improvement of food security in cross- border districts of burundi, the democratic ... ·...

November 2012 Final

Evaluation report

Improvement of food security in cross-

border districts of Burundi, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda,

in support of the modernization of

agriculture under the NEPAD-CAADP

framework – GTFS/RAF/391/ITA

Office of Evaluation

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

Permission to make copy, download or print copies of part or all of this work for private study and limited classroom use is hereby granted, free of charge, provided that an accurate citation and suitable acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright owner is given. Where copyright holders other than FAO are indicated, please refer to the original copyright holder for terms and conditions of reuse. All requests for systematic copying and electronic distribution, including to list servers, translation rights and commercial reuse should be addressed to [email protected].

For further information, please contact:

Director, OED

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153

Rome, Italy

Email: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________ The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

Evaluation of GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, final report

iii

Acknowledgements This complex evaluation would have not been possible without the dedicated and steady support of many people. The evaluation team thanks: Cristina Scarpocchi, Programme Officer and Project Lead Technical Coordinator, for organizing the field mission, providing the documents for the desk review, patiently answering the request for additional information after the completion of field work, and writing a summary of normative activities carried out by the Sub-Regional component of the Project; Susan Minae, Agribusiness and Enterprise Development Officer at FAO, Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE) for sharing information and documents on the new market-oriented policies of the project countries, and for clarifying some technicalities of the value chain approach as applied to rural development; Mr. Castro Camarada, Sub-regional Coordinator for Eastern Africa and Project budget holder for briefing the mission on the significance of the Project in the context of FAO sub-regional policy; and Ms Patricia Nsimei, Mr. Juvenal Kabiligi, and Mr. Pie Nyinginia, National Project Managers in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, for their steady assistance and expert advice during field-work and their efficient logistic support. Thanks also to Mr. Laurent Gashugi and Mr. Apollinaire Masuguru, Assistant FAO representatives in Rwanda and Burundi for their concerned involvement in the evaluation process. Finally, the Team would like to thank Mr. Franck Luabeya, National Project Manager in the DRC: for his briefing on this Project national component, which, for security reasons, could not be visited by the Evaluation Team. National counterparts’ staff are also to be thanked. National Project Coordinators in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda facilitated contacts and arranged interviews with project focal persons in the ministries of agriculture and other authorities, and participated in some field visits. The District Agriculture Office staff of Kabale (Uganda), Burera (Rwanda) and Kayanza Burundi) districts and the local Assistant Project Managers supported the evaluation team facilitating contacts with selected institutional and grassroots stakeholders. The evaluation team is particularly grateful to all the national counterpart staff for their readiness and willingness to answer with an open-minded and a constructive attitude questions on project performance and results. A very special thanks is for the members of the six farmers associations met during fieldwork. They friendly received the evaluation mission and were ready to share their views on the Project experience, their expectations for the future and the need for further assistance. Focus group interviews with grassroots associations’ members have been truly enlightening in making sense of what the project had done so far and what have been its strengths and weaknesses, as well as in identifying the change that the Project has facilitated in participant farmers’ household economy. The mission team would also like to thank Francesco Meneghetti, who participated in the mission as an observer on behalf of the Italian Cooperation, for the sound analytical work he voluntarily did, to make sense of the financial functioning of Project-assisted value chain. Mr Meneghetti’s work was indeed a fundamental reference for this evaluation.


iv

Composition of the Evaluation Team Evaluation team

• Mr Patrizio Warren, Team Leader • Ms Christine Alokit, value chain specialist

• Mr Francesco Meneghetti, observer for the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Direzione Generale per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo FAO Office of Evaluation

• Ms Tullia Aiazzi, Evaluation Manager


v

Table of Contents Acronyms vi Executive Summary vii 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background and purpose of the evaluation 1

1.2 Evaluation methodology 2

1.3 Constraints and limitations 4

2 Context of the project 4

3 Concept and relevance 6

3.1 Project design 6

3.2 Relevance 8

4 Project implementation 10

4.1 Budget and Expenditure 10

4.2 Project management 13

4.3 Technical Backstopping 15

4.4 Government’s participation 16

5 Results and contribution to stated objectives 17

5.1 Outputs and outcomes 17

5.1.1 Outcome 1: Strengthening of Farmers’ Associations and Cooperatives 17

5.1.2 Development of technical and managerial capacity 19

5.1.3 Improving efficiency and increase profitability of value chains 22

5.2 Gender issues 29

5.3 Capacity development 29

5.4 Impact 30

5.5 Sustainability 30

6 Conclusions and recommendations 32

6.1 Conclusions 32

6.2 Recommendations 34

ANNEXES 36

Annex 1. Terms of reference 37

Annex 2. Global Goals of FAO Member States, FAO Strategic Objectives, Organizational Results and Core Functions 2010-19 45

Global Goals of FAO Member States 45

FAO Strategic Objectives and Organizational Results 45

Annex 3. Brief overview of the project 49

Annex 4. Profile of team members 57

Annex 5. References 58

Annex 6. Project documents reviewed 60

Annex 7. List of institutions and stakeholders met during the evaluation process 62

Annex 8. Selected Project-assisted value chain flowcharts 64


vi

Acronyms

AGS Rural infrastructure and agribusiness division (FAO) ANPC Assistant National Project Coordinator BH Budget Holder CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (NEPAD). COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) CPF Country Programming Framework DAO District Agriculture Office EAC East African Community FA/Cs Farmers Associations and Cooperatives FAAP Framework for African Agricultural Productivity FIMA Framework for Improving Market Access HH household HQ FAO Headquarters Logframe logical framework LoA Letter of Agreement LTU Leading Technical Unit MoA Ministry of Agriculture NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Service NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPC National Project Coordinator NPM National Project Managers NTE Not-To-Exceed (end-of-project date) OED FAO Office of Evaluation ProDoc Project Document SF Strategic Framework SFE FAO’s Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa SO Strategic Objective ToR Terms of Reference


vii

Executive Summary

Overview of the evaluation ES1. The project “Improvement of Food Security in Cross-Border Districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, in Support of the Modernization of Agriculture under the NEPAD Framework” -GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, (hereinafter, the Project), is a collaborative initiative between the Governments of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda and the Italian Government. The Project is implemented through FAO, under the Global Food Security and Food Safety Trust Fund, in support to the rural modernization, food security improvement and poverty reduction, within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and, in particular, its agricultural component, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The Project had two implementation phases, from March 2007 to April 2010 and from July 2010 and still ongoing, respectively. The expected end of project date (NTE) at the time of writing this report was June 2013 and its total budget was USD 8,909,419. ES2. The Project’s geographic scope was on selected cross-border districts/provinces of the above countries. Its expected impact was defined as follows: ‘Enhanced incomes and living standards of the rural households in the Great Lakes Region by promoting agricultural commercialization, using the commodity value chain development approach’. ES3. Project’s goal, or theory of change, was summarized by its four outcomes:

1. Strengthened farmers’ organizations, and small trader and agro-processor associations to improve access to local and cross-border markets for local products

2. Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors

3. Facilitated agri-business linkages and contract arrangements especially between producers/ producer cooperatives, and traders/local agro processing firms

4. Strengthened institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities within the East Africa Community and COMESA

ES4. This report refers to the independent evaluation of the Project carried out in July-August 2012, one year before Project official NTE (to allow the project to take advantage of evaluation suggestions and recommendations). It is based on (i) a twenty-day mission in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, carried out from 7 to 28 July; and (ii) a desk study of Project’s documentation, mainly conducted after the mission. The report covers the relevance, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Project and gives some preliminary indications on its impact and sustainability. Key findings Relevance

ES5. The Project was found relevant to the needs of its end-beneficiaries, i.e. the members of the local farmers’ associations and cooperatives (hereinafter FA/Cs). Desk review findings suggest that Project is consistent with national, regional and, to a lesser extent, FAO


viii

agricultural policies. Discrepancies with FAO approach concern the little attention paid by Project’s theory and practice of change for sustainable management of natural resource. Efficiency

ES6. Staffing arrangements were found appropriate and effective. However, selection of national/local service providers (e.g. consultancy firms, NGO) in charge of implementing activities in the field was not always as appropriate as desirable, leading, in several cases, to not fully satisfactory results. A fifteen-month vacancy of the position of Project Coordinator affected Project’s performance at the regional level. ES7. Equipment and infrastructures provided by the Project to the FA/Cs (namely storing and packaging facilities) are insufficient to actually enhance FA/Cs control of post-harvest, processing and marketing segments of the value chain. ES8. The project relied on sufficient funds for implementation. Budget was well managed with a fair allocation to the different Project components, except for funds needed to develop FA/Cs infrastructure and equipment which have been underestimated in all budget revisions. Effectiveness

ES9. Outcome 1: The Project is assisting about 40,000 people, grouped in 374 FA/Cs. Although coverage looks relatively high, only 78 (20%) out of the above 374 FA/Cs have been upgraded into formal cooperative enterprises, owning a juridical personality, which would enable them to sign formal contracts, access credit from banks, subscribe insurance policies, and take advantage of government incentives such as tax exemption or reduction: in brief, to become fully-fledged market actors. The evaluation team considers the low number of cooperative enterprises formed by the Project insufficient, given in particular the strong emphasis placed on converting small-farmers’ household economies in agricultural micro-enterprises. ES10. Outcome 2: Major efforts were deployed to FA/Cs capacity development. These were more effective in the area of intensification of agricultural production and post-harvest handling/pre-processing, than in matters related to cooperative and business management. Weak management skills are a major constraint for farmers’ associations and a serious handicap for those that have been scaled up in cooperatives. Several stakeholders (including Project staff) attributed limited development of managerial skills by FA/Cs member to the poor quality of training provided by Project’s outsourcers, as well as by the insufficient educational level of participants. ES11. Outcome 3: Concerning value chains, work done on the input side (production) was more significant and impacting than the one done of the supply side (commercialization of production). Contacts were facilitated/consolidated between FA/Cs and some local trading and processing private companies, and access to credit occasionally enhanced, which added some additional value to increased yields. These localized supply-side activities are examples of how the value chain approach could assist both farmers and rural traders in making more profitable transactions, bringing benefits to all the actors involved in the chain and eventually


ix

sustaining the growth of the whole agricultural sector of local economy. Still, the evaluation team believes that work and funds allocated to support private enterprises would be more effectively invested in increasing FA/Cs capacity to control further post-harvest/processing/trading segments of the value chain (i.e. providing FA/Cs with skills and equipment to process raw products and facilities for transport to profitable urban markets). ES12. Outcome 4: Little was achieved so far in providing institutional and regulatory support of cross border trade. Several regional meetings on this topic were carried out in 2011-12, which will culminate in a major policy event planned for October 2012. However, the Evaluation team considers that cross-border trade regulations are primarily a matter of policy and politics, that should be dealt by national governments with the support of regional organizations such as the African Union, NEPAD- CAADP, the East African Community and COMESA. FAO has undoubtedly a mandate on this in the agricultural sector, and projects like GCP/RAF/391/ITA can provide useful experience and lessons from which to draw evidence-based policy. The actual policy work however should be addressed as a long-term and sustained task which goes far beyond the institutional mandate and time-frame of a Technical Cooperation project. Evidence of impact and sustainability

ES13. Farmers interviewed in the field stated that the Project assistance has significantly contributed to increasing their income and enhancing their livelihoods. There is no reason to question this statement, which is also validated by relevant financial estimates. In the opinion of the evaluation team this almost immediate impact of the Project on income and livelihoods should be attributed to the intensification of production, made possible by the provision of better planting materials, the introduction/increase/ better management of agrochemicals in local farming system, and, to a lesser extent, a decrease of post-harvest losses through use of improved storage techniques and facilities. Better marketing may have played a role, but as far it was possible to observe in the field this has not always been substantial. At the end of the day, farmers have earned more because they produced more. ES14. The evaluation team raises concerns about the environmental sustainability of the agrochemical-led intensification of production, which has allowed for a two to three-fold increase in yields, in the medium and long term. Negative impact of prolonged use of chemicals on soil and agro-ecology is well documented, especially when land shortage does not allow for prolonged fallow seasons. In addition, intensification increases the risks of over-production crisis. No evidence was found on the field or in the project that these factors were adequately taken into consideration by the Project. Recommendations ES15. Most of the following recommendations are addressed to Project Management and are meant to be implemented during the next eighteen months, to tackle key aspects identified and discussed in the report. A major recommendation is also formulated, about project duration. This is based on the assumption that, given the amount of funds still available in project budget, a six-month no-cost-extension should be possible and could be approved by the donor.


x

Recommendation 1: To the donor, the governments of the participating countries and FAO The Project should be extended beyond its current end date by six months, at no-cost. This will allow consolidating achievements and tackling key aspects that will contribute to sustainability and impact of the entire initiative. ES16. The strength of the cooperatives will be a key element of the project’s sustainability. Thus, the Evaluation recommends the following actions. Recommendation 2: To the Project, on cooperatives The project should focus its support to cooperatives as follows: a) A significant proportion of participating farmers’ associations should be upgraded into legally recognized and well functioning cooperatives; b) Cooperatives should be designed or, when appropriate, restructured as social enterprises, aimed at also enhancing household livelihoods aspects; c) A rotational fund for supporting the development of household cultural and human capital (i.e. educational grants and health care expenses) should be included in the economic architecture of the cooperatives, investing on it part of the association fees, shares and profits of their productive and commercial activities; d) A strong training programme in management of cooperatives as social enterprises should be implemented during the last year of project life. Reputable experts in rural cooperative development (for content) and adult education (for teaching-learning methodology) should be contracted as trainers of cooperative management trainers that will work at the district level; e) One-or-more reader-friendly handbook on rural cooperative management, focusing on the particular legislation of each Project country, should be prepared and translated into local languages to be used as a learning and reference tool by the cooperative members; f) Emphasis of transactions among different private sector actors of the value chain should be smoothened and replaced by a stronger effort to promote cooperatives’ control over the processing and commercialization segments of the value chain; g) Cooperatives should be endowed with the proper infrastructure and equipment and related capacity development. This might include maize and potato mills, fruit juice processing plants, rice packaging facilities, milk cold chain and UHT plant. Granting funds for buying one medium tonnage truck should be considered for those cooperatives strong enough to manage this facility; h) Without neglecting the importance of maintaining and strengthening business relationship with ordinary market clients, linkages with food-aid organizations such as the World Food Programme and international and national NGOs operating in this sector should be promoted, following the example of the Rwanda component for maize. This is expected to ensure both a stable and profitable outlet to cooperatives’ staple food surpluses and at the same time to generate social externalities from cooperative activity. ES17. As the negative mid- and long-term effects of agrochemicals on agroecology (in particular in no-fallow farming systems) are well documented, a risk exists that immediate economic benefits are being generated at an unsustainable environmental cost. In this context, Recommendation 3 was formulated. Recommendation 3: To the Project, on environmental sustainability An end-of-project, rigorous environmental impact assessment of Project-promoted agronomic practices should be implemented to make sure that Project income and livelihoods benefits for participants achieved so far are environmentally sustainable.


xi

ES18. Although technical meetings were organized and communication materials prepared and diffused, no solid, evidence-based study on the viability and value added of the Project approach has been carried out so far. Given the pilot, “experimental” nature of the Project, it is important to take stock of this experience, and rigorously document the lessons that can be drawn from its implementation. Recommendation 4 addresses this aspect. Recommendation 4: To the Project, on evidence-based inputs to policy making During the last year of operations, the Project should focus on taking stock and analysing the pros and cons of the value chain approach, by rigorously documenting the lessons learned from its field experience. Results of this exercise should be diffused among policy-makers and other stakeholders (in appropriate formats and language) to support informed policy-making.


1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and purpose of the evaluation

1. The project “Improvement of Food Security in Cross-Border Districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, in Support of the Modernization of Agriculture under the NEPAD Framework -GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, (hereinafter, the Project), also known as “The Great Lakes Project”, is a collaborative initiative between the Governments of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda and the Italian Government. The Project is implemented through FAO, under the Global Food Security and Food Safety Trust Fund, in support of agricultural modernization, food security improvement and poverty reduction, within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its agricultural component, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). 2. The Project was declared operational on 1 May 2006. However, field activities started in March 2007. The Project’s initial funds were USD 3 million. The geographic scope was on selected cross-border districts/provinces of Burundi (Kayanza, Kirundu, and Ngozi provinces), Rwanda (Burera, Gicumbi, Gisagara districts) and Uganda (Kabale, Kisoro and Kasese districts).1 At the time of project approval, its duration was planned until 30 April 2009. In July 2009, after an Internal Mid-Term Review, the Italian Government approved the extension of the Project until June 2013 and allocated to it additional USD 5,908,419. On that occasion, an Addendum (FAO 2009) to the initial Project Document (hereinafter, ProDoc) was formulated in order to better focus on the “value chain” approach at country and sub-regional level, and to include a new national component in the DRC. The latter covered a number of field sites in the rural areas surrounding Goma in the North Kivu province and Bukavu and Uvira areas in South Kivu.2 3. This report refers to the evaluation of the Project carried out in July-August 2012 by a team of independent consultants. As per FAO evaluation policy, the team worked in close collaboration and under the overall responsibility of FAO Office of Evaluation (OED). The evaluation team was composed of Patrizio Warren, social scientist and expert in evaluation studies (team leader) and Christine Alokit, agronomist, value chain expert. A third expert, Francesco Meneghetti, an agronomist, was part of the team as “observer” appointed by the Italian Cooperation. The team thanks Mr Meneghetti for his proactive role and substantial contribution to the evaluation. 4. The Terms of Reference of the Evaluation3 identified the purpose of the evaluation as follows:

• To provide accountability to all parties – participating governments, Italian Cooperation and FAO - on the Project’s performance against the evaluation criteria in the four countries, identifying success factors and challenges;

• To provide guidance to the Project and to FAO to enhance effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the initiative, as appropriate, for the remaining implementation

1 Kasese district was added in the second phase of the project 2 Field activities in Congo started in September 2010 at the beginning of the second phase. 3 See Annex 1


2

period and as follow-up actions in the framework of FAO’s collaboration with each participating country;

• To draw lessons on success factors and challenges linked to the design and implementation of the Project as a regional intervention, with particular focus on improving integration in regional markets of small-scale farmers.

5. This is the final report of the evaluation, which integrates comments and suggestions by FAO stakeholders as appropriate.

1.2 Evaluation methodology

6. The Terms of Reference define the broad methodological approach to be followed by the Evaluation team. The exercise was to adhere to the UNEG Norms & Standards and adopt a consultative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Triangulation of evidence and information gathered was to underpin the validation of evidence collected and its analysis and will support conclusions and recommendations. 7. The evaluation included the following main activities:

i. a twenty-day mission in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, carried out from 7 to 28 July 2012;4and

ii. a desk study of Project’s documentation, mainly conducted after the mission. 8. The Project’s main documents, including the ProDoc, the Mid-Term Review, and the Addendum, were reviewed and discussed among team members. Interviews and meetings were also conducted at FAO Headquarters (HQ) with FAO officers from the Lead Technical Unit, AGS, the FAO unit for relations with resource partners (TCSR). A short briefing session also took place in the Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 9. In Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, the Evaluation team was accompanied and assisted by the country National Project Managers (NPMs), who shared with the evaluation team their in-depth and detailed knowledge of project implementation and took care of logistics. In each country, the Evaluation team held interviews with the Directors of Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) department/unit in-charge for supervising the Project, the National Project Coordinator (NPC; i.e. the Project’s focal person in the Ministry), and – in Burundi and Rwanda – the Assistant FAO Representative. 10. Time constraints asked for a sampling approach to project sites. Due to time constraint not all Project sites. Thus, a case study approach was adopted, based on a maximum variation sampling strategy.5 This purposive sample cannot be considered representative for the overall Project experience, and therefore its findings may not necessarily reflect the implementation process and the results achieved by the Project in other districts/countries. Nevertheless the three case studies provide a vivid illustration of the

4 For security reasons the evaluation team was prevented to visit the DRC. This has affected evaluation team

capability to make full sense of the information drawn from the subsequent desk review. Hence, in this report, the DRC project component is not dealt in depth as desirable.

5 Patton, 1999


3

Project’s performance and achievements in three very different local settings. The following sites and value chains were selected:

• in Uganda, the case-study was conducted in the Kabale district and focused on potato, a crop traditionally grown both for self-consumption and income generation;

• in Rwanda, the Evaluation assessed work in the Burera district, where the focus was on commercialization of surpluses of maize, the basic self-consumption crop; and

• in Burundi, the Kayanza district was selected and the case study dealt with passion fruit, a cash-crop with little or no significance for subsistence, but highly profitable as a cash-crop.

11. At district level, the Evaluation team interviewed the District Agricultural Officers (DAOs), the District Management Project Assistants (DMPA), the MoA staff in charge of following-up and supporting the Project, and other DAO staff. Whenever possible, District Commercial Officers (DCOs) and other district officers and political authorities were also interviewed. Interviews addressing these public, “institutional”, stakeholders focused on the perception of strengths and areas for improvement in project experience, and suggestions for the exit strategy to be implemented during the last year of the Project (July 2012 - July 2013). In addition, basic demographic, agricultural, nutritional secondary data, regarding the districts were collected from a variety of sources. 12. In each visited site, information was collected on the functioning of the selected commodity value chain. A variety of stakeholders was consulted: Project NPMs and DMPAs, managers of concerned Farmers’ Associations or Cooperatives (hereinafter, FA/Cs), officers of the district agriculture and trade officers and private traders. Microeconomics data were collected and gross/net margin cost-benefit analyses conducted for the various levels of the specific commodity value chains. 13. In addition, focus group interviews were conducted with an opportunistic sample of about 120 Farmers Associations and Cooperatives (FA/Cs) members who were the grassroots stakeholders of the Project (the so-called “end-beneficiaries”). Topics included perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Project’s implementation, and changes in household livelihoods assets and strategies associated with participation in the Project of gross margin and cost-benefit analyses. This information was processed through content analysis. 14. Furthermore, the Evaluation team participated in a final one day and a half debriefing workshop, attended by the NPMs, the NPCs, other representatives of the MoAs, the Agribusiness Enterprise Development Officer and the programme officer from the sub-regional office for Eastern Africa, the plant production and protection officer from the sub-regional office for Central Africa and the Assistant FAO Representatives of the four Project countries. The workshop was an opportunity to discuss preliminary field findings of the evaluation. A wrap-up interview was also conducted after the mission with SFE-based Programme Officer in charge of coordinating the Project (hereinafter, the Project Coordinator) and the Agribusiness Enterprise Development Officer in charge of the Project’s technical backstopping at SFE. 15. Following the mission, a desk review of selected Project documentation was conducted. Six-months and yearly reports, internal monitoring and evaluation documents, and budget were consulted on an ad-hoc basis to validate primary information or to answer particular questions raised by the ToR, that were not covered by mission findings. This also entailed considering several non-Project policy documents (e.g. sub-regional and national


4

agriculture policy documents, FAO’s Country Programming Framework; see in particular Section 3.2., Relevance), some relevant national statistics and some FAO (and other sources) “normative” documents. The desk review included an analytical revision of budget documentation, based on Oracle generated figures and tables (see Section 4.1., Budget and expenditure).

1.3 Constraints and limitations

16. The Evaluation suffered from severe time constraints during the field missions, which prevented proper data gathering at field level as this was limited to two and a half days in each country. The Desk review, as a consequence, was a time-consuming and complex exercise, compounded by some additional factors:

• Lack of a computerized database of project planning, monitoring and evaluation information;

• Project documentation made available to the Evaluation was not organized in a systematic manner, was over-whelming and sometimes not fully relevant, while at the same time some gaps may have occurred; some of these aspects are discussed later in the report;

• Within the information made available, background data (e.g. district statistics) and quantitative information concerning project performance and achievements (e.g. number of beneficiaries, farmers associations and cooperatives and relevant breakdown by district and commodity value chain) were incomplete and presented some internal inconsistencies. Further information provided by National Project Managers against templates by the Evaluation team allowed partial systematization of the overall data-set.

17. Further, due to security reasons it was not possible to visit the national component in the DRC. This prevented the Evaluation team from getting a comprehensive view of the Project as implemented in the field. 18. Last, the timing of the evaluation just before the typical timing for summer break meant that the report drafting phase suffered from several delays. OED takes the factors in its own control, i.e. duration of field visits and timing, as a lesson learnt for future evaluations.

2 Context of the project

19. The Great Lakes Region, where Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda are located, has many common features including similar farming systems, intra-boundary trade linkages, challenges and opportunities for value chains development. This facilitates a sub-regional approach to development. 20. In the sub-region, farming is the main economic activity. It employs the majority of the population either directly or indirectly and overall, the region has very high agricultural potential. However, the rugged landscape, the limited scale and low productivity of farming systems, the weakness of farmers’ organizations, limitations in technical and managerial capacity, lack of institutional support including poor financial and credit services and marketing facilities, prevent a more efficient and remunerative exploitation of the fertile


5

volcanic soils and the abundant water in the area. The weak infrastructural base, ranging from poor road network, lack of facilities such as warehouses, cold storage and agro-processing facilities, to poor access to utilities including electric power, telecommunications, etc., is a major constraint, hampering the use of farm inputs and equipment, agro-processing, marketing and related value addition activities. 21. In the last two decades, the sub-region has been affected by socio-political upheavals including civil unrest and massive displacement of people, as well as natural disasters that in some areas have resulted in an overexploitation of natural resources leading in some cases to significant degradation of land and vegetation cover. Last but not least, population growth and, subsequently, fragmentation of land are a major threat for sustainable rural livelihoods. 22. The socio-economic situation of this sub-region is determined by the high population density, fed by a high population growth rate. Subsequently, household land properties are small, with significant differences between better-off and worse-off farmers. Some migration occurs but most rural households live off their land, which is primarily used for subsistence cropping, with small surpluses sent on the local market. Cash cropping is seldom practiced because of the lack of land. Among worse-off households farm production is not enough to fully meet the need of the family, which leads to a high prevalence of chronic malnutrition (stunting) among under-five children. Some farmers own some two to four stall-fed cattle heads and some goats which, besides the production of milk for self-consumption, are the preferred household safety investment. This situation is well illustrated by some socio-economic indicators for Burera, the District visited by the evaluation team in Rwanda, which are presented in Box 1, below. Box 1. Basic socio-economic indicators for Burera District, Rwanda

Indicator Value Population density in the district 500 / km2

Average composition of the household (HH) 6 Sex ratio (male/female) 0.9 / 1 Population > 15 year old in the District 50% Population growth 5% Male illiteracy rate men (>15) 25% Female illiteracy rate (>15) 35% Average size of HH land hold 1.2 ha per HH HH land hold size range ( min – max), 0.5 - 2.5 ha % of children with chronic malnutrition 52%* Main self consumption crops in the district Maize, beans, potato, wheat Main cash crops Surpluses of the above Average cattle heads owned by an HH 3 (cows) Average goat heads owned by an HH 4

*: Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2010 23. In this context, the Governments of the Great Lakes countries are striving to ensure food security and increasing incomes of smallholders through agricultural “modernization” policies. The medium term priorities include improving the productivity of the agriculture sector and reinforcing commercialization. Enhanced production, increased marketable volumes and value-addition by processing, packaging and marketing of a variety of agricultural commodities (staple grains, root crops and livestock products, as well as traditional export cash crops such as coffee, tea, and bananas.) are expected to increase food security and welfare of both the rural populations and the towns dwellers in the outlying areas, as well as to replace the large quantities of food imported from outside the region.


6

3 Concept and relevance

3.1 Project design

24. The 2006-2009 ProDoc defined the development objective of the Project as ‘Improved food security and reduced poverty in cross-border areas of Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda under the NEPAD framework’ and the immediate objective was defined as ‘to increase incomes and living standards of the small rural householders in (selected) cross-border districts of Burundi (…), Rwanda (…), and Uganda (…) through more profitable farming system and increased market access’. Thus, the two objectives state with different words very similar concepts and there seem to be no real difference in hierarchy between the two. 25. The logical framework (hereinafter, logframe) in the ProDoc did not explain clearly how this objective was to be achieved and contained a number of flaws and inaccuracies, namely:

• outputs were over-worded, covering within one single statement several different issues;

• only few activities were stated, and this prevented understanding how they would eventually contribute to the relevant outputs;

• income-focused outcome indicators did not take into consideration the well known difficulties in collecting from farmers (and anybody else) reliable information about their household earnings;

• output indicators were not fully consistent with output statements and/or not specific enough;

• target associated to those indicators were arbitrary and assumptions were shallow and generic.

26. The ProDoc also contained a fairly comprehensive description of the Project strategy, from which the implicit theory of change of the project can be elicited. This clearly located participant farmers at the centre of the intervention and the ambition to provide them with technical skills and options that would allow them to make informed judgements of the market requirements and opportunities. Technical options stemmed mostly from a low-input sustainable farming approach, emphasising environment-friendly land husbandry techniques; Farmer Field Schools was the vehicle to build farmer groups and associations and gain over farmers’ individualism, also by respecting and incorporating local proven methods of management. 27. Increased income of farmers was set as the main target, which would also allow re-investing in farming activities. The main components of the Project were to focus on the following production issues: water resource management; intensified and diversified production methods; organizational issues for strengthened group and association activities such as storage and marketing; saving and loans, and micro-finance access. 28. The Project strategy also integrated a gender and social inclusion perspective, as follows: “The field schools allow a space for women empowerment to be emphasized giving all participants a voice. Organizational skills and association building skills are learned in the


7

process. Special topics such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and other health issues can be integrated into the educational process”.6 29. In 2009, following an expression of interest by the donor for extending the Project and including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a Mid-Term Review was conducted by FAO. . The Review observed that the progress made by the Project was such that “any (Project’s) extension should adjust the thrust of its efforts to give greater attention to technical content of value chains” and that “the Project must continue paying attention to increasing and stabilizing productivity/production, while also giving emphasis to business and market linkages for balanced value chain development”.7 30. An Addendum to the Project Document was therefore drafted covering a three-year period (2010-2013). The Addendum contains a concise impact statement, that has inspired and still inspires the implementation of the Project’s second phase: ‘The (development) objective of the Project is to facilitate and enhance incomes and living standards of the rural households in the Great Lakes Region by promoting agricultural commercialization, through support to market oriented production, improved marketing efficiency and value addition/agro-processing, using the commodity value chain development approach’. 31. The Immediate objectives were formulated as follows:

1. to increase incomes and living standards of the small entrepreneurs (producers, traders, small agro-processing firms);

2. improve access to input and output markets; 3. support capacity building of private and public service providers; facilitate platforms

and information exchange between value chain actors and 4. support the strengthening of farmer associations/cooperatives and similar

organisations; in the cross-border districts of the Great Lakes Region (Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda).

32. Subsequently in project life, also adjusting to changes in FAO logframe terminology, these immediate objectives were re-worded as “outcomes” and re-organized as follows:

1. Strengthened farmers’ organizations, and small trader and agro-processor associations to improve access to local and cross-border markets for local products;

2. Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors;

3. Facilitated agri-business linkages and contract arrangements especially between producers/ producer cooperatives, and traders/local agro processing firms;

4. Strengthened institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities within the East Africa Community and COMESA.

33. The above shows a major change in the theory of change of the Project during its second phase.8 The main focus of the project became the articulation of farmers with selected

6 Project Document 2006-2009, Project Strategy 7 Project Mid-Term Review, 2009 8 According to the NPM in Rwanda, a shift towards the value chain approach started already during the first

phase, following a workshop held in Kampala, during which a draft of the official addendum for the second phase was developed.


8

commodity value chains and the development of business-oriented cooperatives, while concerns for natural resources market, gender and social inclusion and non-productive matters (e.g. health) that were present in the first phase ProDoc, were almost totally set aside. Thus, the project evolved from an intervention focused on sustainable livelihoods into a rural market development project, fully aligned with the new wave of agricultural modernization policies emerging in the region (see section 3. Relevance). Pros and cons of this option will be discussed in the conclusions of this report.

3.2 Relevance

34. The most striking evidence of Project’s relevance is the satisfaction unanimously expressed by the members of the Farmers’ Associations and Cooperatives (FA/Cs, hereinafter) interviewed in the field. In their views, partnership with the Project had tangibly met their needs in the areas of agricultural production and commercialization of surpluses. 35. In the three rural districts visited by the Evaluation team in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, the relevance of Project’s contribution to local agricultural plans and complementarities between the project work and work by District Agriculture Office (DAO) have been highlighted in interviews and focus group discussions with officers from the agricultural officers and other local government units. Alignment with national agricultural plans was also mentioned. 36. The latter opinion was also confirmed by the National Project Coordinators (NPC) and high-level staff of the ministries of agriculture at national levels. The project aligns with the agriculture development plans of the three countries at stake (MAE-Burundi, 2008; MINAGRI-Rwanda, 2008; MAAIF-Uganda, 2010) consulted during the document review. This is particularly evident in the case of Burundi, which is illustrated in Box 2 below. Box 2. Objectives of the National Agriculture Strategy of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock of Burundi to which the project is likely to contribute

To increase productivity, agricultural produce and the development of sustainable production systems in order to re establish, on the short and middle term, the food self sufficiency existing before 1993 and to obtain, on the long term, a yearly increase of food offer at least 3% higher than national consumption; To promote the value chain and the agro-business in view of developing and diversifying the sources of growth of export produce, enhance the households’ purchasing power and increase state revenues from US $120 to 200. This is expected to half the rate of the population living below poverty line (from 70% to 35%) by 2015; To professionalize producers and to develop private initiatives to protect their interests in order to empower them, in particular by engaging in the agricultural extension and value chain development; To strengthen the skills of managing and developing the agricultural sector in order to upgrade subsistence agriculture to a profitable market agriculture run by professional people Source: based on MAE –Burundi, 2008 37. The document review also showed the relevance of the Project to the sub-regional policies of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), in whose framework the project was inscribed. In particular, the Project’s approach was in line with the 2010 Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and contributes to two of its components: the Framework for Improving Market Access (FIMA) and the Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP). References to some major issues of project strategies (e.g. intensification and commercialization of production, agricultural value chains, cross-border training) can also be found in the agriculture-related policies and


9

approaches of both the Eastern African Community (EAC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).9 38. Within FAO, the project was certainly relevant to three out of the four main areas on which the Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE) is concentrating its efforts; namely, support to sustainable, market-oriented intensification of agriculture in high potential areas through modernization of production; promote coordination among sectors (e.g. agriculture, finance, trade and commerce, water, nutrition); and promote/improve trade share of commodities produced in the sub region, based on competitive advantage globally and regionally.10 39. Consistency with Country Programming Frameworks (CPF) was particularly high and straightforward in the case of Rwanda, and the DRC,11 whose priorities are intensification and modernization of production, support to the professionalization of farmers, also through assistance to farmers’ cooperatives, promotion of agricultural value chains and agribusiness and institutional development. References to project approach were less clear and straightforward in the case of the CPFs for Burundi and Uganda,12: these, without disregarding market matters, emphasize more farming systems (land husbandry and diversification) and sustainable livelihoods issues (copying with food emergencies and nutrition). 40. Last, the project outcome and outputs were consistent with FAO Strategic Objectives G, Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural development and its four Organizational Results, as expressed in FAO Strategic Framework 2010-19. The project was also relevant to FAO SF 2000-2019, in particular to Strategic Objective C2, Adoption of appropriate technology to sustainably intensify production systems and to ensure sufficient supplies of food and agricultural, fisheries and forestry goods and services.13 41. Thus, the project was highly relevant to country and participants’ needs, and to FAO’s policies. However, the strong emphasis on intensification of production, rural entrepreneurship development and strengthening of agricultural commodity value chains risk seem to have prevented the project to pay due attention to other overarching aspects of FAO policies, such as sustainable management of natural resource and food security for all.

9 See respectively EAC, 2006 and www.comesa.int 10 See http://www.fao.org/africa/sfe/areas-of-activities/en/ 11 See http://foris.fao.org/preview/65180/en/cod/rdc and http://foris.fao.org/preview/ 65180/en/cod/rdc

respectively 12 See http://foris.fao.org/preview/65180/en/bdi and FAO-Uganda 2006 respectively 13 See Annex 1, Terms of Reference


10

4 Project implementation

4.1 Budget and Expenditure

42. The overall current Project budget breakdown according to FAO conventional budget lines is discussed here and presented in Box 3 below. Figures suggest that more than half of the Project’s budget was allocated to cater for human resources. The sum of budget items 5300-Salaries Professional, 5500-Salaries General Service and 5570-Consultants accounts for USD 2,431,905, corresponding to 27% of the total budget. In addition, a review of selected LoAs suggested that funds allocated to budget line 5650- Contracts have been used to pay service providers’ staff for conducting activities such as training, formation of FA/Cs, facilitation of linkages with micro-finance and credit institutions, implementation of particular studies and the like. The Evaluation estimated that human resources cost accounted at least for two thirds of the overall contracts’ value. Hence, remuneration and expenses of service providers’ human resources can be estimated at USD 1,429,348, corresponding to 16% of the total budget. Furthermore, it is certainly consistent to consider the budget line 5920-Training, (accounting for USD 472,432, i.e. 5.3% of the total budget) as a further investment in human resources. The same applies to the “ancillary” line 5900-Travel, which accounts for USD 844,277 (9.5% of the total budget). Based on the above figures, the grand total of Project’s expenses related to hiring and operating human resources at SEF, in the countries and in the field is estimated at USD 5,177,962, say 58% of the total budget. Box 3. Allocation per budget lines according to Budget Revision D (Approved in March 2012)

Budget lines Amount % 5300 Salaries Professional 999,217 11.2% 5500 Salaries General Service 208,836 2.3%

5570 Consultants 1,223,852 13.7% 5650 Contracts 2,144,023 24.1% 5660 Locally Contracted Labour 302,566 3.4% 5900 Travel 844,277 9.5% 5920 Training 472,432 5.3% 6000 Expendable Procurement 423,622 4.8% 6100 Non Expendable Procurement 571,602 6.4% 6110 Hospitality 0 0,0% 6150 Technical Support Service 123,520 1.4% 6300 General Operating Expenses 568,126 6.4% 6400 General Overhead Expenses 1484 0.0% 6500 Chargeback 0 0.0% 6510 Charge out 0 0.0% SUB-TOTAL 7,883,557 88.5% 6130 Support Cost (13% of sub-total) 1,024,862 11.5% TOTAL 8,908,419 100.0% Source: project Budget Revision

43. The analysis highlights that most of the available funds have been/were expected to be spent for the transfer to beneficiaries of knowledge, skills, attitude, previous experience and so on, i.e. for the “software” needed for Project’s implementation.


11

44. At the same time, budget analysis showed that no more than USD 1,048,983 (11.8% of the total budget) were spent in infrastructures, implements, planting materials, agricultural inputs, and other procurements (from budget lines 6000-Expendable procurements and 6100-Not-expendable procurements)14 and specialized wage labour (from budget line 5660 - Locally hired labour), necessary to production, intensification, post-harvesting, transformation, transport and other value chain activities.15 45. Under the 6000 and 6100 lines of expenditures, the Project co-funded basic infrastructure for the targeted FA/Cs. Visited potatoes and maize producers FA/Cs in Kabale district (Uganda) and Burera district (Rwanda) were given tin roof sheets and cement for building warehouses to store their produce, as well as some simple appropriate technology machines (e.g. maize shellers). In Burundi rice storage and passion-fruit collecting centers have been co-funded by the project. 46. Several members of the Farmers Associations/Cooperatives interviewed in the field have complained that Project-subsidized infrastructures are under-sized. Apparently, the premises were designed without consideration of the increased volumes of production after the adoption of the intensification measures and capacity development. Informants believe that adjusting the infrastructure to the current amount of primary product to be stored and process should be addressed by the Project as a priority. 47. The Project has also contributed to the procurement of improved planting materials and seeds, often in collaboration with the District Agriculture Office and other governmental institutions. However, the Evaluation team was unable to elicit from the documentation made available by the project a detailed list of goods and equipments delivered to FACs and other assisted value-chain actors, except for the case of Burundi. 48. Given the importance that infrastructure, equipment and supplies (i.e. the “hardware”) play in connection with the value adding process (see below), the evaluation team believes that the resource allocation ratio between “software” and “hardware” inputs (1:0.2) was highly disproportionate and that corrective measures should be taken to re-balance it during the last year of implementation. 49. Box 4 shows the distribution per country of the actual/committed expenditure from June 2007 to June 2013 per Project’s geographical component, according to budget revision E (March 2012). By the end of the Project, out of a total actual/committed expenditure (not including 13% support cost) of USD 7,711,034, the national components in Burundi, DRC, Rwanda and Uganda will spend USD 6,380,138 for country/field level activities, corresponding to 83% of the total Project’s expenditure. Sub-regional-activities (including coordination, backstopping, assistance to sub-regional/national policy making and administrative expenses) will be at USD 1,331,858, representing 17% of the total expenditure. The Evaluation team considers that the distribution between the total country/field expenditure on the one hand and cost of sub-regional work on the other hand,

14 The Evaluation assumed that the remaining quarter of these budget lines was allocated to buy equipments

and materials to be used by Project staff (vehicles, radios, computers, other electronic devices, stationery, fuel, maintenance, etc.). It must be stressed that, in some cases, cost-sharing arrangement were established with the beneficiaries for particular procurement actions.

15 Funds for expendable and not expendable equipment were also delivered under budget line Contracts. The total amount of these funds is difficult to quantify


12

was reasonably balanced. Relatively small differences in expenditure among national components (range: 1,433,776 Burundi – 1,801,627 Uganda) are justifiable on the basis of local costs, actual coverage and the state of project implementation. Box 4. Actual/expected expenditure per geographical components (June 2007 – December

2012)

Component Total allocation % Total allocation

Sub-regional component 1,331,858 17 %

Burundi 1,433,776 19 %

DRC 1,653,823 21%

Rwanda 1,490,912 19%

Uganda 1,801,627 23%

TOTAL 7,711,996 100%

Source: Budget Revision, March 2012 50. Box 5 below shows the ratio between actual and expected expenditure of project components in Rwanda and Uganda per beneficiaries, on the basis of the project Budget Revision E, March 2012. Based on data available, this is the closest possible approximation to project cost/effectiveness, however the Evaluation team is well aware of the limitation of this approach. Box 5. Ratio of expenditure per beneficiaries in Rwanda and Uganda

Data and indicators Burundi DRC Rwanda Uganda

Actual/expected expenditure 2007- 2013

USD 1,433,776 USD 1,653,823 USD 1,653,823 USD 1,490,912

Number of Project assisted Farmers' Associations/ Cooperatives

22 28 24 22

Average expenditure per Project-assisted Farmers' Associations/ Cooperatives

USD 65,172 USD 59,065 USD 68,909 USD 67,768

Total number of members of Project-assisted Farmers’ Associations/ Cooperatives

13,600 11,770 8,998 5,764

Expenditure per member of Project-assisted Farmers’ Associations/ Cooperatives

USD 105 USD 141 USD 184 USD 259

Source: Evaluation team 51. This information suggests that according to all the three proxy indicators considered, expenditure per value chain, per FA/C and per FA/C member, the field component in Rwanda had been significantly more efficient in using the available funds for producing the expected results. This difference was particularly strong in connection with the expenditure for each FA/C member (end-beneficiary) which in Rwanda is almost half than in Uganda. This finding should be weighed against (i) the actual functioning of the FA/Cs within the framework of the relevant value chain; (ii) the actual benefits of membership (i.e. increase in income, capitalization capacity, livelihoods enhancement); and (iii) some subjective variables, such as members’ awareness, motivation to participate in the common enterprise and technical and managerial competence. These and related subjects will be discussed later in the report.


13

4.2 Project management

52. The Project Coordination Unit is currently based at SFE office in Addis Ababa. At country level, the project is hosted in the FAO Representations. The FAO Representatives of the four countries are the Budget Holders of the Country Baby projects and are responsible for the use of the Baby Projects funds at country level. The daily management responsibility is entrusted to the Programme Officer, based in SFE, who works on it on an almost full-time basis,16 as she is engaged also with ensuring linkages and synergies with the Italian funded value chain interventions coordinated by SFE. The SFE Agribusiness and Enterprise Development Officer is the Lead Technical Officer for the Project, responsible for all technical matters. The FAO Sub-Regional Coordinator is the Budget Holder for the project, while the FAO Representatives are the Budget Holders for the four Country Baby Projects. 53. SFE management team coordinates, monitors and provides operational and technical support to the four national country teams in Burundi, the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda, ensuring that the core thrust and coherence of the project is kept and mainstreamed at the national policy level. In addition, under project component 3 (outcome 4), the SFE team: i) promotes exchanges among national teams in the form of meetings and field-visits, so as to allow cross-fertilization of local experiences; ii) attends relevant high-level sub-region policy making meetings; and iii) ensures project visibility throughout the Sub-Region. 54. Reportedly, a two-fold strategy has informed support by the SFE team to the national components. On the one hand, the team provided, upon demand, specific technical support to the national components. Through desk review and clearance of main technical documents (ToRs for consultants, service providers, Letters of Agreement, contracts, reports, etc.) also mobilizing technical support from relevant technical units (e.g. AGP, SFC, AGN, EST and AGS) as appropriate. On the other hand, attention has been focused on promoting and supporting (agricultural commodities) trade policy at the sub-regional level in consideration of the similarities across the selected value chains and their geographical proximity across the borders. In this regard, policy strategies to support value chain development in the region including synthesis of cross-cutting issues have been targeted. Lastly, SFE has ensured coordination, planning and communication. 55. At the national level, the Project is run by an FAO National Project Manager (NPM) and by a National Project Coordinator (NPC), designated by the MoA. In each project District there is an FAO District Management Assistant (DMA) who interfaces with a DAO staff appointed as Assistant National Project Coordinator (ANPC). Hence, both at the national and district-level the working team that steers and implements the Project includes both FAO staff and government-deputed officers. 56. In the four countries actual implementation of project activities was mostly outsourced to “service providers” (i.e. national, capital-based, or - less frequently - local NGOs or private consultancy firms), under Letter of Agreement (LoA) arrangements directly supervised by the national project teams (FAO country Office – FAO Representative as 16 This Programme Officer position was established in March 2011, following the decision taken during the

2009 Internal Technical Review to not renew the contract of the CTA, who managed the Project during the first phase.


14

Budget Holders of the Baby Projects, and Government counterparts). The extent to which this administrative mechanism was utilized varied from country to country. On one side there is Burundi, where the implementation of virtually each and every aspect of the project was entrusted to four service providers. During the Evaluation mission, it was not possible to meet and interview service providers’ representatives, but the review of some of their reports and interviews carried out at the district and grassroots levels to several stakeholders indicated a high variability in the quality of their performance. According to several informants, in some cases more experienced partners should – and possibly could - have been selected. This constraint is mainly due to the lack of capacity of local service providers and also to the objective of the project to serve as a mean to build capacity and expose to international organizations work of the local service providers. Project monitoring and information system

57. From 2007 to 2012 the Project produced a huge amount of, technical reports, studies and communication materials. The Evaluation team received about one hundred of files, which nevertheless may still not be the complete list of reports and documents issued by the Project. Most of these are short reports, notes or tables on specific issues: overall they contain valuable information on the project-assisted districts, FA/Cs, value chain, as well as on progress in implementation. 58. However, these documents were found to be very heterogeneous and fragmented and, in some cases, inconsistent: this prevented the evaluation team from using them at their full potential. This problem was particularly severe in connection with up-to-date district statistics and figures about FA/Cs membership and means of production, yields and volumes of transactions, and list and content of capacity building activities. Some of these data were obtained (after completion of the mission through an e-mail questionnaire addressed to the NPMs, the Programme Officer and the Lead Technical Officer. 59. In addition to the above documents, the project relies on three blocks of information that are solid and compact enough to deserve some discussion: the baseline studies, three comprehensive evaluations of the first phase progress and achievements and a comprehensive and detailed monitoring system. The baseline studies (among others Aliguma 2009, Ntale 2010, Kalembe 2010, (Njingnya et al. 2008) covered the ex-ante socio-economic situation of the Project districts , the pre-project organization and functioning of the value chain, and the factors to be considered to improve its efficiency and profitability. Quality and depth of these studies vary, but in general Project staff affirms that all of them have provided the information needed to start implementation. 60. Three internal reviews were carried out in Burundi (Mpeteye, 2011), Rwanda (Habyarimana et al. 2012) and Uganda (Nsiime and Kalende) to take stock and assess project experience in each country with the aim of adjusting plans and strategy for the last two-three year term. The review reports were fairly analytical documents and provide useful, evidence-based suggestions about the continuation of the national project components’ work. Unfortunately, they did not seem to be used as a ‘living reference’ by Project staff and other institutional stakeholders. Also, differences in design, focus and scope of the three exercises did not allow a comparative analysis of the reviews, which could have certainly been useful to make sense of the process and results of the overall sub-regional Project.


15

61. Project’s complexity asked for a uniform, straightforward, user-friendly monitoring system, supported by a computerized database. However, for most of the project’s life, each country (including the DRC) developed and implemented its own monitoring system, based on the Addendum logframe. An FAO backstopping mission in 2011, aimed at enhancing the Project’s monitoring system and practice, came to the conclusion that the structure and performance of the monitoring practice was extremely variable among national components, namely in connection with the relevance/validity/ reliability of the indicators of performance and the accuracy and completeness of baseline and time series information. 62. On the same occasion in 2011, a workshop was carried out, during which the Coordination staff, the NPMs, the NPCs and other participants revised the countries’ logframes and developed a simple and straightforward template to appraise on a quarterly basis progress in implementation. This was again a hand-run system: it can be argued that entering information in a simple user friendly data base application (e.g. an Excel workbook), would have made it more efficient and allowed for searching, sorting and filtering analytical operations. 63. Overall, there is good evidence that this consultancy contributed to make the Project’s monitoring practice more homogeneous and consistent. Still, it was unable to upgrade the logic underlying monitoring system. The improved system continues to focus on output delivery monitoring, e.g. the number of farmers trained in use of fertilizers, the number of farmer associations upgraded into legally recognized cooperative, technical assistance provided to enhance a given value chain - without analyzing and measuring the effects of the work being done, for example number of farmers capable of using fertilizers appropriately, number of cooperatives members able to keep accounts, indicators of a more efficient and profitable value chain. In short, the opportunity to shift from a delivery-oriented towards a result-oriented system was lost. A major effort would be required to set-up such a system at the time of writing this report, less than a year before the project’s conclusion.

4.3 Technical Backstopping

64. The Sub-regional Project has been backstopped by relevant units at SFE and HQ. Backstopping missions from HQ carried out during the first phase of the Project were highly instrumental in the evolution of Project theory of change towards the value chain approach. SFE assisted Project national components mainly through desk work. This primarily consisted in reviewing, amending and clearing Letters of Agreements with local and national service providers. Frequent email contacts with the FAO Representatives, Assistant FAO Representatives and NPMs were kept and, monthly virtual conferences were organized with the Project Country Teams. 65. Starting from March 2011, these tasks were handed over to Project Coordination. A number of backstopping missions were carried out in the two following years, in the framework of a more comprehensive re-launch of sub-regional activities. These aimed at supporting country teams in addressing specific challenges and issues faced in the implementation of the national components, as well as to develop and promote a common approach and a set of operational tools among the country.


16

66. Examples of these backstopping activities, carried out in addition to the regular assistance to national projects provided by the Sub-regional coordinator, included the following:

• The facilitation of a workshop with Country Teams (NMPs, NPCs and AFAORs) to design of a common M&E system;

• A value chain development Training Course for 30 senior policy makers from the four countries;

• A need assessment of food hygiene and safety at national level whose result were to be transferred to beneficiaries of the project based on identified priorities;

• An SFE backstopping mission to DRC project sites for maize; • A regional Training of Trainers workshop on food safety and quality in hygiene,

food and product certification for technical officials of National Bureau of Standards, Ministries of Agriculture and Trade and Farmers Cooperatives Leaders from the four countries;

• An assessment of current and potential production, trade flows marketing structure, existing regulatory framework, market facilities, and infrastructures in Project countries with a view to sustained linkages between effective demand and supply chains of the relevant commodities.

67. Thus, backstopping inputs focused primarily on the Sub-regional or national level and were related to Output 4, with limited attention paid to technical advice required at the district and grassroots level, on topics such as the proper use of agrochemicals, the structure and functioning of FA/CS and the means to add value to raw produce. 68. Indeed, the Evaluation team was repeatedly told by district level officers about lack of technical assistance by SFE, which was perceived as a weakness of project implementation. Although it is unclear whether these complaints had been raised earlier to the level of project management, they may be an indicator of some lack of clarity on expectations, roles and responsibilities within the project set-up.

4.4 Government’s participation

69. As already mentioned, governments and ministries of agriculture supported the project at different levels. At the national and district level, ministry staff was identified to coordinate implementation with project officers. In the districts visited by the Evaluation mission, collaboration with the DAO in planning and execution of project activities was very strong, with local extension staff taking full responsibility for assisting farmers in managing inputs introduced to intensify agricultural production. To all extents, collaborative links were established with other local government units. 70. At the district level working space for FAO Project staff was made available at DAO’s premises. Project’s and DAO’s equipment and transport were often shared, according to particular needs and contingencies. In Rwanda project activities in intensification of agricultural production has been coordinated with the national farmer fertilizer subsidy programme. In Kabale district, Uganda, a strong partnership was established with the National Agricultural Research Organization, which provided certified foundation potato seeds to the Project-supported seed-multiplication farmers’ groups.


17

71. Overall, based on interviews and daily interaction with these colleagues, the Evaluation team was impressed by the high professional quality of all FAO and Government staff involved in the Project and by the collaboration and cohesion among both parties. This strong partnership at the Central and District levels staff is a strong asset for the future sustainability of the Project.

5 Results and contribution to stated objectives

5.1 Outputs and outcomes

5.1.1 Outcome 1: Strengthening of Farmers’ Associations and Cooperatives

72. The Project process to strengthen FA/Cs varied to some extent, to meet national and local contingencies. A general pattern could still be elicited from observations and interviews carried out with the six FA/Cs visited in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, and from Project documents. This can be summarized as follows:

i. Intensification of agricultural surplus production by smallholders households through “modernization” of cultural techniques, e.g. certified seeds, agrochemicals and, improved cultural techniques, that were diffused among farmers by conventional top-down extension practice, in most cases delivered by District Agricultural Office staff;

ii. Lowering agricultural surplus transaction costs by decreasing as far as possible the number of “passive” intermediations between these smallholders and the market, e.g. by passing harvest-time farm-gate transactions;

iii. Adding value to the above surplus production by means of (i) safer storage facilities aimed at reducing post-harvest losses and allowing for longer conservation of the produce; (ii) postponing sales to times when the demand and price for the commodities were higher; and, to a lesser extent, (iii) transforming agricultural primary commodities (e.g. raw passion fruits ) in more refined and transportable, non perishable, valuable and marketable secondary commodities, e.g. processed passion fruit concentrate or juice;

iv. Developing farmers’ capacity to manage the above, by upgrading already existing spontaneous farmers groups and Farmers’ Associations into legally recognized cooperatives, entitled, among others, to access micro-financing or formal credit from private and public sources. These cooperatives are expected to be economically solid enough to: (i) buffer the direct and indirect costs and risks to be sustained by their members for postponing sales of their produce from immediate post-harvest time to a moment when offer is lower and market price higher; and (ii) enhance the scale of commercial transactions;

v. Developing technical and managerial capacity of Cooperatives and cooperative members, in order to allow them to better manage the above value adding process both technically and financially;

vi. Facilitating the identification of customers able and willing to pay a “fair” price for the bigger stocks of primary commodities according to the national/sub-regional market demand/offer dynamic, usually higher than market price at district/province level, so that local produce will be conveyed to the higher, typically industrial levels


18

of national/sub-regional/international value chains and/or contribute to national food security;

vii. Creating among farmers or in most cases strengthening, an entrepreneurial middle class comprising of cooperative leaders, wholesalers, transporters, lending institutions, service providers, which is expected to act as a driving force in the process of capitalization, reinvestment and market development within the districts or provinces.

73. The most valid and straightforward indicator of the strengthening of FA/Cs is the number of farmer associations upgraded into legally recognized cooperatives, as shown in Box 6. Information available at the time of writing this report showed that the project was assisting 374 FA/Cs, out of which only 78 (20/%) were fully fledged cooperative. Box 6. Number and membership of total FA/Cs and Cooperatives assisted by the Project

Indicator Burundi DRC Rwanda Uganda Total

Total number of FA/Cs *279 53 24*

18 374

Total number of cooperatives 22 28 4 78 Total number of FAC/S members 13,600 11,770 8,998 5,764 38,039

Total number of cooperative members ? 740 8,998 876 10,614

Total number of new cooperatives created by the Project

23 28 10 1 64

Source: project documents; *In Burundi the project did not create but strengthened already existing cooperatives 74. These data should be weighed against the fact that the procedures for constituting a cooperative were still ongoing in an undetermined number of cases. However, since the upgrading of informal associations into entities owning a corporate status is a precondition for signing contracts, accessing credit from banks, subscribing insurance policies, taking advantage of government incentives such as tax exemption or reduction, in brief for becoming fully-fledged market actors, a major effort is necessary in this regard, in particular in consideration of the strong emphasis that the project places on converting “farmers” into “agricultural micro-entrepreneurs”. 75. Strengths of FA/Cs can be assessed also according to their access to means of production. Relative estimates are presented in Box 7. Box 7. Natural capital endowments of Project assisted FA/Cs as per July 2012

Country Natural capital endowments Burundi • 695 hectares of arable land

• Undetermined number of passion fruit espaliers • Un-quantified number of cows

DRC • 696 hectares of arable land • Undetermined number of oil palm trees under exploitation

Rwanda • 1,123 hectares of arable land • Undetermined number of passion fruit espaliers • 1600 heads of dairy cattle

Uganda • 1,380 hectares of arable land • 25,300 bee hives • 530 heads of cattle

Source: project documents


19

6. Estimates in Box 7 suggest that FA/Cs rely on substantial natural capital endowments. However, these data should be balanced against the actual use of these assets and the way in which production is actually managed. This is a critical issue in the case of staple crops. For instance field findings indicate that in Kabale district, Uganda, land allocated to Project-assisted potato production - traditionally both a self consumption and cash crop - is about 40% of the one hectare the modal smallholder family unit owned. Further, in Burera district, Rwanda, farmers did not allocate more than 30% of their 0.8 ha plot to Project assisted maize production. In addition, it must be considered that a significant share of the yields that were supposed to be transacted by the FA/Cs was actually kept by farmers for self consumption and/or commercialized individually to local traders. Hence, in these cases, farmers’ investment in Project promoted FA/Cs was rather limited, which weakened FA/Cs capacity to establish business relationships with bulk-buyers and other actors of the value chain. This problem was less severe with regard to secondary “diversification” crops such as fruit and honey that were cultivated almost exclusively for income generating purposes, such as passion fruit in Kayanza District, Burundi where, however, FA/Cs problem is not the increasing volume of tradable production, rather managing the risk of over-production.

5.1.2 Development of technical and managerial capacity

76. Project’s outcome 2 reads as follows: “Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors”. Field and desk review findings suggest that major efforts were done in this connection. Dozens of training events have been carried out and continued extension/on-the-job training has been offered to FA/Cs and (to a lesser extent) to other stakeholders of the Project-supported value chains. 77. For the evaluation team, it has been virtually impossible to get into the details of all the capacity development activities carried out by the Project. Information was thus assessed for 30 major capacity development events, including training courses, workshops, and exchange visits described in the Progress Reports issued from March 2010 to March 2012 at district and grassroots level.17 Distribution by country was as follows: ten in Uganda, seven in Burundi and Rwanda and six in the DRC. 78. Based on content analysis of respective narratives, the Evaluation classified these events and activities in five main categories: i) intensification of production; ii) post-harvest management; iii) farmers’ organizational development; iv) business development services; and (v) finance. Box 8 shows the number of events per category. The number of capacity development events on farming subjects, such as intensification of production and strengthening of post-harvest management, was almost equal to the number of events on management issues, such as farmers’ organizations, rules and functioning of legally recognized cooperatives, business development services and finance.

17 This choice was made under the assumption that officially reported training activities are those that were

particularly relevant and significant


20

Box 8. Training and capacity development events implemented by the Project in all countries

Main topic Number of Capacity

Development events

Intensification of production, including demonstration and extension of modern agricultural techniques and technologies, including seeds and chemical inputs, pest management, training of trainers for extension workers

15

Post-harvest management, including storage, use of appropriate time saving technologies, value-adding by processing and transformation of raw products

6

Farmers’ organizational development, including strengthening of Farmers’ Associations, upgrading into legalized cooperatives, drafting of Cooperatives’ regulations

5

Business development services, including preparation of business plans; marketing, market linkages; participation in value chains; implementation and use of market information system

14

Finance, including credit from banks and micro-finance institutions, FA/Cs saving systems, accounting, promotion of individual bank accounts.

5

NB: The total number of entries in this table is higher than the number of sampled training events/activities (30) because some of these dealt with more than one major topic listed in the first column of the table 79. Data on the number of participants were available only for 13 out of these 30 reported capacity development events. This information is presented in Box 9 below. Median value of participants in each training activity was 24. Box 9. Available information on number of participants in 2010-2012 capacity development

activities implemented by the Project

Country Subject Number of participants

DRC Business plan design 13

DRC Management of market transactions and value chains 46 DRC Exchange visit among Rwanda and Uganda farmers and agricultural

technicians 35

Rwanda Cassava value chain development 10

Rwanda Potato value chain 13

Uganda Basic veterinary services in diary animal production & primary health care

20

Uganda Village saving & loans 20

Uganda Integrated pest & disease management 24

Uganda Trade and value chain approach mainstreaming at national and regional level.

30

Uganda Potato seed production 43

Uganda Potato seeds value chain 44

Uganda Potato seed production (three events) 105

Uganda Honey value chain (six events) 200

Total 603 Source: Progress Reports March 2010-March 2012


21

80. No information was found about the quality of training, its learning effectiveness (i.e. the number of trainees that have achieved the learning objectives of the training at an acceptable level of performance) and its impact (i.e. the number of trainees that are properly applying what they have learned. Interviews to a variety of stakeholders, including FA/Cs members, district and central level staff of the MoAs and FAO staff, allowed carrying out a qualitative assessment of Project’s contribution to capacity development. This is presented in Box 10, below. Box 10. Views of different stakeholders on Project’s capacity development activities

Country Content

Burundi Capacity development in management of passion fruit plots (e.g. multiplication of improved planting materials, extension assistance in the use of manure and chemical inputs) was very useful to us, as well as visits to Rwanda and exchange with other producers. Perhaps, day-to-day extension support was not enough.

Burundi Capacity development was an outstanding strength of this project

Rwanda Trainings in agricultural techniques, post-harvest, processing for value addition (e.g. transforming grain in maize-grits), business plans, up-scaling production and enhanced packaging and marketing were very useful to us

Rwanda Trainings in improvement of agricultural skills, including sowing on contour lines, processing and selling manure, as well as capacity development in wholesaling and managing our cooperative were ok.

Rwanda The Project was successful in training farmers in intensification of agricultural production and assisted in the upgrading of farmers' association into fully-fledged cooperatives. Exchange visits with Project’s component in Burundi and Congo has been instrumental in this aspect.

Rwanda Capacity development has been very effective for the development of cooperatives. However, a major weakness has been transferring the skills needed to develop business plans. Contracting of national and local service providers to deal with this subject was ok, but experience has shown that these outsourcers should be carefully selected.

Uganda Capacity development in intensification of production and management of FA/Cs has been insufficient and has been left incomplete. Too many service providers from the capital were involved, some of whom do not give quality services. It would have been better to provide training of trainers to DOS staff. Capacity development must be re-taken by the Project and strengthened during phasing out phase.

Uganda The most important contribution of the Project has been capacity development. Farmers' agricultural skills were developed, also by strengthening their linkages with the NARO's (National Agricultural Research Organization) station based in Kachwekano. Perhaps even most important, the project has contributed to the development of management skills of farmers' associations, some of which are in the process of upscaling into legally recognized cooperatives. Now, the Project should finalize what it started. It must also be stressed that backstopping by FAO has been insufficient so far.

Uganda For sure, capacity development at various level was a major strength of the project

Uganda FAO promoted/organized several trainings during phase one: the training on Integrated Pest Management was particularly successful. Then service providers came into the picture: one should understand that most Ugandan service providers are weak. It would have been better to rely on competent persons. Unfortunately FAO bureaucracy makes it very difficult to cancel a contract when the service provider is not performing well

Uganda Joining different local social and administrative units (collines) into cooperatives was ok, however capacity building delivered in this connection was not enough.

Source: field interviews, July 2012 81. These statements and field observations suggest that:

• A consensus exists on the major contribution given by the Project in transferring the knowledge and skills needed to intensify production and manage post-harvest storage and processing. Collaboration with district-level, public agricultural extension and research services were an important factor in this process.

• The role played by the Project in strengthening FA/Cs management capacities is more controversial: several informants stress that capacity development on


22

formulation of business plans, accounting and financial management was not effective as desirable. In this respect, it was noted that the Project did not facilitate training in informatics to the FA/Cs, nor supported them in purchasing the equipment and tools needed to computerize their accounting system.

• Service providers contracted by the Project to conduct capacity development were sometimes perceived as “weak”, in particular as managerial issues are concerned. More backstopping by FAO experts was advocated in this connection.

• Capacity development process on the above subjects needs further strengthening and efforts.

5.1.3 Improving efficiency and increase profitability of value chains

82. As already mentioned, since 2009, the Project has deployed significant efforts and resources in strengthening agri-business linkages and contract arrangements between producers/producer cooperatives and local trading/processing enterprises. This was aimed at enhancing the efficiency and profitability of the value chains prioritized by the baseline/ex-ante feasibility studies. This was based on intensification of production, improvement of post-harvest handling, storing, and bulk-selling. In some cases packaging and processing activities were also introduced, mostly in an “experimental” mode. Some support was also given to the functioning of a few private trading/processing enterprises absorbing FA/Cs end-products. 83. The approach was implemented flexibly according to the nature of the commodity, the relative strength of the involved FA/Cs, the availability of credit, the structure of the local market and the national agricultural policy as actually implemented at the district level. Project-related factors such as the quality of capacity development services and investments in equipment and infrastructure contributed to make each one of these experiences different from the other, both in terms of process and results. The following three case studies illustrate the range of this variation. The potato value chain in Kabale district, Uganda

84. Kabale District is located in Western Uganda, at the border with Rwanda. The landscape features high and steep hills whose altitude can be over 3,500 a.s.l., and lower swampy alluvial valleys. Two very different farming systems can be identified in these watersheds. Downstream areas, rich in water and sediment, are exploited (mostly by affluent farmers) as grazing land and intensive commercial horticultural production. In the upstream, a typical highland mixed farming system prevails: green banana, beans, sweet potatoes, maize, sorghum, potatoes and other products are grown by farming households primarily for self consumption. 85. Data available indicate that in 2001, the total population of Kabale district was at 642,000 over a dwelled area of 1,779 km2. Population density was already at 361 km2, with a population growth rate estimated at about 3% per year. Farm size ranged from 1 to 2 hectares, with half of the permanent plots being purchased and half being inherited. A key feature of land tenure in Kabale was that households have many plots that are scattered throughout the landscape, which provides them with access to different agro-ecological niches. 86. In the highlands of Kabale district, Irish potato is the most important cash crop. Ninety-five per cent of informants interviewed by Aliguma (2009) stated that potato selling is


23

their major source of income. Short cropping cycle allows for two growing seasons making potatoes available all year round. Before Project’s intervention, low use of inputs, inadequate and poor quality seed and ineffective control of pests and diseases limited yields at 4 tons per hectare, which correspond to the national average.18 87. In the past, potato cash croppers had often joined spontaneously in small groups to mobilize labour at planting and harvesting time and sharing transaction costs (e.g. transport) at the moment of selling their produce. Some of these groups upgraded into Farmers’ Associations, either spontaneously or with the support of public extension service or local NGO. 88. As of July 2012, potato producers in Kabale district were organized in one cooperative- the Muko Expanded Potato Producers’ Cooperative (MEPPA) and four farmers associations. Total membership was at 1,691. In the district there were also four seed potato groups, totalling 105 members. 89. Project assistance to these FA/Cs in improving their position in the local potato value chain consisted of facilitating access to quality seed and agro-chemicals, supplying technical and managerial training, and promoting some post-harvest and packaging facilities. A partnership had been facilitated with the Kachwekano Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (KAZARDI) that delivered certified foundation seed (subsequently multiplied by the seed producer groups). Local agro-input dealers were also connected to facilitate access to fertilizers and agro-chemicals by providing campaign credit. Linkages had also been established with the local branch of the Centenary Bank to ensure access to credit to the cooperative. The Project had also strived to create village saving-and-loan schemes. Both initiatives seemed incipient. Assistance was sought after the DAO for delivering extension services. All the above was carried out with the support of the local government that, among other forms of assistance, made available the plots on which farmer associations built their warehouses. 90. On the supply side, three different commodities (graded potatoes, ungraded potatoes and seed potato) were commercialized, by the FA/Cs and three main clients had been identified: Nandos, a fast-food chain in Kampala that purchases most of the bigger potatoes (Grade A);19 local wholesalers, who absorb ungraded production; and NAADS that purchases from farmers seed potato and after quality control distributes them among other farmers at a subsidized price.20 Monitoring of storage losses and classification of produce was carried out by FA/Cs specifically trained members. Transacting with major clients, such as Nandos, was the responsibility of FA/Cs business wing. 91. Only a share of the FA/Cs members’ production transited through the associations and cooperatives. On average at least 20% of yield was kept for self-consumption. In addition, farmers in immediate need for money continued to sell at harvest-time part of their produce of ungraded potatoes to brokers at lower farm-gate prices (USD 200/per ton).

18 Ferris et al, 2001 19 Nandos had already a contract with one farmer association before that Project came in. The Project

facilitated the extension of this contract to other farmers’ associations in order to meet client increasing demand

20 Producers get 9% of the final selling price from Nandos to consumers while the business wing gets about 12%.


24

NAADS was the main seed market (46%); 38% of seed production was used by farmers for themselves and for selling to other farmers at a lower price, while 16% was sold through the FA/C business wings. Non monetary, reciprocity-based exchanges were also likely to take place within the community. According to NPMs and local informants about 40% of FA/Cs member’s production is actually being conveyed through the Project-engineered value chains. 92. Is participation in Project-assisted FA/Cs profitable for the farmers? Although accurate data were not available, some rough financial estimates could be made, based on information provided by the NPM and district level agriculture staff. Findings are summarized in Box 11 below. Box 11. Basic financial figures for improved production/commercialization of one hectare

potato farm*, Kabale District, Uganda

Indicator Value (USD) Production cost/ha 6,400 Gross revenue/ha 16,080 Profit/ha 9,680 Cost/ benefit ratio: 1:2.5

* In Kabale district, one hectare roughly corresponds to the area sown in one year (i.e. during two seasons) by a commercial-oriented potato farmer 93. The financial analysis shows that growing potatoes in Kabale was a very profitable business in 2012. Net profit was at 60% of gross revenue and 2.5 times higher than production cost. This result depended primarily on the increase in yields from baseline 1.2 tons/ha to current 2.9 tons/ha, made possible by the technology introduced by the Project. In addition, reduced intermediation and regular business with Nandos have enabled farmers to sell at a better price. The maize value chain in Burera district, Rwanda

94. Burera District is located in Northern Rwanda, at the border with Uganda. The District has an area of 645 Km2 and a population of 323,000 inhabitants, which gives a density of 500 persons per Km2. Average household composition of 6 and population growth at 2.6%. It is evident that land is a major issue in the district: the modal landholding per household is at one hectare, but it ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 hectares, which indicates the existence of a significant socio-economic stratification. Chronic malnutrition (stunting) among children<5 is at 52%,21 a figure that suggests that food insecurity and poverty are widespread. 95. The landscape of Burera District is hilly with altitude ranging from 1800 to 2900 m a.s.l. Slope is steep, so that water and sediment run off rapidly towards the downstream valley that is covered by lakes and swamps, with strips of good arable land, mostly used for commercial horticulture. Upstream a maize-mixed farming system prevails with maize, beans and Irish potatoes as the main crops. There are no purely cash crops and farmers get their income from selling surpluses.

21 According to Binagwaho et. al, (2011) in Rwanda, the national chronic malnutrition prevalence in <5 is at

45%


25

96. Given the above, project intervention has concentrated in intensifying yields of the staple crops, focusing in particular on maize and potato. Thanks also to the 50% government subsidy for fertilizers, improved seed and free pesticides for the beneficiaries and extension services, a significant increase in yields has taken place in Project-assisted areas. This is shown in Box 12 below. Box 12. Average maize and potato yields from project assisted/non assisted areas (Burera

District, Rwanda)

Crop Yield Average maize yield in project non assisted areas 1 ton / ha

Average maize yield in project assisted areas 3 tons / ha

Average potato yield in project non assisted areas 10 tons / ha

Average potato yield in project assisted areas 20 tons / ha

Source: Project, Rwanda 97. Activities on the supply side of the value chain consisted in the improvement of post-harvest and pre-processing practice, namely grain drying and safe storage for out-season commercialization and maize-grits making in cottage industries, establishing maize collection and sale sites. 98. Five farmer associations (two producing potatoes and three producing maize) have been upgraded into cooperatives registered at the Rwanda Cooperative Authority. There were diverging views on the actual capacity of cooperative leaders to draw business plans and manage accounts, with several local stakeholders rather negative about it. The cooperatives were trained in getting information on markets and price through the “E-Soko” cell-phone network initiated by the MoA, but no evidence existed that they had established solid linkages with major clients. As in the pre-Project scenario most of the maize was sold untreated, to local millers and most of the ware potatoes were purchased by district medium-level intermediaries. 99. Financial indicators for maize in Burera district are shown in Box 13 below. Box 13. Basic financial figures for improved production/commercialization of one hectare of

maize in one season in Burera District, Rwanda

Indicator Value Production cost/ha USD 460 Gross revenue/ha USD 1,268 Profit/ha USD 840 Cost/ benefit ratio: 1:2.8

Source: Evaluation team, based on data provided by the Project, Rwanda 100. Cost-benefit ratio describes a rather efficient and profitable enterprise almost duplicating the initial investment. Profit is USD 840 x hectare (over a one six-month season). However, the average maize cultivated for surplus production is at 0.20 has, household seasonal income from this crop is around USD 200. This is not a negligible amount of money for the day-by-day household economy of Burera farmers, but it is unlikely that it would allow for substantial capitalization. Production scale seems to be the major constraint in the development of maize market in Burera. Evidence exists that members of the maize producer


26

cooperatives have sold part of their Project-assisted commercial harvest to farm-gate traders or other small intermediaries, most probably to maintain this alternative ready-cash market outlet for their produce. Also, cultural factors should not be disregarded in this respect: nutritionally and symbolically, maize is the primary “food security” crop: farmers take up to 60% of their maize grain for home consumption and may be resistant to grow it as cash crop on a large scale. Passion fruit in Kayanza Province, Burundi

101. Kayanza Province is located in Northern Burundi, not far from the border with Rwanda. The Province’s landscape includes two different ecosystems; in the Mugamba area, a rugged and steep mountain ecosystem prevails, with altitude ranging from 1900 to 2600 m a.s.l. In Buyenzi and Kirimiro areas, the landscape features gentle steep hills, whose altitude averages 1500 m a.s.l. As the climate is hotter and more humid than in Mugabe, in this area, green bananas are the main staple food, in addition to maize, beans, cassava and sweet-potatoes. A variety of tropical fruits are also grown, including passion fruit. The province is populated by 514.075 inhabitants. Population density is at 417 inhabitants per Km2 and population grows at a rate of 2.6% per year. The average number of household members is at seven. Average household landholding is at 0.4 ha, ranging from 0.2 to 5 has. Extreme land-based stratification is certainly a major feature in Kayanza Province socio-economic structure. 102. In Kayanza Province, farmers used to trade semi-domesticated passion fruit on an informal market dominated by brokers. Around the year 2005, farmer associations of passion fruit producers were created and efforts started to be deployed to increase yields and enhance the quality of production. The Project intervened in this process by organizing the twelve already existing farmers associations in three cooperatives, which comprised of 677 members. Half of cooperative members at the time of the Evaluation mission were women. Cooperative members have been exposed to technical and managerial capacity development. Improved planting materials were procured and agronomic practices improved by the public extension service. 103. On the supply side, Project created Marex a small traders association, linked with Transjuma, a small-size, but with a significant potential for growth, local passion fruit juice extraction and packaging enterprise that absorbed about 20% of FA/Cs produce. The remaining 80% of local produce was exported by Marex to several East African countries especially Rwanda (58%) where they had contractual arrangement with juice processors. 104. One key informant stated that the synergy among production intensification activities on the input side of the chain and the development of the above market outlet, on the supply side, have led to a 24 times increase in the volume of exchange from the 100 tons/year in 2008 to 2400 tons/year (96%) in 2012. This estimate is most probably exaggerated, but it is pretty clear that a ‘passion fruit boom’ is taking place in Kayanza. Figures in Box 14 provide a clear explanation for this.


27

Box 14. Basic financial figures for improved production of a one hectare plantation of passion fruit in Kayanza Province, Burundi, comparison over plantation year

Indicator Plantation year* Subsequent year Production cost USD 1,080 USD 864 Gross revenue USD 6,140 USD 6140 Profit USD 5060 USD 5276 Cost/ benefit ratio: 1:5.6 1: 7,1

Source: estimates provided by the Project, Burundi *During the plantation year cost of production is higher than in subsequent years because certified planting materials and espaliers on which passion fruit vines are grown, have to be purchased. In addition, a higher amount of labour is needed. Maintenance cost of the plantation in subsequent years is hereby approximately estimated at 20% of the initial investment. 105. Data indicate that this crop is highly profitable, which is largely due to the limited investment needed to start up and manage production, as well as the favourable ecology of the area. Given the nature of the crop and the shortage of arable land in the Province, an average subsistence-oriented farmer would not plant passion fruit on more than 100 - 200 m2. This corresponds to an individual investment of USD 11-22 (affordable for most smallholders) that will yield a profit of USD 50-100 in the first year, and of USD 120-140 in the second year, an amount sufficient to cover school and health care and ordinary household expenses (e.g. salt, sugar) for most of the year, several bags of maize and or, for higher and more affluent producers, invest in livestock. In this perspective, passion fruit has become a diversification crop that complements basic staple food production by generating cash in a very efficient manner. 106. Passion fruit boom in Kayanza would not have been possible if a market for this rapidly perishable commodity had not been made easily accessible to the producers by the Project. These were the Marex traders and Transjuma processors. Marex’s demands for exportable first quality passion fruit has been so far increasing, while Transjuma processor demand for regular quality fruit seems to be stuck by the limited processing capacity of the plant. 107. Passion fruit production in Kayanza looks as a success story so far. The current profitability of the crop could attract more producers and cause increased land-allocation to it, although there are some ecological limitations to its expansion. At the same time, current import bans in the sub-region and limited Burundi market absorption capacity pose a clear ceiling to what will be the production point beyond which prices will fall. Another possible scenario would be the shift from the diversification-focus of this secondary crop to the multiplication and enlargement of fully-fledged passion fruit enterprises. This would have consequences on land availability for small farmers interested in cropping for home-consumption from the area. In either cases, close monitoring by DAO and the project of the evolving cropping patterns, together with adequate capacity development of farmers and diversification in other crops, should help in mitigating related risks. Policy and technical assistance should focus, at least for the foreseeable future, in protecting the diversification and income-addition role played by this crop in smallholder livelihoods strategies. Contribution to a policy enabling environment for the value chain approach

108. Sub-regions can be defined as geo-political areas featuring a relatively homogeneous natural environmental, socio-economic situation and macro-economic scenario. The


28

comparative advantage of a sub-regional project is in addressing developmental issues by identifying, generally in selected pilot sites, innovative technologies and organizational arrangements compatible with sub-regional and national policies and regulations. 109. In the project Addendum three outputs focus on this issue:

• Output 3.1 - Institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities in & outside the sub-region for selected commodities;22

• Output 3.2 - Sub-regional cooperation strengthened and information exchange fostered including capacity building and institutional strengthening on value chain approach;

• Output 3.3 - Synthesis of the technical results of the project. 110. Concerning output 3.1, a study on integration of Burundi in COMESA was carried out early in the life of the Project (Manirumva and Dismas, 2008). Reportedly, a road map to remove restrictive regulations and taxes among the four countries, benefitting in particular the border districts/provinces where the Project has been/is implemented was developed. An assessment mission was fielded by FAO’s Trade and Markets Division in June 2012 to assess the existing regulatory framework and identify challenges in implementing standards and regulations in cross-border trade. Mission findings were shared at a cross border workshop held in Kabale District (Uganda) on 21-22 June 2012, with the participation of representatives from the Ministries of Trade, Agriculture, Custom Authorities, National Bureau of Standards from the four participating countries, as well as from COMESA and the East African Community. A number of recommendations on how to address main constraints and to facilitate access to cross-border trade for small traders have been identified. These will be discussed in a high level policy event, planned for October 2012. 111. Under output 3.2, focused on promotion and exchange of information on the value chain approach at the sub-regional/regional level, a regional training course was held in March 2011 in Kampala, Uganda. Its purpose was raising awareness and developing the capacity of national institutions to implement the value chain approach, involving senior policy makers and representatives from the main farmers associations, cooperatives and private sector actors participating in the project. 112. Also, the Project with the support of AGN and EST, held a Regional Food Safety and Quality Training in May 2012 in Kigali, Rwanda. The training was attended by representatives of Project’s countries ministries of agriculture, trade and industry, customs, authorities, national bureau of standards, and major cooperatives engaged in the project. Further, the Project organized and carried out in May and November 2011 and May 2012 other capacity development events involving high-level stakeholders, that focused on farmers in/output markets.23 113. In addition, two participants per country identified among Government policy makers and managers of major national apex farmers organizations were trained in November 2011 and May 2012 in Ghana and Burkina Faso by the International Fertilizer Development Centre, to enhance the capacity on value chain development and support to market access. 22 This corresponds to outcome 4 as spelled out in Annex 3 of the ToR of this evaluation 23 These were in addition to CD events listed in Box 9 above, which focused on CD at district and grass-roots

level.


29

114. Based on the technical report prepared by EST (Mr Koroma, Economist, EST) a high level event to advocate for the implementation of the recommendation made at the above mentioned workshop held in Kabale and for a more conducive policy environment at national and regional level was planned for the second half of 2012. 115. No evidence exists of any initiative aimed at organizing and synthesizing project experience at the country and sub-regional level (output 3) and at identifying lessons learned. A consultancy was planned for the second semester of 2012 to deal with this task. 116. In consideration of the evidence available, the Evaluation team considers that activities implemented within Outcome 4 are still in an incipient state and need to be strengthened.

5.2 Gender issues

117. Unlike the 2006 ProDoc, the Addendum did not include any special reference to gender issues. Both field findings and desk review suggested that no particular activity focused on gender relationship and women was carried out during the second phase of the project. 118. Data on women’s involvement in FA/Cs were provided by the project in Rwanda and Uganda: in Rwanda, 35% of the participants were women, and in Uganda, 52%. High women participation was confirmed by the team’s field observation: about one quarter of focus group respondents were women. It must be concluded that, at least in these two countries, women had almost full or equal opportunities to participate in project activities, even though the Project did not make significant efforts in this connection. A plausible explanation was that high female membership in FA/Cs reflected the functioning of local farming system and, in particular, in a “soft” differentiation of gender roles in household division of labour. However, available data do not allow confirmation of this hypothesis.

5.3 Capacity development

119. The development of entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors were fully embedded in two of the four outcomes of the project. Thus, this subject has been already dealt with thoroughly in the relevant sections of the report. 120. Concerning Outcome 2 - Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors - the Evaluation team still notes that, in most cases, the project did not assess Capacity Development process effectiveness, i.e. actual learning at an acceptable level of performance, nor impact, i.e. proper application by training participants of the new knowledge and skills. This hindered any sound judgement about the actual contribution of the CD activities to the strengthening of FA/Cs (outcome 1) and their articulation to particular commodity value chain (outcome 3). 121. The team also acknowledges that some efforts were devoted to support the development of an ‘enabling environment’ for the value chain approach (Outcome 4), by


30

creating opportunities for exchange and learning for policy makers and other high-level stakeholders. There was no evidence however, at the time of the Evaluation, of any tangible and lasting results from these.

5.4 Impact

122. The key question of any project, and this is no exception, is the extent to which the synergy among achievements led so far, or has the potential to lead in the foreseeable future, to an appreciable change in income and livelihoods of smallholders participating in Project’s initiatives. 123. Although baseline data were not available, benchmarking with national figures and proxy indicators (e.g. increase in yields) suggests that a tangible improvement in profitability and efficiency took place in the potato value chain in Kabale district in Uganda and in the maize value chain in Burera district, Rwanda. Profitability and economic efficiency of passion fruit value chain in Kayanza district, Burundi appears indisputable. 124. Qualitative evidence of an enhancement of FA/Cs income and livelihoods come from the seven focus groups carried out with a total of about 120 farmers. Focus group guide included the question: “what has changed in your life because of your participation into Project activities?” Almost unanimously, respondents stressed that capacity development in intensification of agricultural production, decrease of post-harvest losses, out-of-season selling, simple processing and packaging processes, bulk-selling and, to a lesser extent, enhanced credit availability have led to a significant increase in household income, which was primarily spent or invested in improving livelihood systems. 125. FA/Cs members stated that thanks to this additional income, it is now easier for them to pay school fees and scholastic materials, afford health care expenses, purchase home items (e.g. mattresses), renewing agricultural tool-kits (e.g. replacing an old hoe with a new one) and sustaining daily petty expenses. In addition, at least half of the informants, most probably the owners of the larger and most productive farms, stated that the increased profits also enabled them to enhance their household endowments by purchasing livestock, plots of land and opening saving accounts at the bank. 126. Women stated that participation in Project-promoted FA/Cs helped them in not being shy in expressing their views and strengthened their decision-making power in the household. In summary, focus group interviews have elicited an enhancement of FA/Cs’ members household natural, physical, financial, social and cultural assets. The Evaluation team is well aware that some bias was implicit in the self-selection of focus groups participants, skewed in favour of most enthusiastic participants. Also, in the absence of baselines, all reported is anecdotal. Still, there is no doubt about consistency of comments across the groups, supported by the financial analysis discussed above.

5.5 Sustainability

127. Environmental sustainability is hereby defined as the capacity to exploit natural resources without hampering their production capacity in the future. Project-promoted intensification of potato and maize through use of agrochemicals certainly involves a risk in


31

this connection. According to several experts (e.g. Belay and al. 2002) chemical fertilizers and pesticides certainly lead to a major increase in yields on the short term. However, even if used according to “label instructions”, they entail long-term environmental risks. These include disruption of the agro-ecological balance, negative changes in soil structure and texture and water retention and water table pollution and salinization. Hence, continuing and extending this practice might add a further environmental threat in agro-ecosystems already exposed to tropical showers, featuring erosion-prone steep slopes, and on top of that at risk for extreme meteorological events related to climate change. 128. Social sustainability relates to the welfare of those who live on the farm. In project areas population density ranges from 200 to 400 people per Km2, average landholding is less than one hectare (60-75% of which is cultivated for subsistence), population growth ranges between 3% and 5% and households with malnourished children ranges between 20% and 40%. The Project is promoting a shift from production oriented to self-consumption to market-oriented production, or from “peasant farming’ to ‘rural entrepreneurship’. However, only some can make this step, and there are risks that for the benefits they will gain, others will pay an inordinate price in terms of access to scarce land resources and other production factors. It is within FAO’s mandate to ensure that food security is for all, and to strive to mitigate the negative externalities of agricultural modernization. 129. Economical sustainability – Finally, are increased income and its spill-over on household welfare financially sustainable? At a glance, financial sustainability of project achievements depends very much on FA/Cs capability to sustain both under production and over production risks. The extreme cases are the maize crop failure among Burera district FA/Cs in 2012,24 and the trend to passion fruit overproduction observed in Kayanza province. Will maize producing Burera FA/Cs be able to buffer, thanks to saving, credit and alternative crops, the 2012 underproduction crisis without failing? Will Kayanza passion fruit growers be in the position to prevent and overcome a possible overproduction crisis by investing part of their high profits in other, possibly joint value-chain activities such as establishing juice processing infrastructures? The Evaluation team believes that key stakeholders, namely the Governments and FAO should strive to ensure that actions be taken to provide solid answers to these questions, lest jeopardizing the overall economical sustainability of Project’s achievements.

24 During the 2012 season in Burera District maize production was seriously affected by the low germination

of the seed provided by the Project to the FA/Cs. In that case loss occurred with a C/B at 0.8. Farmers interviewed on this subject were thinking to make up the loss by intensifying their second season production of beans. Apparently the project had not supported farmers in identifying this compensatory strategy.


32

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

130. After a poorly implemented first phase, in 2010 the project was radically reformulated. Its theory of change shifted from a “conventional” sustainable livelihoods approach to an “innovative” market-oriented approach based on intensification of production, creation of cooperative enterprises and articulation of producers to particular commodity value chains. This shift was in line with the new agricultural sector development policies adopted by the governments and international organization of the sub-region. In this connection, the Project was conceived as a kind of pilot test of the viability and effectiveness of these policies. 131. During the three years elapsing from the start of Project phase two and July 2012, time of this evaluation, implementation was smooth in the four countries. Performance of project staff was excellent, as well as management of financial resources. Coverage and productivity achieved during this three-year period were significant: by July 2012, in the four countries the Project had assisted (mainly through capacity building activities) about 40,000 people, grouped in 374 FA/Cs, that were articulated around nine national/sub-regional commodity value chains that had been chosen through consultations with district stakeholders and technical baseline/feasibility studies. Capacity development in intensification of agricultural production, FA/Cs organization and business management were delivered by Project-contracted service providers (consultancy firms, NGOs, public extension and commerce services). On the input side of the value chain business linkages were established with agrochemical providers, while on the supply side, market outlets for increased production were identified and set in motion. 132. The actual contribution of Project activities to the expected outcomes was difficult to assess. This depended on the short time available to the evaluation team to collect primary information in the field, unsystematic and fragmentary relevant information in Project documentation and, in general, the limited attention paid by the project to the actual effectiveness of its work, rather than delivery. An additional constraint in assessing the degree of achievement of project outcomes is that the evaluation took place one year before the official NTE of the Project, when several processes were still ongoing. 133. Keeping in mind these limitations, according to the best judgement of the evaluation team, by July 2012, achievement of project outcomes was still incipient on a number of fronts, as discussed below. 134. Out of a total number of 374 FA/Cs, only 78 (20%) were formal cooperative enterprises. For different substantial and bureaucratic reasons, Project achievements in the constitution of fully-fledged cooperatives were insufficient, in particular if the strong emphasis that project discourse places on converting “farmers” in “agricultural micro-entrepreneurs” is considered. 135. Most stakeholders agree that capacity development of FA/Cs members was more effective in the area of intensification of agricultural production and post-harvest handling/pre-processing (i.e. the farmer job) than in cooperative and business management matters. This is understandable, as management requires a higher level of formal education


33

than what typically achieved by the modal FA/C member. Weak management skills are and will remain a major constraint for cooperative enterprises and those farmers’ associations that are expected to get this status in the near future, unless greater efforts are directed to it. 136. Concerning value chains, work done on the input side (production) was more significant and impacting than the supply side work, i.e. commercialization of production. Contacts were facilitated/consolidated between FA/Cs and some local trading and processing private companies, and access to credit occasionally enhanced, which added some value to increased yields. In project discourse, these localized supply side activities were presented as examples of how the value chain approach could assist both farmers and rural traders in making more profitable transactions, bringing benefits to all the actors involved in the chain and eventually sustaining the growth of the whole agricultural sector of local economy. Still, the Evaluation team believes that work and funds allocated to support private enterprises would be more effectively invested in increasing FA/Cs capacity to control further post-harvest/processing/trading segments of the value chain and in providing FA/Cs with skills and equipment to process raw products and facilities for transport to profitable urban markets. 137. Little can be said about the strengthening of institutional and regulatory support of cross border trade (outcome 4), also because relevant Project activities in this area started late in the life of the Project. On the other hand, the Evaluation team believes that international agreement for cross-border trade are a matter of regional policy and politics that should best be dealt with by regional organizations such as the African Union, NEPAD- CAADP, the East African Community and COMESA. FAO has undoubtedly a mandate on this in the agricultural sector, and projects like GCP/RAF/391/ITA can provide useful information from which to draw evidence-based policy. Indeed, according to FAO-TC web site the contribution to policy-making of technical cooperation projects should limit to provide field-based information (and, when appropriate, relevant capacity development) to policy-makers. The conclusion of the Evaluation team is that the way in which the Project has addressed this outcome is over-ambitious and not consistent with the role of fact finder/provider it should play to support policy making processes. 138. Farmers interviewed in the field stated that Project’s assistance has significantly contributed to increase their income and enhance their livelihoods. Financial analysis suggested that production and trading of the three crops under study were profitable and relatively efficient. In the opinion of the evaluation team this almost immediate impact should be attributed to the intensification of production, made possible by the provision of better planting materials, the introduction (increase or better management) of agrochemicals, and, to a lesser extent, a decrease of post-harvest losses through use of storage techniques and facilities. Better marketing may have played a role, but as far it was possible to observe in the field this has not always been substantial. At the end of the day, farmers have earned more because they produced more. Still, one may ask to what extent intensification of production will be sustainable on the mid-long term. The evaluation team raises concerns about the environmental sustainability of the prolonged use of chemicals on soil and agro-ecology is well known, especially when land tenure does not allow for fallow seasons. In addition, intensification increases the risks of over-production crisis. No evidence was found on the field or in project documentation that these factors were taken into consideration by the Project.


34

6.2 Recommendations

139. Most of the following recommendations are addressed to Project Management and are meant to be implemented during the next eighteen months, to tackle key aspects identified and discussed in the report. A major recommendation is also formulated, about project duration. This is based on the assumption that, given the amount of funds still available in project budget, a six-month no-cost-extension should be possible and could be approved by the donor. Recommendation 1: To the donor, the governments of the participating countries and

FAO The Project should be extended beyond its current end date by six months, at no-cost. This will allow consolidating achievements and tackling key aspects that will contribute to sustainability and impact of the entire initiative. 140. As pointed out by one informant, “the Project should complete whatever has been started“ and, in particular, make sure that the participating farmers’ associations will be upgraded into legally recognized and well functioning cooperatives. The strength of the cooperatives will be a key element of the project’s sustainability. Thus, the Evaluation recommends the following actions. Recommendation 2: To the Project, on cooperatives The project should focus its support to cooperatives as follows: a) A significant proportion of participating farmers’ associations should be upgraded into legally recognized and well functioning cooperatives; b) Cooperatives should be designed or, when appropriate, restructured as social enterprises, aimed at also enhancing household livelihoods aspects; c) A rotational fund for supporting the development of household cultural and human capital (i.e. educational grants and health care expenses) should be included in the economic architecture of the cooperatives, investing on it part of the association fees, shares and profits of their productive and commercial activities; d) A strong training programme in management of cooperatives as social enterprises should be implemented during the last year of project life. Reputable experts in rural cooperative development (for content) and adult education (for teaching-learning methodology) should be contracted as trainers of cooperative management trainers that will work at the district level; e) A reader-friendly handbook on rural cooperative management should be prepared by the Project to be used as a learning and reference tool by cooperative members; f) Emphasis of transactions among different private sector actors of the value chain should be smoothened and replaced by a stronger effort to promote cooperatives’ control over the processing and commercialization segments of the value chain; g) Cooperatives should be endowed with the proper infrastructure and equipment and related capacity development. This might include maize and potato mills, fruit juice processing plants, rice packaging facilities, milk cold chain and UHT plant. Granting funds for buying one medium tonnage truck should be considered for those cooperatives strong enough to manage this facility; h) Without neglecting the importance of maintaining and strengthening business relationship with ordinary market clients, linkages with food-aid organizations such as the World Food Programme and international and national NGOs operating in this sector should be promoted This is expected to ensure both a stable and profitable outlet to cooperatives’ staple food surpluses and at the same time to generate social externalities from cooperative activity


35

141. Evidence was found that the Project’s has already contributed to increase income and enhance livelihoods of FA/Cs members. This impact seems to be primarily associated to the intensification of production, made possible by the introduction of quality seeds and the widespread diffusion of agrochemicals in local farming systems. As the negative mid- and long-term effects of agrochemicals on agroecology (in particular in no-fallow farming systems) are well documented, a risk exists that immediate economic benefits are being generated at an unsustainable environmental cost. In this context, Recommendation 3 was formulated. Recommendation 3: To the Project An end-of project, rigorous environmental impact assessment of Project-promoted agronomic practices should be implemented to make sure that Project income and livelihoods benefits for participants achieved so far are environmentally sustainable. 142. Although technical meetings were organized and communication materials prepared and diffused, no solid, evidence-based study on the viability and value added of Project approach has been carried out so far. Given the pilot, “experimental” nature of the Project, it is important to take stock of this experience, and rigorously document the lessons that can be drawn from its implementation. Recommendation 4 addresses this aspect. Recommendation 4: To the Project, on evidence-based documentation of its experience During the last year of operations, the Project should focus on taking stock and analysing the pros and cons of the value chain approach, by rigorously documenting the lessons learned from its field experience. Results of this exercise should be diffused among policy-makers and other stakeholders (in appropriate formats and language) to support informed decision making.

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, Annex 1, Terms of Reference

36

ANNEXES


37

Annex 1. Terms of reference

1 Background of the Initiative

The 'Improvement of Food Security Project in Cross-Border Districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, in Support of the Modernization of Agriculture under the NEPAD Framework' -GTFS/RAF/391/ITA is a collaborative project between the Governments of Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda and the Italian Government, and implemented through FAO, under the Global Food Security and Food Safety Trust Fund, in support to agricultural modernization, food security improvement and poverty reduction within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development-Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (NEPAD-CAADP). Initial project funds were USD 3 million, to promote agricultural commercialisation of the small holder sector in the border districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. Based on positive performance results in the 3 countries, the Government of Italy in July 2009 allocated additional funds to reach the total amount of USD 8,908,419, to include the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (Eastern DRC) and consolidate ongoing activities in the other countries. The project was declared operational on 1 May 2006 and field activities started in March 2007. The original NTE of the project was 30 April 2009. The second phase was declared operational in June 2010 and additional funds incorporated, after the field formulation mission and consultations with FAORs that culminated in the endorsement of the Addendum to the Project Document and the official signing of the project document by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Not-To-be Exceeded (NTE, closing date) date for the Project at the time of drafting the ToR for the Evaluation was 15 June 2013. The overall thrust of the project is to facilitate and enhance incomes and living standards of the rural households in the Great Lakes Region by promoting agricultural commercialization, through support to market oriented production, improved marketing efficiency and value addition/agro-processing, using commodity value chain development approach, providing support to more profitable agricultural production systems, increased market access and value-added/agro-processing activities and facilitation of agri-business linkages along the commodity value chains. Project field activities are mainly located on the border districts/provinces of:

• Ngozi, Kirundo and Kayanza in Burundi; • Ruzizi plains in the Uvira area in South Kivu, Goma and Bukavu in DRC; • Burera, and Gicumbi in the north and Gisagara in the south in Rwanda; and • in Uganda, Kabale, Kisoro and Kasese, the latter added under the second phase.

The project is operationally coordinated by the Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE), with the SFE Coordinator as Budget Holder. The Lead Technical Unit is AGS, while the Lead Technical Officer is the Agribusiness Enterprise Development Officer in SFE. From March 2007 to November 2009, the project was coordinated by a Chief Technical Advisor based in the FAO Representation in Uganda. Since March 2011, a Programme Officer based in SFE was assigned to the project with the task of providing operational and technical support to the Budget Holder and the Lead Technical Officer.


38

The Virtual Project Implementation Task Force is led by the Sub-regional Coordinator for Eastern Africa and includes: the Budget Holder, the Lead Technical Officer, the Programme Officer based in SFE, AGS Focal Point for the project, SFC Technical Officer for Plant Production and Protection, the Assistant FAO Representatives and the Funding Liaison Officers. Since July 2010, with the inclusion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was agreed with TCDM to maintain Budget Holder’s responsibility in SFE, although DRC does not fall under SFE’s mandate and the Crop Protection Officer based in the Sub-regional Office for Central Africa (SRC) was included in the Virtual Project Implementation Task Force to ensure a close involvement of SFC in project’s implementation through technical backstopping and consultation. The Great Lakes Region has many common features including similar crop and livestock production systems, intra-boundary trade, challenges and opportunities for value chains development, which lenders a regional approach to development, a very practical concept in terms of sharing experiences and best practices within the contiguous areas targeted by the project, in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC. The participating governments’ overall strategy and rural development objectives are to ensure food security, increase incomes and employment to fight against poverty through the revival of the agricultural sector. The medium term priorities; include improving the productivity of agriculture sector and reinforcing commercialization. In response to the common agricultural policy strategies, as well as sharing common value chains and facing similar constraints and opportunities, the main expected outcomes are:

i. Strengthened farmers’ organizations, small trader and agro-processor associations to improved access to local and cross-border markets for local products;

ii. Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors;

iii. Facilitated agri-business linkages and contract arrangements especially between producers/ producer cooperatives, and traders/local agro processing firms;

iv. Strengthened institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities within the East Africa Community and COMESA.

Annex 2 illustrates more in detail the strategy, components and achievements to date of the project.

2 Purpose of the Evaluation

Since 2007, FAO evaluation policy establishes that all projects with a budget above USD 4 million should be evaluated at least once in their lifetime. The Italian funded Global Food Security and Food Safety Trust Fund has fully complied with this policy. In 2009, an Internal Review was carried out to the three participating countries at the time. The Review appraised the positive results achieved by Burundi and Rwanda and made specific recommendations to enhance project’s effective delivery for the case of Uganda,


39

suggesting some changes in the project’s management structure in the country (see report issued on 22 March 2009). Recommendations also covered the regional administrative, technical and operational coordination of the project ensured by the CTA based in Kampala In 2011, it was agreed among the parties, including the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) that the evaluation of GTFS/RAF/391/ITA would be most useful if carried out around mid-2012. This would allow addressing implementation issues for the last year of activities, assess achievements in all countries, including DRC,25 and draw some broader lessons on regional projects design and implementation. The Evaluation’s purpose will be as follows:

a. Provide accountability to all parties – participating governments, Italian Cooperation and FAO - on project’s performance against the evaluation criteria in the four countries, identifying success factors and challenges;

b. Provide guidance to the project and to FAO to enhance effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the initiative, as appropriate, for the remaining implementation period and as follow-up actions in the framework of FAO’s collaboration with each participating country;

c. Draw lessons on success factors and challenges linked to the design and implementation of the project as a regional intervention, with particular focus on improving integration in regional markets of small-scale farmers.

3 Scope of the Evaluation

16 a. The evaluation will cover the totality of project activities since inception to date, over the period 2007-2012, and include activities implemented at national and sub-regional level. Work in all countries will be assessed, in a sample of locations. Issues that affected project implementation will also be taken into account, as well as changes that took place during this period in FAO’s decentralization policy that may have affected project implementation, in so far as possible. The evaluation will assess the project against the following internationally accepted criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project in achieving its objectives and anticipated outcomes. Further, the Evaluation will also assess project’s performance in mainstreaming a gender perspective as a means of fostering gender equality. The evaluation will assess the project as follows:

Its relevance to: national and sub-regional development priorities, programmes and needs of the

population; FAO Country Programming Frameworks in each participating country and Sub-

regional strategic framework for Eastern Africa; FAO Organizational Results, Strategic Objectives and Core Functions; and other aid programmes in the sector;

25 Due to the security situation in DRC, the evaluation will not visit Project sites but will intercat in Rwanda

with the project coordinator


40

Robustness and realism of the theory of change underpinning the project, including logic of causal relationship between inputs, activities, expected outputs, outcomes and impacts against the specific and development objectives and validity of indicators, assumptions and risks; 26

Quality and realism of the project design, including:

Duration; Stakeholder and beneficiary identification; Institutional set-up and management arrangements, including with external

partners; Approach and methodology, including for Capacity Development on technical

aspects;

d. Financial resources management, including: Adequacy of budget allocations to achieve outputs and outcomes and; Coherence and soundness of Budget Revisions in matching implementation needs

and project/ objectives; Rate of delivery and budget balance at the time of the evaluation.

e. Management and implementation:

Effectiveness of management, including quality and realism of work plans and extent of collaboration and learning among the country teams during project implementation;

Efficiency and effectiveness of operations management, taking into account FAO administrative and financial procedures in the context of new decentralized roles and responsibilities;

Gaps and delays if any, between planned and achieved outputs, the causes and consequences of delays and assessment of any remedial measures taken;

Efficiency in producing outputs; Effectiveness of internal monitoring and review processes, including use made of

the baseline obtained from surveys at the project inception to assess changes in the livelihoods of participants;

Efficiency and effectiveness of coordination and steering bodies (if any); Quality and quantity of administrative and technical support by FAO, including

coordination between country, sub-regional and headquarter levels in the management and technical guidance of the project; and

Timeliness, quality and quantity of inputs and support by the Governments and the resource partner.

f. Extent to which the expected outputs have been produced, their quality and

timeliness.27 g. Extent to which the expected outcomes have been achieved. Among others, the

Evaluation will assess: Extent to which the project policy component contributed to outcomes in terms of

institutional capacity and knowledge generation;

26 The causal relationship could be expressed in a logical framework matrix 27 Key outputs should be included here for the evaluation team to assess. The evaluation team may add to the

list as appropriate.


41

Extent to which project succeeded in influencing governments’ policy or objectives on value chain development in participating countries;

Given that value chain development is a multi-sectoral construct, extent to which the project supported convening key stakeholders to analyze and develop strategies for the most important problems.

h. Effectiveness, efficiency and value added of the participation and contribution by the

service providers (NGOs) and other partners;

i. Use made by the initiative of FAO’s normative products and actual and potential contribution of the initiative to the normative work of the Organization.

j. Assessment of gender mainstreaming in the initiative. This will cover: Analysis of how gender issues were reflected in project/programme objectives,

design, identification of beneficiaries and implementation; Analysis of how gender relations and equality are likely to be affected by the

initiative; Extent to which gender issues were taken into account in project/programme

management.

k. The prospects for sustaining and up-scaling the initiative's results by the beneficiaries and the host institutions after the termination of the initiative. The assessment of sustainability will include:

Potential sustainability of managerial and financial capacities and market efficiency of associations and cooperatives at community level;

Potential sustainability of the enabling environment pursued at central and local level to facilitate value chain development, in each country, through, among others: i) involvement of private sector actors; ii) provision of market-based solutions to value chain development constraints; iii) facilitation in value chain financing.

Expectations for institutional uptake and mainstreaming of the newly acquired capacities, and/or diffusion beyond the beneficiaries or the project;

Environmental sustainability: the initiative’s contribution to sustainable natural resource management, with particular attention to the introduction of Conservation Agriculture.

l. Overall performance of the project: extent to which the initiative has attained, or is

expected to attain, its specific objectives and FAO Organizational Result/s (impact), and hence, contribute to the relevant Strategic Objectives and carry out its Core Functions; this will also include the identification of actual and potential positive and negative impacts produced by the initiative, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Particular attention will be paid to potential or actual impact in terms of:

improved food security and livelihoods of participants; capacities at different levels in market oriented production, market linkages,

entrepreneurship and managerial efficiency; governmental policies on value-chain development.

Based on the above analysis, the evaluation will draw specific conclusions and formulate recommendations for any necessary further action by the Governments, the Italian Cooperation, FAO and any other party concerned for the remaining implementation period


42

and towards improving the overall efficiency in the implementation and effectiveness of FAO support to the countries through the project. Wherever possible, good practices will be identified and learning shared among stakeholders and beyond, as appropriate. Any proposal for further assistance should include specification of major objectives and outputs and indicative inputs required.

4 Evaluation methodology

The Evaluation will adhere to the UNEG Norms & Standards28. It will adopt a consultative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Triangulation of evidence and information gathered will underpin the validation of evidence collected and its analysis and will support conclusions and recommendations. The evaluation will make use of the following tools:

• review of relevant project documentation and reports, including the M&E Reports and Summary Tables

• semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders, key informants and participants, supported by check lists and/or interview protocols;

• direct observation during field visits to project sites. The Evaluation team will decide whether to make use of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework29 and the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)30 framework for assessment of project results and process, if appropriate.

5 Consultation process

The key stakeholders of the project and of the Evaluation are the following:

• Project management, including the Lead Technical Officer, the Budget Holder, Task Force Members;

• Government representatives from the partner organizations; • the Italian Cooperation as resource partner; • FAO Representatives in the participating countries, • Participants in communities, including farmers, processors, exporters, organizations

and cooperatives, service providers, etc.; and • FAO Office of Evaluation.

The Evaluation team will carry out meetings with all stakeholders listed above. Briefing and de-briefing sessions will be organized with the FAO Office of Evaluation, project management and Task Force members. Although the mission is free to discuss with the

28 http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards 29 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework identifies five different capitals (human, social, natural, financial,

and physical), each including different assets. It helps in improving understanding of livelihoods, in particular of the poor. For more information, among others: http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section2.pdf

30 SWOT is a widely used strategic planning tool, useful also in the assessment of development interventions, to canvass their strengths and weaknesses, as well as future perspectives. It is particularly used in focus groups, but it can be adapted to individual interviews as well.


43

authorities concerned anything relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of the Government, the donor or FAO. The team will present its preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations to the key stakeholders in SFE, to obtain feedback from them. The draft evaluation report will be circulated among key stakeholders for comment before finalisation; suggestions will be incorporated as deemed appropriate by the Evaluation team.

6 The evaluation team

The Evaluation Team is responsible for conducting the evaluation and applying the methodology. To the extent possible, the team will be balanced in terms of geographical and gender representation to ensure diversity and complementarity of perspectives. All team members, including the Team Leader, will participate in briefing and debriefing meetings, discussions, field visits, and will contribute to the evaluation with written inputs. Tentatively, the team will include two international experts, one of whom will be team leader, and a national consultant in each country to provide the national knowledge, perspective and experience. All Evaluation team members will have at least 15 years of professional experience for the area they will be called to assess and be fluent in English and French. Team members will have had no previous direct involvement in the formulation, implementation or backstopping of the initiative. All will sign the Declaration of Interest form of the FAO Office of Evaluation. The Evaluation Team is fully responsible for its independent report which may not necessarily reflect the views of the Government or of FAO. An evaluation report is not subject to technical clearance by FAO although OED is responsible for ensuring conformity of the evaluation report with standards for project/programme evaluation in FAO. The Evaluation team will comprise the following mix of competence and skills:

• Value chain development and agribusiness; • Agricultural development and trade policies in Eastern and Central Africa; • Regional and sub-regional agriculture and agri-business development initiatives; • Gender and social inclusion; • Evaluation of projects and programmes.

7 The Evaluation Report

The evaluation report will illustrate the evidence found that responds to the evaluation issues, questions and criteria listed in the ToR. It will include an executive summary. Supporting data and analysis should be annexed to the report when considered important to complement the main report. The recommendations will be addressed to the different stakeholders and prioritized: they will be evidence-based, relevant, focused, clearly formulated and actionable.


44

The evaluation team will agree on the outline of the report early in the evaluation process, based on the template provided in Annex I of this ToR. The report will be prepared in English, with numbered paragraphs. Translations in other languages of the Organization, if required, will be FAO’s responsibility. The team leader bears responsibility for submitting the final draft report to FAO within three weeks from the conclusion of the mission. Within two additional weeks, FAO will submit to the team its comments and suggestions that the team will include as appropriate in the final report within one week. Annexes to the evaluation report will include, though not limited to, the following as relevant:

• Terms of reference for the evaluation; • Profile of team members; • List of documents reviewed; • List of institutions and stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team; • List of project outputs; • Evaluation tools.

8 Evaluation timetable

Box 1 below illustrates the tentative time-schedule for the evaluation. The mission will take place in July 2012. Box 1. Time-schedule for the Evaluation

Activity N. of

working

days

Responsibility organization Deadlines/ Dates

Finalization ToR NA OED, project management 30 May 2012

Selection of team members NA OED, project management 20 June 2012

Recruitment NA Project management 30 June

Desk Review 2

Briefing at HQ 1 OED, Task Force Members, possibly by teleconference

Briefing at SFE Addis -Ethiopia

2 Project management/SFE

Travel and visit to Uganda 5 Project management, FAOR

Travel and visit to Burundi 5 Project management, FAOR

Travel and visit to Rwanda 5 Project management, FAOR

De-briefing in Rwanda 2 Project management, FAOR/SFE

Draft Report sent to OED 10 Evaluation team Within three weeks from debriefing

Comments by OED OED Within one week

Integration of comments by OED 1 Evaluation team Within three days

Circulation draft to FAO stakeholders, comments

Project management and Task Force Within two weeks

Integration of comments by FAO and Final Report

2 Evaluation Team Within one week

Management Response Project management and Task Force Within four weeks

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, Annex 2, FAO Result Based Management hierarchy 2010-19

45

Annex 2. Global Goals of FAO Member States, FAO Strategic Objectives, Organizational Results and Core Functions 2010-19

Global Goals of FAO Member States

a) Reduction of the absolute number of people suffering from hunger, progressively ensuring a world in which all people at all times have sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life; b) Elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all with increased food production, enhanced rural development and sustainable livelihoods; c) Sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.

FAO Strategic Objectives and Organizational Results

Code Title Lead Unit

A Sustainable intensification of crop production AG

A01 Policies and strategies on sustainable crop production intensification and diversification at national and regional levels

AGP

A02 Risks from outbreaks of transboundary plant pests and diseases are sustainably reduced at national, regional and global levels

AGP

A03 Risks from pesticides are sustainably reduced at national, regional and global levels AGP

A04 Effective policies and enabled capacities for a better management of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) including seed systems at the national and regional levels

AGP

B Increased sustainable livestock production AG

B01 The livestock sector effectively and efficiently contributes to food security, poverty alleviation and economic development

AGA

B02 Reduced animal disease and associated human health risks AGA

B03 Better management of natural resources, including animal genetic resources, in livestock production

AGA

B04 Policy and practice for guiding the livestock sector are based on timely and reliable information

AGA

C Sustainable management and use of fisheries and aquaculture resources FI

C01 Members and other stakeholders have improved formulation of policies and standards that facilitate the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and other international instruments, as well as response to emerging issues

FI

C02 Governance of fisheries and aquaculture has improved through the establishment or strengthening of national and regional institutions, including RFBs

FIE

C03 More effective management of marine and inland capture fisheries by FAO Members and other stakeholders has contributed to the improved state of fisheries resources, ecosystems and their sustainable use

FIM

C04 Members and other stakeholders have benefited from increased production of fish and fish products from sustainable expansion and intensification of aquaculture

FIM


46

C05 Operation of fisheries, including the use of vessels and fishing gear, is made safer, more technically and socio-economically efficient, environmentally-friendly and compliant with rules at all levels

FII

C06 Members and other stakeholders have achieved more responsible post-harvest utilization and trade of fisheries and aquaculture products, including more predictable and harmonized market access requirements

FII

D Improved quality and safety of food at all stages of the food chain AG

D01 New and revised internationally agreed standards and recommendations for food safety and quality that serve as the reference for international harmonization

AGN

D02 Institutional, policy and legal frameworks for food safety/quality management that support an integrated food chain approach

AGN

D03 National/regional authorities are effectively designing and implementing programmes of food safety and quality management and control, according to international norms

AGN

D04 Countries establish effective programmes to promote improved adherence of food producers/businesses to international recommendations on good practices in food safety and quality at all stages of the food chain, and conformity with market requirements

AGN

E Sustainable management of forests and trees FO

E01 Policy and practice affecting forests and forestry are based on timely and reliable information FOM

E02 Policy and practice affecting forests and forestry are reinforced by international cooperation and debate

FOE

E03 Institutions governing forests are strengthened and decision-making improved, including involvement of forest stakeholders in the development of forest policies and legislation, thereby enhancing an enabling environment for investment in forestry and forest industries. Forestry is better integrated into national development plans and processes, considering interfaces between forests and other land uses

FOE

E04 Sustainable management of forests and trees is more broadly adopted, leading to reductions in deforestation and forest degradation and increased contributions of forests and trees to improve livelihoods and to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

FOM

E05 Social and economic values and livelihood benefits of forests and trees are enhanced, and markets for forest products and services contribute to making forestry a more economically-viable land-use option

FOE

E06 Environmental values of forests, trees outside forests and forestry are better realized; strategies for conservation of forest biodiversity and genetic resources, climate change mitigation and adaptation, rehabilitation of degraded lands, and water and wildlife management are effectively implemented

FOM

F Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture

NR

F01 Countries promoting and developing sustainable land management NRL

F02 Countries address water scarcity in agriculture and strengthen their capacities to improve water productivity of agricultural systems at national and river-basin levels including transboundary water systems

NRL

F03 Policies and programmes are strengthened at national, regional and international levels to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity for food and agriculture and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources

NRD

F04 An international framework is developed and countries' capacities are reinforced for responsible governance of access to, and secure and equitable tenure of land and its interface with other natural resources, with particular emphasis on its contribution to rural development

NRC

F05 Countries have strengthened capacities to address emerging environmental challenges, such as climate change and bioenergy

NRC


47

F06 Improved access to and sharing of knowledge for natural resource management OEK

G Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural development ES

G01 Appropriate analysis, policies and services enable small producers to improve competitiveness, diversify into new enterprises, increase value addition and meet market requirements

G02 Rural employment creation, access to land and income diversification are integrated into agricultural and rural development policies, programmes and partnerships

ESW

G03 National and regional policies, regulations and institutions enhance the developmental and poverty reduction impacts of agribusiness and agro-industries

G04 Countries have increased awareness of and capacity to analyse developments in international agricultural markets, trade policies and trade rules to identify trade opportunities and to formulate appropriate and effective pro-poor trade policies and strategies

EST

H Improved food security and better nutrition ES

H01 Countries and other stakeholders have strengthened capacity to formulate and implement coherent policies and programmes that address the root causes of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition

ESA

H02 Member countries and other stakeholders strengthen food security governance through the triple-track approach and the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security

ESA

H03 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to address specific nutrition concerns in food and agriculture

AGN

H04 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to generate, manage, analyse and access data and statistics for improved food security and better nutrition

ESS

H05 Member countries and other stakeholders have better access to FAO analysis and information products and services on food security, agriculture and nutrition, and strengthened own capacity to exchange knowledge

ESA

I Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and emergencies

TC

I01 Countries' vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies is reduced through better preparedness and integration of risk prevention and mitigation into policies, programmes and interventions

TCE

I02 Countries and partners respond more effectively to crises and emergencies with food and agriculture-related interventions

TCE

I03 Countries and partners have improved transition and linkages between emergency, rehabilitation and development

TCE

K Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural areas ES

K01 Rural gender equality is incorporated into UN policies and joint programmes for food security, agriculture and rural development

ESW

K02 Governments develop enhanced capacities to incorporate gender and social equality issues in agriculture, food security and rural development programmes, projects and policies using sex-disaggregated statistics, other relevant information and resources

ESW

K03 Governments are formulating gender-sensitive, inclusive and participatory policies in agriculture and rural development

ESW

K04 FAO management and staff have demonstrated commitment and capacity to address gender dimensions in their work

ESW


48

L Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural development

TC

L01 Greater inclusion of food and sustainable agriculture and rural development investment strategies and policies into national and regional development plans and frameworks

TCI

L02 Improved public and private sector organisations' capacity to plan, implement and enhance the sustainability of food and agriculture and rural development investment operations

TCI

L03 Quality assured public/private sector investment programmes, in line with national priorities and requirements, developed and financed

TCI

Box 2. FAO Core Functions

a Monitoring and assessment of long-term and medium-term trends and perspectives

b Assembly and provision of information, knowledge and statistics

c Development of international instruments, norms and standards

d Policy and strategy options and advice

e Technical support to promote technology transfer and build capacity

f Advocacy and communication

g Inter-disciplinarity and innovation

h Partnerships and alliances

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 3, Brief overview of the project, annex to the ToR

49

Annex 3. Brief overview of the project

1. Project’s operational and coordination arrangements

1. The 'Improvement of Food Security Project in Cross-Border Districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, in Support of the Modernization of Agriculture under the NEPAD Framework' -GTFS/RAF/391/ITA is a collaborative project between the Governments of Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda and the Italian Government, and implemented through FAO, under the Global Food Security and Food Safety Trust Fund, in support to agricultural modernization, food security improvement and poverty reduction within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) – CAADP. 2. The project was initially funded to the tune of USD 3 M to promote agricultural

commercialisation of the small holder sector in the border districts of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda., However based on positive performance results in the 3 countries, the Government of Italy in July 2009, allocated additional funds amounting (USD 5,908,419) to include the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (Eastern DRC) and consolidate ongoing activities in the other countries.

3. The project was declared operational on 01 May 2006 and field activities started in March

2007. The original NTE of the project was 30 April 2009, extended after the provision of the above mentioned additional funding for the Second Phase to 15 June 2013.

4. The second phase, was declared operational in June 2010 and additional funds

incorporated, after the field formulation mission and consultations with FAORs that culminated in the endorsement of the Addendum to the Project Document and the official signing of the project document by the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

5. The overall thrust of the project is to facilitate and enhance incomes and living standards

of the rural households in the Great Lakes Region by promoting agricultural commercialization, through support to market oriented production, improved marketing efficiency and value addition/agro-processing, using commodity value chain development approach, providing support to more profitable agricultural production systems, increased market access and value-added/agro-processing activities and facilitation of agri-business linkages along the commodity value chains.

6. Project field activities are mainly located on the border districts/provinces of: Ngozi,

Kirundo and Kayanza (Burundi); Ruzizi plains in the Uvira area in South Kivu, Goma and Bukavu (DRC); Burera, and Gicumbi in the north and Gisagara in the south (Rwanda); and Kabale, Kisoro and Kasese – this last added under the second phase (Uganda).

7. The project is operationally coordinated by SFE, with the SFE Coordinator as Budget

Holder. The Lead Technical Unit is AGS, while the Lead Technical Officer is the Agribusiness Enterprise Development Officer in SFE. From March 2007 to November 2009, the project was coordinated by a Chief Technical Advisor based in the FAO Representation in Uganda. Since March 2011, a Programme Officer based in SFE was


50

assigned to the project with the task of providing operational and technical support to the Budget Holder and to the Lead Technical Officer.

8. The Virtual Project Implementation Task Force is led by the Subregional Coordinator for

Eastern Africa and includes: the Budget Holder, the Lead Technical Officer, the Programme Officer based in SFE, AGS Focal Point for the project, SFC Technical Officer for Plant Production and Protection, the Assistant FAO Representatives and the Funding Liaison Officers.

9. Since July 2010, with the inclusion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was

agreed with TCDM to maintain Budget Holder’s responsibility in SFE (although DRC does not fall under SFE’s mandate) and the Crop Protection Officer based in the Subregional Office for Central Africa (SRC) was included in the Virtual Project Implementation Task Force to ensure a close involvement of SFC in project’s implementation through technical backstopping and consultation.

2. Project’s Rationale

10. The Great Lakes Region has many common features including similar crop and livestock

production systems, intra-boundary trade, challenges and opportunities for value chains development, which lenders a regional approach to development, a very practical concept in terms of sharing experiences and best practices within the contiguous areas targeted by the project, in Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC.

11. Agriculture is the main economic activity and source of livelihood in the region and

employs either directly or indirectly, the majority of the population. Overall the region has very high potential although this has not been exploited to reduce widespread food insecurity and poverty. Small scale low productivity (crop and livestock) farming are common with poorly organised producers who have low levels of technical and managerial capacity and limited access to input and output markets and technical assistance. There is a lack of institutional support, including poor financial and credit services and marketing/value addition facilities for the rural sector. The productive capacity has been weakened by socio-political upheavals (civil unrest, and massive displacement of people), as well as natural disasters, and unsustainable use of natural resources resulting in serious land and vegetation degradation in some parts of the Great Lakes region. The weak infrastructural base (poor roads network, lack of facilities such warehouses and cold storage and agro-processing facilities, as well as poor access to utilities including electric power, telecommunications, etc), is a major constraint, hampering use of farm inputs and equipment, value addition/ agro-processing and marketing of the agricultural commodities.

12. The Great Lakes Governments overall strategy and rural development objectives are to

ensure food security, increase incomes and employment to fight against poverty through the revival of the agricultural sector. The medium term priorities; include improving the productivity of agriculture sector and reinforcing commercialization. Potential opportunities which could be exploited in the region through the project, include; enhanced production as well as increased marketed volumes and value-addition/processing of staple grains, root crops and livestock products, targeting the rural populations as well as large towns in the outlying areas, in part to substitute for the large


51

quantities of food of imported from outside the region; as well as enhance the marketing of commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables to supply nearby urban areas; and reinvigorating the production, processing and marketing of traditional export commodities such as coffee, tea, and bananas.

3. Foreseen outcomes and outputs

13. In response to the common agricultural policy strategies, as well as sharing common

value chains and facing similar constraints and opportunities, the main expected outcomes are:

Strengthened farmers’ organizations, small trader and agro-processor associations to improved access to local and cross-border markets for local products;

Developed entrepreneurial skills, production techniques and knowledge for producers and other value chain actors;

Facilitated agri-business linkages and contract arrangements especially between producers/ producer cooperatives, and traders/local agro processing firms;

Strengthened institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities within the East Africa Community and COMESA.

14. The project has several components that aim at increasing the performance efficiency of

the selected priority value chains, under which the following outputs are expected: 15. Component 1: Support to planning for value chain development: This is a short term

planning phase and aims at setting up the implementation strategy by identifying an effective project planning and coordination mechanism including establishing the institutional arrangements and identification of service providers. The main outputs include:

• Output 1.1: Specific commodity value chain Implementation plan developed and implementing structure, service providers, and collaborating partners identified

• Output 1.2: Selected commodity value chains described and areas of intervention and the nature of the project support identified.

16. The outcomes of this planning phase are used to determine the nature of outputs and the

activities to be undertaken by the project including the development of the implementation strategy.

17. Component 2: This component includes the main implementation activities, i.e.

promotion and support to market oriented production, marketing efficiency and value addition, plus strengthening of agribusiness linkages. These comprise the main activities undertaken at the country level, in each of the project sites and encompass activities to facilitate value chain development;(capacity building, business linkages, partnership arrangements); aimed at improving performance and efficiency of the selected priority value chains:

• Output 2.1: ‘Semi commercial/emerging’ farmers, producer groups, traders, processors and other actors in the value chain supported to improve their entrepreneurship and technical capacity;

• Output 2.2: Producer groups and associations/cooperatives (plus trader and agro-processing associations), strengthened to form market oriented agri-business entities.


52

• Output 2.3: Service provision strengthened to support increased efficiency and profitability in production, marketing/cross border trade and value addition/agro-processing

• Output 2.4: Marketing chains linkages strengthened, including enhanced access to basic services and facilities for enhanced value chain performance.

18. Component 3: Project support to policy: In light of the many similarities in the value

chains in the Great Lakes Region and especially since the project sites are located in the boarder districts/provinces in the four countries, there are many cross-cutting issues and opportunities for exchanging information and learning between the four countries. Component 3 focus is on policy strategies to support value chain development in the region including synthesis of cross-cutting issues. The anticipated outcomes include:

• Output 3.1: Institutional and regulatory support for enhanced cross-border trade including support to exploit market opportunities outside the sub-region

• Output 3.2: Sub-regional cooperation strengthened and information exchange fostered including capacity building and institutional strengthening on value chain approach

• Output 3.4: Synthesis of project outputs (best practices) and linkage with FAO normative work supported.

4. Beneficiaries

19. Main beneficiaries of the project are: farmer-based organizations and cooperatives and

their members; traders, processors and other stakeholders of the selected food chains; national technical Staff and other local services providers; rural communities, women, children and consumers of agricultural products. In total, about 20,000 beneficiaries are directly taking part to the project through the groups.

5. Strategy

20. The project aims at enhancing food security, increasing rural incomes and employment to

fight against poverty, through the transformation and modernization of the agricultural sector. To achieve this objective, the project is providing technical assistance and capacity building and cost-shared inputs and infrastructures, involving smallholder , producers and all other value chain actors in the selected commodity value chains.

21. The implementation strategy of the project is complex, since in each project site there are

several priority commodity value chains being supported through a variety of technical and entrepreneur capacity building, business linkages facilitation and support to improved access to services. The project strength is therefore in providing the necessary coordination between the service providers within the private sector such as; business development services [BDS] (e.g. transport, storage, credit/finance services), and the public sector (Government and NGOs i.e. extension and information services, trainers, etc. and the value chain actors.

22. In identifying the implementation strategy the following has been taken into

consideration: the fact that the main thrust of the project is to support modernisation and commercialisation of the agricultural sector. Consequently the presence of markets or


53

potential demand at the national, regional or for the export that can be developed through support to strengthening business linkages and arrangements , and promote value addition and agro-processing is key, to provide outlet for the increased production. Thus the selection of target value chain commodities has been done in a participatory manner, and has taken into consideration factors such as importance of the commodity in local community in terms of food security and income generation, favorable agro-ecological conditions, access to improved technologies and support services, potential for trade (domestic and external) and agro-processing, large or growing demand, and potential for value-addition (grading, bulking, processing, packaging, etc.).

23. In Burundi: in the Districts of Kayanza, Kirundo and Ngozi, the selected priority value

chains meeting the above criteria are milk, rice, passion fruit and pineapple. The current phase is aiming at providing technical assistance to transform current informal production/marketing activities into viable small scale enterprises through enhanced business planning and management. Establishment of linkages between target groups and micro lending institutions and banks to access required equipment and inputs for enterprise development are being further strengthened and have so far facilitated access to credit for about USD 200,000. The project is also scaling up by expanding coverage of the best practices.

24. The selected value chains are maize, palm oil and rice. Capacity development is focused

on increasing producers’ access to inputs and other support services such as financing and credit, as well as to market facilities to improve the commodity value through storage, packaging, sorting and grading and facilitation of agribusiness linkages. The project is partnering with other value chain actors, such as farmer cooperatives, traders and small and medium enterprises involved in value addition.

25. In Rwanda: there are two project sites i.e. in the Districts of Burera and Gicumbi in

Northern Rwanda and Gisagara in Southern Rwanda., The selected value chains are cassava, Irish potato, maize, milk, passion fruit and pineapple. Access to improved inputs, (planting material and quality seeds) has been facilitated for all selected value chains by support to production of improved planting material at local level. Eight Village Input Stores are operational and are producing quality seeds and selling produce at better farm gate prices than before the project. Producer groups have established collection and sale centers for Irish potato and drying sheds for maize and cassava. These groups sell their produce to millers for high-quality flour production at better prices than before the project.

26. In Uganda: The project has two site i.e. in the Districts of Kabale, and Kisoro, and

Kasese in the west. The selected value chains are honey, mango, milk, pineapple and seed and warehouse potato. A total of 3800 households have been mobilized to form groups and associations and 16 associations have been registered and linked to other project partners including government programmes such as the Saving And Credit Cooperative Organizations (SACCOS) and the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), as well as to other service providers and value chain actors. The project has supported the establishment of 20 Information Board Managers (IBMs) through training in the management of information boards and in the exchange of information. Market awareness campaigns have been promoted through radio and TV programmes and promotional material.


54

27. At subregional level, the need for increasing cross-regional activities and support to cross border trade has been observed throughout the initial phase of project implementation. For this reason, a regional component for the project was developed in the new phase II started in 2010. The focus is on promotion of cross border trade and on synthesis of ‘best practices’ as well as capacity development and knowledge sharing among internal and external key stakeholders. Agri-business regional policy strategy enhancement is also being targeted in collaboration with concerned Regional Economic Communities. Main activities implemented under this component include: (i) Assessment of policy strategies and incentives each government has set up to facilitate interregional trade as well as the existence of formal and informal infrastructures, facilities and support services related to intra-regional trade among the four countries; (ii) Advocate for the implementation of trade protocols agreed upon but not yet fully effected and for revision of stringent trade laws that still exist. Promotion of the value chain approaches targeted to policy makers has been initiated.

6. Milestones to date

28. The project has provided technical support and capacity development to associations and

cooperatives; on modern agricultural practices for market-oriented production, association management, marketing and financial aspects. Capacity development and institutional strengthening has contributed to enhanced vertical and horizontal linkages along the value chains, increasing producers positioning along the chain and thus enhanced access to inputs and other support services, such as financing and credit, as well as to facilities to improve the value of the produce. Overall, associations selling collectively and on contract terms are enjoying steady and fairer prices and are assured of a market for their products. Accessing reliable market information has increased bargaining power of smallholders. Innovative market-based approaches and instruments, have been put in place with the aim of formalising business arrangements along priority value chains. The project has also facilitated agribusiness finance arrangements between banks/micro finance institutions through, multi-partite contracts/agreements with producers, agribusiness/ agro-industry companies, traders and exporters, with an active engagement of Local Government Authorities.

29. At subregional level, lessons learning and experience sharing has been promoted through

several study tours involving cooperatives and Government representatives among the countries and regional consultation and planning meetings. Regional capacity building activities have involved policy makers, has included two regional trainings in value chain development and one regional training in food safety and quality for participants coming from the four participating countries from: i) private sector actors, service providers and cooperatives involved in the project; ii) Ministries of agriculture/ Cooperatives/Industry; iii) Countries National Bureaus of Standards, Customs Inspecting Units Agencies in charge of SPS certification; iv) cross-border trade or traders associations. Government representatives and cooperatives managers involved in the project have also benefited from a high level international training on linking farmers to market, organized by IFDC. Information and communication material on the project (brochures, videos, success stories) have been produced and disseminated through the country offices, TCSR and SFE websites. and has been presented at the 27th FAO African Regional Conference held in Brazzaville in April 2012.


55

30. An assessment of constraints on trans-border trade is being carried out (May-June 2012) together with an awareness campaign for policy makers to develop policy strategies for intra-boundary trade in the sub-region. In June 2012 it is foreseen to hold a regional workshop in Bujumbura to report the findings of the assessment to concerned representatives of Ministries of Agriculture, Trade and Industry of the four countries, Customs Authorities and Regional Economic Communities (i.e. East African Community (EAC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).

7. The way forward

31. In March 2009, an Internal Review mission was fielded to the three participating

countries in order to: • Summarise progress in implementation relative to set goals and highlight key

successes and challenges; • Scrutinize the implementation vs. project objectives, outcomes and anticipated

milestones in project countries and assess how well the project has matched government priorities and policies aimed at agricultural modernization/commercialization and also the extent of national support and commitment to the project;

• Based on the consultant review of progress and on the main findings and outcomes of the meetings and sites visits undertaken during the mission, evaluate and integrate the recommendations proposed by the consultant with regard to lessons learnt and effectiveness of ‘sharing best practices’ at regional, national and project site levels including how the project’s internal project monitoring system is useful for this purpose;

• Assess the overall effectiveness in the project intervention/approach i.e. identify what has worked well and what has not, identify any other pending issues and activities remaining to be undertaken and their appropriateness and recommend corrective measures and main possible new areas of emphasis for the future;

• Assess the project management, operational and administrative system, at regional and country project levels and propose modalities and mechanisms that should be put in place to improve implementation.

32. The mission was attended by: Mr Mafa Chipeta, SFE SRC and Budget Holder; Mr Doyle

Baker, Chief, AGSF (now AGS), project LTU; Mr Paolo LucciChiarissi, Senior Funding Liaison Officer, TCAP (now TCSR); and the FAORs in the three countries, i.e. Mr Percy Misika, Fao Representative in Uganda; Ms Elisabeth Balepa, FAO Representative in Rwanda and Mr Arlindo Braganca, FAO Representative in Burundi.

33. Overall, the mission appraised the positive results achieved by Burundi and Rwanda and

made specific recommendations to enhance project’s effective delivery for the case of Uganda, suggesting some changes in the project’s management structure in the country (see report issued on 22 March 2009). Recommendations also covered the regional administrative, technical and operational coordination of the project ensured by the CTA based in Kampala.


56

34. During the annual regional review and work planning meetings and during several technical backstopping and monitoring missions, it has been recognized that there is need to widen the participation and engagement of local and national governments in addressing infrastructural and policy constraints hindering value chain development. Professionalization of smallholder cooperatives and other organizations is still a key challenge to improve market linkages at national and cross-border level skills in modern production and value addition (to meet quality and food safety standards) is still a priority to be addressed for most beneficiaries.

35. In the remaining implementation period, the project will specifically address the

following issues: • Produce communication and information material on cross border trade regulations

and activities; • Support the production of information and communication material to improve

overall visibility of the project; • Continue supporting capacity development and awareness of senior policy makers

on value chain development at national and regional level; • Document ‘best practices’ identified in the four countries through publications and

project papers in order to contribute to FAO’s normative work. • Support the preparation of the scaling up strategy of best practices at the national

level

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 4, Profile of team members

57

Annex 4. Profile of team members Patrizio Warren (Rome, 1955), the Team Leader of this Evaluation, is a social scientist, working as independent consultant for several UN agencies. Since the 1990s he has been collaborating with different FAO units on a wide array of subjects. He designed and operated project M&E systems, conducted socio-economic impact studies, facilitated auto-evaluation of selected FAO units, and participated in a number of OED’s project evaluations Christine Alokit (Uganda, 1969) is an agricultural professional experienced in design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of smallholder agricultural projects and programs in East African Community Member States. She has hands-on experience working with small holder farmers’ institutions in areas of capacity development for agricultural productivity and production improvement, commercialization of proven technologies, linkage to input and output markets including contractual farming arrangements including addressing nutrition and gender issues.

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 6, Project documents reviewed

58

Annex 5. References

• CAADP.2010. CAADP Review. Final Report. Johannesburg: NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency.

• Chipeta, Mafa, Percy Misika, Elisabeth Balepa, Doyle Baker and Paolo Lucci Chiarissi.2009. Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA: Mid-Term Review. Final Report: Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• EAC. 2006. Agricultural and Rural Development Policy for the East African Community. Arusha: East African Community

• FAO 2006. Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA. Project Document. Rome. • FAO 2009. Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA. Addendum to Project Document for

Three Years Period: March 2010 to February 2013. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• FAO 2010. FAO Handbook on the Logical Framework Approach (LFA). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• FAO-Burundi. Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA Burundi Logical Framework. Bujumbura.

• FAO-Burundi. 2012. Cadre de Programmation Pays 2012 – 2015 entre le Gouvernement de la République du Burundi et l’ Organisation des Nations-Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture Bujumbura : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• FAO-Burundi (nd). Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA Burundi Logical Framework (revised). Kigali.

• FAO-Burundi. Undated Passion Fruit Value Chain Programme. Projet GTFS/RAF/391/ITA. Bujumbura: FAO.

• FAO –DRC . 2009. Document de Projet de la Composant nationale pour la République. Project. GTFS/RAF/391/ITA. Kinshasa: FAO.

• FAO-SFE. 2011. Strategic Framework 2011-2015. Addis Ababa : FAO. • Habyarimana, Pierre Célestin, Bernardin Rutzawa, Anselme Sano and

Clément Habineza. 2012. Rapport sur les outils de monitoring er sur l’évaluation du projet GTFS/RAF/391/ITA – Rwanda. EBE : Kigali.

• Kabelu- Budibuende, Omer. 2010. Étude de la filière huile de palme dans la Province de Sud Kivu. Projet GTFS/RAF/391/ITA. Kinshasa: FAO-RDC

• Kabusa-Mburi,Raphael. 2012. Rapport global de consultation sur la mise en place d’un système de suivi et évaluation au seine du Projet. Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA: Goma.

• Kasese, Elisabeth. 2010. The Baseline Study of Kasese District. Kampala: FAO-Uganda.

• MAAIF-Uganda. 2010. Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan: 2010/11- 2014-15. Kampala: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries.

• MAAR –Rwanda. 2008 Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda – Phase II (PSTA II). Final Report. Kigali : Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources

• MAE -Burundi. 2008. Stratégie agricole nationale 2008-2015. Bujumbura : Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Élevage.

• Mpeteye, Jean-Baptiste. 2011. Rapport finale de l’évaluation interne du Project: GTFS/RAF/391/ITA – Burundi. Bujumbura: FAO.


59

• Nsiime, Patricia and Elizabeth Kalembe. 2011. Report of findings of the Review of Phase 1 of the Project CTFS/RAF/391/ITA (Uganda). FAO: Kampala.

• Patton, Michael Quinn. 1999. Qualitative Evaluation and Research. New Haven: Sage Publications.

• Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA – RDC. 2010. Amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire dans les districts transfrontaliers du Burundi, de la République démocratique du Congo, du Rwanda et de l’Ouganda. Document de Projet. Kinshasa : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• Project GTFS/RAF/391/ITA – Rwanda. 2011. Revised logframe for phase 2. Kigali: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

• RIU. 2011. The Value Chain Approach to Poverty Reduction and Development of Livelihoods. Research into Use Website (http://www.researchintouse.com/nrk/RIUinfo/valuechain/htm)

• Scarpocchi, Cristina. 2012. Brief report on the activities undertaken by SFE under the Regional Component of the project since March 2011 as at June 2012. Addis Ababa: FAO.

• Tittonell, P. & B. Vanlauwe & M. Corbeels & K. E. Giller. 2008 “Yield gaps, nutrient use efficiencies and response to fertilisers by maize across hetereogeneous smallholder farms of Western Kenya” Plant Soil, 313:19-37.


60

Annex 6. Project documents reviewed FAO-Rome

Project document (2006) Mid Term Review (2009 Addendum to Project Document for the second phase (2009). Project outline(annex 3 to the ToRs, 2012) Sub-regional coordination

Brief report on the activities undertaken by SFE under the Regional Component of the project since March 2011 as at June 2012 (Project coordination, on request) Draft report of the Facilitating Cross-border Trade in East Africa Workshop (May 2012) Report of the Food Safety Training (May 2012) Terms of reference of the Programme Officer/Project Coordinator (2011) Several BTORs of backstopping missions (2007-2011) Backstopping assistance provided by the Project (2011-2012 /Project Cootdination 2012, on request) Progress Reports (September, 2008, March 2010, Annual 2011 and March 2012) Budget Revision D (2012) Burundi

Logframe for phase 2 Project progress report, March 2012 Three ex-ante studies carried out in 2010 on pineapple, rice and passion fruit value chains. Value chain assessment 2008-2010 Internal evaluation report (2011, Jean-Baptiste Mpeteye) Several monitoring and statistics tables NPM responses to the e-questionnaire on farmers’ associations and cooperatives DRC

National Project Document concept note National Project Document Budget and time table (whole national project) Inception report (2011, Franck Luabeya Kapiamba) Progress report (February 2012) Internal Evaluation report (2012, Raphaël Kasongo Kabusa- Mbukani) Several monitoring and statistics tables NPM responses to the e-questionnaire on farmers’ associations and cooperatives Rwanda

Logframe for phase 2 (2010) Ex ante commodity value chain analysis (Célestine Habyamarana , 2008) Mid-term review (Lucy Aliguma, 2009 Several monitoring and statistics tables Budget for 2012 Progress Report (March 2012)


61

Selected LoAs NPM response to the e-questionnaire on farmers’ associations and cooperatives Uganda

Logframe for phase 2 Communication strategy Revised (Elisabeth Kalende, 2011) Kasese district baseline study (Lucy Aliguma, 2009) Ex-ante pineapple and mango value chain analysis (Charles Ntale, 2010) Review of phase I (Patricia Nsiime and Elizabeth Kalembe. 2011) Overall M&E Tool-Revised (2012) Several monitoring reports and tables Selected LoAs Work plan and budget for 2011 Summary of Project Achievements (Patricia Nsiime,2012) NPM response to the e-questionnaire on farmers’ associations and cooperatives

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 7, List of institutions and stakeholders met during the evaluation process

62

Annex 7. List of institutions and stakeholders met during the evaluation process Rome

Mr. Paolo Lucci Chiarissi (TCAP), Funding Liaison Officer of the FAO/Italy Trust Fund Mr. Doyle Baker, Senior Adviser, AGS, Project Leading Technical Unit Addis Ababa

Mr. Castro Camarada (FAO Sub-regional Coordinator for Eastern Africa and Project budget holder) Mrs. Susan Minae, Agribusiness Enterprise Development Officer, FAO Sub-Regional Office for Eastern Africa and Lead Technical Officer Mrs. Cristina Scarpocchi, Programme Officer and Project Coordinator Mr. Jemberli Esteth. FAO-SFE consultant in agribusiness Leo M. Lobi, Programme officer, water management Mrs. Lucia di Troia, Italian Development Cooperation, in-charge of food security and rural development projects Mr. Fantaera Asaf, FAO-SFE, Programme Officer Uganda

Mr. Okasai Opolot, MAAIF’s Director of Crop Resources (focal point for the Project) Mr. David Kintu, National Project Manager (NPM) Mrs. Patricia Nsime, National Project Coordinator (NPC) Mr Edison Hilman, Kabale District Agricultural Officer. Focus group with Kabale District extension staff (focus group) Mr. Christopher Gakibayo, Kabale District Commercial Officer Mr. Justus Masanyu, NAADS Coordinator, Muko subcounty, Kabale District Mr. Bernard Kasangati, Assistant Administrative Chief of Kabale District Dr. Immmaculata Manedra, Kabale District Assistant District Health Officer, in charge also for Maternal and Child Care Mr. James, Tiryiemnla, Kabale District Vector Control Office Members of Muko Expanded Potato Producers’ Cooperative (MEPPA), Kabale district Members of Kamuganguzi Farmers’Association, Kabale district Dr. Michael Kansiime, Head, Africa Institute for Strategic Animal Resource Services & Development (AFRISA) Mr. Kyooma John, Research Assistant- KAZARDI Mr. Robert Tugume, Manager, Centenary bank, Kabale branch Mr. Stephen Buregyeya, Agro-Dealer, Mwongyera & Sons Ltd, Kabale Mr. Begira, Potato exporter to Rwanda Mr. Karoli Nyakana, Potato trader, Kabale Mr. Ronald Asimwe, Agricultural Inspector, Katuna border post Mr. Benjamin Musinguzie, Agricultural Inspector, Katuna border post Mr. Tom Mugenga, Managing Director, Mugenga Holdings Mr. Matono, Managing Director, Nandos Rwanda

Mr. Laurent Gashugi, Assistant FAO Representative Mr. Abdoulaye Balde, WFP Representative and Country Director, Rwanda Mr. Juvenal Kabiligi, National Project Manager

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 7, List of institutions and stakeholders met during the evaluation process

63

Mr. Emmanuel Twagirayezu, Project’s focal point Mr. Joseph Gafaranga, Executive Secretary of Rwanda Farmers Federation, Imbaraga Mr. Samuel Sembagare, Burera District Mayor Focus group with Ifforudasigara Musebeya Farmers’ Association members, Burera District Focus group with Duhurizehamwe- Mugera Farmers’ Association members, Burera District Mr. Jean Marie Viapiney, District’s Project focal point Mr. Celestin Simpenzwe. District Agriculture Officer Mr. Gasanamu Musana, DAO focal point for Cooperatives Mr. Ernst Rvzindaza, Permanent Secretary at the MoA, Kibali Mr. Norbert Sendege, Director General, Crop Production, MINAGRI, Kigali Mr. Theirory Nzabonimpa, Manager, Rwanda Telecenter Business Development Center, Burera Mr. Ettiene Masengesko, Manager, Kenya Commercial Bank, Musanze branch Mr. Alphonse Ngirabakunzi, Business Growth & Development Manager, Equity bank, Musanze Mr. John Uzabkriho, National Fertilizer Distributor Dr. Charles Murekezi, Fertilizer Subsidy program, MINAGRI Mr. Thiogene Niyibizi, Managing Director, Maiserie de Mukamira Maize processor Burundi

Mr. Marius Bucumi, Technical Advisor of the Municipality of Matongo, Kayanza District Members of Dutafamanda, Tugurike and Kabuije passion-fruit producers Kayanza Province, District Agriculture Officer Mr. Pie Nyinginya, Projects NPM Mr. Apollinaire Masuguru Assistant FAO Representative Participants in mission de-briefing workshop Mr. Frank Luabena, Project NPM in the DRC Nr. Daniel Mushantlishimgwa, National Project Coordinator in the DRC

Evaluation GTFS/RAF/391/ITA, report, Annex 8, Value-chains flow-charts

64

Annex 8. Selected Project-assisted value chain flowcharts Passion fruit value chain in Kayanza district, Burundi

Project

Cooperatives

Consum

ers

Bulk Buyer & Exporter (MAREX)

Processor Transjuma

Banks, MFI, Transporters

Extension, BDS,

Input dealers

1% Own consumption

16% ($0.54/kg)

58% ($1.12/kg)

90% ($0.47/kg)

Rwanda Processor

Tz, Ug 16%

Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda Tanzania

Brokers

Other grow

ers

9%

Key Formal informal Seed other inputs

Other inputs

Traders


65

Potato value chain in Kabale district, Uganda

Agrodealers

Consum

ers

Nandos 36% Grade A

$0.5/kg

Business

wing

36% Grade A

$0.3/kg

Cooperatives &

Associations

$3.7/kg

Research Institute

Trained Seed Producers

Traders (KampalaRwanda)

Ungraded

$0.3/kg

16%

20% (own consumption & 5% seed)

Traders (Kla, Rda)

Traders Mark-up of

$0.01/kg

44% Ungraded brokers ($0.2/kg) $0.5/kg

$0.3/kg

NAADS Other farm

ers

46% $0.5/kg

38% (own seed) & few for other farmers

VSLA, Banks, govt extension, BDS

Banks, transporters

Key formal informal Seed Other inputs Ware potato


66

Maize value chain in Burera district, Rwanda

C

onsumers

Flour $0.5/k

Traders Identified bulk buyer & millers 40%

$0.4/kg Cooperatives (0.5ha/hh)

Local agro-dealers

National D

istributor D

ISTR

IBU

TO

R

Govt voucher for seed &

fertilizer

Own consumption Maize grits “cherigori” &

fresh maize 60%

D/ E

xtension

Other traders

Banks, transporters

Key

Seed

Fertilizer

Other inputs

E-Soko information system Extension, BDS, Banks, group savings

improvement of food security in cross- border districts of burundi, the democratic ... ·...

Documents