Evaluation of FAO Cooperation in Zimbabwe (2006-2010)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVALUATION OF FAO COOPERATION IN ZIMBABWE (2006-2010) Report Commissioned by the Office of Evaluation, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy Independent Evaluation Team James K. Gasana Lori Bell Julius Kajume Shinga Mupindu Marjorie Smith-John May 2011 Map of Zimbabwe Source: http://www.goldbamboo.com/topic-t8659-a1-6Zimbabwe_.html ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation of FAO Cooperation in Zimbabwe (2006-2010) 1. This report presents findings and recommendations of the Evaluation of FAO-Zimbabwe Cooperation (2006-2010) which was commissioned by the Office of Evaluation, FAO and was carried out from 1st to 25 February 2011. The period under evaluation saw difficult relations between Zimbabwe and Donors. FAO played a key role of “Coordination/Honest broker” between Donors, Government and other emergency aid and development partners. It followed, with great success, the principle of partnership with government, while taking into account the donors’ funding constraints and the accountability requirements. In most of this period, FAO’s cooperation with Zimbabwe, which consisted mainly of an emergency program, was not guided by an overall official framework document. Nevertheless there was continuity of a rolling strategy consisting in adjusting interventions as needs and the context changed. Furthermore, there is a Draft Country Programming Framework (CPF 2009-2013) as well as a Plan of Action (PoA 2010-2015) entitled “Zimbabwe: Transitioning Emergency into Rehabilitation and Development”. Its expected outcomes are improved food security through increased production and sustainable management of natural resources and the environment. To implement its program, FAO works through a large number of Implementing Partners (IPs). Main areas of intervention over the period have included large scale agricultural inputs distribution, conservation agriculture, animal health, support for strengthening market linkages, technical assistance for the development of an agriculture policy and HIV in agriculture strategy and coordination of multi-agency relief and rehabilitation work within the agriculture sector. 2. The purpose of the Evaluation was to (1) assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of FAO activities in Zimbabwe; (2) provide accountability to FAO member countries; and (2) learn lessons about the factors affecting FAO performance and development impact at country level to inform the finalization of FAO’s strategy for Zimbabwe. It was a forward looking exercise, learning from past experience to make recommendations on future interventions. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS Relevance 3. The Mission found that FAO’s Program is aligned with Government’s policies and plans with regard to improving food security, and is relevant to the Government’s agriculture sector development priorities. With regard to supporting increased crop production, Government, Donors, other partners and beneficiaries are satisfied with FAO project activities. 4. On Food Security and Nutrition (FSN), the Mission found that improved food consumption and reduced hunger have not been an explicit objective of FAO interventions in Zimbabwe. It further found that the lack of a national FSN policy and strategy is a constraint with respect to optimizing the alignment of FAO’s work to Government priorities. On the positive side, strengthening the capacity for collecting Food Security and Nutrition data and supporting the Food and Nutrition Council addresses an important priority for improving integrated FSN analysis and related decision-making. 5. On Conservation Agriculture (CA) and agricultural intensification, overall, FAO’s activities in Zimbabwe are quite relevant; they address poverty through increased yields in the iii context of sustainable land management (SLM) concerns. However, there is scope for strengthening appropriateness to beneficiaries through differentiating larger beneficiary groups according to specific needs criteria. There is also scope to more adequately integrate crop – livestock – tree production in the extension package in a way that will optimize the overall outcomes of the farming systems. In particular it will help improve the resilience of small holder farmers (SHFs) to vulnerability factors, including climate variability and change. 6. With regard to Animal Health , FAO’s interventions are relevant to the needs of livestock keepers and the country at large. They were designed with the objective of saving/ protecting livestock assets, livelihoods and human life. They consisted mainly in vaccinations (against Foot and mouth disease, Newcastle’s disease, Anthrax, Rabies), surveillance and resuscitating of dips. They focused on important livestock (cattle, small ruminants, and poultry) and on priority diseases. However, there was a lack of focus on other livestock, other animal health problems and on livestock production. In particular, there was little attention on small ruminants (especially goats) largely owned by small holders and vulnerable groups. 7. With regard to HIV and AIDS, FAO’s interventions are aligned to HIV and AIDS national priorities, policy and to the national context. FAO supported the developing of an HIV approach in Agriculture Strategy and related training interventions have been appreciated by the Ministry. 8. On Gender, The draft CPF is reflecting neither FAOs commitment to gender equity nor the gender priorities reflected in ZUNDAF, Short Term Emergency Recovery Program (STERP), or National Gender and Women Empowerment Strategic Action Plan. Effectiveness 9. With regard to FSN, the approach of promoting gardens through schools, training of extension workers in nutrition, and promotion of community gardens contributed to greater knowledge on nutrition and increased horticulture production. However, less attention has been paid to targeting vulnerable food insecure households as a priority for FAO interventions. While food security information has been used for decision making with respect to relief provision, there is not yet enough analysis of the underlying causes of chronic food insecurity to inform development efforts. 10. With regard to SLM and intensification of agricultural production , FAO was effective in scaling up adoption of CA which has a potential for reversing land degradation, thus establishing the foundations for SLM practices at farm level while promoting the intensification of agricultural production. Through this effort, CA found strong ownership amongst Government and NGOs partners. There are also considerable achievements evident in the recovery of agriculture and on grain yield increases. The target households were able to increase production of maize yields from less than 1T/ha, to an average of 2-3T/ha under CA, in the last 2 years. However, scaling up of CA has been in terms of the number of practicing households rather than the area under CA per farm. There has been a slow introduction of mechanized CA. The extension model used has been top-down, “one-size fits all”, focusing on land productivity of grains on CA plots and not on labour productivity on the whole farm. 11. With regard to Livestock, FAO was effective in its response to the threats of animal diseases. There was adequate coverage and response. For FMD and Anthrax the risky areas were covered, and for ND, Rabies, Avian Influenza awareness, all areas have been protected. Surveillance for FMD, ND, HPAI was satisfactorily carried out; dipping operations were revived iv with high response from livestock owners. Training of Community Based Vaccinators enhanced effectiveness in ND vaccination. Constraints to effectiveness have been principally related to inadequate Government transport, cold chain, syringes/needles; low staff morale; non-induction of new staff; shortage of vaccine in some cases (ND). The targeting of diseases should have also included support therapy such as de-worming and minor treatments to enhance the effectiveness of disease prevention and control efforts. 12. On Gender mainstreaming . FAO has not been effective with respect to gender mainstreaming. The positioning of the FAO Gender Focal Point is too low to influence FAO programming. The ToR for FAO management staff are unclear on gender accountability and mandate and the gender mainstreaming capacity of FAO staff and IPs is limited. Thus internal lobby and advocacy in FAO Zimbabwe Office is lacking. The focus has been on gender outputs i.e. male/female beneficiary numbers without adequate attention to the examination of the equitable distribution of benefits for males and females resulting from interventions. And no link is established between HIV and gender mainstreaming efforts. Efficiency Project design and operations planning are standardized to aid efficiency. During the review period $89m was mobilized with 97% operated through the Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division (TCE). However, the internal consultative process does not adequately address: i) timeliness; and ii) weak linkages between feedback from monitoring and evaluation and project operations, and follow-up by senior management is not systematized. The operating modalities are not always transparent or fully utilized i.e. selection of IPs, use of LoAs and MoUs. Leadership and guidance are lacking, negatively affected by factors including the multiple roles played by the FAO Representative. These and other factors also impact negatively on FAOR visibility. A resource mobilization strategy has not been developed which