By Humphrey

By Humphrey

1. What was the project (title)?

• Improving livelihoods, food security and the control of animal diseases in vulnerable SADC countries: Swaziland: Support to vulnerable households through provision of suitable agricultural inputs, with appropriate technical advice, Regional coordination: southern Africa- OSRO/RAF/618/NET

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

• Regional Southern Africa; Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
• Is it In-country, cross border, regional or continental?
• Regional

1. What is a single donor-funded projects or multi-donor?

• Single-donor.

  Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

  GET CUSTOM PAPER

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

• The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

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

• The project was implemented for a period of one year, from 1^st November 2006 to 31st October 2007.
• Was it an Emergency or long term projects?
• What Emergencies was it addressing?
• Drought and HIV/AIDS diseases.

1. What crisis was the project related to (refer to the table on crisis timelines)

• The drought of the 2005/2006 production period.

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

• HIV/AIDS-related illness and death
• Families are losing their assets, including livestock and other productive resources.
• Food insecurity
• Water shortages
• Pasture Shortages
• Animal diseases
• Loss of Employment for herders occasioned by the loss of livestock.

1. What were the needs which arose from the shocks in order of priority?

• Human health support
• Animal health support.
• Support on alternative animal feeds
• Support on alternative water sources.
• Income diversification to curb food insecurity in the region.
• Short Overview, including rationale
• In southern Africa, the underlying condition of chronic vulnerability and poverty are overlaid by the ever-present risk of extreme climatic events such as drought. In addition, the ability of communities, national and international institutions to respond to increased needs has been severely compromised by the cumulative and systematic impacts of HIV/AIDS-related illness and death. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has critically aggravated the food security status and general livelihoods of these countries, and the region as a whole, by decimating and debilitating populations of active segments of society, thus depleting farm labour, service providers, and bread earners.
• It is, therefore, of utmost priority that any assistance to improve food security also has priority interventions to mitigate the adverse effects of this disease on people’s production capacities and general livelihoods. Vulnerability to food insecurity in the region is also increased by weak institutional capacity within the countries involved. These situation needs to be reversed if the countries are to revert to the buoyant agricultural production they once enjoyed.
• Project objective(s)

1. Swaziland component objectives

• To ensure immediate access to appropriate crop production inputs, including seed varieties for the relevant planting season and agro-ecological zone.
• To ensure that increased and diversified crop and vegetable production is translated into improved diets for particularly vulnerable groups as well as an improvement in homestead food security.
• To promote the concepts and practices of conservation agriculture, intercropping with legumes, as well as crop and dietary diversification.

1. Regional component objectives

• Support the coordination of FAO emergency agricultural operations at the regional level to facilitate national efficiency and effectiveness in delivering assistance in the agriculture sector.
• Promote sharing and dissemination of information and experience from technical interventions among the different countries of the region.
• Embrace the opportunities of UN Reform and joint programming to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance in the agriculture sector.
• Advocate and raise awareness at the regional level on the unique nature of the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa and the need to bridge short-term interventions and longer-term approaches.
• Did the objective address the shocks presented?
• yes

1. To what extent did the objective address the shock?

• To some extent, all the shocks were not tackled by the objectives.
• Intervention Type (refer to the table provided) – pre, during or post-emergency
• Pre-emergency and during, diversification
• Given the emergency, 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 animal health support and provision of alternative water sources.
• Major Activities or Activity Areas

Activities for output 1:

• Creation of ITF planning and management committee
• Staff training on the voucher systems
• Identification and registration of Voucher systems beneficiaries.
• Voucher design, printing, advertising and distribution to the targeted beneficiaries.

Activities for outcome 2:

• Training of beneficiary

Activity for outcome 3:

• Selection of 150 contact farmers for On-Farm Demonstrations activities.
• Use of on-farm demonstrations to train farmers on improved agricultural technologies.

For further information, although the report is not clear on the activities, refer to Table 1.

Table 1

1. Were the activities chosen to address the needs?

• yes
• How was the input measure? And what were the figures?
• To what extent did the activities address the needs?
• Somewhat, all the needs were not addressed by the project activities.
• Can the activities be continued in the future without the project support?
• Yes, there are some signs of sustainability through capacity building programs.
• What were the Expected outcomes and Impacts?
• Refer to Table 1.
• What were the measurements of the expected outcomes?
• Quantification and qual information refer to Table 1.
• What were the targets for each outcome (quantify)?
• Refer to Table 1.
• Who were the Partners involved?
• Regional UN bodies
  • The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [OCHA]
  • UNAIDS
  • The United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]
  • The United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA]
  • The United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]
  • WFP
  • the World Health Organization [WHO]
  • The donor community, civil society stakeholders, and NGOs.
• What roles did they play in each activity?
• The regional UN bodies were targeted to help in promoting awareness programs.
• FAO: lead implementer.
• To what extent were the roles played integral to the activities success?
• Important
• What Project Cost (In cash and in-kind)
• US$1,000,000
• Can the costs be broken down into activities? this would be a good measure of input
• What were the Actual Project Results (at Outcome and Impact Levels) – quantitative/qualitative

Beneficiaries of the Swaziland component

Table 1: Crop output in Swaziland

Impact of the Swaziland component on beneficiaries (although not directly linked to the project activities)

• The ITFs improved seed availability for farmers, both in terms of quantity and types of inputs. Without this assistance, most farmers would not have been able to purchase good quality seeds. The ITFs also ensured that seed and other agricultural supplies were brought closer to where the farmers reside, meaning that there was no need to incur extra transport costs, which are a major financial strain on families who currently have little or no financial means. The ITFs stimulated local economies, and a large number of resource-poor seed producers were able to derive a meaningful income from the fairs, as well as to employ other people.

Impact of the regional component on the beneficiaries

• Regional coordination has contributed to effective ways of addressing common problems (e.g. animal diseases, HIV/AIDS) through drawing on and reinforcing synergies, both within the region and within the UN system. Regional coordination has enhanced resource mobilization, which will result in a greater number of final beneficiaries to receive assistance.
• To what extent do they differ with the targeted outcome and impact levels (qualitatively and quantitatively)?
• Some of the activities were achieved refer to Table 1; others there are no clear reporting in the terminal report.
• 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.
• It took longer to identify the right beneficiaries for the case of the Swaziland component, hence delaying the project implementation process.
• For regional component,
• How were they a challenge in terms of quantity, quality, and time of the outcome?
• Delayed in the selection of the right beneficiaries delayed the ITFs activities by one year.
• Success Factors (if applicable, indicate why the project was successful or NOT successful) funding, partners, community
• The inclusion of the local institutions and community experts in determining the needs and the targeted beneficiaries helped in benefiting the right persons/households.
• Relevance (the extent to which it served priority needs of target communities)
• The project objectives were in line with the immediate needs of the beneficiaries, especially the issue dealing with the food security of the HIV/AIDS-affected households.
• Effectiveness (comparison of what was to be delivered vs. what was delivered)
• There is no clear reporting on the targets and the outcomes of the various activities carried out by the project, refer to Table 1. Hence it is difficult to give a precise verdict on this section using the available information, but generally, the project was somehow effective.
• Sustainability indicators (Proxy: Evidence of adoption and scaling-up and -out)
• Although the project was an emergency intervention, efforts were also made to address sustainability issues, in that farmers, extension staff, and other partners are now better equipped to produce food for household consumption and to sell surplus production. Some NGOs-especially Cooperation for the Development of Emerging Countries which assisted with the training -are continuing to train farmers in CA and have identified lead farmers who will, in turn, effectively transfer CA technology to others.

1. Efficiency (value for money) – to be quantified separately using above and additional info

• To be computed
• Lessons learned? In terms of project analysis, design, and implementation in every emergency and interventions.
• Categorization of intervention and why
• Interventions need to be modified or adjusted to enable higher impact and sustainability. There is a need to have specific country activities (for all the southern region countries) like for the case of Swaziland, which can now be coordinated via the overall regional component.
• Key references (ACTUAL sources of info used)
• Improving Livelihoods, Food Security, and the Control of Animal Diseases in Vulnerable SADC Countries. Final Report.