ABOUT A PROJECT

ABOUT A PROJECT

1. What was the project (title)?

• Emergency El Niño Response, OSRO/MOZ/602/NET

1. Which County, country, sub-region, region

• Mozambique, provinces of Maputo, Gaza, and Manica
• Is it In-country, cross border, regional or continental?
• In-country

1. Was it a single-donor funded projects or multi-donor?

• Single-donor

1. Who was/were the funding agency(ies)

• Netherlands Development Agency

1. Project duration, in terms of duration of the project and the time frames when the project was implemented

• The project was implemented from 1^st June 2016 to 1^st June 2017.
• Was it an Emergency situation or long term projects?
• Emergency intervention
• What Emergency situation was it addressing?
• Drought

1. What were the shocks arising from the situation in order of priority?

• Food insecurity due to low animal productivity, poor crop yield, and water shortage.
• Shortage of pasture.

1. What were the needs which arose from the shocks in order of priority?
2. Short Overview, including rationale

• Mozambique, like southern Africa countries, experienced an intense drought in the central and southern provinces caused by the El Niño effect. The rainfall for the agricultural season 2015/16 was the lowest in the last 35 years. Over 35 per cent of the total cultivated area was affected, especially impacting maize, pulses, and root crop production, and an estimated 3,492 cattle death cases were reported. Based on this situation, the Government of Mozambique requested assistance from development agencies to respond to immediate food aid needs and protect the livelihoods of the populations.
• Project objective(s)

Broad objective

• To contribute to reduce the food aid, improve food security, and build the resilience of communities.

Specific objective

• To protect the livestock-based livelihood and assist for agricultural production to reduce food aid dependency.
• Did the objective address the shocks presented?
• Yes, the needs are covered by the objective.
• To what extent did the objective address the shock?
• Moderate, refer to roman xiii.

1. Intervention Type (refer to the table provided)

• Pre-emergency, diversification
• Pre-emergency, animal health support
• Given the emergency situation, was the intervention chosen the most appropriate?
• yes
• Which other interventions could have been more appropriate when either replaced or bundled with what was implemented?
• Bundle with restocking
• Major Activities or Activity Areas

Result 1: Animal productivity improved and the risk of livestock mortality Reduced

• Provision of equipment for fodder production and conservation and promotion of vegetables and other food crops production.
• Provision of mineral supplements for cattle.
• The project provided vaccines and/or medicines and vitamins to prevent feed-related illnesses (clostridia diseases and Vitamin A deficiency), infectious diseases (tuberculosis, blackleg, anthrax, tick-borne diseases, and foot and mouth diseases) and parasites (worms and fluke) that were most likely to occur in drought conditions.
• The project supported poultry rising in the community, particularly it targeted women.
• The project drilled boreholes and constructed facilities for providing drinking water to cattle in 2 community pastures where some grazing areas exist but distant from the households.

Result 2: Support agricultural production in the low lands

• The project provided drip water irrigation equipment with the capacity to irrigate 1 ha of land each.
• The project promoted conservation agriculture, particularly for the production of food crops, the use of post-emergence herbicide to improve water retention capacity of the soils, and to allow for increasing crop residues that can be later used for feeding the cattle.
• Promote seed production that was to be used under irrigation systems during dry seasons.
• Were the activities chosen addressing the needs?
• Yes, the activities are in line with the community needs.

1. How was the input measure? And what were the figures?

• The project aimed to provide 8 units of balers.
• Forty people were to be trained in operation, maintenance and management of the project equipment.
• The project aimed to provide 45,000 mineral supplements.
• The project aimed to purchase 200 units of Kits for local preparation of mineral supplements for cattle.
• The project aimed to construct and equipped 12 units of poultry.
• The project aimed to train 60 people from the poultry groups in poultry production and management.
• The project aimed to establish two multifunctional boreholes for cattle.
• The project aimed to provide 1 ha drip water irrigation systems for 15 farmer field school groups.
• The project aimed to train 15 FFS groups in operation and maintenance of drip irrigation equipment.
• The project aimed to promote conservation agriculture (CA) in 50 farmer field school groups.
• The project aimed to train and equip 15 farmer field schools for seed production.
• To what extent did the activities address the needs?
• Satisfactory, the activities were broad enough to encourage diversification.
• Can the activities be continued in the future without the project support?
• Yes, refer to the sustainability section
• What were the Expected outcomes and Impacts?
• Reduction of the risk of cattle mortality.
• Resumption of agricultural production in low lands.
• What were the measurements of the expected outcomes?
• Quantification
• What were the targets for each outcome (quantify)?
• Outcome; 90000 cattle were expected to benefit from several interventions, namely improved access to forage, mineral supplements, medicine, and sanitary control and enhanced access to water.
• Impact; the project expected to improved Food and Nutrition Security of about 40,000 households.
• Who were the Partners involved?
• The national government of Mozambique through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and the National Institute for Disaster Management.
• What roles did they play in each activity?
• FAO representation program staff regularly offer logistic technical support during the project implementation.
• The government institutions supported the implementation project through the identification of the beneficiaries and implementing the activities on the ground.
• To what extent were the roles played integral to the activities success?
• Vital, sharing of responsibility between FAO and the national government through various ministries played an important role to the project success.
• What Project Cost (In cash and in-kind)
• USD 1,151,590.
• Can the costs be broken down to activities? this would be a good measure of input

• What were the Actual Project Results (at Outcome and Impact Levels) quantitative/qualitative

Outcome 1: Reduced cattle mortality

• Procured and distributed eight balers for fodder harvesting, which contributed to the feeding of 20,000 cattle in 10,000 households.
• Trained 16 technicians and 24 community representatives in the operation and maintenance of the balers and in the management of the pasture for forage harvesting.
• Trained 80 technicians and 2,000 farmers in the preparation of mineral supplements for cattle.
• Administered vaccines and medicines to 461,743 animals in 230,870 households.
• Provided 400 households with basic materials for the construction of chicken coops, the equipment needed to rear 1,500 chicks and inputs for one production cycle of chicks.
• Trained 20 technicians and 60 beneficiaries in the basic aspects of poultry management and disease prevention and control.

Outcome 2: Support agricultural production in the lowlands

• Identified and rehabilitated four boreholes for multipurpose use.
• Promoted the adoption of at least three conservation agriculture practices with trainings for 68 technicians who cascade the trainings for 39 other extension workers and 443 households.
• Distributed 4,400 kg of maize seed to 352 households.
• Distributed drip irrigation systems to 107 households.

Impact/effects

• 5,000 households and 10,000 cattle benefited from improved water distribution, which reduced distances to water sources and lessened the burden of water work that falls on women and girls.
• Two hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred seventy households’ resilience enhanced through interventions aimed at protecting livestock.
• Five hundred mineral supplement blocks were produced, providing supplements and improved animal health for 3 000 animals.
• The project helped to achieve the expected average yield of 2 000 kg/ha and a total of 352 000 kg of clean, good maize quality seed for the following period of crop production.
• To what extent do they differ with the targeted outcome and impact levels (qualitatively and quantitatively)?
• Generally, the project didn’t achieve its aim of improved food and nutrition security of 40, 000 households, so far the project managed to improve the livelihood of 231, 729 households.
• What were the Major Challenges (highlight the gaps) to achieving the project outcome and impact in terms of funding, partners, community, natural calamities among other.
• Continued political instability in the center of the country prevented the full implementation of the activities planned in some of the regions, in particular Manica province.
• The local market could not provide services or supply most of the inputs and equipment purchased by the project.
• Water shortage in some of the project target areas.
• How were they a challenge in terms of quantity, quality, and time of the outcome?
• The project failed to supply 45,000 units of mineral supplements for cattle as they were not in the local market.
• Some of the project activities were reduced as a result of water shortages; in particular, Agricultural activities were cut from the targeted 3 500  to 459.
• Success Factors (if applicable, indicate why the project was successful or NOT successful) funding, partners, community
• for relevance, complementarity, and sustainability of the interventions, the project developed synergies with other emergency and/or development initiatives implemented in the same area.
• Relevance (the extent to which it served priority needs of target communities)
• The project was relevant as it led to the improvement in food security and builds the resilience of communities to drought stresses through integrated livestock and targeted crop interventions. It provided life-saving and livelihood support to pastoral and agro-pastoral communities affected by drought.
• Effectiveness (comparison of what was to be delivered vs. what was delivered)
• The project achieved its main outputs by contributing to cattle mortality risk reduction; and supporting crop production in the lowlands by establishing the conditions for the resumption of agricultural activities after a prolonged drought. Most of the activities were achieved, as demonstrated by the output vs. input activities.
• Sustainability indicators (Proxy: Evidence of adoption and scaling-up and -out)
• The inclusion of the local communities in the project implementation and capacity of the farmers helps them to replicate the project activities without FAO’s support.
• Efficiency (value for money) – to be quantified separately using above and additional info
• Do the cost-benefit analysis using input vs. output figures.

1. Lessons learnt? In terms of project analysis, design and implementation in every emergency situation and interventions

• The coordination of this project with other already existing FAO projects was a determining factor in reducing the project’s operating costs and resulted in a significant increase in the number of beneficiaries.
• The strong coordination of activities among all stakeholders contributed to the smooth implementation of the activities and laid a solid foundation for the implementation of new resilience and/or development projects.
• Timely and adequate risk identification and management helped achieve project goals.
• Key references (ACTUAL sources of info used)

FAO.  (2016) Emergency El Niño Response. Proposal.

FAO.  (2017) Emergency El Niño Response. Final Proposal