ms. Caroline PezzulloPresidentCaroline Pezzullo AssociatesNew York, NY

Dr. Charles ReillyVice-President for Learning and DisseminationInter-American FoundationRosslyn, VA

Dr. ]ohn SutterPublisherOsprey Graphics/Yankee TraderPort Jefferson Station, NY

Advisory Panel Reviewers

Dr. Eugene AdamsVice President for International ProgramsTuskegee UniversityTuskegee, AL

Dr. Haidari AmaniSenior LecturerDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of Dar es SalaamDar es Salaam, Tanzania

Dr. Leonard BerryVice President of Academic AffairsFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca Raton, FL

Dr. Cornelia FloraDepartment of Sociology, Anthropology and

Social WorkKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS

Dr. Jake HallidaySenior Program Manager for Industrial and

International Business DevelopmentBattelle-Kettering LaboratoryColumbus, OH

Dr. Goran HydenProfessorDepartment of Political ScienceUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL

Dr. Joseph KennedyDirector, International ProgramsAFRICAREWashington, DC

Dr. David LeonardAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA

Mr. Robert RodaleChairman of BoardRodale Press, Inc.Emmaus, PA

Dr. John ScheuringSeeds DepartmentCiba Geigy Ltd.Basel, Switzerland

Dr. Anita SpringAssociate DeanCollege of Liberal Arts and SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesville, FL

Ms. Helen VukasinEnvironment and Development ProgramCODEL, Inc. (Coordination in Development)New York, NY

Mr. Marcus WinterAssistant Director for Natural ResourcesOffice of Technical ResourcesBureau for AfricaU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC

Appendix 6

References

1.

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

7.

J3,

9,

10,

11.

12.

174

African Development Foundation, Blueprint forAction, The Five-Year Plan, 1986-1990 (Wash-ington, DC: May 1985).African Development Foundation, “ADFManual—Proposal Review and Project Manage-ment procedures Handbook, ” Revised May 5,1986,African Development Foundation, Fulfilling theMandate, An Assessment Report by Three De-velopment Journalists (Washington, DC: Sep-tember 1986).African Development Foundation, Congres-sional Presentation Fiscal Year 2988 (Washing-ton, DC: February 1987).African Development Foundation, “The ICIPE-ADF Evaluation Conference on Grassroots De-velopment, Nairobi, Kenya, January 1987” (Wash-ington, DC: 1987).African Development Foundation, “ADF ProjectOrigins,” undated memo, 1987.African Development Foundation, Statement ofLeonard H. Robinson, Jr., President, African De-velopment Foundation, Before the Subcommit-tee on Foreign Operations, Committee on Ap-propriations, U.S. House of Representatives,Washington, DC, Mar. 23, 1987.African Development Foundation, “Operation-alizing the ADF Mandate, ” Appendix I of A13Fresponse to OTA draft report (Washington, DC:December 1987).Buzzard, Shirley and Edgcomb, Elaine (eds.),Monitoring and Evaluating Small BusinessProjects: A Step by Step Guide for Private De-velopment organizations (New York, NY: Pri-vate Agencies Collaborating Together (PACT),1987].Carloni, Alice S., Women in Development:A.I.D. Experience, 1973-1985, Vol. I. Synthe-sis Paper, A.I.D. Program Evaluation Report No.18 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development, April 1987).Carroll, Tom, “Typology of Grassroots SupportOrganizations,” report prepared for Inter-Ameri-can Foundation, August 1987.Chambers, Robert, “Shortcut Methods of Gather-ing Social Information for Rural DevelopmentProjects, ” in Michael M. Cernea (cd,), PuttingPeople First—Sociological Variables in RuralDevelopment (New York, NY: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1985), pp. 399-414,

13,

14,

15.

16,

17.

18.

19.

20.

214

22,

23.

24,

Crocker, Chester, letter to all U.S. ambassadorsin Africa, February 1987.Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., TheCouncil of Better Business Bureaus’ Standardsfor Charitable Solicitations, Publication No. 311-25129, C1OO 0284, revised January 1982.DeLancey, Virginia, “Aspects of Participationin Projects Funded by the African DevelopmentFoundation,” contractor report prepared for theOffice of Technology Assessment, August 1987.Delp, Peter, et al., Promoting Appropriate Tech-nological Change in Small-Scale Enterprises: AnEvaluation of Appropriate Technology Interna-tional’s Role, AID Evaluation Special Study No.45 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development, November 1986).Djegal, Abdoulaye, “A Report on the Evaluationof Five ADF Projects in West Africa,” report pre-pared for African Development Foundation,July 1987.Executive Office of the President, Office of Man-agement and Budget, Budget of the UnitedStates Government FY 1986, 1987, 1988, Appen-dix (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing office, 1985, 1986, 1987).Fowles, Christine, “The Nairobi EvaluationConference,” Beyond Re2ief, vol. 3, No. 1, June1987, pp. 8-9.Harrison, Paul, The Greening of Africa - Break-ing Through in the Battle for Land and Food,An International Institute for Environment andDevelopment–Earthscan Study (London, Eng-land: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987).Honadle, George, “Rapid Reconnaissance forDevelopment Administration: Mapping andMoulding Organizational Landscapes,” WorldDevelopment, vol. 10, No. 8 (Great Britain: Per-gamon Press Ltd., 1982), pp. 633-649.Kokuhirwa, H,, Maina, D., Mbula, J,, Nzioka,C., “An Evaluation Report of the Kenya Projects:The Kenya Women Finance Trust (KWFT), KenyaWater for Health Organization (KWAHO), Farm-ing Systems Kenya (FSK), Njoguini Gitero KabatiSelf-Help Water Project (NGK),” report preparedfor African Development Foundation, July 1987.Magid, Paul, ADF General Counsel, memo toLeonard H. Robinson, ADF President, regard-ing Responses to OTA Inquiries, Nov. 9, 1987.Markham, Jaimie, consultant, former directorof economic development loan program of the

175

25.

26.

27.

28<

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34,

35.

36.

Campaign for Human Development, personalcommunication, Jan. 27, 1988,Matlon, Peter J., “Consultant’s Report to OTA,”contractor report prepared for the Office ofTechnology Assessment, August 1987.Nash, Teixeira and Boykin, Curtis A., “The ADFFunding Process or How the Izuni Coop Got anADF Grant!” Beyond Relief, vol. 1, No. 3, No-vember 1985, pp. 1-4.National Charities Information Bureau (for-merly National Information Bureau), NIB Stand-ards in Philanthropy (New York, NY: NationalInformation Bureau, Inc., 1982).O’Regan, Fred, Hellinger, Steve, and Hellinger,Doug, The African Development Foundation:A New Institutional Approach to U.S. ForeignAssistance to Africa (Washington, DC: The De-velopment GAP, March 1982). Revised editionof the report originally published by The Devel-opment GAP in September 1977, entitled U.S.Foreign Assistance to Africa: A New Institu-tional Approach.Reilly, Charles, Vice President for Learning andDissemination, and Pam Palma, Vice Presidentfor Program Analysis, Inter-American Founda-tion, personal communication, Feb. 16, 1988,Rugh, Jim, Self-Evaluation: Ideas for Participa-tory Evaluation of Rural Community Develop-ment Projects, ISBN 0-942716-05-1 (OklahomaCity, OK: World Neighbors, Inc., 1986).Ruigu, G. M., Alila, P. O., and Mwabu, G. M.,“The Development of Women Entrepreneur-ship: An Evaluation of Partnership for Produc-tivitylKenya (PfP) Women in Development Proj-ect, ” A Report Submitted to PfPIKenya andprepared for African Development Foundation,August 1987.Saint, William, Representative, Ford Founda-tion, Office for Eastern and Southern Africa,personal communication, Sept. 11, 1987.Schramm, Richard, consultant assessing theloan program of the Campaign for Human De-velopment, personal communication, June 18,1987.Sinclair, Molly, “Conflict-Ridden Agency HasProvided No Funds for Grass-Roots Africa,” TheWashington Post, May 4, 1984, p. A19.Smith, Bradford, “Why Fund a Day Care Cen-ter in Sao Paulo?” Grassroots Development: A[ournal of the Inter-American Foundation, vol.11, No. 2, 1987, pp. 46-48.Tendler, Judith, What Ever Happened to Pov-erty Alleviation? A Report Prepared for the Mid-Decade Review of the Ford Foundation’s Pro-

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

grams on Livelihood, Employment, and IncomeGeneration (New York, NY: Ford Foundation,March 1987).Tull, Kenneth and Sands, Michael, Experiencesin Success, Case Studies in Growing EnoughFood Through Regenerative Agriculture (Em-maus, PA: Rodale International, 1987).United Nations, United Nations DevelopmentFund for Women, Development Co-operationWith Women: The Experience and Future Direc-tions of the Fund (New York, NY: United Na-tions, Department of International Economicand Social Affairs, 1985).U.S. Agency for International Development,Program Review of the International Fund forAgricultural Development (IFAD), AID Evalu-ation Special Study No. 21 (Washington, DC:Center for Development Infornlation and Evacu-ation, February 1985).U.S. Agency for International Development, De-velopment Effectiveness of Private Voluntaryorganizations (PVOsj (Washington, DC: Febru-ary 1986).U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, is-sues Affecting Appropriations for the AfricanDevelopment Foundation, Report to the Chair-man, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Com-mittee on Appropriations, United States Senate,GAOINSIAD-85-62 (Washington, DC: May 7, 1985).U.S. Congress, Foreign Assistance Legislationfor Fiscal Years 1988-89 (Part 6), Hearings andMarkup before the Subcommittee on Africa ofthe Committee on Foreign Affairs, House ofRepresentatives, Mar. 4, 10, 18, and 19, 1987(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, 1987).U.S. Congress, Legislation on Foreign RelationsThrough 1986—Vo]ume 1, printed for use of theCommittees on Foreign Relations and ForeignAffairs of the Senate and House of Representa-tives (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, March 1987).U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Mak-ing Further Continuing Appropriations for theFiscal Year Ending September 30, 1988, Con-ference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 395,Dec. 21, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1987), p.163.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology,Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign Aid, A Techni-cal Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Decem-ber 1984).

—

176

46. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Continuing the Commitment: Agricul-tural Development in the Sahel, Special Report,OTA-F-308 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, August 1986).

47. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Rolefor U.S. Development Assistance, OTA-F-356(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, in press, 1988),

48. Walker, Brian W., Authentic Development in

Africa, Headline Series No. 274 (New York, NY:Foreign Policy Association, MaylJune 1985).

49. Weber, Fred R,, “Desk and Office Review ofADF Activities: Renewable Resource Technol-ogies,” contractor report prepared for the Of-fice of Technology Assessment, August 1987,

50. Weintraub, S., Stedman, Jr., W. P., and Szanton,P. L., “The Inter-American Foundation: Reportof the Evaluation Group, ” report prepared forthe Inter-American Foundation, March 1984.

Index

Index

NOTE: Page numbers in italics refer to figures and tables.

Access. See ParticipationAccords, ADF country, 37, 108Administrative costs, ADF. See Costs, operationalAdvance, 50, 87Advisory Council, ADF, 40African Development Bank, project funding by, 8, 69Africare, 40Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID), 5,

8, 18-19, 35, 38, 69Agricultural Finance Corporation Project (AFC), 54,

59, 61-62, 63, 68-69, 74, 79, 91, 143-144Agricultural Mutuel of Dagnare Project, 54, 58, 60,

61, 66, 69, 74, 89, 107, 126-128Agriculture

inputs for, 8, 46-47, 74proportion of ADF grants supporting, 7, 10, 46-47,

86-87Ambassadors Self-Help Fund, U.S, 8, 41, 69, 103, 104Appraisal, rapid rural, 11, 26Appropriate Technology International (AT1), 27, 115,

116Appropriations, ADF. See Legislation; No-year fundsAssessment

flow chart for OTA, 5, 26forms used by field teams for OTA, 148-164OTA methods for report’s, 3, 23-31projects visited by OTA during, 6, 2 9

Beyond Re]ief, 40, 50, 87Board of Directors, ADF

initial delay in appointing, 5, 35, 36lessons for other development foundations concern-

ing, 119partisan nature of, 18, 36project approval by, 42, 43resignation of, 5, 36Senate confirmation of, 17, 36

Boiteko Agricultural Management Association, 58,59, 78, 79

Boiteko Agricultural Management Associationproject, 54, 62, 64, 68, 69, 74, 78, 80, 86,140-141

Botswana, 9, 29, 58, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79,80, 86, 92, 107

Brooke Amendment, 38

Carter, ]immy, 35Congress, U.S.

ADF authorization by, 3, 5, 35ADF improvement policy options for, 12-19ADF lessons concerning relations with, 119notification of project approval of, 43oversight of ADF by, 15-17

costsADF projected budget, 37of implementing OTA suggestions, 12, 87, 112

operational, 12, 40recurrent, of projects, 8, 73, 98-99

Council on Foundations, 89Country Assessment Profiles, 37-38, 105-106Country Resource Facilitators (CRFS), 39, 89Credit

programs, 8, 9, 47, 62, 63, 75, 78, 79, 105see also Loan program

Dagnare. See Agricultural Mutuel of Dagnare ProjectDakoro Herders’ Cooperative Project (DHC), 29, 54,

58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 79, 86, 91, 92, 107, 128-130Data, disaggregation of, 25, 56, 90Decisionmaking. See ParticipationDelancey, Virginia, 56Desk reviews, 27, 29, 94Development Group for Alternative Policies, 35

Environment, See SustainabilityErosion, soil, 8, 66, 68-69, 74Evaluation, program

by ADF, 10-11, 48, 87, 109-110costs of, 8externa], 7-10, 23-31, 86-87improvements suggested from OTA, 10-12, 87-111internal, 49, 64lessons for other development foundations concern-

ing assessments and, 119-120list of representative projects chosen for OTA, 6, 54methods, 25-31

Farming Systems Kenya, 86Five Year Plan (ADF’s 1985), 37, 39, 48FONGS, 78Ford Foundation, 8, 44, 48, 89, 91, 106, 110Foreign Assistance Act—1961, 23Foundation Representatives

grant information by, 41, 42-43monitoring involvement by, 45training for, 95

Fundingalternative, in ADF projects, 69-70approval, 11, 42, 43cap on project, 18congressional policy options involving, 14-15costlbenefit analysis as element in decisions for, 68independence in, decisions, 5, 37, 38project portfolio (ADF’s), 11, 37, 45-48proposals for ADF, 36-37, 88-89, 90-99

General Accounting Office (GAO), ADF study and re-port by, 5, 24, 25, 36, 37

GrantsADF research, 5, 11, 12, 49, 110-111agreement for, 44, 86approval process, 41-43, 90-99, 107-108budget for, 46

179

180

information tools for publicizing availability of,40-41, 49-50

monitoring, 5, 44-45Grassroots organization

project benefits on, 68project participation and, 7, 59-60, 63project sustainability of, 72, 73technology dissemination by, 78trade-offs involving, 80

Greenbelt Movement, 89Guidelines

for funding organizations, 110grant provision, 18, 90

Hilliard, Constance, 36

Industrial Areas Foundation (New York), 79Iniminak Pastoralists Project, 29Inputs, agricultural. See AgricultureIntegrated Food Development Program Project, 54,

60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 86, 98,107, 108, 134-135

Integrated pest management (1PM), 74Inter-American Foundation (IAF), 5, 18, 19, 27, 35,

44, 115, 116Interest bearing accounts, 19, 45Intermediary organizations

project benefits on, 68project origination by, 7, 58project participation and, 60, 63, 64project sustainability of, 72, 73-74technology dissemination by, 78trade-offs involving, 80

International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), 27, 107, 115, 116

International Security and Development CooperationAct–1980, 35

Irrigation. See Agriculture; Water supply; individualprojects using

Kellogg Foundation, 101Kenya, 9, 29, 58, 60-61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75,

76, 77-78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 104,105, 106, 108

Kikatili Village Malihai Club Project, 54, 58, 59, 62,69, 72, 73, 74, 80, 89, 91, 98, 99, 135-137

Landtenure, 62value, 62, 68

LegislationADF’s 1980 authorizing, 3, 5, 35, 40appropriations authorization (ADF), 3, 5, 35-36congressional policy options involving authoriza-

tion and appropriations, 17-lgfive-year reauthorization, 5, 13-14, 37see also Congress, U. S., individual statutes

Loan programs, 47, 75, 78, 79developing ADF, 109-11ofunds lost through, 18-19

Malihai Arusha organization, 89Mandate, ADF’s legislative, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 17, 35, 38,

48, 64, 71, 81, 88, 89Matabeleland Council of Disabled Persons, 29MatIon, Peter J., 93, 94, 96Media

grant publicizing by, 40-41, 50unfavorable coverage on ADF by, 36

Monitoringby ADF, 65, 99-101approach differences by ADF, 44checklist for program, 56, 90, 99-100methods of ADF project by OTA, 10, 23-31quarterly report’s requirement for, 45, 100-101

Morogoro. See Integrated Food Development Pro-gram Project

National Agricultural Credit Bank (Senegal), 9, 78,110

National Malihai Club, 73NGK Self-Help Water Project, 54, 58, 62, 66, 68, 69,

70, 74, 77, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 94, 98, 104,137-139

Niger, 29, 58, 61, 72, 86, 88, 89, 92, 107Nongovernment organizations (NGOS)

project funding by, 8, 69project referrals from, 41see also Grassroots organizations; Intermediary

organizations; individual donorsNo-year funds, 18-19, 35-36, 37

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 5, 40Oversight, congressional

high priority topics for ADF, 16policy options involving, 15-17

Participation, 7-8, 9, 10, 28, 55-58, 65-67access to projects’, 61-63ADF lessons for other development assistance orga-

nizations, 116-117assessment forms used by OTA field teams,

151-154, 155-156benefits from, 63-64, 67-68, 79contributions to, 58-60, 63, 69in decisionmaking, 63-64by ethnic minorities, 61-62factors affecting, 64-65local control of, 58-60, 79-80women’s, 58, 62-63, 64

Partnership for Productivity/Kenya Project (PFP), 48,54, 58, 60-61, 62-63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 76,79, 104, 139-140

Peace Corps, 18, 41, 58, 103-104Petty, Reginald, 36Planning-grants. See GrantsPlans, country ADF’s 37-38, 105-107Policy

ADF technical assistance, 64options for Congress, 12-19

Portfolio, ADF’s, 11, 37, 45-48

181

Poverty, projects’ impact on, 8, 61-62private voluntary organizations (PVOS), 8, 37

ADF’s resemblance of, 38coordination with, 103problems common to ADF of, 115, 116programs funded by, 67, 69projects proposed by, 36-37, 41, 58see also NGOS; individual organizations

Project Assessment Memorandum (PAM), 42-43, 90,97-99

Project Review Committee (PRC), ADF, 37, 43, 49, 90

Quarterly reports , See Monitoring

Reagan, Ronald, 35Reau thor i za t ion

congressional opt ions involving, 13-14see also Legislation

Reforestation, 59, 69, 74Regional Liaison Officers (RLOS), 39

grant information dissemination by, 41improvements concerning, 89monitoring involvement by, 45

Replicabilityassessment forms used by OTA field teams, 161-162of projects, 9, 28, 75-79, 80

Resultsassessment forms used by OTA field teams, 155-157of projects, 8, 28, 65-70, 79-80

Robinson, Leonard, Jr., 36, 37, 40Ross Bethio. See Youth Association of Ross Bethio

Project

Sahel Development Fund, 35Senegal, 9, 29, 58, 60, 61, 62, 78, 86, 88, 91, 92, 99,

107Senegal River, 69Silveira House Development Fund Project, 29, 54, 60,

61, 63, 69, 74, 144-145Sokoine University (Tanzania), 75Staff

ADF lessons concerning role of African, 117-119African-based, 5, 11, 12, 39, 45, 92, 101-103consultant’s use to complement, 10, 11, 39, 102formation of management, 5, 36, 37growth in, 5, 39-4olimit on size of, 5, 40personal contracts of, 37, 40, 41training, 11, 12, 95, 102

Standards. See GuidelinesStrategies, country, 37-38, 105-107Sustainability, 8-9, 10, 28, 67-69, 70-72

assessment forms used by OTA field teams, 157,158-160

economic, 67-68, 72-73, 98-99environmental, 68-69, 74, 94-97factors affecting, 75

organizational, 68, 73-74, 88-89technical, 74-75

Tanzania, 29, 58, 60, 62-63, 67, 68, 72, 75, 86, 89, 91,99, 107, 108, 109

Technologyagricultural, 46-47, 48, 93, 96choices of, 10, 28, 58, 74-75, 78, 92-94constraints on transfer of, 7-8, 9, 77-78dissemination of project, 9, 28, 76-77, 78renewable resource, 71, 97

Technical assistanceprovision of, 8-9, 58, 64, 70training, 73

Technology transfer. See Technology, disseminationof project

Tractorsuse of, in funded projects, 47, 63, 66see also individual projects using

Trade-offs, 61, 79-80Training

costs of, 8, 45evaluation, 49financial, 45, 73grant funds used for financial management, 45management, 45, 74technical assistance, 73

Tutume Tractor Hire Project, 54, 58, 60, 63, 66, 67,69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 80, 92, 141-143

UNIFEM. See U.N. Development Fund for WomenUnion Kaoural Project, 54, 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 78, 80,

88, 91, 92, 99, 132-134United Nations Decade for Women, 27United Nations Development Fund for Women

(UNIFEM), 27, 115, 116

Water supplyprojects funding improved, 46, 47see also individual

Weber, Fred R., 71, 97Wilson, Percy, 36Women

participation in projects by, 7, 8, 10, 58, 62-63, 64project access by, 62-63rural credit for, 75, 78, 79

World Bank, 8, 35, 38, 69World Council of Credit Unions, 40

Youth Association of Ross Bethio Project, 54, 60, 62,63, 68, 69, 74, 78, 86, 91, 99, 107, 130-132

Zimbabwe, 29, 60, 61, 62, 68-69, 107, 109Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea Project. See Agricultural

Finance Corporation Project