DOCSLIB.ORG

Decentralized Evaluation for Evidence for Evaluation Decentralized

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decentralized Evaluation for Evidence for Evaluation Decentralized BASED DECISION MAKING DECISION BASED - Prepared DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE FOR EVALUATION DECENTRALIZED Decentralized Evaluation Gambia DEV 200327: Establishing the Foundation for a Nationally Owned Sustainable School Feeding Programme in the Gambia From 2012 to 2017 Evaluation Report August 2018 The WFP Gambia Country Office Evaluation Manager: MamYassin Ceesay Prepared by Cristina Murphy, Team Leader Aubert Fret, team member Falie C.K. Baldeh, team member Juan Camilo Prieto, team member Acknowledgements The evaluation team wishes to thank the WFP team at the CO in Banjul for their availability and their support during this evaluation. The ET is also grateful to the various responsible persons and staff members it met at the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education who were equally helpful. The evaluation team also acknowledges the assistance and contributions received from the RED personnel in the various regions, as well as from the school personnel in the different schools it visited. The ET found all persons met to be very cooperative and motivated and wishes to thank them all very sincerely. The ET wishes to express its hope that the present evaluation report may contribute in a significant way to the strengthening of the ongoing process to transform the present SFP in The Gambia into a truly sustainable and nationally owned school feeding programme. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by the WFP regarding the opinions expressed hereinafter. The designation employed and the presentation of material within the maps do not imply the opinion on behalf of the WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or maritime area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Overview of the Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Context ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Poverty, Food Insecurity and Nutrition .................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Government Policies, Priorities and Capacity ......................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Education and Gender ............................................................................................................... 4 1.2.4 International Assistance............................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations ........................................................................................ 5 2. Evaluation Findings ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Relevance ............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3. Efficiency............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4. Impact ................................................................................................................................................. 24 2.5. Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 28 3. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 31 3.1. Overall Assessment and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 31 3.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 37 4. A Story Worth Telling ................................................................................................................... 40 Annexes................................................................................................................................................. 41 Annex 1: Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................. 41 Annex 2: Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................................. 70 Annex 3: Documents Reviewed .......................................................................................................... 82 Annex 4: Stakeholders Interviewed ................................................................................................... 86 Annex 5: Data Collection Tools ........................................................................................................... 91 Annex 6: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 103 Annex 7: Mission agenda: meetings and visit to schools ............................................................... 108 Annex 8: The five international evaluation criteria for DEV 200327 ............................................. 112 ii Annex 9: Three distinct major aspects of evaluation focus ..........................................................113 Annex 10: Stakeholder analysis and mapping ............................................................................... 114 Annex 11: Recommendations of the Mid-term Evaluation ........................................................... 116 Annex 12: Relevant Figures of the SFP ............................................................................................ 120 Annex 13. List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 124 Annex 14: Additional remarks to recommendations of the evaluation ..................................... 126 Annex 15: Food Management Committee: composition and roles .............................................. 127 Annex 16: Other interventions in The Gambia .............................................................................. 130 Annex 17: Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................. 132 Annex 18: SABER School Feeding ...................................................................................................... 151 Annex 19: Stakeholder analysis and mapping ............................................................................... 155 Annex 20: Evaluation questions, sources of information, and methods of analysis, according to each criterion and evaluation question ......................................................................................... 157 Annex 21: Outcomes of Education in 11 selected districts of The Gambia .. 170 Annex 22: Mode of calculation of the value of the local purchases in the cbt community management modality of school feeding ....................................................................................... 174 Table of Figures Figure 1.1 - Evaluation Phases and Timeline .................................................................................................... 7 Table of tables. Table 2.1 - Percentage of Pupil’s Entrants in Grade 1 with ECD Experience in Selected Districts .......... 12 Table 2.2 - Capacity Development: Results of SABER Assessments ........................................................... 15 Table 2.3 - Capacity Development: Target and Results ................................................................................ 16 Table 2.4 - School feeding programme: targets and results ........................................................................ 17 Table 2.5 - Timeline, Funding and Shortfalls .................................................................................................. 18 Table 2.6 -School Feeding Modalities in The Gambia ................................................................................... 22 Table 2.7 - Cost Efficiency of School Feeding ................................................................................................. 23 Table 2.8 - Cost of School Feeding in Low-income African Countries ........................................................ 24 Table 2.9 - Value of the Meals Delivered to School Children ....................................................................... 25 Table 2.10 - Contribution of School Meals Per Wealth Group ..................................................................... 25 Executive Summary 1. The objectives of evaluating the project «Establishing the Foundation for a Nationally Owned Sustainable School
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gambia Parliamentary Elections, 6 April 2017
    EUROPEAN UNION ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION FINAL REPORT The GAMBIA National Assembly Elections 6 April 2017 European Union Election Observation Missions are independent from the European Union institutions.The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. EU Election Observation Mission to The Gambia 2017 Final Report National Assembly Elections – 6 April 2017 Page 1 of 68 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 4 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 9 III. POLITICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 9 IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM ................................................................................. 11 A. Universal and Regional Principles and Commitments ............................................................................. 11 B. Electoral Legislation ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community Forestry Conflict Management in Central River Division, the Gambia
    CASE STUDY 2 Who owns Kayai Island? Community forestry conflict management in Central River division, the Gambia By A. Dampha, K. Camara, A. Jarjusey, M. Badjan and K. Jammeh, Forestry Department, the Gambia and National Consultancy for Forestry Extension and Training Services (NACO) Edited by A.P. Castro SUMMARY Kayai and Saruja villages are located on opposite sides of the River Gambia. Between them is Kayai Island, whose 784 ha consists mainly of forest reserve containing economically valuable species and a large wildlife population.The people of Kayai village regard the island as falling within their traditional lands. In the 1950s, the colonial government, without consulting Kayai village, gave farm plots on the island to people in Saruja as compensation for land annexed by an agricultural project. Since then, several disputes have arisen between the two villages over ownership of the island. Attempts to resolve the conflict, including though court adjudication, proved unsuccessful. The latest clash was provoked by the government’s recent participatory forestry initiative, which empowers communities to manage forest lands. This decentralization of public forestry administration seeks to foster sustainable natural resource management, addressing shortcomings in the State forestry that has been in operation since colonial times. A proposal by Kayai village to set up a community forest on the island met with resistance from Saruja villagers, who refused to sign the agreement approving it. The people of Saruja feared losing their rice fields, gardens and orchards and their access to forest products. As in the past, public and forestry officials’ efforts to resolve the conflict were not successful.
    [Show full text]
  • An Application of Small Area Estimation
    Public Disclosure Authorized POVERTY AND INEQUALITY ON THE Public Disclosure Authorized MAP IN THE GAMBIA An Application of Small Area Estimation Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized POVERTY AND INEQUALITY ON THE MAP IN THE GAMBIA November 2018 1 | Page This publication is prepared with the support of the Country Management Unit West Africa Poverty Monitoring Code (WAPMC - P164474). Extracts may be published if source is duly acknowledged. Copyright © 2018 by The Gambia Bureau of Statistics The Statistician General P. O. Box 3504, Serekunda, The Gambia Tel. +220 4377847 Fax: +220 4377848 Authors Rose Mungai Minh Cong Nguyen Tejesh Pradhan Supervisor Andrew Dabalen Graphic presentation of the data Minh Cong Nguyen Editor Lauri Scherer Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 The Gambia country context ...................................................................................................... 8 2. Overview of the Methodology ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of GARD Consultancy Study of Water-Controlled Rice Production
    Report of GARD Consultancy Study of Water-Controlled Rice Production in The Gambia Christine Elias July, 1987 STUDY OF WATER-CONTROLLED RICE PRODUCTION IN THE GAMBIA by Christine Elias In collaboration with Soil and Water Management Unit GTZ/DWR Rainfed Rice Improvement Project Freedom From Hunger Campaign Jahaly-Pacharr Project July 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements i Executive Summary ii 1. RATIONALE FOR STUDY 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 2 2.1 Soil and Water Management Unit (SWMU) 2 2.2 GTZ/DWR Rainfed Rice Improvement 7 2.3 Freedom From Hunger Campaign (FFHC) 10 2.4 Jahaly-Pacharr Tidal Irrigation Component 15 3. STUDY METHODOLOGY 22 4. CASE STUDY VILLAGES 24 5. FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND OUTCOME IN CASE-STUDY VILLAGES 27 5.1 SWI1U Case Study Villages 27 5.2 GTZ/DWR Case Study Villages 31 5.3 FFHC Case Study Village 35 5.4 Jahaly-Pacharr C:.se Study Village 36 6. ECONOMIC ANALYSES 37 6.1 Estimation of Project Costs 38 6.2 Estimation of Project Benefits and Incremental Costs of Rice Production 42 6.3 Project Returns and Sensitivity Analysis 44 6.4 Results of the Economic Analyses 45 7. COLLECTIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCES 50 7.1 Environmental Factors 51 7.2 Design Factors of Water-control Interventions 52 7.3 Issues of Land Use and Land Tenure 55 7.4 Village Participation 57 7.5 Compatibility of Intervention with Existing Farming System 58 7.6 Economic Factors 60 8. IMPLICATIONS FOR RICE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GAMBIA 60 9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THIS STUDY 63 ANNEXES A.
    [Show full text]
  • SCOPE of WORK Sambar Kunda – Kulari Ndimba Road
    Reinforced Access of the most Vulnerable Populations to Markets and Socio – economic Facilities through a Feeder Road Rehabilitation Programme ANNEX C – SCOPE OF WORK Sambar Kunda – Kulari Ndimba Road EUROPEAN UNION NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ‘Reinforced Access of the Most Vulnerable Populations to Markets and Socio-economic Facilities through a Feeder Roads Rehabilitation Programme’ funded by the European Union Delegation and is being implemented by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) in The Gambia. It aims to enhance socio-economic developments around road networks, provide employment, increase household income and thereby reduce poverty among vulnerable populations including female headed households and youth in rural Gambia. The rehabilitation of the feeder roads will be achieved through a combination of labour-based methods and machine-based methods. 10 feeder roads with a total of 104.4km have been identified for rehabilitation. The feeder roads are distributed across the North Bank Region, Central River Region and Upper River Region of the country. The selected roads are: • Road 1: Soto Masamba to Numuyel to Trunk Road (Fulladu East, URR), • Road 2: Chamoi to Dampha Kunda to Tamba Sansang (Fulladu East, URR), • Road 3: Alkali Kunda to North Bank Trunk Road (Upper Badibu, NBR), • Road 4: Suduwol to Nyamanari to Fatoto (Kantora, URR), • Road 5: Galleh Manda to South Bank Trunk Road (Fulladu West, CRR), • Road 6: Illiasa to Katchang (Upper Badibou, NBR), • Road 7: Sambar Kunda to Kulari Ndimba (Tumana, URR), • Road 8: Fass to Kerr Jane (Lower Niumi, NBR). • Road 9: Baja Kunda to Boro Kanda Kasseh (Wulli, URR), • Road 10: Kerewan to Njawara (Lower Badibou, NBR) SCOPE OF WORKS This scope of works is for the rehabilitation of Sambar Kunda to Kulari Ndimba road in Tumana and Kantora Districts, Upper River Region of The Gambia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gambia – Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 200557
    Measuring results, sharing lessons sharing Measuring results, OPERATION EVALUATION The Gambia – Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation 200557 (2013-2015): Targeted Nutrition and Livelihood Support for Vulnerable People Impacted by Floods and Drought Final Evaluation Report January 2016 Prepared by: Nyasha Tirivayi, Team Leader; Ben Murphy, Evaluator; Amadou Gaye, Evaluator Commissioned by the WFP Office of Evaluation Report number: OE/2015/012 Acknowledgements JaRco Consulting and the Evaluation Team would like to sincerely thank all those that have assisted in this evaluation: from WFP’s Country Office in The Gambia, its Office of Evaluation in Rome, and the West Africa Regional Bureau in Senegal, to the many participants from the Government of the The Gambia, other UN Agencies, NGO partners, and the numerous community member, who took the time to offer their perspectives to the Evaluation Team. Whilst it is not possible to name all contributors, special thanks are reserved for Vitoria Ginja, Mustapha Jammeh, Francis Abanzi, Annet Birungi and Grace Igweta for supporting the preparation phase, facilitating the evaluation mission, and reviewing early drafts of this report. Disclaimer The opinions expressed are those of the independent Evaluation Team and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers.
    [Show full text]
  • Population & Demography / Employment Status by District
    Population & Demography / Employment Status by District Table 39.1: Percentage Distribution of Population (15-64 years) by Employment Status and District - Total District Active Employed Unemployed Inactive Banjul 53.6 95.8 4.2 46.4 Kanifing 47.8 95.8 4.2 52.2 Kombo North 49.7 95.7 4.3 50.3 Kombo South 60.8 97.4 2.6 39.2 Kombo Central 52.7 94.7 5.3 47.3 Kombo East 55.2 97.0 3.0 44.8 Foni Brefet 80.6 99.8 0.2 19.4 Foni Bintang 81.7 99.7 0.3 18.3 Foni Kansalla 80.2 100.0 0.0 19.8 Foni Bundali 84.1 100.0 0.0 15.9 Foni Jarrol 76.0 99.3 0.7 24.0 Kiang West 73.7 99.6 0.4 26.3 Kiang Cental 80.3 99.2 0.8 19.7 Kiang East 83.5 100.0 0.0 16.5 Jarra West 76.3 99.7 0.3 23.7 Jarra Central 93.0 99.8 0.2 7.0 Jarra East 89.1 100.0 0.0 10.9 Lower Niumi 68.5 98.3 1.7 31.5 Upper Niumi 87.4 100.0 0.0 12.6 Jokadu 89.8 99.9 0.1 10.2 Lower Badibu 88.8 99.7 0.3 11.2 Central Badibu 89.1 99.9 0.1 10.9 Illiasa 72.4 98.3 1.7 27.6 Sabach Sanjal 93.6 99.9 0.1 6.4 Lower Saloum 88.8 99.7 0.3 11.2 Upper Saloum 97.6 100.0 0.0 2.4 Nianija 95.8 100.0 0.0 4.2 Niani 85.8 99.6 0.4 14.2 Sami 90.7 99.9 0.1 9.3 Niamina Dankunku 90.6 100.0 0.0 9.4 Niamina West 88.9 99.9 0.1 11.1 Niamina East 89.5 99.8 0.2 10.5 Lower Fuladu West 87.1 99.8 0.2 12.9 Upper Fuladu West 81.5 99.3 0.7 18.5 Janjanbureh 63.8 99.3 0.7 36.2 Jimara 85.1 99.9 0.1 14.9 Basse 73.1 100.0 0.0 26.9 Tumana 90.4 100.0 0.0 9.6 Kantora 93.5 99.9 0.1 6.5 Wuli West 96.6 99.9 0.1 3.4 Wuli East 97.2 100.0 0.0 2.8 Sandu 96.8 100.0 0.0 3.2 Source: IHS 2015/2016 Table 39.2: Percentage Distribution of Population (15-64 years)
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Assistance to the Gambia Oar/Banjul June
    U.S. ASSISTANCE TO THE GAMBIA OAR/BANJUL JUNE, IM2 U.S. ASSISTANCE TO THE GAMBIA United States assistance to The Gambia prior to its independence was fairly limited. in the period 1946 through 1961, some $300,000 was provided to the country through the Erit,14sh Foreign Office. From 1962 through 1975 bilateral assistance was extended through food aid (totalling $5.3 million), technical assistance (totalling $l.14million), and the Peace Corps ($2.0 million), for a grand total of $8.4 million. 5However, indirect economic assistance was provided contribution to various African regional and worldwide programs such as the West African Measles-Smallpox Campaigns. funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the mid-1960s. The Gambia began to receive more direct U.S. Government assistance starting in 1973-74 as the great Sahelian drought wreaked havoc across West Africa. Even though it is a riverine country, 'The Gambia is entirelu within the Sahelian climatic zone. During the drought, its cash crop and food crop production trailed off and environmental degradation set in. The U.S. Government attempted to help alleviate the situation by providing a significant increase in food aid. Food assistance has continued since then and is presently running at some $600 ,000 and $800,000 a year (excluding freight charges) which is in addition to periodic emergency food shipments in response to famine conditions, e.g., 1978 and again in 1980 and 1981. In 1974, AID received permr'ission from the Government of The Gamnbia (GOTO) to assign an Economic Development Oficer in The Gambia and establish an office in Banjul, which reported to the Regional Develop­ ment Office in Dakar.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2015/16 Gambia Integrated Household Survey Vol III
    THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GAMBIA INTEGRATED HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2015/16 Volume III Prevalence and Depth of Poverty Gambia Bureau of Statistics Banjul, The Gambia October 2017 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................. iv ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................... v FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 - BACKGROUND, SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION ................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Socio-economic Environment ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Objectives of the Integrated
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Land Sector Governance in the Gambia
    Public Disclosure Authorized IMPROVING LAND SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN THE GAMBIA Public Disclosure Authorized Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) Public Disclosure Authorized AMIE BENSOUDA & CO LP OFF BERTIL HARDING HIGHWAY NO. SSHFC CRESCENT KANIFING INSTITUTIONAL AREA Public Disclosure Authorized KANIFING MUNICIPALITY Email – [email protected] Telephone Nos. 4495381 / 4496453 AUGUST 2013 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgement 3 Acronyms 4 1. Executive Summary 6 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 LGAF Methodology 6 1.3 Overview of Land Policy Issues in the Gambia 7 1.4 Assessment of Land Governance in the Gambia 11 1.5 Policy Priorities 23 1.6 Conclusion 26 2. Consolidated Scorecard 27 3. Introduction 31 4. Methodology 32 4.1 Adapting the LGAF to the Country Situation 32 4.2 Government Engagement 32 4.3 Collection of Background Data and Panel Workshops 33 5. Context 34 5.1 Geographical Description 34 5.2 Historical Evolution 35 5.35.2 Key Social and Economic Indicators 35 5.4 Administrative Structure 37 5.5 Political System 37 5.6 Land Tenure System 39 5.6.1 Historical Context 39 5.6.2 Freehold Title 39 5.6.3 Leasehold 41 5.6.4 Deemed Lease 41 5.6.5 Customary Tenure 41 5.6.6 Forests Parks, Wild Life Reserves and Land Acquired for Public Purposes 42 5.6.7 Area and Population by Tenure Type 42 6. Tenure Typology 43 6.1 Institutional Map 49 6.2 Urban Planning 55 6.3 Three Growth Centres of Brikama, Farafenni and Basse 56 6.4 The Tourism Development Area (TDA) 56 6.5 Forestry 57 6.6 Current Situation 57 7.
    [Show full text]
  • MOBILE LEGAL AID CLINIC REPORT 7Th to 12Th April 2014
    80 OAU Boulevard, Banjul, The Gambia TEL: 4201535/4201537/3960636/9960633 Website: www.legalaid.gov.gm EMAIL: [email protected] MOBILE LEGAL AID CLINIC REPORT 7th to 12th April 2014 MOBILE LEGAL AID CLINIC REPORT Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 2. Project Sensitization.........................................................................................................5 3. Implementation of the Mobile Legal Aid Clinic ............................................................5 A. Upper River Region ....................................................................................................5 I. Kantora District ................................................................................................5 II. Fuladu East, Basse District………………………………………………………………………..7 a) Basse Police Station………………….………………………………….……………..8 b) Mansanjang Kunda……...……………………………………………….9 III. Tumana District ..............................................................................................10 a) Chamoi…………………………….…………………………...……….10 b) Follow up with the Governor on issues raised………..…….….……….11 B. North Bank Region……………...………………………………………………………………12 I. Sabachsanjal District….……………..………..…………………………………………….12 a) Dibbakunda………………………………………………….……………13 b) Radio Program…………………………………..….…………………….……..13 II. Central Badibu District….………………………..….……………………………………..…14 a) Farafenni Police Station……………………………...……..………………………..……..15
    [Show full text]
  • Gambia/Civil Society/UN Rapid Joint Assessment of the Impact of the Heavy Rains and Floods in the Gambia
    Government of The Gambia/Civil Society/UN Rapid Joint Assessment of the Impact of the Heavy Rains and Floods in The Gambia September 2010 Acknowledgment The RJA Team thanks the Governor’s and Mayor’s Offices as well as the Regional Disaster Management Committees in the six regions for guiding the sub-teams during their field visits. The Team also thanks all the village and/or community members who took their time to speak to the Team and participated in the interviews and discussions. Acronyms BCC Banjul City Council CRR Central River Region EmOC Emergency Obstetric Care FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GBOS Gambia Bureau of Statistics IDP Internally Displaced Person KMC Kanifing Municipal Council LRR Lower River Region NBR North Bank Region NDMA National Disaster Management Agency NERICA New Rice for Africa NFI Non-Food Item NGO Non-Governmental Organisation ORS Oral Rehydration Solution PHC Primary Health Centre RH Reproductive Health RJA Rapid Joint Assessment RDMC Regional Disaster Management Committee STI Sexually Transmitted Infection UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund URR Upper River Region VDC Village Development Committee WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation WR Western Region Cover photography: Flooded city centre of Basse (URR) 2 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]