The African Development Foundation

Grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation

June 1988

NTIS order #PB88-236252 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Grassroots Development: The Afri- can Development Foundation, OTA-F-378 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Office, June 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600526

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword

Grassroots development, to some, is a contradiction in terms. They identify development with industrialization, with large-scale transportation systems and U.S.-style agriculture with its expensive equipment. To others, grassroots development is a means to achieve results, an approach that has been missing from too many foreign aid programs and partly to blame for their failures, For yet others, grassroots development is an end in itself because it promotes people’s well-being and empowers self-help groups to expand and make their own choices and bring about change. Grassroots development may be a little of all these things to the members of Con- gress who established the African Development Foundation (ADF) in 1980. This report is about the Foundation - the only program wholly funded by the U.S. Congress to support grassroots development in Africa. Our analysis of ADF’s experience is broadly drawn; it will be of interest to anyone involved in self-help efforts of any kind. What works? What doesn’t? And why? This is OTA’S third report on U.S. foreign aid and African agriculture and the most comprehensive look at a single program. It complements a larger, more general work in press on enhancing agriculture in Africa and its already-published companion report on the Sahel Development Program. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, its Subcom- mittee on Africa, and the House Select Committee on Hunger requested this study. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on African Affairs, endorsed their request. OTA’S special thanks go to the Washington-based and African staff of the Founda- tion who openly discussed their philosophy, their work, and their plans at length and who spent their holidays reviewing our draft. Also, we gratefully acknowledge the help of the people who participate in the 12 ADF-funded projects that we visited in Africa. They contributed their time, resources, knowledge, and enthusiasm to this assessment and it could not have been done without their help. Many others shared their insights with us, both in Africa and here in Washington. Members and leaders of the field teams, workshop participants, reviewers, and members of OTA’S Low-Resource Agriculture Advisory Panel all deserve, and have, our appreciation. As with all OTA studies, the content of this report is solely OTA’S responsiblity.

. . . Ill OTA Project Staff -grassroots Development: The African Development Foundation

Roger C. Herdman, Assistant Director, OTA Health and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Food and Renewable Resources, Program Manager

Phyllis N. Windle, Project Director

Analytical Staff Kathy Desmond, Contractor George Scharffenberger, Contractor Scott McCormick, Contractor Allen Ruby, Research Analyst J. Kathy Parker, Contractor Valerie Brown, Research Assistant

Administrative Staff Ellis Lewis, Administrative Assistant Nellie Hammond, Secretary Carolyn Swarm, Secretary Contents

Page Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... vi Chapterl. Summary and Options ...... 3 Chapter2. OTA’s Assessment Methods ...... 23 Chapter 3. The African Development Foundation...... 35 Chapter4. OTA’S Findings About ADF-Funded Projects ...... 53 Chapter 5. OTA’S Findings About ADF’s Funding Program ...... 85 Chapter6. Lessons for Other Development Assistance Organizations ...... 115

Appendix A. ADF Projects Awarded From Fiscal Year 1984 Through Fiscal Year 1987 ...... 123 Appendix B. Summaries of 12 ADF-Funded Projects Visited by OTA ...... 126 Appendix C, Desk Reviewers, Participants in the Methods Workshop, and Members of OTA Field Assessment Teams ...... , . . . , . . .146 Appendix D. Field Team Methods: The Assessment Materials ...... 148 Appendix E. Field Interviews , ..., ...... , ...... ,165 Appendix F. Reviewers of OTA’s Draft ...... ,.,..,.172 Appendix G, References ...... 174 Index ...... 179 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADF —African Development Foundation IAF —Inter-American Foundation AFC —Agricultural Finance Corporation IBM —International Business Machines, Inc. (Zimbabwe) ICIPE —International Centre of Insect Physi- AID —U.S. Agency for International Devel- ology and Ecology opment IFAD —International Fund for Agricultural AJAC —Association of Young Farmers of the Development Casamance (Senegal; acronym for IUCN —International Union for the Conserva- French name) tion of Nature and Natural Resources ALDEP —Arable Lands Development Program KFM —Kungal Fado Mango (Niger; acronym (Botswana) for Fulani name) AMA —Boiteko Agricultural Management MISEREOR—German Catholic bishops develop- Association (Botswana) ment assistance program app. —appendix NGK –Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati Self-Help ARAP —Arable Rainfed Agricultural Program project (Kenya) (Botswana) NGO —Non-governmental organization ATI —Appropriate Technology International NOVIB —Dutch private development assistance CEBEMO —Dutch Catholic development assis- organization (acronym for Dutch tance program (acronym for Dutch name) name) OMB –Office of Management and Budget CONGAD —Council of Nongovernmental Orga- OTA —Office of Technology Assessment nizations Supporting Development PACT —Privrte Agencies Collaborating To- (Senegal; acronym for French name) gether CRF –Country Resource Facilitator (ADF) PAM —Project Assessment Memorandum Cuso —Canadian University Service Orga- (ADF) nization Pm —Partnership for Productivity/Kenya DHC –Dakoro Herders Cooperative (Niger) PRC –Project Review Committee (ADF) FAO —Food and Agriculture Organization Pvo —Private voluntary organization of the United Nations RLO –Regional Liaison Officer (ADF) FONGS —Federation of Nongovernmental Or- SAED —Government regional development ganizations of Senegal (acronym for agency for the Senegal River Valley French name) (acronym for French name) FR –Foundation Representative (ADF) UN —United Nations FSK —Farming Systems Kenya UNIFEM —United Nations Development Fund FTE —Full-time equivalent for Women FY —Fiscal year WID —Women in development GAO —General Accounting Office

vi Chapter 1 Summnary and Options CONTENTS

Summary ...... 0 ...... 3 Scope and Methods...... 3 ADF Yesterday and Today ...... 5 How Well Are ADF-Funded Projects Doing? ...... 7 ADF’s Program and Possible Improvements ...... 10 Lessons for other Organizations ...... 12 Congressional Options ...... 12 Reauthorization: Permanent v. 5-Year ...... 13 Appropriations...... 14 Congressional Oversight 15 Legislation...... 17

Box Box Page 1-1. ADF’s Legislation in Brief A Mandate for Grassroots Development . . . 17

Figures Figure 1-l. Countries With ADF-Funded Projects ...... 4 l-2. Flow Chart of OTA’s Assessment Methods, ...... 5

Tables Table Page l-1. The 12 ADF Projects Visited by OTA Teams ...... 6 l-2. Rating the Critical Issues in 12 ADF-Funded Projects ...... , 7

1-3. Summary of Congressional options ...... 13 Chapter 1 Summary and Options

SUMMARY

The African Development Foundation (ADF) of technology. As Congress requested, it looks is a small U.S. development assistance agency at the broad impacts of ADF’s work: the results, faced with a large task: supporting grassroots replicability, and sustainability of its projects; development in Africa. Congress created ADF and how it fosters the participation of Africans in 1980 to “enable the poor to participate in in their own social and economic development the process of development. ” As of 1987, ADF (figure 1-2). has given grants to organizations in 19 Afri- The assessment began with an analysis of re- can countries and its FY 88 appropriations were cent evaluations of similar organizations to $7,0 million (figure l-l). compare different evaluation methods and OTA’S assessment confirmed the validity of identify common problems. In addition, experts the assumptions on which ADF was created in project and program evaluation, grassroots and found that most ADF-funded projects were development, and field evaluation methods doing reasonably well. While a number of areas were interviewed. Project files in ADF’s Wash- for improvement were identified, OTA con- ington office were carefully reviewed to pro- cluded that the Foundation’s reauthorization vide an overview of the Foundation’s funding is justified, ADF would need additional fund- program and highlight potential problem areas. ing, however, if it is to implement recommended Field visits to 12 representative ADF-funded improvements without reducing the funds avail- projects (table 1-1) and interviews with African able for new grants. and donor officials in Africa formed the foundation of the report’s findings, Three regional Scope and Methods field teams visited 6 countries, spending a total of 285 person-days gathering and analyzing This report, done at the request of the House information and suggesting possible improve- Foreign Affairs Committee, its Subcommittee ments that ADF could undertake. on Africa, and the House Select Committee on Hunger, is intended to assist Congress with de- The Foundation cooperated fully with all cisions about the African Development Foun- parts of this work. For example, discussions dation’s role in U.S. foreign assistance. Conse- with ADF staff provided a broad picture of quently, this is not an evaluation of specific ADF’s activities. Members of the Foundation’s ADF-funded projects. Most of the Foundation’s African staff accompanied the OTA field teams projects are in early stages of implementation on their site visits and assisted with local ar- and any final analysis must await their com- rangements, Also, ADF provided substantial re- pletion. Nor is this the final word on ADF. The view comments while this report was in draft Foundation is young and evolving. It has had form. At the same time, however, OTA sought some successes, and some problems. This re- to ensure that its results were independent: port suggests some ways to overcome these selection criteria stipulated that no field team problems and thus enable the Foundation to members had previous or current contractual fulfill more effectively the unique role that Con- relationships with the Foundation; ADF field gress has designated for it. staff did not participate in most interviews, including meetings with project managers; and This report examines ADF’s overall funding the Foundation did not have access to OTA’S program with a special focus on its agriculture field assessment materials or the three teams’ and renewable resources projects and the use reports.

3 4

Figurel.1 .—Countries With ADF.Funded Projects

SUDAN

\ \ //

.[ LR

Map adapted from the African-American Institute, Inc., copyright @ 1984. 5

Figure 1 -2.— Flow Chart of OTA’S Assessment ADF Yesterday and Today Methods The Foundation was established by Congress CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST OTA experience in 1980 to complement official bilateral and multilateral development assistance programs I \ / Identification of critical issues such as those of the Agency for International 1. Participation 3. Sustainability Development (AID) and the United Nations. 2. Results 4. Replicability Technology (in relation to the other four issues) ADF’s legislation was modeled on the Inter- American Foundation but its history is quite different. ADF had a difficult start. First, the WASHINGTON DESK REVIEWS ON Assessment Methods Administration delayed appointment of ADF’s 1. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY WorksHop 2. RENEWABLE RESOURCE Board of Directors until 1983. This stalled the TECHNOLOGY agency’s start-up because ADF’s legislation re- 3. PARTICIPATION \ quired that the U.S. President appoint a Board to be responsible for the Foundation’s manage- I Choice of indicators to I ment and to select its president. Then, high- level staff resigned in 1984 creating more uncertainty about ADF’s program. As a result, Congress asked the General Accounting Office Meeting FIELD ASSESSMENT WORK (GAO) to assess ADF’s management capacity SHEETS AND FORMS to implement its mandate. Although GAO raised some difficult issues, its qualified endorsement of ADF’s capabilities led Congress to reauthorize ADF for five years beginning in 1985. r In 1984, under the leadership of a new presi- I National-level interviews Project visits dent, the Foundation began to develop its funding program in earnest. Procedures were de- I vised to identify potential grantees, approve Field Team Wrap-Up Meetings I grants, and conduct project monitoring and evaluation. Some processes, such as project approval, have changed little since 1984. Others, such as research and evaluation procedures, are being developed further now as the first projects are reaching completion, Certain key activities, such as the responsibilities for project I approval, are under continuing ADF review, INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF I CONGRESSIONAL OPTIONS ADF’s Washington and Africa-based staff grew to 52 full- and part-time employees, contractors, and interns by February 1988. Twenty- five staff members are full-time employees, within the Office of Management and Budget’s 27 full-time employee limit. Virtually all fund- DRAFT REPORT ing decisions are made in Washington, e.g., screening, reviewing, and approving project proposals. The addition of ADF’s African staff (4 regional officers and 14 part-time country FINAL REPORT resource facilitators) is recent, however, and may alter this high degree of centralization. KEY: Items printed m capital letters are repcxts or wtten materials Items printed In bold are meetmgs ADF has awarded grants to 114 projects in SOURCE: Offtce of Technology Assessment, 19SS 19 countries in Africa totaling $10.3 million in 6

U2 co m m

co UT co UJ m m Cu : .= co r-

o o h 0 0 m 0 U-J 0“ m“ -“ OJ 0 . . :

--l 7 the past 4 fiscal years (1984-1987). Individual Participation grants range from $700 to $250,000; projects Fostering the participation of Africans in average approximately $90,000, including grant their own development is an important goal of amendments. Most commitments are for 2 to ADF. This assessment of 12 ADF-funded proj- 3 years. Two-thirds of the projects have agri- ects showed high overall participation in one- cultural activities as a major component; some half of the projects but low overall participa- support other rural activities such as potable tion in one-third. These ratings were adjusted water supply and still others provide aid to ur- for the local context and were based on ele- ban organizations (20 percent). The Foundation ments such as people’s support for project de- awards grants to grassroots organizations and sign and its technologies; their access to the to intermediary organizations that provide serv- project and benefits in light of their contribu- ices to local groups, Funded groups use ADF tions; their role in project decisionmaking; and money to repair wells, build small-scale irriga- how participatory the recipient organizations tion systems, improve animal health, plant are. vegetable gardens and orchards, rent tractors, raise chickens, obtain credit for fertilizer, form A number of issues remain for ADF to settle cooperatives, and many other activities. ADF and, if addressed, are likely to improve the grants enable intermediary organizations to Foundation’s record on participation, For ex- provide services such as credit, training and ample, ADF must give increased attention to technical assistance to grassroots groups. the various elements that characterize participation, rather than allowing one, local control, to supersede all others. A project may be con- How Well Are ADF-Funded trolled locally, yet people who contribute time Projects Doing? or other resources may not support the activities undertaken or take part in decisionmak- People’s participation in ADF-funded proj- ing. Involvement in decisionmaking seems to ects, the projects’ sustainability over time, and be key but ADF has little information on this their replicability from location to location are or other elements of participation. fundamental aspects of ADF’s congressional mandate. And appreciable positive results, lead- In the 12 cases studied, either an African ing to social and economic development, are grassroots group or intermediary organization expected to be a major outcome of supporting originated the project in every case. Of the grassroots efforts. Therefore, these were the funded groups visited, four were grassroots four critical issues—participation, positive re- organizations and eight were intermediary sults, sustainability, and replicability—on organizations. More intermediary organiza- which the performance of the 12 visited projects tions had low participation than grassroots was assessed (table 1-2). groups. Both types of organizations face difficult questions of access. For example, women have a low degree of access to projects in one- third of the projects visited, and rarely participated in management. Table 1-2.—Rating the Critical Issues in 12 ADF-Funded Projects Generally, participants were representative No. of projects rated of the community, agreed the project addressed Critical issue High Moderate Low a need, and shared equitably in costs and ben- Overall Degree of Participation . . . 6 2“ 4 efits. On the other hand, usually participants Overall Results ...... 4 6 2 did not take part in evaluation and financial OveraIl Sustainability (for next 3 to 5 years) ...... 6 5 1 decisionmaking. A third of the projects were Overall Replicability in Region judged low on participants’ acceptance of the 7 2 or Country ...... 3 proposed technologies, their share in project 8 management, and participatory provision of ● Communities usually provide labor for technical assistance. projects. In six projects, a majority of participants also provide some money and ma- Results terials. ● All 12 of the visited organizations were re- One of ADF’s main purposes is to help bring cipients of funds from other external about social and economic development. A way donors in addition to ADF. In four of these to assess whether ADF is achieving this pur- cases, the specific project funded by ADF pose is to evaluate the results of ADF-funded was also funded by other donors. The other projects. OTA’S rating of results was based on donors include AID, the U.S. Ambas- whether projects achieved their objectives and, sador’s Self-Help Fund, European religious more importantly, whether positive economic donors, European and U.S. private volun- and social impacts had occurred, or were likely tary organizations (PVOS), private founda- to occur, without significant negative effects, tions, the World Bank, and the African De- including those on the environment. velopment Bank. Because of the early stage of most of the projects visited, project results could only be esti- Sustainability mated. Actual impacts were observable in only half of the projects. Ten projects were judged Sustainability generally means that project likely to have positive impacts on social and activities or results will continue after the grant economic development of poor people in the period. OTA judged ADF-funded projects on locale but the levels of impact varied from sig- several levels: sustainability of the project, of nificant to negligible. One project brought about project-related activities, and of the local group a 30 percent increase in income for women who and/or intermediary organization. Also, sus- received small agricultural loans; an irrigation tainability includes economic, environmental, project doubled land value in another. Two technical, and social factors; each was assessed other projects, however, were unlikely to ben- independently but then combined in an over- efit the poor even though they were likely to all rating. reach some of their objectives. Almost all ADF-funded activities were judged To adequately assess the results, or outcomes, to have a high or moderate potential to be sus- of projects, the benefits must be considered in tainable over the next 3 to 5 years. Changes relation to the costs. Thus, OTA considered the were underway in a number of projects, though, contributions of ADF, the local communities, and their eventual form might differ consider- and other donors. ably from that proposed in the original project documentation. Community support and the Ž Grant size and numbers of participants var- self-help nature of the projects were the strong- ied widely. As a result, ADF’s grant size est reasons for sustainability. But the lack of per person ranged from $50 to $3,507, aver- careful economic and environmental planning aging $650. were common constraints threatening sustaina- ● Just under one-half of the money ADF is bility, especially in the longer term. The most putting into the 12 visited projects is spent common constraint to economic sustainabil- for equipment. Another 18 percent goes ity in ADF-funded projects is lack of provision into revolving credit funds. About 10 per- for future ongoing, or recurrent, costs (affect- cent is spent in each of three categories: ing five projects). Three projects already show 1) agricultural inputs, 2) salaries and office negative environmental consequences—soil expenses, and 3) ADF audits, evaluations, erosion, soil compaction, and land clearing and other expenses including contingency without adequate reforestation. funds. The remainder funds vehicles, transportation, training, and technical assis- The poorer performance of ADF-funded proj- tance. ects regarding longer term sustainability also 9 relates to the technologies being used. Almost all of the projects were judged technologically sustainable in the short term. Technologies used in nine projects, however, were relatively high risk; those in five were relatively complex; and those in five were comparatively high cost.

RepIicability Donors seek replicability to increase the impact of their funding program, Grantmakers, such as ADF, that fund small-scale projects intend that their sponsored projects will benefit local people, but they also intend them to have wider impacts. Replicability refers to more than the duplication of project activities, it includes dissemination of technologies, organizational Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle methods, or skills beyond the funded group. In ADF funding allows groups to tap the wisdom and experience of their local leaders. This man leads a judging replicability of projects, OTA consid- farmers’ cooperative that produces tea and coffee ered 1) the potential for other groups in the re- in eastern Zimbabwe. gion or country to use the technology or repeat the project activity and 2) whether aspects of the organization’s management structure or style could be beneficial to other groups. also handle credit. Another is seen by the Bot- Ten of the ADF-funded projects visited showed swana Ministry of Agriculture as a successful a moderate or high degree of replicability in pilot project on vegetable and poultry/egg pro- the region or country, and two a low degree. duction, worthy to be tried elsewhere by the Self-help processes, such as the ways groups Ministry. The third, a water supply and irriga- identified, planned, or managed their activities, tion system built by residents of three commu- were judged more likely to be replicable than nities, provides Kenyan officials with an exam- the technologies used. The major constraint to ple of lower cost local water projects. replicability was the high cost of the project activities or technology. In seven projects, more than one-half of those visited, project activities How the Four Critical Issues Interact were judged unlikely to be repeated for this rea- Participation, positive results, short- and long- son. However, the majority of funded groups term sustainability, and replicability are all made some effort to spread what they learned. desirable but not necessarily simultaneously Most intermediary organizations planned to compatible. Generally, participation increases replicate project activities with additional lo- results. And positive results can increase par- cal groups. In three cases, non-participants ticipation and be a condition for replicability. adopted technologies introduced by the ADF- On the other hand, over-emphasizing results funded projects. can lessen participation, especially in the short Interestingly, three projects involving grass- term. And neither participation nor results are roots organizations have had an impact on na- necessarily compatible with long-term sustaina- tional institutions. One was among the first vil- bility, especially with environmental sustaina- lage associations to obtain credit from the new bility if dangers are dimly perceived. Thus ADF National Agricultural Credit Bank in Senegal. needs to balance the demands of these differ- Its successful irrigated rice project raised the ent aspects of its mandate in implementing its expectation that other local associations could funding program. 10

ADF's Program and Possible ment in decisionmaking and access by improvements women, minority groups, and the poor, are not sufficiently addressed. Thus, ADF is Many of the ADF-funded projects that OTA not fully meeting its mandate to foster par- examined are performing reasonably well. Some, ticipation by the poor in their own devel- however, have deficiencies regarding partici- opment. pation, sustainability, and replicability that are ● ADF’s analysis of the stage of develop- troubling given ADF’s mandate. The Founda- ment—the growth and track record—of ap- tion inevitably made difficult choices as it trans- plicant groups and their relationship to lated its mandate into action. Together, those government officials and other donors often explicit and implicit choices have shaped ADF’s is weak. Similarly, analysis of intermedi- funding program and they are reflected in the ary organizations and their relationships project findings discussed here. with grassroots groups has not been suffi- The Foundation’s choices in several areas cient. As a result, ADF sometimes makes have had clearly positive impacts. The Foun- inappropriate decisions as to who, when, dation has a highly committed staff with con- what or at what level to grant funding. siderable African experience and it has con- ● Inadequate analysis of technical, environ- tracted with qualified Africans to help carry mental, and economic factors sometimes out its program. It supports the growth of grass- results in ADF funding projects with ques- roots leadership and organizational capacity tionable technical soundness, economic and its grant-making process is often flexible and financial viability, and environmental and responsive. The focus on agricultural proj- sustainability. Also, ADF’s work has not ects is appropriate, and ADF’s new evaluation helped expand the choices of technologies program is promising. available. In other areas, however, ADF is doing less 3. The way that ADF monitors projects often than it could. Five major areas of improvement does not provide enough in-depth understand- exist: ing and information to effectively facilitate implementation by project managers and partici- 1. ADF’s relationships with its applicants and pants. As a result, the Foundation misses grantees are not as effective as they could be. opportunities to assist grantees and increase Decisions regarding ADF’s evolving role vis a the likelihood of project success. vis each funded group, such as the level of involvement, frequency of contact, and the bal- 4. ADF African field staff are underused in ance between facilitation and evaluation, could pre-funding analysis and project monitoring. be improved. Often ADF is too passive but at This slows decisionmaking, causes ADF to times it is too involved. In the former case, po- make funding decisions without the helpful tential to assist the group’s development is ne- analysis they could provide, and also means that glected. In the latter, the self-help process may funded groups are not receiving the best pos- be bypassed inappropriately. sible assistance. 2. Pre-funding analysis of project proposals 5. ADF does not communicate sufficiently is often inadequate in one or more of several with other private and official development critical areas: the sociallpolitical context and groups in Africa, so its ability to learn from organizational factors of the applicant group, others’ experience and to help groups benefit technological choices, environmental implica- from others’ resources is reduced. Also, ADF tions, and the economic constraints and oppor- does not prepare country-specific planning tunities of the projected activities. strategies to guide its use of sparse resources ● Although ADF encourages a high degree and place its work in context. This reduces its of local control, other critical elements of impact and makes it difficult for ADF to iden- participation, such as participants’ involve- tify its specific role in each country. In addition, other significant but lower pri- opment assistance community. OTA finds that ority problems exist. For instance, an unnec- such a role is consistent with the Foundation’s essarily long time passes between ADF’s receipt mandate to support self-help efforts. This role, of project proposals and the disbursement of if it is pursued carefully, can be consistent with project funds (12,5 months for the 12 visited the Foundation’s desire to encourage local con- projects). ADF has not yet completed agree- trol of funded projects and to avoid making ments or reached informal understandings with funded groups dependent on the Foundation, the governments in 13 of the 19 countries in For example, plans to guide ADF’s work in each which it funds projects.l ADF’s funding port- country that identify funding program priori- folio does not reflect the full range of possibil- ties can be drawn up with the participation of ities granted in its legislation, The Foundation grassroots and intermediary organizations, has not paid sufficient attention to evaluating Also, they can be applied flexibly to be consist- its own funding program, Nor is its research ent with ADF’s mandate to be responsive to lo- program yet addressing issues raised by the cal initiatives. organizations and activities it funds. In implementing each of these suggestions, None of these problems is irremediable and the emphasis should be on simple, inexpensive, ADF has begun to take steps to correct some and rapid methods. For example, existing ap- already. For example, the Foundation is plan- praisal methods could be used for collecting ning to expand the responsibilities of its Afri- information quickly to enable ADF to make bet- can staff but has not yet clarified how to do ter decisions. OTA is not recommending expen- this, The following suggestions could help cor- sive, large-scale feasibility or environmental im- rect these problems and are OTA’S high pri- pact studies. In some cases, small planning ority changes for ADF: grants could enable ADF’s applicants to con- revise and clarify the roles of staff in their duct much of the pre-grant analysis themselves working relationships with applicants and or to choose qualified consultants to do it for them. ADF, however, needs to select appropri- grantees, ate ways to verify independently the soundness increase and improve pre-grant analysis and facilitate better planning by applicants of proposals and, when necessary, obtain outside expertise to appraise project plans. In most during the project approval process, improve communication with the managers of these cases, African contractors could provide such verification by making short visits. of funded projects and more actively help them identify problems and resources dur- In addition to selected use of outside experts, ing project implementation, ADF staff needs training (particularly in low- enhance the responsibilities of the African resource agricultural technology and economic staff in project identification, approval, and and environmental analysis) to conduct better monitoring, and analysis of proposals and to assess the work increase communication with other devel- of consultants. opment organizations, especially those that Also, ADF should give some attention to these assist similar recipient groups. Begin to lower priority improvements: develop plans to guide its work in each country. ● Streamline the project approval process and reduce unnecessary delays. Each of these suggestions requires ADF to ● Conclude agreements with African govern- take a more active role as facilitator with its ments where appropriate. grantees, with its staff, and within the devel- ● Evaluate and address issues regarding the limited scope of its current portfolio, such as ADF’s emphasis on funding income- 1 In early 1988, ADF completed agreements with Sierra Leone and Ghana, reducing the number of countries without agree- generating activities and the large portion ments to 11 of 19. of its grants for equipment. 12

A variety of private and official development would learn from its successes and its disap- assistance programs have developed specific pointments and that other development assis- programs and procedures that ADF could learn tance groups could benefit from ADF’s learning. from to address these various problem areas. Indeed, ADF shares many of the deficiencies But ADF also has a unique role, different from highlighted here with other funders and it can other official U.S. development assistance pro- serve as a positive model in some areas. grams. ADF should develop additional creative ways to meet the concerns discussed here. The Foundation can successfully exemplify certain aspects of funding program manage- Every suggestion carries a price tag. Improve- ment, such as maximizing local control of ex- ments in efficiency of resource use would en- ternally-funded work, using Africans to provide able ADF to implement some suggestions with- technical assistance and conduct evaluations, out additional cost, but most of these changes and providing funding for planning grants. will increase operational costs. If ADF is to Also, ADF has, by and large, established effec- maintain its current level of annual grants, it tive congressional relations that could be instruc- is unlikely that it could make the changes sug- tive for other government-funded agencies. gested here for less than a $500,000 to $700,000 increase in its annual budget. The majority of Finally, this assessment offers its own lessons these funds should be used to increase the re- to other evaluators: program and project assess- sponsibilities of the African staff and provide ments create complementary pictures of an them with the resources to carry out new duties. organization’s status and external evaluations Some funds would be needed for additional are useful additions to ongoing internal ones. Washington staff and increased travel. The re- The findings of ADF’s own internal project maining funds could be divided among short- evaluations are confirmed by this assessment term contracts, staff training, and ADF’s re- and they are parallel to those reached during search program. evaluations of similar development assistance Lessons For Other Organizations groups. This consistency indicates that the issues raised are of significance not only to ADF Congress, in directing the Foundation to but also more generally to all programs de- share the results of its work, expected that ADF signed to support grassroots development.

CONGRESSIONAL OPTI0NS Congress has several tools available for in- amination of ADF’s enabling legislation nor fluencing ADF’s work–authorization, appro- made substantive changes in it. priations, and oversight. Each has been used in the past. For example, Congress examines This section addresses how Congress could ADF’s appropriation annually when the Foun- use these tools to improve ADF’s effectiveness dation testifies before the appropriations com- (table 1-3). The congressional options suggested mittees and when the Foreign Affairs and For- here fall into two categories, according to their eign Relations Committees set funding levels priority: during the authorization process. The Founda- tion’s staff have testified before other commit- ● High Priority Options tees, and thorough congressional oversight has –Reauthorize ADF. been conducted by congressional research —Set overall levels of appropriations, e.g., agencies: 1) the General Accounting Office, in increase appropriations by $500,000 to its 1984-1985 study of ADF’s management ca- $700,000 per year for two years to enable pacity and, 2) the work reported here. Until this ADF to make high priority changes in time, Congress had not conducted a broad ex- conducting its funding program or hold 13

appropriations constant until such changes Table 1-3.—Summary of Congressional Options are made. Reauthorization —Withhold major oversight for an interim 1. Regarding reauthorization of the agency: period; then, examine the changes im- Ž delete provision requiring periodic reauthorization of plemented and consider increasing the ADF, or ● reauthorize ADF for another five-year period folIowing annual appropriation for grants by $2 to its expiration in 1990. $3 million. Appropriations Ž Other Options 1. Regarding overall levels of appropriations for a 2-year in- —Amend ADF’s authorizing legislation to: terim period: ● hold appropriations constant, pending high priority a) remove the $250,000 limit on ADF programmatic changes, or projects and b) require that ADF’s Board Ž increase appropriations $500,000 to $700,000 to fund of Directors be bipartisan. high priority program changes with or without earmarking, then conduct oversight on ADF’s improvements and —Amend ADF’s appropriations and/or au- evaluate higher appropriations for grants. thorizing legislation to a) arrange for 2. Increase the annual appropriation for grants by $2-$3 mil- funds from terminated projects and loan lion at the end of the interim period. repayments to return to ADF’s account, Oversight 1. Withhold major oversight for a 2-year interim implementa- b) allow grantees to keep project funds tion period. in interest-bearing accounts, and c) pro- 2. After 2 years, conduct formal oversight on high-priority vide no-year funds. topics such as ADF’s pre-funding analysis of projects; its relationships with grantees; project monitoring and evalu- —Conduct oversight regarding specific ation processes; use of African staff; and communication items such as women’s participation in with other funders. ADF-funded activities, environmental 3. Also, routinely discuss specific issues with ADF, such as women’s participation in projects, environmental impacts, impacts, and funding delays. and funding delays. 4. Evaluate the qualifications of nominees to the ADF Board of Directors before Senate confirmation. Reauthorization: Other Legislative Options 1. Fine-tune authorizing legislation to make ADF more ef- Permanent v. 5-Year fective: ● eliminate the $250,000 project limit, and The Foundation’s enabling legislation in- ● specify bipartisan composition of the Board of Directors. cludes a provision for expiration of the Foun- 2. Amend appropriations or authorizing legislation to: . allow terminated grant funds and loan repayments to dation’s authority in 5 years. In 1985, ADF was return to ADF’s account, reauthorized for its second 5-year period. Con- ● provide ADF with no-year funds, and gress will face the issue of reauthorization once ● allow guarantees to use interest-bearinag accounts. again before 1990.

Although ADF can make a number of impor- must be balanced against some disadvantages: tant improvements, its problems are not seri- temporary reauthorization may contribute to ous enough to question the Foundation’s au- uncertainty about the Foundation’s future and thorization. Nor have the assumptions that work against ADF’s establishing the long term justified ADF’s creation been altered. To con- programs encouraged by the congressional tinue ADF, Congress could: 1) extend the Foun- mandate. Also, short term reauthorization in- dation’s authority for another 5 years, or 2) creases pressures on the Foundation to fund delete the requirement for reauthorization, pro- projects with quick results, an approach that viding ADF with permanent authority. Both ap- could jeopardize other important aspects of its proaches have advantages and disadvantages. mandate such as participation and sustaina- A 5-year reauthorization provides ADF with an bility. impetus to make improvements because it will be re-evaluated in 5 years. Thus, reauthoriza- As an alternative, permanent authorization, tion gives Congress another 5 years to appraise like that supporting the Inter-American Foun- ADF’s work and maximizes Congress’ leverage dation, could be achieved by deleting the re- over the Foundation. This approach, however, quirement for periodic reauthorization. This 14 could encourage ADF to take a longer term per- None of OTA’S experts, however, judged that spective. Congress could use other methods, ADF’s appropriations should be decreased. such as appropriations decisions or oversight Almost all thought that increases in ADF’s grant hearings, to provide ADF with incentives to program were warranted, especially if the make improvements. Foundation made the high priority changes discussed here. A few stressed the opinion that funding should remain constant until the Appropriations changes were accomplished. The Foundation has sought increases in its Should ADF’s Funding Be Increased? appropriations every year since its inception; its FY 1988 appropriations are $7.0 million. At Congress has several options to consider re- the time of its 1985 Five Year Plan, ADF antic- garding future funding for ADF: hold total ap- ipated a many-fold increase by 1.990, expect- propriations constant, pending high priority ing to reach $30 million. While congressional programmatic changes; or increase appropri- budget realities have dashed those expectations, ations for the types of changes suggested here, ADF still seeks to expand its program, con- giving either general direction or specific ear- vinced that it has the capability to accomplish marking regarding the money’s use. Any in- more in more places. Certainly as Congress ex- creased funding for grants should be deferred periences frustration with the poor develop- until ADF successfully makes the suggested im- ment record of larger agencies, the temptation provements. is strong to channel additional money to groups Of these funding options, holding ADF’s using alternative approaches. funding steady while asking for important ADF would have no shortage of activities to changes is the least likely to be effective. OTA fund if more money were available. The Foun- estimates that the changes suggested here could dation receives requests to develop programs cost the Foundation $500,000 to $700,000 an- in countries not yet funded and to undertake nually if undertaken all at once. The Founda- more work in those countries where it already tion could not allocate this amount of money has programs. The Foundation estimates that to new tasks without diverting funds from it has received approximately 1,335 project grants, thus reducing the amount available for proposals and 1,168 letter inquiries since com- new projects. If Congress used this option, mencing funding in fiscal year 1984. Although ADF’s non-grant costs would increase and its OTA has not estimated how many of those pro- obligations for new grants would decline sub- posals are appropriate for funding, it is clear stantially. that the Foundation could expand its program Another option would be for Congress to in- to additional countries with serious interest, crease ADF’s appropriations by an amount ade- such as Burundi, Gabon, Madagascar, and quate to make these high priority improvements Swaziland. for, perhaps, two years, then plan hearings to The contractors involved in OTA’S assess- evaluate ADF’s actions. This option could be ment each evaluated ADF’s funding program implemented by 1) earmarking funds for spe- and level of funding. Virtually all raised seri- cific types of reforms, or 2) providing non- ous concerns about certain aspects of ADF’s earmarked funds with general direction regard- funding program: particularly the need for ADF ing their use and then using oversight to en- to redefine its relationship with applicants and sure implementation. The first option gives grantees, to perform better pre-grant analysis, Congress maximum control but cuts ADF’s flex- to do more effective project monitoring, to in- ibility. Generally, OTA finds that congressional crease reliance on its African staff, to improve micro-management is inappropriate and that communication with others in Africa, and to it decreases programs’ effectiveness (46). In this begin to prepare country plans. case, some general congressional direction, i.e., 15 to improve ADF’s operation of its program ilar to that used by the Inter-American Foun- rather than increasing funding for grants, dation). OTA calculates ADF’s operational seems warranted regarding the intended uses costs (comparing all non-grant expenses to the of interim funding increases. Detailed earmark- total committed appropriations) to be 42 per- ing is probably not necessary, however. cent in fiscal year 1986 and 43 percent in fiscal year 1987. Many people find ADF’s mandate innovative and judge its projects at least as successful as If ADF received new appropriations of those supported by other donors. OTA found $500,000 to $700,000 and used the money as that ADF could make use of more funds if its discussed here to improve its operations, its program were improved. Therefore increased non-grant costs could approximate 50 percent appropriations for grants, as distinct from other of the total budget in fiscal years 1989 and 1990, administrative and program changes, could be This shift to a higher percentage of non-grant provided at the end of an interim period if ADF costs should be temporary, however, and viewed demonstrated that improvements had been as a short-term investment in ADF’s long-term made. With more solid analysis underway, with effectiveness. OTA expects that, over time, im- increased responsibilities for African staff, and mediate, non-grant improvements would en- with improved, streamlined procedures in able the Foundation to handle larger amounts place, ADF probably could effectively absorb of grant-related funding, thereby reducing the a $2 to $3 million increase in project funding proportion of non-grant costs. Thus, discus- by fiscal year 1991, bringing its total appropri- sions between Congress and ADF concerning ations to $9.5 to $10.7 million (in 1988 dollars). ADF’s operational costs should focus on the Options that designate new funds for mak- best use of non-grant funds to support an im- ing the changes suggested here will temporar- proved grants program rather than only on the ily tip ADF’s budget toward a larger propor- proportion of non-grant costs. Temptations are tion of administrative and other non-grant costs strong to make easy cuts or to increase aver- because the high priority changes are opera- age grant size when pressures exist to curb the tional ones, such as expanding the use of Afri- proportion of operational expenses. Many of can staff and providing additional staff train- those cuts, for example, in staff travel and training. Operational costs, in this report, refer to ing, could hurt the Foundation’s grants program. the broad category of all non-grant expenses, including administrative costs. Some people, however, feel that ADF’s non-grant costs are Congressional Oversigh* already too high, The Foundation calculates its administrative costs at 38 percent for fiscal year The Foundation’s efforts for effective con- 1986, 35 percent for fiscal year 1987, and 31 gressional liaison seem to be motivated by a percent for fiscal year 1988 (using a method sim- sincere desire to keep Congress well acquainted with ADF’s work and to create and maintain solid working relations. For example, the Foun- dation’s attitude was cooperative and open ADF’s approach is different from other donors. throughout this assessment and it responded Most ask the people to contribute to projects rapidly to requests for information. Evidence the donors have selected. These projects may exists that ADF also is responsive to key con- meet a need, but are not a priority of the peo- gressional committees and that it has sought ple. “please cooperate with us, ” they say. to improve its performance as a result of out- ADF’s approach is “let the people decide. ” side suggestions. The Foundation is aware al- Charles Keenja, Principal Secretary of the Ministry of ready of many of the concerns highlighted in Local Government and Cooperative Development, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. OTA interview, this report. It is tackling some of these prob- Sept. 1, 1987. lems now and, based on its record, is likely to respond conscientiously to OTA’S findings. 16

A Short-Term Reprieve From sional Presentation), in routine annual appro- Major Oversight priations hearings, or in hearings conducted by the authorizing committees. Three areas to No need exists for extensive congressional address include: oversight immediately. ADF has hosted two major external examinations of its work in the past 1. The participation of women, ethnic minor- 4 years. These reviews are likely to improve ities, and the poor in ADF-funded projects is ADF’s effectiveness but each has absorbed a difficult to determine and this ambiguity indi- considerable amount of staff time and re- cates that ADF should direct increased attention sources. Now that high priority areas for im- to these issues. In general, women’s contribu- provement have been identified, Congress tions of time, labor, and energy is dispropor- could reprieve ADF from further external in- tionate to their participation in project decision- vestigation while it implements high priority making and management, even when the local improvements. context is taken into account. Congress could use oversight to ensure that ADF take appro- High Priority Oversight Topics priate steps to increase the participation of women, ethnic minority groups, and the poor At the end of a 2-year period, however, ADF in its funded projects while recognizing ADF’s should be given the opportunity to demonstrate need to work within local cultures and to fund what it has accomplished of the high priority viable projects. changes suggested in this report and how these alterations are affecting its budget. Congress 2. ADF’s attention to environmental issues could determine then whether further funding also needs strengthening. In some cases, ADF- increases are appropriate. funded activities inadvertently contribute to environmental degradation although alterna- Congress could, for example, ask the Foun- tive technologies exist that have fewer nega- dation how it is: tive impacts or that could help restore the envi- ● implementing more effective ways to re- ronment. This, as well as a lack of simple and late to applicants and grantees that fulfill realistic economic and financial planning, con- various elements of its innovative mandate? strains the projects’ sustainability. ● increasing the responsibilities of its Afri- can staff for pre-approval analysis and 3. Congress has 15 days to review and dis- monitoring, and concomitantly adjusting approve ADF-funded projects, as it has for all the Washington staff’s responsibilities? Executive Branch expenditures not included ● streamlining and improving its pre-grant in the previous year’s Congressional Presenta- analysis of social, organizational, techni- tion. Notification is a way in which ADF in- cal, environmental, and economic factors? forms Congress of new work. But the formal ● developing improved and more efficient notification period sometimes can stretch proj- processes for project approval and moni- ect approval by as much as a month if Congress toring? is in recess. Congress and ADF could work to- ● consulting with other funders and coordi- gether to streamline this process. For example, nating work, when appropriate, and plan- ADF could send project notices to Congress ning country programs? during recesses, a practice that is not done now. Congress and ADF could agree to types of projects that should not be transmitted to Congress Specific Areas for Congressional during recess (the first project in a given coun- Oversigh try, unusually large projects, etc.) and to a more Several areas exist that could require more succinct notification format that would de- specific congressional oversight. These are crease ADF’s internal workload. Or, Congress areas that Congress could ask ADF to address could drop notification for projects below a in its annual report to Congress (the Congres- specified amount of funds. 17

Senate Confirmation of ● the $250,000 cap on individual project ABM Board of Directors funding, ● the partisan nature of ADF’s Board of Di- Congress considered the role of ADF’s Board rectors, of Directors important enough to set out detailed stipulations in the Foundation’s enabling legislation. Therefore, Congress has an interest in the direction that the Board sets for Box 1-l.—ADF’s Legislation in Brief: ADF and could use oversight for keeping abreast A Mandate for Grassroots Development of the Board’s thinking, ADF was established by the International The U.S. Senate confirms members of ADF’s Security and Development Cooperation Act Board of Directors. This provides an important of 1980 (Public Law 96-533, Title V), and thus opportunity to oversee the Foundation’s direc- is not authorized by the Foreign Assistance tion.’ Up to now, Congress has rarely used Act. This has provided ADF with the flexibil- this tool to ensure that prospective members ity to depart from types of work carried out have experience relevant to ADF’s mandate and by other U.S. agencies. that they represent a range of views on Afri- According to its legislation, ADF’s purposes can grassroots development. Members of Con- are four-fold: gress could inform the U.S. President of qual- (1) “to strengthen the bonds of friendship ifications they consider essential for nominees and understanding between the people or they could be more active in formal confir- of Africa and the United States; mation hearings. (2) to support self-help activities at the local level designed to enlarge opportunities Legislation for community development; (3) to stimulate and assist effective and ex- No Major Overhaul Needed panding participation of Africans in their development process; and No need exists for a major revamping of (4) to encourage the establishment and growth ADF’s enabling legislation. This law is far- of development institutions which are in- sighted and based on a participatory approach digenous to particular countries in Africa to grassroots social and economic development and which can respond to the require- that has proven successful. Also, it is a good ments of the poor. . . .“ example of Congress providing general direc- Further, ADF is to carry out these activities tion without undue restrictions or unreasona- with indigenous groups representative of the ble demands. It provides ADF with appropri- poor and to coordinate, to the extent possible, ately wide latitude, and remains consistent, in its work with U.S. government and private, general terms, with what is known of effective regional, and international groups. Specifi- grassroots development assistance (box 1-1), cally, it may make grants, loans, and loan guarantees to: a) foster local development institutions and efforts initiated by communi- Fine-Tuning for Effectiveness ties, b) develop self-evaluation methods to Certain provisions of this or other legislation transfer experience, c) develop research by (such as appropriations laws) affecting ADF are Africans and transfer information within problematic, however, and likely to become Africa, and d) procure technical or other assis- more so as ADF ages. Concerns exist in sev- tance for its recipients. ADF is to give priority to projects which community groups under- eral areas: take themselves, where there is participation by the poor. ~As of March, 1988, three vacancies of the five designated for private sector representatives existed on the Board. ADF’s leg- SOURCE: U.S. Congress, Legislation on Foreign Relations islation specifies that five board members be from the private Through 1986, Volume 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, March 1987). sector and two represent U.S. government agencies concerned with African affairs. 18

● ADF’s inability to retain funds from ter- roots development and that potential partisan minated grants and loan repayments, and concerns not shape its work. Therefore, Con- ● grantees’ inability to keep project funds in gress could amend ADF’s enabling legislation interest-bearing accounts. to ensure that Board members be drawn from both political parties in approximately equal ne $250,000 Cap on Projoct Funding numbers. Congress provided such protection for the Peace Corps National Advisory Coun- Some successful ADF-funded projects are cil. A similar structure has proven successful now being affected by the $250,000 per project for OTA’S Technology Assessment Board. funding limit. Pressures on organizations to attempt ever-new activities to qualify for another funded project can encourage them to attempt Inabillty To Retain Funds From Terminated Projects and Loan activities for which they are not ready rather Repayments than solidify positive results of earlier efforts. This problem is likely to increase as more ADF- All grant-making groups need to terminate funded projects reach maximum funding levels. projects before completion when projects de- The Foundation is better positioned to deter- velop irresolvable problems. In fiscal year 1987, mine the appropriate limit to single-project the Foundation terminated six such projects. These projects were funded in fiscal year 1985 funding than Congress; this is a decision that most grant-making organizations make for when the Foundation had funds that could be themselves. For example, the Inter-American spent in any fiscal year (“no-year funds”). Therefore, ADF will retain money deobligated Foundation operates without a legislated project ceiling and has funded successful grass- from these projects and be able to use the funds roots projects in excess of $1 million. for new work. Current single fiscal year funding requires that the money obligated, but not Congress could amend ADF’s authorizing leg- spent for a project, be deobligated then returned islation to eliminate the $250,000 ceiling per to the U.S. Treasury rather than ADF. Congress project, However, this would not bean endorse- could amend this process so that ADF would ment for ADF to increase the average size of be allowed to retain funds from terminated its grants, nor to undertake more complex projects for use in other grants. U.S. AID has projects. Rather, this would enable ADF to bet- the power to retain deobligated money as long ter: sequence its support of various components as it is reobligated for a similar project in the of some projects; adjust for unexpected in- same geographic area (44). Congress could pro- creases in costs; or provide a transition for an vide ADF with similar authority, allowing ADF activity to become better established. The Foun- to reallocate funds to other projects without re- dation should approach the idea of funding quiring that they be spent in the same region projects in excess of $250,000 cautiously. First, or sectors. it might develop guidelines for gradually providing sequenced grants to individual groups. Also, Congress could prevent this problem Congress can ensure by oversight that ADF by providing ADF with no-year funding. Ad- keeps average grant size low without retaining ditional benefits exist to no-year funding as well. Fiscal year funding can constrain pro- the strict limit to project size. grams’ effectiveness and absorb resources that could be better directed in longer-term efforts The Partisan Nature of ADF's Board (46). ADF, like many groups that have single The Foundation’s legislation details many fiscal year funding, finds that project approval aspects of the structure of ADF’s Board of Di- tends to accumulate at the end of the fiscal year. rectors. It does not, however, require that mem- As a result, decisionmaking can become hasty. bers represent both political parties. It is in No-year funds are no panacea, however. The ADF’s best interest to have a Board that repre- Sahel Development Program in AID, for exam- sents a wide range of views regarding grass- ple, was granted no-year funds, then hesitated 19 to use them for fear of congressional disapproval. pecting that ADF may appropriately begin loan Some AID officials felt that money unspent in and loan guarantee programs sometime in the one year would result in lowered congressional future, appropriations the following year. Also, no-year funds require oversight, since unobligated funds accumulating over several years may in- Grantees’ Inability To Keep Money in dicate that an organization’s capacity to make lnterest-Bearing Accounts grants has been exceeded. While Congress In these two cases—loss of terminated grant would need to monitor the situation if it pro- funds and of potential loan repay ments—ADF’s vided ADF with no-year funds, accumulations appropriations are in effect decreased. Current of funds are unlikely to occur due to ADF’s appropriations legislation also has the unan- backlog of unfunded proposals. ticipated effect of decreasing the worth of indi- Similar to allowing the return of terminated vidual grants to organizations in Africa because grant funds to ADF, Congress also could allow project managers cannot keep ADF-provided repayments of ADF loans to return to ADF. Un- funds in interest-bearing accounts (except for der current rules, the U.S. Treasury, not ADF, income generated from project activities). Grant would receive loan repayments if ADF estab- size in real terms decreases then, especially in lished a loan program, So far, ADF does not countries where inflation is high or where cur- provide loans or loan guarantees despite con- rency is devalued. Congress could legislate a gressional authority to do so. A number of sig- provision for ADF whereby grantees could keep nificant problems hamper development of these project funds in interest-bearing accounts, programs and OTA is not recommending that stipulating that all interest payments be used ADF give high priority to creating one at this for project-related costs or returned to ADF. time. However, Congress could legislate a pro- Congress provided the Inter-American Foun- vision that ADF receive loan repayments, ex- dation with this authority in 1980, Chapter 2 OTA's Assessment Methods —

Page Summary 23 Why This Assessment Was Requested...... 23 How OTA Conducted the Assessment...... 25 Overview 25 Designing the Assessment Plan ...... 25 Developing Field Team Methods...... 26 The Desk Reviews ...... + ...... 29 Selection of Countries and Projects to Visit ...... 29 Field Team Work ...... 0...... 29 Synthesis Meeting and Preparation of Report ...... 31

Boxes Box Page 2-1. GAO’s Look at ADF Management...... 24 2-2. Recent Similar Assessments ...... 27

Frigure Page 2-1. Flowchart of OTA’s Assessment Methods ...... 26 Chapter 2 OTA's Assessment Methodsl

SUMMARY

● OTA undertook this assessment at the re- eluding ADF staff; reviews of Foundation quest of the House Foreign Affairs Commit- documents in Washington, D.C. related to tee and the House Select Committee on Hun- participation, agricultural technology, and ger, with specific instructions to examine renewable resource management in ADF- people’s participation in projects funded by funded projects; and workshops for OTA the African Development Foundation (ADF) staff and contractors. and the projects’ results, sustainability, and ● Three five-member teams visited East, West, replicability, The committees also requested and Southern Africa for 23 days in 1987, ob- an assessment of the Foundation’s overall serving 12 ADF-funded projects in 6 coun- performance and how it could be improved. tries. Each group spoke with project partici- ● The methods used to assess ADF activities pants, Foundation staff, local and national included extensive interviews with develop- officials, U.S. ambassadors, AID mission di- ment experts in Washington and Africa, in- rectors, and representatives of other development and research organizations. The teams assessed ADF-funded projects, re- IThis chapter and app. D provide detailed information for viewed the Foundation’s programs in each readers with an interest in evaluation methods. In addition, apps. C, E, and F list many of this assessment’s participants. The re- country, and suggested congressional op- sults of the assessment begin in the next chapter. tions and ways for ADF to improve its work.

WHY THIS ASSESSMENT WAS REQUESTED

When the African Development Foundation ment is relevant to the pending reauthorization (ADF) was founded, Congress intended that its of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. grassroots approach complement other types The House Foreign Affairs Committee and of aid already provided to Africa by the United the House Select Committee on Hunger re- States. Now Congress is evaluating how well quested this comprehensive assessment of U.S. development assistance to Africa is doing ADF’s funding program.2 Their request noted and ADF, as one U.S.-funded development pro- the context in which U.S. aid to Africa takes gram, has come under scrutiny. This is part of place: “Strong humanitarian, political, and eco- Congress’ continuing attempt to ensure that the nomic reasons exist for the U.S. to continue United States provides the most effective assis- to participate in assisting African countries in tance possible via the Agency for International their efforts to develop their human and physi- Development (AID), the Peace Corps, multilat- cal resources. ” As the requesting committees eral institutions, private voluntary organizations, and other groups that receive U.S. funds directly or indirectly. Although the focus here ZRepresentatives Dante Fascell, Chairman of the House For- is on ADF’s program, this study has broader eign Affairs Committee, and Howard Wolpe, Chairman of its applicability. For example, the Foundation’s en- Subcommittee on Africa, and Mickey Leland, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Hunger, requested the study. Sena- abling legislation stresses the need for Africans tor Paul Simon, Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Af- to participate in their own development and fairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported their ADF’s experience with participatory develop- request.

23 24 said, ADF was established because “one rea- This previous OTA work has emphasized the son given for the failure of many programs need to support participation of poor farmers, funded by the major donors has been the lack herders, fishers, and their organizations in the of involvement of the intended beneficiaries, programs designed to assist them. An assess- especially low-resource farmers, many of whom are women.” Their question was whether ADF had been any more successful in having an impact on development in Africa. The requesters Box 2-I.—GAO’s Look at ADF Management specifically asked OTA to examine: In mid-1984 the Senate Appropriations ● the degree to which ADF’s activities ful- Committee’s Subcommittee on Foreign Oper- fill the Foundation’s legislated mandate, ations requested that the U.S. General ● whether ADF is supporting sustainable and Accounting Office (GAO) determine whether replicable projects with positive impacts ADF had the management capacity to carry beyond the project level, out its mandate and to handle larger appropri- ● the degree to which ADF is assisting the ations efficiently. The study was requested be- poor majority, and cause of the uncertainty which followed the ● ways for ADF to improve its effectiveness. resignations of the first President and Vice- President in April and May 1984, barely 6 In addition to these factors, OTA focused at- months after ADF had begun operations. tention on the Foundation’s use of technology GAO’s analysis concluded that by late 1984 and technical assistance and narrowed the ADF had made progress in establishing its or- scope to include only those projects dealing ganizational structure. It had filled most of its with agriculture and renewable resources. This authorized staff positions, established inter- focus, which covered 67 percent (58 projects) nal administrative procedures, grant agree- of ADF’s portfolio, made the assessment man- ments, and a project review committee, and ageable and allowed OTA to use its previous was making plans for its accounting system. experience in these areas. GAO also concluded, however, that ADF should not focus on expanding its program sig- OTA’S involvement with U.S. assistance to nificantly to approach the $100 million it origi- Africa began in 1984 when the House Select nally envisioned spending in 1990. (This num- Committee on Hunger requested an issues pa- ber was revised to $30 million in ADF’s 5-Year per on technology, agriculture, and U.S. for- Plan published in May 1985.) GAO raised a eign aid to sub-Saharan Africa (Africa Tomor- number of other concerns as well. Some, such row, 1984). Then Congress requested a more as the need for a 5-year plan, have been cor- detailed follow-up study examining agricultural rected. OTA considers other issues still rele- technologies for low-resource African agricul- vant, For instance, GAO felt that ADF had not: ture (Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role 1. identified which countries would receive for U.S. Development Assistance, in press, priority funding, 1988). In 1986, OTA published an interim re- 2. determined to what extent ADF would port based on that on-going assessment - Con- provide loans and loan guarantees, tinuing the Commitment: Agricultural Devel- 3. settled the extent to which ADF would opment in the Sahel. This report included a emphasize private sector initiatives as en- one-month field visit to U.S.-funded develop- couraged by the Board of Directors, ment work in West Africa. The final report on 4. established how ADF would coordinate low-resource agriculture in Africa provides a with other donors, and 5. decided how ADF would meet demands general framework for a resource-enhancing for project monitoring and handle staff- approach to African agriculture, discusses the ing for these tasks. overall role of technology, and details the potential of a number of technologies such as SOURCE: U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Issues Affecting Ap- propriations for the Afr]c8n Development Foundat~on, GAO/ small-scale irrigation, agroforestry, and fer- N’SIAf)-85-62, May 7, 1985. tilizers. 25 ment of ADF thus builds on OTA’S experience suited in the early stages of this work, tapping by exploring, in depth, a program established GAO’s previous work and exploring the possi- to do just that. bility of a joint OTA/GAO effort. Finally, however, the committees requested that OTA con- OTA’S examination of ADF is the Founda- duct this assessment independently because tion’s second congressional review. The Gen- OTA’S focus and experience better matched eral Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated ADF’s their need for an examination of the Founda- management capacity in 1985 (box 2-l). GAO, tion’s impacts on development in Africa. OTA, and the congressional requesters con-

HOW OTA CONDUCTED THE ASSESSMENT

overview The reviews of ADF’s Washington project files were conducted in August, the field teams went This report presents findings about ADF’s to Africa in September, and the synthesis meet- overall funding program in the area of agricul- ing was held when the team leaders returned ture and renewable resources, describes its in October. This report represents only a snap- performance, suggests areas for improvement, shot in the life of the 12 ADF-funded projects and notes opportunities for other development and in the evolution of the organization. assistance organizations to learn from the Foun- Changes in ADF’s policies or practices made dation’s experience. after the fall of 1987 are included in footnotes. The work was conducted in several stages, each building on the previous one (figure 2-1). Designing the Assessment Plan Field visits to 12 ADF-funded projects in Africa provided crucial information regarding ADF’s The congressional request identified critical issues related to ADF’s mandate and suggested field operations. OTA was not charged to evalu- that the assessment include field visits to ADF- ate the funded groups, however. Instead, teams funded projects in Africa. To plan its assess- visited projects to assess the overall ADF ment, OTA began in Washington with inten- program. sive interviews with approximately 30 experts In doing this assessment, OTA used a vari- in field evaluation methodologies and grass- ety of methods to gather information at the pro- roots organizations. The most appropriate program and project level, both in the United States gram evaluation methods were incorporated and in Africa. In Washington, ADF staff and into OTA’S approach (see box 2-2). Also, ADF’s other experts were interviewed. Project docu- staff were interviewed about their roles and ments, ADF’s evaluations of 10 nearly com- work. An Advisory Panel established to guide pleted projects, two country profiles, and ad- OTA’S assessment of low-resource agriculture ditional information about its program were in Africa met in Washington at the end of April reviewed. In Africa, project managers and par- and was used to review the plan and begin de- ticipants as well as national and local officials veloping field indicators to help assess four crit- and other development funding groups were ical issues: participation, results, sustainabil- interviewed. These interviews provided abroad ity, and replicability. This panel suggested that view of ADF’s philosophy and policies as well the assessment teams lengthen their time in the as a measure of how well ADF implements its field, that African team members be named for mission. every country visited, and that data collected be disaggregated by gender. This assessment included several major steps. The assessment plan was developed in spring OTA next conducted an initial analysis of 1987; OTA organized the field teams and de- ADF’s project portfolio based on abstracts pro- veloped materials they would use that summer. vided by ADF for each funded project. From 26

Figure 2-1. - Flow Chart of OTA’S Assessment Methods this, OTA tabulated project information, including grant size, duration, maturity, geographic CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST OTA experience scope, activities, goods or services funded by the ADF grant, and intended outcomes. This analysis provided information on the range of Identification of critical issues 1. Participation 3. Sustainability project characteristics and average features so 2. Results 4. Replicability the countries and projects selected for visits Technology (in relation to the other four issues) would be representative of ADF’s portfolio. The survey was limited to the 86 projects funded / \ WASHINGTON DESK REVIEWS ON by ADF through September 31, 1986. Two- Assessment Methods 1. AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY Workshop thirds of these, or 58, dealt substantively with 2. RENEWABLE RESOURCE agriculture or renewable resources and were TECHNOLOGY \ considered within OTA’S scope of work. This assessment of funded projects must be Choice of indicators to qualified by the newness of ADF’s program. Its measure the critical issues first projects are just now nearing completion. Thus, OTA’S major focus is on suggesting how ( ADF’s overall funding program can be im- Field Team Orientation ) proved, not on providing a definitive statement Meeting FIELD ASSESSMENT WORK SHEETS AND FORMS judging the results of ADF projects.

Developing Field Team Methods To develop methods for the field teams’ use, r OTA held a workshop with two purposes: I National-level intewiews Project visits 1. to review current field evaluation methods, and I 2. to develop indicators to address the critical issues identified in Congress’ request for this study. The field research method used is a form of “rapid rural appraisal. ” In rapid appraisal, teams visit the field for a short time to obtain selected information needed for policymakers. I This approach is quicker and more cost effec- INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS OF tive than some other research methods. It relies CONGRESSIONAL OPTIONS on individual and group interviews, observa- I tion, and local documentation where available (12,21). In the methods workshop, OTA staff, team leaders, and three consultants with extensive evaluation experience (app. C) spent 2 days:

Review process defining the critical issues—participation, results, replicability, and sustainability; converting these definitions into concrete FINAL REPORT indicators that could be observed and KEY: ~ems printed m capital letters are reports or written materials measured in the field; and Items printed m bold are meetmgs designing worksheets on which to collect SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, t988 data for each of these issues. 27

Each critical issue had multiple dimensions tions (from project proposal evaluation and and thus required several indicators to use in monitoring checklists), suggested modifications the field. OTA used a variety of sources to help by the Low-Resource Agriculture Advisory define each issue, including expressions of con- Panel, and relevant findings from OTA’S pro- gressional interest, ADF’s operational defini- vious work on low-resource agriculture in

Box 2-2 .—Recent Similar Assessments Four agencies, with programs in some respect similar to ADF’s, were evaluated recently. OTA used these evaluations to suggest assessment methods for this effort, such as the need for desk reviews, the number of projects to visit, and the time required for field work. Also, these examinations of grassroots funding organizations identified important common approaches and problems. Each organization’s purpose and the intent and method of its evaluation are summarized here. The results of OTA’S assessment of ADF are compared to the findings of these evaluations in chapter 6. Appropriate Technology International (ATI). ATI’s mission is to develop innovative approaches to technology, directly involving organizations and entrepreneurs in developing countries. The Agency for International Development (AID) conducted an external, mid-term review to assess ATI’s performance under its cooperative agreement with AID, to identify lessons regarding technology transfer and promoting small-and medium-scale enterprises, and to assess ATI’s ability to replicate its successful innovations. The evaluation included an assessment of 18 ATI projects in 10 countries by a contractor-supplied team. Members used open-ended, improvised, interview questions in the field, standardized among regions, The evaluation, including orientation sessions, field visits, and a synthesis meeting, took place in a 6-month period (16). Inter-American Foundation (IAF). IAF provides grants and loans directly to Latin American grassroots groups and is the model on which ADF was based. It operates outside of other official U.S. development assistance channels, responding to initiatives of indigenous groups for social, institutional, and economic development. This internal evaluation reviewed the foundation’s goals, procedures, and policies; initiated a strategic planning effort; investigated IAF’s accomplishments, its role in U.S. relations in Latin America, and its effectiveness as a pioneer. A team of 3 evaluators reviewed extensive written materials, including IAF’s legislative history, and conducted interviews with at least 200 people. Individual members of the team visited between 1 and 3 countries each; the process took 3 months (50), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). This multilateral agency works to increase food production in some of the poorest, food deficit countries and to improve the nutritional level and living conditions of the poorest populations. AID conducted this external review, examining IFAD’s program relative to U.S. development assistance policy and providing a basis for decisions regarding U.S. participation in IFAD, The evaluation methods included desk reviews of written materials, field visits to IFAD projects throughout the world, interviews with IFAD staff and representatives of other institutions, and a synthesis meeting. Teams used an open-ended protocol and questionnaires in the field. In all, 9 AID staff members conducted the evaluation over a 4-month period, spending 3 to 5 days at each of 19 project sites (39). The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) provides funding and direct technical assistance for women-specific projects and serves as a catalyst to ensure women’s involvement in mainstream development activities. The agency conducted this internal evaluation to assess the extent to which it is carrying out its mandate, to show the impact of development assistance on women, to document the fund’s activities relative to the U.N. Decade for Women, and to identify future priorities. This was the most extensive and field-oriented of the evaluations and the one from which OTA borrowed the most methodology. UNIFEM included desk reviews, orientation sessions, field evacua- tions of projects, mailed questionnaires, and input from regional commissions in this project and program assessment. Regional field teams visited 42 projects in 24 countries; members were drawn from experts resident in the country or region. The work lasted approximately 1 year (38).

83-361 0 - 88 : ~1. 3 - z 28

Africa and other evaluations. OTA sought to tributing to spontaneous adoption of new tech- develop indicators that blended quantitative nologies by others; or by effecting policy change and qualitative data. on a regional or national level. Also, the learn- The “participation” issue required the most ing process that occurs during project imple- complex set of indicators concerning who par- mentation itself can be replicated by a funded group or others to plan additional activities. ticipates, when, and how. The focus was on Therefore, OTA assessed whether groups’ proc- equitable access to the project, the project par- esses as well as their specific activities could ticipants’ roles in all phases of the project cy- be repeated. cle, project control, and the recipient organization’s operational style. Indicators of The choice of technology has a direct bear- equitable access, for example, were the types ing on participation, results, sustainability, and and levels of involvement of women and vari- replicability in ADF-funded projects. Therefore, ous ethnic, age, and income groups. assessing the use of technology was also a part Assessing “results” included determining of OTA’S analysis of the four critical issues. whether or not the project achieved its objec- Much research and experience in Africa shows tives. However, results also were defined to in- that, in general, participation of poor farmers clude a measure of the project’s broader effects in increasing their productivity and incomes on participants, the recipient organization, and in a sustainable way is facilitated by technol- the community. Information on broad project ogies that are lower cost, use local resources, outcomes was used as well as data on specific are readily learned, and increase incomes with- project outputs. OTA attempted to identify in- out unacceptably increasing risk. Distinguish- tended and unintended effects of several kinds: ing among high-cost, high-technology, high- economic, social, organizational, environ- input, and high-risk methods is important, how- mental, policy, and technological. These results ever. And, ultimately, the appropriate use of were examined in terms of the project’s spe- technology must be judged by a careful analy- cific objectives as well as in terms of the local sis of a particular situation. Field teams were context and broader development goals. instructed to assess the appropriateness of technology choices only after interviewing project “Sustainability” was considered the time re- managers, researchers, and local officials in lated dimension of “results” while “replicabil- Africa familiar with the use of a given technol- ity” was the spatially related dimension. Thus, ogy in that locale. effects beyond the grant period are considered under sustainability. Sustainability can be OTA staff used the input from the Methods measured on several levels including mainte- Workshop to develop assessment materials for nance of a resource, continuation of a project the three-field teams to use in Africa (app. D): or activity, and persistence of an organization. ● Worksheets for teams to record data col- Field measures included indicators for several lected at project sites for each of the criti- levels, e.g., the institutional, social, economic, cal issues (Participation, Results, Sustaina- environmental, and technological sustainabil- bility, and Replicability); ity of the ADF-funded projects. ● Project Assessment Forms for the teams Effects beyond the project locale were con- to describe their analysis of project per- sidered part of “replicability.” Like sustaina- formance, based on information in the bility, replicability is implied in ADF’s purpose worksheets; to achieve social and economic development ● Country Assessment Forms which teams in Africa through support of local self-help ef- used to assess ADF’s overall performance forts. Ideally, even small projects should have in the country based on project assessment an impact beyond their immediate location. information as well as from additional in- This can occur in several ways: by serving as terviews in Africa and information from a model for other individuals or groups; by con- ADF; and 29

● Congressional Assessment Forms for team least three ADF-funded projects within the members to provide suggestions regarding scope of work. Based on these considerations, levels of congressional appropriations for OTA formed an East Africa team to visit Tan- ADF, ways to improve ADF’s work, and zania and Kenya, a West Africa team to visit lessons for other donors. Niger and Senegal, and a Southern Africa team to visit Botswana and Zimbabwe. Specific projects were chosen for visits based The Desk Reviews on the analysis of ADF’s project portfolio. The A desk review is an analysis based on project projects represented ADF’s portfolio in these documents. The overview provided by a desk respects: grant size, duration, maturity, and review is usually complemented by field visits geographic scope. Also, attempts were made to selected projects. to include projects illustrating the range of agricultural activities and organizations funded by Three specialists with extensive African ex- ADF. No information about project perform- perience reviewed ADF’s files on the 58 projects ance was available at the time of project selec- selected for this analysis (app. C). All three re- tion. However, 2 of the 12 projects were among viewed the same files, but each with a differ- 10 undergoing simultaneous evaluation by ADF ent focus. One examined participation, another teams (NGK and PfP in Kenya). agricultural technologies, and the third examined renewable resources. Each person spent The final list of projects included two which about 2 weeks reviewing files, meeting with were not on OTA’S original list. The Dakoro ADF staff, and preparing reports. These Herders’ Association project in Niger was sub- reviewers: stituted for the Iniminak Pastoralists Project after ADF expressed concern that OTA could ● developed topologies of participatory meth- learn little by visiting the latter project due to ods, technologies, and funded organizations; its delayed start and strained relations with ● described characteristics of participation local officials. The Development Fund of Sil- and technologies and analyzed their veira House in Zimbabwe replaced the National strengths and weaknesses; Council of Disabled Persons project in Mata- ● determined how types of participation and beleland, Zimbabwe, due to concerns for the technical methods are chosen and by team’s safety and validity of data collected in whom; an area of dissident activity. Brief descriptions ● discussed how technical assistance is pro- of the selected projects and summary project vided, and by whom; findings are included in appendix B. ● analyzed the possible implications of their findings for participation, results, sustainability, and replicability; Field Team Work ● identified concerns for the field teams to examine more closely during their time in The three regional teams used the same meth- Africa; and ods so that their work could be compared across ● provided suggestions for improving ADF’s projects and across regions. Their work began funding program. in Washington with a 4-day Team Orientation Workshop. At this workshop, the U.S.-based field team members refined the methods and materials developed by OTA (app. D), prepared Selection of Countries and work plans, and met with ADF staff members. Projects to Visit Each team consisted of five members: three Twelve projects were selected for visits, two based in the United States (including the team in each of six countries. First, likely countries leader) and an African member from each of to visit were identified based on those with at the two countries to be visited (app. C). The Afri- 30

Each team spent 23 days overseas, visiting two countries. On the first 2 days in the capital city of each country, they briefed the African team member, met with host country officials, and interviewed the U.S. ambassador, AID mission director, and representatives of other development agencies (listed in app. E). Approx- imately 2 days were spent at each project site interviewing project managers and staff, members of committees and the Board of Directors, and project participants (independently from project staff). To encourage their participation, groups of women were at times interviewed separately from men. Small group interviews were complemented with individual interviews and, in several instances, with large group meetings. Between 1 and 20 project subgroups were visited at various locations where the 12 projects were being carried out. Teams also met with local non-participants and others in the project area, such as:

● local officials to gather information, including average production, income levels, and government policies regarding aspects of the project; ● researchers to learn about how well certain technologies performed locally; and ● representatives of others with similar projects (listed in app. E). In all, approximately 800 persons were interviewed in project locales. can members joined the group upon arrival in each country. Members were chosen for their expertise in several of the following areas: evaluation methodology; technical expertise in agriculture, natural resource management, economics, or social sciences; foreign language skills, especially fluency in French for the West Africa team; and experience working with grassroots organizations in Africa. Most had extensive experience in at least one of the countries visited, Emphasis also was placed on balancing the teams with women and men. There were two women on the OTA teams in five of the six countries. Members could not have previous or ongoing contractual relationship with ADF. .

ADF has African field staff in five of the six concerning how well ADF projects were per- countries visited. These ADF staff accompa- forming and how well the ADF program sup- nied teams to the project sites and attended ports its projects. Finally, each member in- selected meetings between teams and project dividually suggested ways ADF could improve or national government personnel. OTA and its work and how Congress could encourage ADF agreed at the outset that ADF staff would these improvements. not be present at most meetings with project managers and participants in order to facili- Synthesis Meeting and Preparation tate open discussions. of Report OTA team members included persons fluent Materials from the three teams were brought in the languages used by local officials and together during a Synthesis Meeting which in- project managers, except in one case where a cluded OTA staff and the three team leaders, secondary language understood by both the Participants compared findings from the three project leader and OTA team interviewer was areas, established the reliability of data in differ- used. In some instances, persons were hired ent parts of the worksheets, began to develop to help translate interviews with project par- criteria for project rankings across regions, ticipants. Key information obtained from all informed general conclusions about ADF’s pro- terviews was cross checked and verified by ad- gram, prepared congressional options, and ditional sources. began the report-drafting process. This led During their final 3 days together in Africa, directly to the draft report and, after extensive team members met to reach consensus on their outside review (app. F), including by ADF, to findings. Together, teams made judgments the final report. Chapter 3 The African Development Foundation

. CONTENTS

Page Summary ...... 35 The Beginnings of the African Development Foundation ...... 35 Origins ...... 35 Getting Started: 1980 to 1984...... 35 Growth: From 1984 Through 1987 ...... 37 ADF’s Processes to Fund Projects and Its Project Portfolio...... 40 Outreach ...... 40 Process for Approving Grants ...... 41 Process of Monitoring Grants ...... 44 ADF Portfolio of Funded Projects: September 1984 Through September 1986...... 45 Evaluation, Research, and Public Education: How ADF Is Sharing What It Learns ...... 48 Evaluations of lts Funded Projects by ADF ...... 48 Self-Evaluations by Funded Groups ...... 49 Research Grants ...... 49 Public Education ...... 49

60X Box Page 3-1. ADF’s Place in U.S. Foreign Assistance...... 38

Figures Figure Page 3-1.ADF Project Approval Process ...... 42 3-2. Sectors of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects ...... 46 3-3. Functions of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects, ...... 46 3-4. Technological Components of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects...... 47

Tables Table Page 3-l. ADF Appropriations and Obligations: Fiscal Years 1981-1988...... 36 3-2. Number of Sectors of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects ...... 47 3-3. Number of Functions of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects...... 47 3-4. Number of Components of ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects ...... 48 Chapter 3 The African Development Foundation

The African Development Foundation (ADF] ● Between 1984 and 1987, ADF awarded grants had a difficult start, first with delayed ap- to 114 projects in 19 African countries, dis- pointment of the Board of Directors and then tributing a total of $10,3 million. with unexpected turnover of top staff result- . ing in a General Accounting Office (GAO) Now that its first grants are nearing comple- study of its management capacity. tion, ADF has begun evaluating these projects. ADF also awarded research grants After a new president was appointed, ADF to Africans and published public education developed workable funding procedures that materials. consisted of outreach, grant approval, and monitoring processes,

Origins poor to participate in the process of development” (ADF, Title V, Section 502). While some Congress established the African Develop- people have advocated ADF as an alternative ment Foundation (ADF) in 1980 in an attempt to other U.S.-funded development programs, to counter some of the limitations faced by offi- the International Security and Development Co- cial development assistance programs such as operation Act of 1980 established ADF to “com- those of the World Bank and the Agency for plement” them (43). International Development (AID). Inadequacies or gaps in official U.S. development assistance Getting Started: 1980 to 1984 that Congress hoped ADF might overcome included: government-to-government programs President Carter signed the legislation estab- failed to reach the majority of Africa’s poor; lishing ADF into law in December 1980, but standard grants were typically too large to be this was followed by a long delay in appoint- handled by grassroots organizations; funding ing ADF’s Board of Directors. The legislation approval in established assistance agencies was specified that the seven-person Board, com- too slow, cumbersome, and cautious; and prised of five persons from the private sector Americans and Europeans played too great a and two from government agencies concerned role in project design and implementation. Be- with African affairs, be appointed by the Presi- ginning in 1975, the planning unit of AID’s dent with the consent of the Senate. The Rea- Africa Bureau, the private Development Group gan administration delayed naming this board for Alternative Policies, and the Inter-American and did not include funds for ADF in the Foundation (IAF) played important roles in budgets sent to Congress from 1981 through ADF’s establishment, as did legislators who pro- 1983. Congress, however, appropriated $2.o posed it in five bills between 1977 and 1980 million in fiscal year 1981, $2.0 million in fis- (1,28). The Foundation’s legislation was cal year 1982, and $2.0 million in fiscal year modeled on IAF’s, passed 11 years earlier. Both 1983 (table 3-1). These funds were earmarked foundations have similar purposes and are in the Sahel Development Fund and were avail- based in congressional mandates “to enable the able to ADF regardless “of the year appropri-

35 —. .

Table 3-1.–ADF Appropriations and Obligations: Fiscal Years 1981-1988 (in millions of dollars)

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Appropriations’ ...... 0.500 2 2.000 2.000 3.000 1.000 3.706 6.614 7.000 Obligations ...... 1.713 4.493 5.995 6.5654 Grants 5 ...... 0.838 2.617 3.442 3.902 Project Development and Evaluation6 ...... 0.000 0.585 1.080 1.259 Administration and Management ...... 0.875 1.291 1.473 1.404 NOTES: 1 ADFdid not become operational until 1984. Funds appropriated from FY 1981 to 1983 were no-year funds and were carried over for use in future years. 2$2m~~on Wasappropriated but $l.5mittion was rescinded. s This table includes actual obligations, so projections for fiscal year 1988 are not listed. OTA used figures in this table tO CdCUlate the PrOPOflhI of non-9rant costs for fiscal years 1966 and 1987. ADF, however, now divides obligations into two, not three, categories and calculates its administrative costs based on the two-part classification, 4 $4g 000 of the Fy 87 appropriations was not obligated and was returned to the U.S. Treasury. 5 A p~oject has all its funds placed in the obligation Iirte the fiscal year the grant agreement is signed (e g., the funding for a 5-Year ProJect signed in 19~ appears only under 1986). The grant line includes funding commitments for: ● projects (new commitments); ● amendments to previously committed projects: 12 totaling $364,449 in 1986 and 47 totaling $627,231 in 1987; ● research grants: five totaling $250,000 in 1986 and two totaling $58,939 in 1987; and ● cooperative agreements, which are principally for African Country Resource Facilitators, eight totaling $144,975 in 1987, 6 The project develo~ment and evaluation line includes costs for contractors, including African Regional Liaison Officers, providing technical assistance and appraising, monitoring, and evaluating projects. SOURCES’ African Development Foundation, 1988. Executive Office of the President, Off Ice of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Goverrrmerrf FY 1986, 1987, 1988, Apperrdix (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985, 1986, 1987).

ated (“no year” funds). Congress rescinded $1.5 General Accounting Office (GAO) study to de- million of the fiscal year 1981 appropriation, termine if ADF had the management capacity but retained $0,5 million in startup funds. Thus, to carry out its mandate (ch. 2). $4.5 million in ADF funds was carried over to ADF’s Board appointed Leonard Robinson, fiscal year 1984, by which time Congress had Jr., acting President starting June 1, 1984. As pressured the administration to name ADF’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Afri- Board of Directors and appropriated an addi- can Affairs, he had represented the State De- tional $3 million for fiscal year 1984. The at- partment at two ADF Board meetings. Robin- tendant political compromises set the stage for son was a former Peace Corps volunteer and the new organization’s difficult birth. Associate Country Director in India. He ap- The Senate approved the administration’s pointed Percy Wilson vice-president. Wilson nominees for the ADF Board in October 1983. had directed community-level domestic anti- All seven board members were Republicans. poverty programs and been Peace Corps Direc- The government officials named were the Un- tor in Sierra Leone. The organization was set dersecretary of State for African Affairs and up quickly under pressure: staff was hired on AID’s Assistant Administrator for Africa. Four 6-month contracts, funding criteria and proce- of the five representatives of the private sector dures were developed, and work began on a were businesspeople, and none had African ex- five-year plan while GAO auditors were in the perience. The Board appointed Constance Hil- office. liard as president and Reginald Petty as vice- president. Pressures from the Hill to begin fund- An explicit directive from key congressional ing projects in Africa grew quickly. Tensions members to fund projects before the end of the within the staff and between the staff and Board fiscal year took overwhelming precedence. Six led to the resignations of the president and vice consultants with experience in African devel- president in April and May 1984, which para- opment programs attended a week-long work- lyzed the Foundation’s activities and generated shop in Washington in late July then went to unfavorable press coverage about the delays in Africa to bring back project proposals. Most awarding grants (34). As a result, in June 1984 of a variety of projects proposed by U.S. pri- the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the vate voluntary organizations (PVOS) were re- Senate Appropriations Committee requested a jected because they were not designed or con- 37 trolled by Africans. The consultants evaluated teria to select new countries. Also, selection other already-submitted proposals in the field depended on the Board’s decision that ADF and relied on personal African contacts in those would fund projects only in countries maintain- countries where they had worked before to seek ing diplomatic relations with the United States additional fundable projects. They returned in (see box 3-1). 6 weeks with 86 proposals; 36 were presented The expansion of ADF’s program in Africa to the newly formed staff Project Review Com- required ADF to develop relationships with mittee. In September 1984, just prior to the in- African governments. ADF only funds legally formal congressional deadline, the Board recognized organizations in Africa and it in- awarded grants to 11 projects totaling $838,000: forms the appropriate African governments, five from Lesotho, two from Botswana, and one through their embassies in Washington, of each each from Mali, Niger, Liberia, and Zambia. grant. Although the Foundation does not allow By the end of September 1984, 11 permanent African governments to decide who receives staff members had been hired, 6 others had been ADF funds, applicants often must obtain host selected, and Robinson had been appointed country permission to receive outside funding. president. The GAO report concluded that ADF In most countries, ADF representatives made was “putting into place the staff and adminis- initial contacts with African officials to inform trative capacity to manage a grant program” them of ADF’s program, but they did not at- (41). But GAO questioned aspects of ADF’s tempt to reach a formal agreement specifying operations, especially the fact that they pro- how ADF will operate in each country until jected their annual budget to rise to $96 mil- later. Since mid-1986 ADF has given priority lion by 1990. (This initial projection was later to negotiating accords with the governments revised to $30 million in ADF’s Five Year Plan.) of those countries where ADF has active pro- Subsequently, Congress reauthorized ADF grams. At that time ADF decided not to begin through 1990. funding in any country until an accord is negotiated. By the end of 1987, accords or writ- Growth: From 1984 Through 1987 ten understandings have been reached with Expansion to 19 Countries nine governments (none in Southern or East Africa),’ The terms of the accords include a The Foundation was able to expand consider- limited role for the national government in ably from 1985 through 1987 due to the accumu- project implementation and exemptions from lation of “no year” funds and new appropria- certain African customs payments by grant re- tions. After publicizing the availability of funds cipients. These are similar to the agreements for grassroots organizations, ADF received most U.S. PVOS negotiate with African govern- hundreds of proposals and in fiscal year 1985 ments before beginning work there. The Foun- awarded grants to 42 projects in 13 countries dation reached informal understandings with worth $2.6 million. In fiscal year 1986 ADF Benin and Congo/Brazzaville through an ex- awarded about $2.8 million in grants to 33 more change of letters in lieu of a formal accord. projects, expanding to 19 countries. The Foun- dation consolidated its program in fiscal year The Foundation’s recognition of the need for 1987, funding 28 new projects in the same coun- a more systematic approach is reflected in its tries for $3.1 million, In addition, the Founda- recent plan to collect and analyze information tion awarded nearly $1.0 million in 59 amend- to design a funding strategy for each country. ments to previous grants in 1986 and 1987 (table A manual on how to prepare Country Assess- 3-1). In its first 4 years, then, the Foundation ment Profiles was developed in 1986 and Pro- awarded $10,3 million to 114 projects in 19 files have been completed for Tanzania, Sene- countries. Which countries received funding depended ‘Of these, 6 were in countries where ADF funded projects and in large part on the personal contacts of ADF ADF signed accords with Sierra Leone and Ghana in January staff because the Foundation did not have cri- and February 1988, respectively. 38

Box 3-1.—ADF’s Place in U.S. Foreign Assistance Congress established ADF as a public corporation, independent of other U.S. foreign assistance agencies and operating outside the constraints of short-term U.S. foreign policy considerations (13), One rationale for ADF’s independence is that ADF primarily funds non-governmental, grassroots organizations, unlike most official U.S. programs which provide resources to foreign governments. Also, Congress anticipated that independence would:

● give the Foundation broader access to local groups, ● decrease the likelihood that political pressures from the United States or from host governments would override other considerations in making funding decisions, and ● build confidence in ADF as a reliable partner in long-term development. The Foundation, with the support of its Board, has demonstrated its independence by funding projects in several countries with which the U.S. government disagrees. For example, ADF continues to fund grassroots groups in Zimbabwe even though AID froze funding there in 1986, and ADF still accepts proposals from Benin, where AID programs are ending also. The Foundation began funding projects in Tanzania in 1986, before AID’s program was resumed in 1987 (aid, except for food aid, had been cut off in 1984 under the Brooke Amendment because Tanzania had fallen more than a year into default in repayment of loans to the United States). The Foundation has understandable reasons, such as the personal safety of its staff, for not funding projects in some African countries with which the U.S. government has had major disagreements, such as Angola and Mozambique. Congress also intended ADF to be a complementary participant in U.S. development assistance. As such, ADF does not act inconsistently with long-term foreign policy considerations. It is wholly funded by Congress, two administration officials sit on its Board of Directors, and it funds projects only in countries which have diplomatic relations with the United States. In addition, most of the 19 countries within which ADF operates also participate in other U.S.-funded development assistance: • 19 have AID programs, ● 15 have Peace Corps volunteers, and • 19 have received Public Law 480 food commodities in the past 2 years. ADF operates more like U.S. and European PVOS and private foundations than official assistance programs such as AID and the World Bank in project scale, grant size, and operating style. Many U.S. PVOS take part in official U.S. foreign assistance because they receive U.S. funds; a minority of U.S. PVOS, however, currently fund self-help programs of African organizations in a similar way to ADF. This dichotomy—ADF’s being an official program but acting in some ways more like a private one—sometimes confuses representatives of official and private programs in the United States and in Africa. This distinction also provides the Foundation with an advantage in developing a special niche in U.S. foreign aid,

gal, Cameroons, Sao Tome, Congo, and Cape tions, and other development assistance orga- Verde. (ADF has funded projects only in the nizations. The ADF team identifies funding first three countries.) First, consultants in the gaps, obtains other information relevant to United States prepare a report on the geogra- ADF’s funding program, and verifies informa- phy, history, population, government, and tion already received. Another part of the pro- economy of the particular African country. A file deals with the “viability and safety of oper- team of senior ADF staff is briefed on this ma- ating” in the country. Ideally, profiles would terial, then travels to Africa to interview offi- be prepared before ADF begins funding in a cials in the ministry responsible for foreign country, but they were not done before ADF affairs, other African officials, and represent- entered the first 19 countries. atives of PVOS, training and research institu- 39

Increasing ADF Staff in Washington and Africa To expand ADF’s funding program to 19 countries, the president enlarged the Founda- tion’s staff to 27 full-time employees, 6 contractors, 1 intern, and 4 work study students in Washington and 15 full- and part-time staff in Africa by the end of fiscal year 1987. Now, four main functional offices are based in Washing- ton, D. C,: ● Office of the President, which includes a president, vice president, general counsel, congressional liaison, and assistants; ● Office of Administration and Finance, which includes a director, budget and fiscal officer, personnel officer, and as- Photo credit” ADF/Kerry Hanrahan sistants; Africans help implement ADF’s funding program in ● Office of Program and Field Operations, Africa. Besa Amenuvor (ADF’s Country Resource Facili- tator (CRF) for Ghana), Leonard Floyd (ADF’s which includes a director, five regional Washington-based Foundation Representative), and Foundation Representatives, a grants coor- Koffi Adaba (CRF for Togo) were among those attend- dinator, and three program assistants; and ing a 1988 conference in Togo for ADF’s regional staff. ● Office of Research and Evaluation, which includes a director, research associates, tors (CRFS) in 1987 on a part-time basis due to and an information officer. the difficulty and expense of travel within The Foundation’s 1985 Five Year Plan envi- Africa and the wide distances between gran- sioned establishing five regional field offices tees. By November 1987, ADF had signed co- in Africa to assist in monitoring projects. In operative agreements with 11 Country Re- The Country Resource 1986, ADF implemented that plan when it source Facilitators.* selected the first African Regional Liaison Facilitators’ primary responsibility is to facilitate the provision of technical assistance to Officers (RLOS). According to their job descrip- funded groups. In reality, the Country Resource tions, Regional Liaison Officers will help monitor projects; verify grantees’ compliance with Facilitators also function as assistants to the grants’ conditions and reporting requirements; ADF’s Washington-based Foundation Repre- work with auditors, technical assistance sentatives. The addition of Country Resource Facilitators was not envisioned in ADF’s Five providers, evaluators, and African officials; conduct outreach to potential applicants; and Year Plan. Therefore, the Foundation has re- carry out administrative functions such as evaluated the roles of the Regional Liaison logistical support for ADF Washington staff Officers and plans to merge the regional and visits. The Regional Liaison Officers perform country positions by 1990. these duties as assistants to the Washington- ADF complements its full-time staff by hir- based Foundation Representatives. Currently, ing African and American consultants on a con- ADF has contracted four full-time Regional tract basis. For example, 72 contracts were Liaison Officers based in Nairobi, Kenya; awarded in fiscal year 1987 for project evalua- Dakar, Senegal; Harare, Zimbabwe; and tions, and monitoring, translation, technical Yaounde, Cameroon. Each has a small office assistance, research, and administrative and travel budget. functions.

The Foundation began to select African per- ZBY F~b~u~ry 1988, ADF had signed cooperative wreernents sonnel to serve as Country Resource Facilita- with 14 Country Resource Facilitators. .

This growth in the Foundation’s staff has Congress has exerted pressure on ADF to re- been slower than was projected in the Five Year duce its administrative costs. The Foundation Plan and than was suggested in its enabling leg- responds that its high non-grant costs are justifi- islation, in part because appropriations have able, given expenses needed to establish a new been lower than anticipated. The 1980 law set agency, monitor grants in 19 countries and generous staff limits: 25 during the first year, other factors. Also, ADF President Leonard 50 during the second, and 75 thereafter. The Robinson, Jr., testified that he was attempting Office of Management and Budget, with author- to reduce administrative costs to 31 percent for ity to approve new staff positions, subsequently fiscal year 1988 (42). set ADF’s limit at 27 full-time positions (FTEs).3 Setting Up An Advisory Council Although the size of the Foundation’s staff The Foundation’s authorizing legislation re- has grown more slowly than expected, its in- quired that ADF set up an Advisory Council crease has been larger than the relative increase of persons knowledgeable about development in the number of grants and amount awarded. activities in Africa and that the Board consult Consequently, ADF has been criticized for its with it at least once a year to discuss ADF ob- staff size, relatively high salary levels, and sub- jectives and activities. The 27-person Council stantial travel costs. Congressional staff and met in March, June, November 1985, and No- others have expressed concern regarding the vember 1986, and 4 task forces made sugges- high ratio of administrative and other operations regarding 1) concepts of development, 2) tional costs in relation to grant commitments, ways to educate the public about ADF’s work, estimated by OTA to be 42 percent in fiscal year 4 3) methods to work with Congress and other 1986 and 43 percent in fiscal year 1987. U.S. government groups, and 4) means to supplement the Foundation’s appropriations with outside resources. 3ADF has not exceeded this level. By February 1988, its staff consisted of 25 FTE employees, 7 contractors, and 2 student interns in Washington and 4 Regional Liaison Officers and 14 Coun- try Resource Facilitators in Africa for a total of 52. The Country Resource Facilitators, interns and one contractor are part-time. categories are I) Program Support, or administrative costs and 40TA included in its grants category all project grants, 2) Program Development, which includes grants, African staff, amendments to grants, and research grants. Then OTA com- publication expenses, and work by contractors to appraise, mon- pared all non-grant costs to the total amount of money obligated itor, evaluate and provide technical assistance to grantees. The in a given year. ADF, like the Inter-American Foundation, catego- Foundation retroactively estimated its administrative costs at rizes its costs differently. Beginning in fiscal year 1988 ADF’s 38 percent in fiscal year 1986 and 35 percent in fiscal year 1987.

ADF’S PROCESSES TO FUND PROJECT% AND ITS PROJECT PORTFOLIO

Outreach formation on how to apply for grants in Eng- lish, French, and Portuguese. Other organiza- The Foundation spreads information about tions, including Africare and the World Council its program by several methods: of Credit Unions, have publicized information ● publications, about ADF’s program in Africa. ● ‘meetings in Africa, and Also, ADF staff publicizes its program ● personal contacts. through meetings with government officials, ADF’s brochure and newsletter, Beyond Re- PVOS, and the media during initial trips to Afri- lief’, are especially important information tools. can countries where ADF intends to begin fund- The brochure contains funding criteria and ining. For example, the local press has carried 41 articles about ADF and African radio and tele- governmental organizations (NGOS), five by vision stations have featured interviews with African governments, three by African univer- ADF staff. Following this type of publicity, ADF sities, three from U.S. government programs receives many requests, a large part of which (AID, Ambassadors Self-Help Fund, Peace are ineligible, such as requests for individual Corps), two from Regional Liaison Officers, one assistance and scholarships. each from an international NGO and ADF initiative (6). In the early days, ADF’s most important method of informing African organizations of The OTA field teams found that an American the availability of funds was via the personal or European resident in Africa was responsi- contacts of ADF staff. ADF staff called on peo- ble for linking grassroots organizations with ple and groups recommended by colleagues, ADF in a quarter of the ADF projects they who also helped spread the word about the visited. These “brokers” were a Peace Corps Foundation. This method of communication re- Volunteer, a European volunteer, and an Amer- mains important, although outreach is becom- ican photographer/writer. ing more systematic. For example, dissemination of information about ADF’s funding Process for Approving Grants program is one purpose of the Foundation Rep- resentatives’ trips to Africa. The African Re- The Foundation’s process for approving gional Liaison Officers, who sometimes visit grants has been modified only slightly since a neighboring country between Foundation 1984, although the way the system functions Representative visits, and country representa- in practice has evolved with the growth of the tives also explain ADF’s program and pro- staff and portfolio (figure 3-1) (2,26). The Foun- cedures. dation Representatives are notified of the Once ADF funds several organizations in a amount of funds available for grants in their country, word often spreads through networks region at the beginning of each fiscal year. Each of similar groups. This informal method of out- is allocated the same amount, about $700,000 reach becomes more important as additional during the past 2 years. They generally prefer projects are funded in a country. to respond to individual proposals without concern about the number of grants to countries Recently, ADF traced how its funded projects within the region. In at least one case, however, originally made contact with the Foundation. the Representative attempted to plan distribu- Of 102 projects, the greatest number, 35, re- tion by country within the region. Unallocated sulted from Foundation Representative con- funds may be awarded to projects in any re- tacts. Another 23 proposals were submitted gion during the final quarter of the fiscal year. directly from Africa to Washington. Many projects were referred by others: 19 were re- The initial contact between an applicant and ferred by U.S. PVOS, 10 by African non- the Washington office varies from submission of a sophisticated proposal to sending a simple letter requesting funds. Even with the addition of ADF’s African staff, most request letters and applications come directly to Washington, although in a few cases the Re- We had to leave and go to Nigeria because of the drought. We were not happy there. [The gional Liaison Officer has seen the request or ADF Representative] said she would help us spoken with the potential applicant first, and now we are back. . . . No one else would help. Screening Proposals Macao bii Gao, Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative, The program assistant, under supervision of Bundu Eggo, Niger. the Foundation Representative, first screens Translated and paraphrased from an OTA interview, .Sept, .22, 1987, proposals and determines whether or not the request meets basic eligibility standards. These 42

Figure 3-1. -ADF Project Approval Process

8 I No I Program

● 11 review comm. (PRC Budget office Grant 8

YES

notice

NO[

SOURCE: Teixeira Nash and Curtis Boykin, ‘The ADF Funding Prmess or How the Izuni Coop got an ADF Grantl ” Bepnd Fte/k#, VOI 1, No 3, November 1985, pp 1-4 eligibility criteria, with the exception of the swering questions about their organization and legislated limit of $250,000, reflect the ADF proposed project. Most organizations funded Board’s evolving policies and interpretation of by ADF submit proposals longer than requested ADF’s mandate: the applicant must be a non- but ADF has funded a few short, handwritten governmental entity (while public entities are proposals. Proposals are usually submitted in specifically allowed in the legislation, ADF English or French but proposals in other lan- Board policy is more restrictive); the benefici- guages are eligible for consideration. ary must consist of two or more individuals or Review families; large capital projects and scholarships are not eligible. An estimated 85 percent of ap- The next step is a review of the proposal by plicants are screened out at this stage. Since the Foundation Representative, who generally ADF has not systematically recorded the num- asks applicants for additional information. Usu- bers of applicants and reasons for their rejec- ally site visits occur during this stage. Although tion, it is not known if this percentage has visits are commonly conducted by the Repre- changed over time.5 sentative, sometimes a consultant visits the applicant. After reviewing all information, the The program assistant informs rejected ap- Foundation Representative decides whether or plicants of the reasons why their proposals were not to recommend the proposal for funding. rejected. Then ADF asks remaining applicants Representatives’ reasons for rejection usually to complete ADF’s grant application if they relate to the project’s feasibility and ability of have not already done so. Applicants are asked the applicant organization to carry it out. How- to submit four to five pages of information an- ever, ADF has not documented the number of 5ADF is setting up a system to track numbers of applicants rejections at this stage and reasons for them. and reasons for rejection beginning in early 1988. A computerized management information system (PROMIS) will track in- The Representative then prepares a Project formation on applicants and funded projects. Assessment Memorandum (PAM) recommend- 43 ing the project. The format for this 10 to 15 page Project Review Committee at the Board of Di- memo includes a brief summary of the pro- rectors level, which meets at least monthly. The posal, the reasons for the recommendation, and members of the Board selected for this com- brief sections designated for discussing sus- mittee live in Washington, saving travel ex- tainability, replicability, and environmental penses. One is the U.S. Department of State concerns. The Representative’s concerns may member, who is usually represented by a be found in a section on conditions to be placed delegated foreign service officer. In all but four on the grant. In practice, the purpose of the cases, the Board review committee approved memo is to convince the staff Project Review proposals sent to it by the staff review commit- Committee to approve the proposal for funding. tee. The views of the Board committee, however, have shaped the types of activities and After clearance by the director of the Office organizations funded beyond this intervention of Field Operations, the PAM and proposal are in project approval, For example, their views sent to the staff Project Review Committee, the put forward in formal and informal policies and next step in approval. The committee is headed conversations have affected project proposals by the vice president and consists of the presi- before they are submitted to the Board com- dent, directors of the three ADF offices, the gen- mittee. eral counsel, and one Foundation Representa- tive other than the ones presenting proposals Early on, the Board rejected the suggestion for approval at the weekly meeting. Prior to the that it only approve grants greater than $75,000. meeting, members review the proposals and The Board committee has approved all grants PAMs. During the meeting the Foundation Rep- and amendments to grants for most of ADF’s resentative makes a brief presentation and com- history. However, the Board agreed in early mittee members then question the Represent- 1987 that grant amendments less than $10,000 ative. The Representative defends the proposal could be approved by the Director of Program and acts as an advocate for it. At the end of and Field Operations, and those between the discussion, committee members (but not the $10,000 and $25,000 could be approved by the Foundation Representative) complete a Project vice president with concurrence by the Rating Sheet. An average of 70 points of a pos- president.’ sible 100 is required for approval. These rating sheets are kept by the vice president rather Congressional Notification than in the project file; however, the represent- Next, the project approval process requires ative receives a copy of the meeting minutes. congressional notification, as mandated by ap- Proposals may be approved, approved with con- propriations laws. The Foundation sends brief ditions, sent back for further information, or summaries of each project to the Senate and rejected, But the rejection may not be final as House Appropriations Committees and their the representative can present the same project Subcommittees on Foreign Operations. If ADF later if it scores between 65 and 69, either mod- hears nothing from the committees within 15 ified, with more information, or with more per- days, the grant can be obligated. No proposal suasive arguments. According to the vice presi- has been rejected at this stage, but delays oc- dent, the Project Review Committee rejects cur because ADF holds notifications whenever proposals for two major reasons: 1) they seem Congress is recessed. to be a violation of ADF policy or mandate, or 2) they are not conceptually sound or feasible. Over the past 4 years, the committee has re- ‘In mid-December, the Board approved a small project furld- jected approximately 1 of every 10 projects. ing procedure for similarly funding grants of these sizes. Nei- ther require staff Project Review Committee approval. In addi- Board Approval tion, the Board agreed to delegate to the president authority for approving projects of less than $125,000, but limited this authority by requiring a 15 day notification period during which a majority The next step in the process is approval by of members of the Board Project Review Committee could dis- a majority of the three members of a separate approve funding. 44

Signing the Grant Agreement After the two week wait, ADF’s president sends the applicant a letter informing them of the approval and two copies of the Grant Agree- ment for their signature. The agreement includes the approved proposal and budget and may include conditions which must be met before ADF will award the grant. Announcements of the grant are sent to the ambassador in the United States of the nation concerned, to the U.S. ambassador, and, since 1986, to the AID director. The average time elapsed between the first submission of the applicant’s proposal and final approval (the signing of the Grant Agree- ment) is 9 months, a period longer than for other organizations that fund projects of comparable size, such as Ford Foundation and IAF (29,32). This period includes an average 3 months between ADF staff approval in the project review committee and the signing of the Grant Agreement. Some of this time may be required for the recipient to consider and comply with conditions on the grant. But this period is followed by another period of several months before the first check is disbursed from ADF. And transfer of funds can take several months to reach Africa because of long delays in disbursal of funds from Washington through the U.S. government budget and fiscal officer Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles based in Paris. In 1987, ADF began to send funds through commercial banks to speed up Most AD F-funded agricultural projects involve production of crops primarily for sale. The Agricultural Finance transmission to Africa. Corporation in Zimbabwe received ADF funds to provide loans to small farmers growing coffee. Process of Monitoring Grants

Monitoring includes program and financial ing purchasing equipment and hiring techni- oversight and facilitation of the grantees’ ef- cal assistance. Unlike recipients of other U. S.- forts by the funder. According to ADF’s presi- funded programs, ADF grantees are not re- dent, “an appropriate monitoring strategy does quired to purchase American-made equipment not burden or intimidate grantees (but) en- and materials. This flexibility allows them to courages self-evaluation” (7). While many purchase equipment that may be less expen- groups share this attitude, ADF’s monitoring sive, more readily available, more appropriate, approach is unusual in that it gives its gran- or easier to maintain because of availability of tees much greater control of funds than gov- spare parts. For example, ADF has, on behalf ernment funding programs and most U.S. of the grantee, disbursed funds directly to a PVOS. Once the ADF Grant Agreement is company in a country other than the recipients’ signed and the first check sent, the recipient in order to purchase imported equipment more group has control of implementation, includ- quickly. 45

The ADF monitoring process, however, is grant funds for training and assistance in book- similar to most other funders’ in that quarterly keeping or financial and general management. reports and site visits are required, In the quar- Once the quarterly reports arrive in Wash- terly progress report, the project manager is ington, they are handled by a number of per- asked to list project accomplishments and sons. The Foundation Representative and the whether or not the activities occurred on time, budget and fiscal officer each review the quar- and to identify any problems, plans to solve terly report; the Representative will discuss them, and those who participated in internal problems with the budget officer and the di- evaluation during the quarter. The quarterly fi- rector of the Office of Field Operations. The nancial report is based on a cash accounting grants coordinator and program assistants are method; recipients must list their expenditures also involved. The Foundation Representative and cash balances at the beginning and end of may communicate back with project managers the quarter. To facilitate recordkeeping, ADF by letter or telex; they also talk by phone with requires project managers to keep ADF funds the Regional Liaison Officer about once a week. in a separate bank account. Also, grantees are ADF policy is that their staff visit each funded required to keep ADF funds in non-interest group in the first quarter of the grant year (in bearing accounts like other recipients of U.S. part to make sure that the grantee understands funds (program income generated from the ADF monitoring forms and procedures) and grant, however, is excused from this require- once toward the end of the first grant year. The ment), This regulation lowers the value of grant schedule of visits to Africa sometimes has not funds, especially when inflation and currency permitted this policy to be implemented, how- devaluations occur, ever. With the addition of African staff, ADF Project managers send these reports to Wash- expects that projects will be visited more fre- ington, but not to ADF’s African staff. Nor do quently. they necessarily keep a copy for themselves. ADF has been flexible in permitting revision Often these reports are late and important in- of the activities, schedules, and budgets speci- formation reaches Washington slowly. The fied in the Grant Agreement. A number of Foundation now asks project managers to re- projects have been extended and/or received quest checks 6 weeks before they need them. additional funds with grant amendments. A few Thus, in a few cases, a grant’s second check organizations were initially awarded a planning may be processed before ADF receives the first grant and subsequently a larger project grant, quarterly report, reducing ADF’s leverage over the projects. Funds for end-of-project evaluations are provided in the original grant budgets. ADF ear- However, ADF exercises some control over marks 2 percent of the total grant for an exter- grant funds through its monitoring and disbur- nal, end-of-project evaluation and another 2 sal practices. Funds are disbursed during the percent for an audit of project funds, although grant period according to a schedule deter- it only requires audits of certain grantees, In mined by project funding needs. The fact that addition, ADF includes the expenses of moni- many projects have high equipment budgets toring by its African staff as part of its overall spent in the beginning of the grant period re- grant commitments (table 3-I), duces ADF leverage over grant implementation, however. The Foundation uses African accounting firms to conduct reviews and au- ADF Portfolio of Funded Projects: dits at the end of major projects, and mid-term September 1984 Through for certain projects. In some cases, ADF asks September 1986 these firms to check on the accounting methods and capacities of grantees before disbur- At the beginning of this assessment, OTA re- sal of ADF funds. To date, 24 audits have been quested information from ADF on the 86 grants completed. The Foundation may also provide committed through the end of September 1986 46

(listed in the ADF Congressional Presentation Figure 3-2. -Sectors of ADF-Funded FY 1988, app. A). The total committed to these Agricultural Projects projects in 19 countries by spring 1987 was slightly more than $7 million, with the average awarded to each project $81,500.7 Six of these were terminated by ADF by August 1987 for a variety of reasons including substantial prob- 70% 70 — lems with project start-up or performance. Others received grant amendments increasing 60 — the amount of ADF funds. Zimbabwe and 5296 Kenya had the largest number of funded 50 — projects: 13 each. 40 — 33% Grants ranged in size from $7OO to a 30 — pastoralist in the Sahel for a small trading cen- 20 — ter to the legal maximum of $250,000 for a water 13% supply for three communities in Kenya. 10 — Twenty-four percent (21 projects) were less than $25,000; and 38 percent (33 projects) were at o— Live- least $100,000. Ten projects were at or near the crop stock $250,000 ADF maximum limit. sectors acrops grown primarily for sale including vegetables, fruit, peanuts, soybeans, Two-thirds of these projects deal with agri- sunflowers, coffee, and tea. culture in a significant way. Of these, most aim SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared to increase food production for sale and domes- for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987 tic consumption (figure 3-2). A large number (70 percent) involve production of cash crops primarily for marketing, such as vegetables, fruit, peanuts, coffee, tea, and rice. One-third involve livestock production and 13 percent involve poultry. Although 89 percent of agricultural projects are production-based, marketing is an important function in at least one-half (figure 3-3). Processing and storage are involved 90 — in 28 percent and 22 percent of projects, re- 00 — spectively, while resource conservation activities are only present in 10 percent. The tech- 70 — nology profile of ADF’s agricultural projects is equally diverse. Perhaps not surprising given 60 — 52% the critical shortage of water and irrigation in 50 — much of Africa, 78 percent of the projects dealing with crop production include small-scale 40 — irrigation systems (figure 3-4). Many include 30 — the use of improved seeds (36 percent) or fertilizer (32 percent). More unexpectedly given 20 — the resources required to make tractor use sus- 10 — tainable, 36 percent of the agricultural projects o— Production Mar- keting cessing - vation ‘By the end of fiscal year 1987, the average total amount Functions awarded to each project, including grant amendments, had in- SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared creased to $90,755. for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987 47

Figure 34.-Technological Components of Table 3.2.—Number of Sectors of ADF-Funded ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects ● Agricultural Projects 100, Sector(s) Percent of projects 90 One-sector projects Cash Crop 11 t Livestock 9 36 Fish 9 Food Crops 7 Two-sector projects Cash/Food Crop 32 Cash Crop/Livestock 7 Cash Crop/Poultry 5 48 Livestock/Poultry 2 Poultry/Fish 2 Three-sector projects Cash/Food Crop/Livestock 11 13 Cash Crop/Livestock/Poultry 2 Four-sector projects Cash Crop/Food Crop/ Livestock/Poultry 2 —2 99a 99 aTotal less than 100 percent due to rounding. SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report prepared for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment, August 1987

Irrigation Seed Tractors Fertilizer Animal Traction Technological Components Table 3-3.—Number of Functions of ADF-Funded aT~ble refers Only to projects lnvolvlng crop ProductIon Agricultural Projects SOURCE Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report prepared for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment, August 1987 Function(s) Percent of projects One-function projects Production 29 Conservation 6 39 Processing 4 Two-function projects Production/Marketing 24 Production/Processing 8 34 involve the use of tractors, while only 12 per- Marketing/Storage 2 cent make use of animal traction. Three-function projects Production/Marketing/ Storage 10 A majority of the agricultural projects have Production/Marketing/ multiple sectors, functions, and technological Processing 6 18 components. Nearly two-thirds involve more Production/Processing/ than one agricultural sector (table 3-2) and func- Storage 2 Four-function projects Production/Marketing/ tion (table 3-3) and 55 percent have more than Processing/Storage - 6 one technological component (table 3-4). Look- Production/Marketing/ ing at the sectors in another way, half of the Storage/Conservation 2 10 Production/Marketing/ ADF-funded agricultural projects deal with sin- Processing/Conservation 2 gle or various combinations of crops only, 22 101a 101 percent with animals only, and 27 percent with aTotal greater than 100 percent due to rounding. mixed crop and animal activity. SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987 Forty-four percent of ADF’s agricultural projects work with communally-owned farms only; 22 percent only with private farms; and 35 percent with a combination of communal of which involve agricultural production, and and private farms (25). Several projects support others involve non-agricultural small-scale ru- agricultural-related enterprises, e.g., two assist ral enterprises. The one-third of the ADF grants fishers’ cooperatives by repairing boat motors. not classified as agricultural have gone to sup- Generally, credit programs use revolving loan port non-agricultural activities in rural areas, funds to support numerous sub-projects, some such as potable water supply projects, or to fund 48

Table 3-4.—Number of Technological Components of organizations in major cities and regional a ADF-Funded Agricultural Projects towns. ADF estimates that about 20 percent of Technologies Percent of projects its projects through fiscal year 1987 provide funding to urban organizations. 42 One-component projects Irrigation 46 Tractors 4 1 Two-component projects Irrigation/Tractors 8 ADF has awarded two-thirds of its grants for Irrigation/Seeds 8 periods of two or three years. Of the 86 grants: Seeds/Fertilizer 8 32 Tractors/Animal Traction 8 I ● 15 (1 7°/0) were for 1 year, Three-component projects Irrigation/Seeds/ ● 31 (36°/0) for 2 years, Fertilizer 8 ● 28 (32°/0) for 3 years, Irrigation/Tractors/ Fertilizer 4 16 ● 7 ( 8%) for 4 years, and Seed/Tractors/Fertilizer 4 1 ● 5 ( 6°/0) for 5 years. Four-component projects Irrigation/Seed/ Tractors/Fertilizer 4 4 Projects differ in their geographic scope. Five-component projects Irrigation/Seed/ Two-thirds (56 projects) were classified as lo- Tractors/Fertilizer/ Animal Traction 4 4 cal, encompassing a village or a number of com- 102b 102 munities in a given area. Twenty-two percent alnCIU&S Only projects involving crop production. (19 projects) were regional projects covering bTotal greater than IO() percent due tO rounding a large area within a country; and 13 percent SOURCE: Peter MatIon, “Consultant

~~EVALUATION, RESEARCH, AND PUBLIC EDUCATI0N: HOW ADF IS SHARING WHAT IT LEARNS~~

The Foundation’s legislated purposes include of the projects visited (3). Their conclusions the development of self-evaluation techniques, point to the strength of grassroots movements support for relevant development-related re- in Africa and the positive potential of ADF’s search by Africans and sharing lessons learned support for them. with others in Africa and the United States. A number of ADF’s first projects were near- Over the past 2 years, ADF has initiated vari- ing completion by 1987, thus more formal ous activities to carry out these functions. project evaluations could be carried out. ADF hired a consultant to design a methodology and Evaluations of Its Funded Projects identified five projects in West Africa and four by ADF in Kenya for this evaluation (however, 67 percent or less of the total grant had been disbursed The Foundation’s Office of Research and to four of them). The Foundation selected 2 Evaluation was established in 1986, as envi- teams of African consultants, several based in sioned in ADF’s Five Year Plan. At the same the United States, to each spend 3 weeks visit- time, ADF asked three American journalists fa- ing the projects between April and June of 1987. miliar with African development issues to visit Earlier, ADF agreed to co-sponsor an evalua- ADF-funded projects in six African countries. tion with the Ford Foundation of a fifth Ken- Each spent several weeks interviewing project yan ADF-funded project, Partnership for participants and others in two countries; to- Productivity (PFP), because it had received Ford gether they visited 18 ADF-funded projects. Foundation funding also (31). These evaluations Their report, Fulfilling the Mandate: An Assess- were conducted by and for ADF and in this ment Report by Three Development Journalists, sense are internal ADF evaluations even though described the concerns, activities, and results they were external to the projects. 49

Soif-Evaluations by Funded Groups lowship program has supported 5 Africans to carry out 18-month research projects in Africa One of ADF’s first efforts to stimulate self- (obligating $250,000 for these research grants evaluation by project participants was to host in 1986). Their research topics included rural an evaluation conference for some 50 repre- non-formal education in Uganda, health care sentatives of ADF-funded community groups in Nigeria, international PVOS in Somalia, food in East and Southern Africa. Participants self-sufficiency in Malawi, and a community shared insights and experiences during a 3-day development program in Cape Verde. Of these conference in Nairobi in January 1987. They five countries, ADF has a grant program only explored problems and potential solutions; in Somalia. Research funding was suspended made recommendations to ADF about its fund- in 1987 pending Board approval of a policy pa- ing program and procedures; and discussed per clarifying funding objectives, criteria, and their ideas about planning development activ- procedures. An additional $250,000 is projected ities, seeking financial and technical assistance, for 1988. The Foundation’s Office of Research and planning for self-sufficiency to avoid de- and Evaluation intends to support research on pendence on donors (5,19). A similar confer- broad issues of relevance to efforts of funded ence is planned for representatives of West and groups. Central African ADF-funded projects in early 1988. ADF began a Doctoral Fellowship program in 1987 to support research in Africa by Afri- The Foundation also is planning to train cans studying for their PhDs in U.S. universi- managers of ADF-funded projects to carry out ties. So far, 2 African graduate students have participatory evaluation within their own orga- been funded for 12 months. Their work is exam- nizations. A workshop on this topic was held ining ujamaa policy in Tanzania and refugee during the fall 1987 meeting of the Foundation’s policy in Somalia. Three additional fellows are African Regional Liaison Officers in Washing- projected for 1988, with a total of $78,500 for ton; follow-up technical assistance with repre- the five, pending approval of the Foundation’s sentatives of funded groups is being planned. research position paper. Proposals for fellow- ADF has provided funds so that leaders of ships are screened by an external Research ADF-funded projects could visit and provide Advisory Review Panel consisting of five ex- assistance to more recently funded projects. For perts on Africa (three Africans, two Americans) example, the director of a project that provided based at universities in Washington, D,C. be- technical assistance and credit to small farmers fore being submitted to ADF’s staff Project Re- in Kenya was sent to review a similar project view Committee. starting up in Tanzania and make recommendations to increase its effectiveness. One grant Public Education in Botswana includes funds for a visit to a similar ADF-funded project elsewhere. ADF has made a number of efforts to educate Americans and others about its work in Research Grants Africa. In addition to its publications, the Foun- dation’s staff have participated in conferences In 1986, ADF implemented a program to fund in the United States, Europe, and Africa. ADF research by Africans on development issues re- has hosted educational visits to its funded lated to the ADF mandate.’ The Senior Fel- projects in Africa by ADF Board members, con-

‘ADF’s research programs differ from those of the Fellowship on the other hand, ADF research grant recipients are not neces- Program of the Inter-American Foundation in several ways. While sarily affiliated with an American university. Unlike ADF, IAF the majority of IAF awards fund field work in Latin America has funded projects of overseas research organizations in its regu- by American graduate and postdoctoral researchers, ADF re- lar grants program. Also, IAF has contracted with developing stricts its program to Africans. In 1982 IAF began granting fel- country research organizations and universities to provide tech- lowships to Latin American junior researchers and development nical assistance and conduct feasibility and evaluation studies professionals to obtain advanced training in U.S. universities; of their funded projects to a greater extent than ADF. 50 gressional staff, and others. In several in- The first issue of Advance, published by the stances, it has supported visits by its African Government Printing Office in June 1987, con- staff and project leaders to the United States, tained articles by several ADF-funded project primarily for their own learning but also to managers, the head of the African Development share their experiences with Americans. Also, Bank, a professor at American University, and ADF has provided funds for its project leaders ADF’s director of research and evaluation. The to attend meetings about grassroots develop- 5,000 copies were distributed to U.S. PVOS, offi- ment in Africa. cials in development assistance agencies, Afri- can government officials and private organi- The information officer is responsible for zations, and individuals. Several members of ADF publications: a 12 page newsletter, Beyond the ADF Advisory Council and the State De- a professional journal dealing with is- Relief; partment representative on the Board are on sues of grassroots development in Africa, Ad- the Advance Editorial Board. Advance will be and 1986 and 1987 vance; ADF-Funded Projects published with French summaries to facilitate booklets. Three issues of were Beyond Relief its wider dissemination in Africa. The book- published in 1985, one in 1986, and one in 1987. lets with short descriptions of ADF-funded An average of 6,000 copies were distributed in projects are available in English and French. English; one issue, featuring ADF’s funding process, was published in French (3,500 copies). The Foundation also is exploring new ways The newsletter features articles about ADF- to inform people about its activities. In two funded projects, ADF programs, and develop- cases visited by OTA, ADF demonstrated its ment topics written by Africans, staff, and interest in the audio-visual documentation of Board members. The newsletter is distributed its projects. Twenty-three percent of the bud- free to a diverse readership including develop- get for its Dakoro project in Niger is slated for ment organizations, PVOS, interested members a documentary film. Also, ADF has contracted of Congress, the media, Federal agencies, Afri- a Kenyan film company to record the story of can embassies in Washington, and individuals an ADF-funded community water supply and academic institutions with an interest in project. Africa. Chapter 4 OTA's Findings About AD,., •• cleci Prolecls CONTENTS

~~Page~~

~~Introduction, ...... 53 Beneficiary and Participant ...... 55 project and Organization ...... 55 Grassroots and Intermediary Organizations ...... 55~~

~~What Is Participation and How Can It Remeasured?...... 55 Assessing Participation in 12ADF-Funded Projects ...... 58 Factors Fostering and Constraining Participation ...... 64~~

What Are Results and How Can They Be Measured? ...... 65 Assessing Results in 12ADF-Funded Projects ...... 65 Sustainability ...... ~ ...... 70 What Is Sustainability and How Can It Be Measured? ...... 70 Assessing Sustainability in 12 ADF-Funded Projects ...... 72 Factors Fostering and Constraining Sustainability ...... 75 Replicability ...... 75 What Is Replicability and How Can It Be Measured? ...... 75 Assessing Replicability in 12ADF-Funded Projects ...... 76 Factors Fostering and Constraining Replicability ...... 78 Relationships Among Participation, Results, Sustainability, and Replicability ...... 79

~~Trade-offs ...... 79 Project Findings, Program Choices, and ADF’s Mandate...... 81~~

~~Boxes Box Page 4-1. A Look at ADF’s Files: Participation ...... 56 4-2. A Look at ADF’s Files: ADF’s Use of Renewable Resource Technologies ...... + ...... 71~~

Tables Table Page 4-1. Rating the Critical Issues in 12ADF Projects ...... 53 4-2. The12ADF Projects Visited by OTA Teams ...... 54 4-3. Rating Participation in 12 ADF Projects ...... 57 4-4. Rating Results of 12 ADF Projects ...... 66 4-5. Rating Sustainability of 12 ADF Projects ...... 72 4-6. Rating Replicability of 12 ADF Projects ...... 76 Chapter 4 OTA's Findings About ADF-Funded Projects

~~SUMMARY~~

● The four critical issues addressed here are ● Most of the projects visited were in early participation, results, sustainability, and stages of implementation so OTA’S teams replicability (table 4-1), These issues were estimated future results when possible; ac- chosen because of their importance to ADF’s tual impacts could be observed in only half mandate and the interests of the congres- of the projects. Ten projects were judged sional committees that requested this work. likely to have a positive impact on the sociaI

● and economic development of the poor in One-half of the 12 African groups visited by the locale. But the level of expected impact OTA teams were judged to have a high de- ranged from significant to negligible. gree of overall participation in the ADF- funded project activity; one-third, however, ● Eleven ADF-funded activities had a high or were rated low on participation. In a majority moderate potential to be sustained over the of projects, participants did not share in next 3 to 5 years, although not necessarily evaluation and financial decisionmaking and in the same form as in the approved proposal. women rarely participated in project man- Community support and the self-help nature agement. of the projects were the strongest reasons for sustainability. But the lack of careful economic and environmental planning were common constraints threatening sustainabil- Table 4-1 .—Rating the Critical Issues ity, especially in the longer term. in 12 ADF Projects ● Ten of the projects had a moderate or high No. of projects rated degree of replicability in the region or coun- Critical issue High Moderate Low try but two were rated low. Self-help proc- Overall degree of participation . . . . 6 2 4 esses were judged more replicable than many Overall results ...... 4 6 2 of the technologies used. The relatively high Overall sustainability (for next 3 to 5 years) ...... 6 5 1 cost of the technologies involved was a ma- Overall replicability in region or jor constraint to replicability of project country ...... 3 7 2 activities.

~~INTRODUCTION~~

This chapter examines the results of site visits siders links between these issues and their to 12 ADF-funded projects (table 4-2). It is orga- relationship to ADF’s funding program. De- nized around the four critical issues that Con- tailed descriptions of these projects are in ap- gress asked OTA to investigate: participation, pendix B. Since these projects were selected project results, sustainability, and replicabil- to be representative, chapter 5 discusses the im- ity. In each case, ADF’s approach to the issue placations for ADF’s program and gives sug- introduces the discussion. Then OTA’S opera- gestions about how ADF can improve the ef- tional definitions follow, along with the over- fectiveness of its funding program. all and detailed findings. The final section con-

~~53 54~~

-0

~~r-- U-3 w . al m m N ‘. . \ . 0 ml Ln .~~

~~co Ln m %~~

~~u-) co ml \~~

~~0 0 m — z 0 0 r. v 0 w 0 D co 0 m Lc 0 w m 0 r3 c-w m~~

~~r lx -J -J (x~~

~~m v i m u c (%~~

~~r. co m 0 Cu — — 55~~

Throughout this work, OTA makes important be replicable but certain activities too site- distinctions between: a) beneficiary and par- specific for repetition. OTA’S assessment of ticipant, b) project and organization, c) grass- these two critical issues included project and roots and intermediary organizations. organizational elements.

Beneficiary and Participant Grassroots and Intermediary Project “beneficiary” and project “partici- Organizations pant” are often used interchangeably and vaguely, A beneficiary gains from the project Grassroots organizations (sometimes called activity; the benefit may be direct or indirect, primary or base groups) are defined as “small and intended or unintended (10). Participants aggregations of individuals or households who take part in or contribute to project activities regularly engage in some joint development but they do not necessarily benefit. For exam- activity as an expression of collective interest” ple, in one credit project more women have (11). Most are community-level associations, al- taken part by contributing to local savings clubs though they may include members from sev- than have received loans from them. In other eral communities. Intermediary organizations, cases, people benefit from projects without par- or grassroots support organizations, provide ticipating, such as receiving irrigation water services to grassroots groups. One type has from systems which they did not help build. professionals in leadership positions; another Participation in project activities and directly type consists of higher level membership orga- benefiting from them are included here in meas- nizations, such as confederations of coopera- ures of “participation,” but the two are con- tives or associations of community organiza- sidered separately, tions (11). In this assessment, intermediary organizations may refer to national, regional, Proiect and Organization or local private voluntary organizations (PVOS), church-based groups, associations of coopera- The term “project” refers to the activity or tives, or parastatal organizations. OTA visited activities supported by the ADF grant (as de- four grassroots organizations and eight inter- scribed in the approved proposal). The group mediary organizations. The intermediary orga- sponsoring the activity andlor receiving the nizations consisted of three regional PVOS, two grant funds is the recipient “organization.” This associations of village cooperatives, two distinction is especially important when con- church-related groups, and one parastatal. sidering sustainability and replicability. Some- Grassroots groups and intermediary organiza- times organizations are sustainable but specific tions are distinguished throughout this activities are not. Organizational processes may assessment.

~~PARTICIPATI0N~~

What is Participation and How Can direction into operational criteria. Some of It Be Measured? these criteria deal primarily with the timing of participation in the project cycle, others with The Foundation’s legislation specifically em- modes of participation. ADF examines the fol- phasizes participation, directing ADF to give lowing components of participation in its priority to projects in which community groups project approval and monitoring checklist: foster their own development and which have “the maximum feasible participation of the ● participation of beneficiaries in project de- poor in project initiation, design, implementa- sign, implementation, management, and tion, and evaluation. ” ADF has translated this evaluation; 56

community members contribute to the a lack of specific ADF data on participation, project and share in benefits; and especially gender-disaggregated data; raised is- achievement of project objectives enhances sues about participation in intermediary orga- continued participation. nizations; and highlighted decisionmaking as a probable critical element of participation (box However, ADF recently stated it gives priority 4-I). The specific data that field teams collected to self-determination and local control, allow- to evaluate project participation are included ing recipient organizations to select their own in appendix D, “Field Team Methods: The modes of participation (8). Assessment Materials.” The elements of participation ADF uses in Participation in ADF-funded projects was its appraisal checklist were considered appro- assessed on the basis of multiple factors. The priate but OTA found that some additional ele- following were most useful in comparing ments were needed for its field assessment. A projects in different regions and in reaching— careful review of ADF’s project files identified overall project ratings:

Box 4-1.—A Look at ADF’s Files: Participation OTA examined ADF’s files of projects related to agriculture and renewable resources to gather information on the way ADF is implementing its congressional mandate for participation. Overall, it appears that ADF has pursued the spirit of its mandate. For example, ADF has hired Africans to represent the Foundation in Africa, Africans provide most of its technical assistance, and African contractors perform its evaluations. Unfortunately, however, ADF does not document how it is increasing the participation of people as decisionmakers in the projects it funds. Existing files lack the data necessary to say if projects are as participatory as Congress intended. OTA’S review of ADF’s files identified these major findings: 1. ADF has little specific documentation to support the Foundation’s claims of participation by African community members in project decisionmaking. For example, questions regarding key aspects of participation in ADF’s grant application form are vague and seldom answered by applicants. ADF staff say they evaluate participation during the project approval process but do not document it. As a result, ADF has little documentation of the amount and type of participation that occurs. 2. ADF does not make an organized attempt to gather gender-disaggregated data. Therefore, ADF does not know whether women participate fully in project activities. 3. Methods of participation in ADF-funded projects differ according to the type of organization receiving the grant. Grassroots groups, which provide benefits directly to their members, tended to have strong participation by their membership or the members’ representatives, sometimes with a special place for community elite. Intermediary organizations, which provide benefits to grassroots groups that pass benefits along to members, seemed to have less participation by potential beneficiaries and more by the groups’ Boards of Directors, management, and staff. These differences have as-yet unexamined implications for how ADF assesses participation. Since a significant portion of ADF grants goes to intermediary groups, these implications are significant. 4, Effective participation means participation as a decisionmaker, not only as a beneficiary. For example, women were beneficiaries but not decisionmakers in the Kenya Beekeepers Orga- nization; their needs were ignored, and the project was failing as a result. Women’s role as decisionmakers can be problematic because OTA’S data suggest that women tend not to be decisionmakers in projects in which both men and women participate. Again, this is something that ADF needs to address in its work. SOURCE: Virginia DeLancey, “Aspects of Participation in Projects Funded by the African Development Foundation,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987. 57

1. Participation in project identification and ticipants share in decisionmaking and man- design: who originated the project, identi- agement of the project? fied the need, proposed the activity, de- 5. Participation in technical assistance: Who signed the project, and made technology makes initial and ongoing technology choices? Were participants consulted, and choices? Who provides technical expertise do they agree to the activity and with the and how? Is the process based on two-way project design? communication; is the advice imposed? 2. How participatory is the organization re- 6. Participation in project evaluations: Who ceiving the grant: What is the structure of takes part in evaluation? When and how? local groups? How do members share in decisionmaking? Do they agree with leaders’ Each project was rated using several decisions, and do members’ suggestions re- aspects of the factors listed above (table 4- sult in changes? How, and how often, do 3). Then, a rating for overall participation intermediary organizations relate to local was given to each project. The following fac- groups? How are group leaders selected? tors were given greater weight than others: 3< who has access to the project: Do partici- participant input into decisionmaking; their pants represent the community? Do women understanding and support for the project take part? Is any group (ethnic, age, etc.) ex- activity; and, in the case of intermediary cluded and why? Who are selected to be participants and how? Do the poorest one-third organizations, the quality of the relationship in the locale and country participate? between the intermediary organization and 4. Participation in decisionmaking, paying community groups. The ratings took into ac- costs, and sharing in benefits: What do par- count the local context, since the 12 projects ticipants contribute and gain? How do par- took place in varying settings with a variety

~~Table 4.3.—Rating Participation in 12 ADF Projects~~

No. of projects rated Elements of participation High Moderate Low Overall degree of participation ...... 6 2 4 1. Participation in project identification and design Input into origin of project ...... 6 2 4 participants identified/agreed to need ...... 7 3 2 participants proposed/agreed to activity ...... 6 2 4 Input into design of project ...... 3 4 5 participants agreed with design ...... 3 6 3 participants made/accepted technology choices ...... 5 3 4 Participants understand and agree with project...... 6 5 1 2. How participatory is organization receiving the grant? local organization...... 6 4 2 intermediary organization ...... 2 2 4 3. Who has access to the project? Participants are representative of community ...... 5 6 1 Women have equitable access to project ...... 4 4 4 4. Participation in decisionmaking, costs and benefits Participants share in project management ...... 5 3 4 Members have access to fiscal decisions and records...... 3 2 7 Women share in project management ...... 1 5 6 Members share equitably in costs and benefitsb...... 6 4 0 Women bear equitable share of project costsc ...... 3 7 1 Women have equitable share of project benefitsc ...... 4 7 0 5. Participation in provision of technical assistance ...... 6 2 4 6. Participation in project evaluation...... 0 1 4 NOTES aElght grant ~eciplerlts visited were i ntermedlary organizations bThls refers t. ~qultable share within male or female subgroups lt Was too soofl to evaluate distribution Of prOJeCt benefits in one case, In another case, insufficient data was available to judge. clt was too soon to judge In one case

din the other seven ~ro,ects, part[clpants did not share irl project evaluation 58 of modes of participation, all far from the Another reason for concern is the trend over American cultural context, time. Of the 12 projects visited, 5 were awarded grants in 1986, 6 in 1985, and 1 in 1984. Yet of the most recent grants, those awarded in Assessing Participation in 1986, only one of the six projects rated high 12 ADF-Funded Projects on participation overall and three rated low,

Finding: One-half of the ADF-funded projects Finding: The ADF projects visited generally visited were judged to have a high overall de- rated well on some aspects of participation, gree of participation, but one-third were rated such as meeting recognized needs and en- low overall. couraging contributions of labor, but poorly on other aspects. In a majority of projects, Six of the twelve groups had a high degree participants did not share in financial deci- of participation in the ADF-funded project sionmaking or evaluation, and women rarely activity (table 4-3). The six represented a wide participated in management. spectrum of modes of participation. For example, projects rating high in overall participa- 1. Participation in Projoct tion included a herder group with a traditional Indentification and Design hierarchical system of decisionmaking (Dakoro in Niger) and an intermediary organization with To assess the elements regarding project iden- several thousand members in nearly a hundred tification and design included in table 4-3, OTA local groups (Partnership for Productivity/ began by asking who originated the project. In Kenya, PfP). Another strong example is the every case either a local group leader or an in- poultry and vegetable growing project by the digenous intermediary organization originated Boiteko Agricultural Management Association the project, in this sense, fulfilling the legisla- in Botswana, notable because of its open man- tive intent that projects be designed by Afri- agement style. The 10 women members share cans. Typically a local leader worked with a in all project decisionmaking, the financial re- regional PVO to propose the project; in several port is presented on the blackboard at monthly cases, the local leader was a member of the meetings, and leadership rotates. While tech- larger organization. Sometimes outsiders pro- nical assistance is provided by a man (the vided help at early stages. For example, a Peace project manager of the ADF grant) and one Corps volunteer linked a tri-community water woman is acknowledged to be “the mother” committee with ADF and with the Kenyan of the group, training has been provided for all water officials who designed the technical members so they are able to share fully in deci- aspects of the project. But the NGK committee sionmaking regarding project activities, originally had the idea to obtain water from the slopes of Mt. Kenya. Additional groups, such The fact that a third of the projects rated low as Boiteko, conceptualized their project, but overall on participation is a serious concern sought technical help from outside to design given the importance assigned to participation the project and select specific technologies. in the legislation establishing ADF. Two of the ADF funded a grant for technical assistance low-rated projects appeared to have consider- in Dakoro, Niger, and the provider designed able problems related to participation (Kikatiti the project. Usually African professionals pro- in Tanzania, and Union Kaoural in Senegal); vided external technical assistance. interviews at the other two low-ranking projects (Dagnare in Niger, and Tutume in Botswana) Identifying the need for the project is another raised even more fundamental concerns about important element in project origination. Par- their appropriateness for ADF funding ex- ticipants took part in this step or agreed that plained below. The Dagnare project was re- the project addressed a real need to a high de- jected twice by ADF’s Project Review Commit- gree in seven cases, a low degree in two. If the tee before it was approved, project addressed a strongly felt need, such as 59

nare projects, were designed with minimal involvement of the intended beneficiaries, who had virtually no idea of what was to come, In the Union Kaoural project, the intermediary group designed the project and decided which villages would participate and how. In other cases, however, the lack of active involvement by the beneficiaries in the early stages of project design was not a problem. In- volving everyone in detailed project design generally is infeasible. Participants in these instances agreed with technology choices even if few were involved in actually designing the project. Decisions usually were made either by Photo credit: ADF/Wendy Wilson a small group of leaders with external techni- Successful participation takes many forms. cal assistance available locally or by the inter- ADF-funded activities build on traditional systems of mediary organization staff, In several cases, community decisionmaking in the Dakoro Herders ADF personnel decisively shaped the project Cooperative in Niger. proposal, A key consideration was the quality of the for water or increasing food production, the relationship between the initiators, designers, beneficiaries generally supported it. and participants. Positive participation ratings In the cases studied, the participants usually in project identification and design were most agreed with the project activity and design. often related to participants’ support of choices However, one-third of the projects received a made by their leaders or by the African inter- fairly low degree of support for the activities mediary organizations, proposed and technologies selected; one-fourth of the projects faced a low acceptance of the project design. For example, the farmers agreed 2. How Participatory Is the Organization with the concept of a credit program in the Zim- Receiving the ADF Grant? babwe Coffee and Tea project but not with the Overall participation generally was rated high repayment schedule or pesticides proposed by in organizations judged to have the support of the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC). their members, whether the recipient organiza- Sometimes participants supported one activ- tion was a grassroots organization or an inter- ity over others: Kikatiti members were much mediary group. OTA visited four grassroots more interested in obtaining water from a re- organizations; two were rated highly participa- stored borehole than in the reforestation part tory organizations and two were rated moder- of the project strongly supported by the inter- ately participatory. Three of these four projects mediary organization. In the Dakoro project, had high ratings on overall participation, sug- herders were dissatisfied with changes imposed gesting that grassroots groups may have an by local government officials. In these two advantage in achieving participation. The man- cases, where participants supported only some agement structure of these highly-rated groups project objectives, those objectives were judged ranged from elected representatives (from three to be the ones most likely to be achieved. communities to a central management commit- Lack of participant involvement in project tee in NGK), to traditional leadership (Dakoro), design was a major problem in some cases. For to open meetings of all participants (Boiteko). example, two cases where participation was Leadership style varied from a small group of judged unacceptably low, the Tutume and Dag- tightly disciplined elected leaders who made

~~83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 3 60~~

decisions (Ross Bethio in Senegal) to consensus- tion, the local groups, and the project activity. building approaches. However, problems in the relationship between the intermediary organization and local groups Participation in the eight intermediary orga- can arise from many sources: nizations was more problematic, confirming the findings of the review of ADF’s files. All ● the two may have different objectives and four projects with low ratings for overall par- perspectives about the project; ticipation were intermediary organizations. ● too much financial and technical control However, three of the eight intermediary orga- may be given to the intermediary organizations did receive high overall ratings in par- nization; ticipation; two were the church-related inter- ● intermediary organizations may make de- mediary organizations (Silveira House in Zim- cisions without the input and acceptance babwe and Morogoro Diocese in Tanzania), of local groups; the third (PfP) was begun and led by Kenyans, ● intermediary organizations may not under- most of whom are Quakers. The three highly- stand the need for participatory develop- rated intermediary organizations have a long ment; or history of sponsoring development projects and ● intermediary organizations mav not have providing training to local groups and have an the experience and capability fieeded to explicit philosophy to foster participation. work with local groups. High overall participation was strongly cor- The assessment teams looked at different related with the quality of the relationship be- aspects of the relationship between the inter- tween intermediary organizations and local mediary organizations and local groups and groups. In the two projects with the poorest they judged how each functioned. They found overall participation ratings, the intermediary that the local groups had little input in the in- groups were not actually working with local termediary organization’s decisionmaking in groups. In the Dagnare project in Niger, a group seven of eight projects. Only in Morogoro, Tan- of retired civil servants nominally agreed to zania, had the intermediary organization estab- share the benefits of the ADF grant with two lished a working structure for the local group other communities, thus making themselves to share decisionmaking regarding the project. technically an intermediary organization and There, village-level congregations elect a “con- more likely to receive ADF funding. The project tact” committee for development projects; primarily will benefit the retired civil servants. officers of several committees comprise a par- In Tutume, Botswana, a private organization ish committee, whose officers sit, in turn, on sponsored a tractor hire and demonstration plot higher-level committees. This interlocking com- to serve individuals they selected, but these mittee structure, developed over a number of farmers had no role in project design, nor do years and recently applied to the tractor hire they have a role in implementation, decision- and maize production project funded by ADF, making, or evaluation. They are not members builds on a democratic church structure and of the organization receiving the ADF grant, allows for two-way information flow. nor, after several years of receiving the service, have they joined any group. While the proj- In determining the level of participation in ect may be considered self-help in the sense that projects involving intermediary organizations, it is run by Botswana, it is not self-help in the learning how decisionmaking occurs can be sense that beneficiaries have a role in its man- more critical than knowing management struc- agement or decisionmaking. tures. Intermediary groups without formal structures for direct local input into project de- Different types and levels of participation are sign were able to compensate for these struc- appropriate for intermediary organizations and tural deficiencies if they had good relationships local groups, as well as for different stages in with local groups. For example, the PfP project the development of the intermediary organiza- in Kenya received good ratings for being a par- 61 ticipatory intermediary organization even ing the activity (which occurred in the Dakoro though it had no formal structure for local in- project) can weaken participation and nega- put. This organization has a large number of tively affect results. But sometimes exclusion extension agents who are in close contact with is not justified, and often it is implicit or hid- the local groups and have generally good rela- den. The most common problems related to ac- tionships with them. This provides an infor- cess include: lack of access by the poorest third mal mechanism for participants’ suggestions of the population and women, land tenure is- to influence decisions made by the intermedi- sues, religious affiliation of participants, and ary organization. The Silveira House project the criteria for selecting participants, especially in Zimbabwe similarly maintains extensive ex- those used by intermediary groups. tension and training programs; while Kenya’s The Poorest One-Third of the Population. One PfP works with pre-existing groups, Silveira ADF goal is to reach poor people in Africa. In House programs encourage local participation this review, the poorest one-third of the peo- among previously unorganized groups. In the ple in the area seemed able to participate in case of the Union Kaoural in Senegal, however, ADF-funded projects, although no reliable the existence of formal structures for represen- socioeconomic data have been collected by tation was not sufficient to provide for adequate funded groups or ADF to prove this. The one participant input into decisionmaking. These clear exception is Dagnare, Niger, where par- structures tended to be used for one-way, top- ticipation in the core project was limited to rela- down communication. tively better-off civil servants and their families. Some intermediary groups do not seem to Trade-offs sometimes exist between access know how to relate to local organizations. For of the poor and other important aspects such example, farmer groups taking part in the AFC as projects’ economic viability. For example, project have little influence on AFC policy de- the entry fee for a piggery subproject of Silveira spite a directive from the Zimbabwe govern- House in Zimbabwe restricts participation to ment that AFC work with communal farmers. the affluent because each entrant is required The AFC is attempting to shift its emphasis to purchase a costly pig. Similarly, conditions from large-scale commercial farmers to those for receiving AFC loans exclude some poor peo- of the communal areas, but it has not yet de- ple, such as Mozambican refugees because they veloped an organizational response to this directive, although it has established a working relationship with local cooperatives. In this case, the local groups themselves are strong and participatory, but the intermediary organization’s relationships with the local groups are not,

3. Who Has Access to the ADF-Funded Project? Access to ADF-funded projects is open in most cases, but women have a low degree of access in one-third of the projects visited. Other- wise, participants generally represent the community in all but one case (Dagnare, Niger). In some cases, a certain amount of exclusion may be justified, even necessary, for group cohesion and identity. For example, donor efforts to include persons other than the group propos- 62 lack long-term access to land. Exclusion from tried to block installation of the group’s irriga- the piggery subproject may not have been justi- tion system. Eventually, local authorities with fied because it could have been designed so that armed guards dislodged the herders. In the participants contributed labor or other re- Morogoro project, block farms will be culti- sources, or purchased their pigs over time. How- vated by tractors on land that is traditional graz- ever, ADF was justified in supporting the AFC ing land of the Maasai in Tanzania. In both project because the participants are poor and cases, herders are a different ethnic group from representative of small farmers in the area. the farmers and most project participants. The answer to a related question—do the project participants represent the poorest one- Women’s Access to Projects. Women con- third of the people in the country or region?— stituted at least 90 percent of the participants is more difficult to determine. In only a third in 2 of the 12 projects visited, Boiteko and PfP. of the cases could the assessment teams re- The sample of projects visited is representative spond with a firm “yes,” based on interviews of ADF’s portfolio in this respect. Grants to with local officials and others outside the women’s projects or organizations also repre- project. The other cases involved better-off par- sent 17 percent of total ADF-funded grants ticipants, either because the project was situ- through fiscal year 1987. ated in a part of the country with higher rain- Women had a high degree of access to the fall and/or better infrastructure, or it was project relative to local norms in 2 other projects sponsored by a relatively affluent group (for ex- visited, a moderate degree in 4, and a low de- ample, owners of farm plots in a Kenyan land gree of access in 4 of the 12. Access was judged resettlement area in the NGK project). by whether or not women were or could become eligible to participate in project activi- Land Tenure and Displacement. Schemes to ties and to receive project benefits at least in expand cultivation or provide irrigation also the same proportion as their involvement in the can be ways to secure rights to lands that cus- activity in the locale. tomarily were under the use of others. Research on development projects in Africa has shown In some cases, women were able to partici- that pastoralists are especially vulnerable to loss pate in activities from which they usually were of grazing rights and access to land caused by excluded and which often result in their dis- development schemes. Women’s plots can be placement from land. In Ross Bethio, for ex- lost when cultivation is expanded for crops that ample, Senegalese women were given access bring cash to men. Irrigation projects may dis- to irrigated land. In AFC, a few women were rupt downstream crop production or grazing given credit for coffee and tea production in lands. Projects that increase the land’s value eastern Zimbabwe. Women are a majority of (e.g., irrigation) in areas where sales of land oc- participants in Ross Bethio, and although they cur can increase the chance that more marginal receive far lower benefits than the men, their farmers will lose land to the more politically inclusion in the project was judged an advance and economically powerful. in the local context. But in Zimbabwe, where women commonly are eligible for rural credit Development projects can exacerbate these programs, the small number included in the problems if the funder does not have a detailed AFC project was not sufficient to be consid- understanding of local patterns of landholding ered an advance, and women were judged to and use. In certain cases, ADF does not seem have a low degree of access to the project. to have sought this information. Rights to use of the land put into crop production by the In the four projects where women’s access Youth Association of Ross Bethio in Senegal, was rated low, the fact that the projects address for example, were previously held by a minor- work done by women could negatively affect ity group of Fulani herders. The youth group achievement of project objectives. Women in legally acquired those rights. The herders, pro- Kikatiti, Tanzania, for example, are excluded vided with alternate but poorer grazing land, from the committees directing a village project 63 that focuses on water and fuelwood, areas of gree in every case studied. Distinguishing be- their responsibility. tween project participants and beneficiaries, however, shows that in some projects the two Issues of access for minority ethnic or reli- groups are different people. For example, fewer gious groups can be similar to those involving people helped build the water systems in East women, African projects than will receive water; in PfP, Lack of Clear Criteria for Project Access, The more women contributed to the savings clubs lack of clear criteria for selecting participants than have been able to receive loans. was identified as a problem for ADF-funded Also, OTA specifically examined how women intermediary organizations in particular (e.g., participants shared in project costs and bene- Tutume; AFC). When the service provided is fits (table 4-3). This was judged to be equitable one that many individuals or groups want, orga- in most cases, even when women did not re- nizations need clear criteria and a fair process ceive precisely equal benefits. For example, for selecting who will and will not participate. women participants in Ross Bethio did not con- Some groups required participants to register, sider their lesser share of project benefits un- others included only dues-paying members, and fair. The one low rating was given to the Tu- others considered anyone who contributed la- tume project in Botswana because female, bor to be project members. OTA’S assessment single heads of households in practice had to teams noted that ADF often did not verify contribute more labor to receive the same ben- whether project participants were representa- efit as male-headed households. tive of the local community, nor identify whether selection criteria and processes were However, equitable sharing in costs and ben- perceived as fair. efits alone, without sharing in project management and decisionmaking, constitutes a low The two religious-based intermediary orga- level of participation. OTA judged the former nizations visited by the teams were rated highly a necessary but not sufficient condition for participatory and appropriate for ADF fund- meeting the ADF participation mandate. ing because participants were representative of the general community. Nevertheless, fund- A low degree of sharing in decisionmaking ing such groups raises additional questions re- during project implementation existed in one- garding access. In these cases, access to project third of the projects (table 4-3). This rating was benefits was open to eligible participants with- highly correlated with the rating for overall par- out regard to religious affiliation. While most ticipation. A special problem for intermediary participants in the tractor hire project in organizations and grassroots groups was the Morogoro are Anglicans (because church com- lack of participation in financial decisions mittees register members and the demand for found in more than half the cases. Often the services is far greater than the supply), a sig- local group had accurate records of time and nificant portion of small farmers in the area funds contributed by its own members, but lit- were Anglican and management and resource tle access to the financial records of the inter- constraints justified the focus. With the excep- mediary organization or the technical assis- tion of the piggery sub-project of the revolving tance provider who controlled funds provided fund of Silveira House whose high entry fee by outside donors. restricted access to the affluent, participants Women’s participation in management and of both projects were representative of the com- decisionmaking rated low in half the projects, munity and poor. including PfP, which provides credit to 3,000 women. One reason for this is because all mem- 4. Contributing to Costs, Sharing in bers of the PfP board of directors and the Benefits, and Participating in majority of the staff are men, Thus, funding a Decisionmaking women’s project or women’s organization does Costs and benefits were equitably shared not guarantee that women participate appro- among participants to a high or moderate de- priately in management. In only one case, the 64

the Foundation’s mandate. So is their attempt to have technical assistance provided by Afri- cans where possible. Africans provided technical assistance in 10 of the 12 cases. Often an intermediary group will provide technical assistance to its local groups. But the roles of the technical assistance providers and their relationship with the local group and participants differed among the projects studied. OTA found that technical assistance was provided in a non-participatory way in one-third of the projects (table 4-3). Project managers or participants had little two-way interaction with technical assistance providers, they were not given an opportunity to provide input to technology choices, or they were dissatisfied with providers’ methods. Providers were representatives of intermediary organizations in two of the cases ranked low, a Dutch volunteer in one and local government officials in one. Three of the projects with non-participatory technical assistance also had a low rating on overall participation.

6. Participation in Project Evaluations One consistent problem noted was the lack of participation in internal project evaluations. Until recently, ADF did not encourage or help funded groups participate in evaluations. Only Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles PfP had even a moderate level of member par- Women participate in many ADF-funded projects, such ticipation in its evaluation process. Although as this successful one in Botswana (Boiteko). only half of the projects studied were fully operational, their grants had been committed for other predominantly women’s project of the 12, at least 12 months. Preliminary evaluations, Boiteko, was women’s participation in manage- based on early project activities, would have ment rated high. An ADF-sponsored evaluation been appropriate by this point. of five Kenyan projects concluded that the lack of women’s participation in management Factors Affecting Participation harmed project results, especially those with a majority of women participants (22). Finally, OTA teams assessed factors fostering and limiting participation in each project. S. Participation in Providing Sometimes external circumstances helped par- Technical Assistance ticipation, such as good markets, rainfall, and roads. Others, such as illiteracy, hindered. Com- All 12 ADF-funded projects received some monly cited positive factors include: technical assistance during their design and implementation stages. ADF policy encourages ● effective and trusted leadership, recipients to select their own technical assis- ● group cohesion, tance and pay the provider with ADF grant ● building on existing traditions of commu- funds. This policy is unique and consistent with nal effort, 65

● project activity matching needs of com- ● exclusion of women from project manage- munity, ment committees, ● using familiar technologies, ● overly complex organizational structure, ● regular meetings, and ● production system requiring centralized ● clear project scope. decisionmaking, ● inadequate information sharing, Factors constraining participation in the 12 ● too prominent a role for outsiders, and projects included: ● centralized decisionmaking in intermedi- ● unclear membership criteria, ary organization.

~~RESULTS~~

What Are Results and How Can tors were collected (app. D). The following cri- They Be Measured? teria were used to assess results: A main purpose of ADF is social and eco- 1. Degree to which the project is meeting its nomic development. The Foundation weighs objectives: how well is the ADF-funded the social and economic impacts of its projects project doing relative to similar projects in terms of: supported by other funders; what fosters and what hampers achieving objectives? ● achieving project objectives, 2. Actual or likely economic impacts on par- ● attaining community needs, ticipants: how many beneficiaries are ● effects on the environment and health, and there; what are the amount and the value ● benefits to participants and others. of benefits and contributions per person? Like most donors, however, ADF directs most 3. Actual or likely social impacts on commu- of its post-approval efforts toward tracking its nity and organizational impacts on the lo- own project inputs (e. g., monitoring expendi- cal groups and intermediary organizations. tures of grant funds for purchases of materials 4. Actual or likely environmental impacts and technical assistance) and the project during the grant period. outputs—the goods and services that the ADF OTA attempted to quantify intended and grant was expected to produce (a working irri- unintended results and their economic, social, gation system, credit provided to small farmers, organizational, and environmental impacts on or tractor-hire services, etc.). Little systematic participants and the community. Data were dis- attention is given by ADF or its project aggregate by gender. If an activity was meet- managers to project outcomes, i.e., what the ing its objectives and had, on balance, positive beneficiaries actually do with the service and economic, social, and organizational effects for how it changes their lives and the life of the poor people and no serious negative environ- community and of the organizations to which mental impacts, OTA rated its overall results they belong. Tracking outcomes is an impor- positively in terms of achieving social and eco- tant way to determine a project’s progress, iden- nomic development. tify gaps where other resources are needed, and involve participants in evaluating project activities. It also is a way to determine whether the Assessing Results in 12 ADF-Funded project is attaining the broader development Projects goals of the grantee and funder. Project outputs and outcomes both were in- Finding: OTA judged that 10 projects were likely cluded in OTA’S assessment of project results to have a positive impact on the social and and data on a wide variety of relevant indica- economic development of the poor people in 66

the locale. However, the level of impact system in the NGK project in Kenya, the one ranged from significant to negligible. project visited which had completed its ADF grant period. Additional specific information Because of the early stage of implementation on project results is included in the project of the projects visited, OTA teams were re- descriptions (app. B). quired to estimate likely results. Some actual results could be seen in only one-half of the Benefits to poor people in two cases, how- projects. However, 10 were judged likely to ever, were judged likely to be low. Dagnare and have a moderate to high positive impact on the Tutume were judged likely to achieve some of social and economic development of poor peo- their objectives, but not benefit the poor seg- ple (table 4-4). Overall ratings were similar for ment of the population very much. The Tutume projects with some actual results compared project in Botswana provided free tractor plow- with those starting up; however, grants coming. However, no longer-term benefits to the mitted in 1985 were rated somewhat higher (3 sponsoring organization were evident, agricul- high, 2 moderate, 1 low) than those committed tural production had not increased, and soil ero- in 1986(1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low). In addition, sion threatened to lower future production. In grassroots groups rated significantly better than addition, participants were relatively affluent intermediary organizations (3 high and 1 mod- in both projects. erate vs. 1 high, 5 moderate, and 2 low). 1. Degree to Which ADF-Ftmded Participants from several projects told OTA Projects Are Meeting Their teams about dramatically increased production Objectives and incomes, e.g., a 30 percent increase in income for women who received PfP’s farm in- Despite the preliminary stage of one-half the put loans. In addition to a significant impact projects visited, 11 were judged to be meeting on individuals in this project, a large number or likely to meet their objectives to a high or of people in other communities in western moderate degree. However, a project can meet Kenya were affected positively. Similarly, most its objectives, in the sense of providing the family incomes increased considerably follow- planned service or outputs, but have little im- ing the completion of the water and irrigation pact on improving peoples’ lives or achieving

~~Table 4-4.—Rating Results of 12 ADF Projects~~

No. of projects rated Elements of results High Moderate Low Overall results Actual or likely positive impact on social and economic development of the poor in locale ...... 4 6 2 1. Degree to which project is meeting or is likely to meet its objectives...... 5 6 1 No. of projects rated Positive No Change Negative 2. Actual or likely economic impacts on participants ...... 10 2 0 3. Actual or likely social and organizational impacts Actual or likely social impacts ...... 9 2 1 Actual or likely organizational impacts overalla ...... 9 1 1 Impacts on local groups ...... 10 1 1 Impacts on intermediary organizations ...... 4 3 1 4. Actual or likely environmental impacts during grant period ...... 1 8 3 NOTES: aln one case, impacts Were rated positive on local groups but negative on the intermediary organization SO nO Overall ranking was given bEight grant recipients visited were intermedia~ 0r9aniZatiOnS. 67 other development goals, as seen above ilar projects funded by others. Based on inter- (Tutume). views with outside researchers, donors, and government officials, this was judged true in Conversely, a project can be behind sched- two-thirds of the projects, but not in the other ule in meeting objectives, or only partially meet one-third. The comparison, generally, was to them, and still have important impact, For ex- past bilateral or multilateral governmental pro- ample, the one project with a low rating on grams rather than to programs supported by meeting its objectives (Morogoro, Tanzania) PVOS or other private funders because few ex- had notable impact on many participants dur- amples of the latter were available. This finding the first agricultural season. participants ing needs to be placed in a broader context, who received the entire range of project serv- however: many of these types of projects (irri- ices (tractor plowing, improved seeds, fer- gation, tractor-hire, rural water supply, and ru- tilizers, pesticides, and extension advice) in- ral credit) have a poor track record in Africa. creased their maize production significantly in a year of lower-than-average rainfall. But pro- 2. Actual or Likely Economic Benefits jected numbers of participants were overambitious and one tractor arrived rather than Ten projects had, or were likely to have, posi- three, and that one late. Only 150 acres were tive economic outcomes for the participants plowed, less than one-tenth of what was planned for the first year. Overall, however, the OTA team assessed this project’s likely future impact favorably. Thus, the types and values of actual benefits and the number of beneficiaries are more important than rigidly meeting project objectives. To measure impact accurately, baseline data and data on specific effects on beneficiaries must be collected, but in only one case had any attempt been made to collect this information (PfP). OTA teams assessed what factors helped and hindered projects in achieving their objectives and goals. Common positive factors were good leadership, organizational strength, a ready market for production, simple available technology, and either government support or com- plementarily with government policies. Com- monly cited factors constraining results were lack of markets, poor production plans, and the lack of provision for maintenance and repairs. Feasible strategies to meet recurrent costs and replacement reserves did not exist in most projects. In a number of instances, organizational and management weaknesses were also cited. Finally, delays in project startup and in disbursal of funds affected five of the agricultural projects visited.

~~Team members also attempted to evaluate whether ADF’s projects achieved, or were likely to achieve, their objectives more often than sim- —~~

68 and no change was probable in two (table 4-4). 3. Actual or Likely Social and The specific benefits, the number of people re- Organizational Impacts ceiving them, and their value are described in Three-fourths of the projects that OTA visited the project summaries (app. B). These values were judged to have, or be likely to have, posi- were estimated based on interviews with par- tive social and organizational impacts. The ticipants because the projects had neither col- positive social impacts on the community prin- lected baseline data nor data about increased cipally flowed from the concrete benefits the production and income resulting from project project brought or would bring. Less tangible activities. effects identified by project leaders andlor par- A project’s economic effect in most cases was ticipants and communicated to OTA teams greater beneficiary income due to increased were a sense of pride in themselves and their production of crops or livestock. In 7 of the 12 community, the skills learned while implement- projects, an important component of the ining the project, and the sense of power that ac- creased production was (or will be) provision companied the knowledge that the group could of water; in 4, provision of credit; in another successfully carry out development activities. 4, provision of agricultural inputs with exten- Negative social effects included actual or po- sion advice. tential conflicts with those who lost control of assets or were left out such as herders in Ross Other economic benefits include increases in the value of land or in saving time collect- Bethio and Morogoro and farmers downstream ing firewood, carrying water, or plowing. For from NGK’s water project. But because of other effects in these cases, the net social benefits to example, the value of land in one community in Kenya rose from $625 per acre to $1,250 an the local community were still rated positively. acre as a result of construction of the NGK Likewise, projects had positive effects on water supply. But the distribution of the eco- funded organizations related to the experience nomic benefits ranged widely. of planning and implementing their projects and from the organization’s ability to deliver Beneficiaries totaled fewer than 100 persons goods or services to members. The ADF proj- in 4 of the projects; in 2, more than 2,000 (table 4-2). The value of the increased yearly produc- ects were judged to have positive effects on all tion caused by the ADF-funded activities four grassroots groups, but only one-half of the ranged from $540 per year per person in the intermediary organization seemed likely to ben- Boiteko project to $14 in the Morogoro project. efit. In one case, the project activity strength- But the $14 represented a 10 percent increase ened participating local groups but contributed in annual income for the participating farmers to divisiveness between some groups and the in Gairo, Tanzania. Usually other members of intermediary organization (Union Kaoural). In households benefited indirectly in some way. others, benefits principally flowed to the local group with little organizational effect on the Finally, OTA calculated the cost to ADF per intermediary organization. participant by dividing the grant amount by number of participants. The cost to ADF per 4. Acutual or Likely Environmental participant averaged $650—Morogoro’s was Impacts During Grant Period $624 in the first year–and ranged from $50 (Union Kaoural) to $3,507 (Boiteko). After these The findings on environmental impacts were projects have completed several years, it will less positive than on economic and organiza- be possible to calculate the ratios of ADF-costs- tional effects (table 4-4). Only one project (AFC) per-participant to benefits-per-participant to was judged to have a positive environmental provide a measure of the economic efficiency impact because planting tea on mountain slopes of ADF’s funding. The Foundation as yet has in Zimbabwe can help prevent erosion. Simul- not used simple cost/benefit analysis as an ele- taneously, however, coffee planting is increas- ment in making funding decisions. ing due to declining tea prices and the erosion 69 potential of coffee can be high. Negative envi- Typically, ADF provides money for materi- ronmental impacts could already be seen in als and the community provides labor. Often three projects. In installing its 100 hectare irri- the community also provides funds, through gation system near the Senegal River, the Ross- individual fees, community fundraising efforts Bethio Association bulldozed a considerable and materials. The community contributions number of trees and shrubs and destroyed some to the ADF projects are measures of their sup- grassland. This degradation was poorly bal- port of the project. Contributions include: anced with only modest reforestation efforts. ● labor: in nine projects most participants Removing tree stumps and plowing during low contributed labor; in two others, one-half rainfall years has led to soil erosion in Tutume, did. For example, in the NGK water project Botswana. Compaction is beginning to affect participants contributed an average of 115 soil structure in the Boiteko project in Bot- days’ labor digging trenches in a year and swana. Eight projects were judged likely to have one-half. At Boiteko, the women continue no significant negative environmental impact to contribute substantial labor in vegeta- during the rest of the grant period. However, ble production and raising chickens. But negative impacts may appear in the mid- to in Dagnare, members hired laborers to long-term. work for them. ● money: in one-half the projects most par- What Do ADF and the Community Put ticipants contributed some money in sup- Into ADF-Funded Projects? port of project activities. Usually this was Since project results should be considered in a small amount in relation to total project relation to their costs, or inputs, OTA also Cost. sought to identify the resources contributed by ● material: in one-half the Proiects more than ADF, the community, and other donors. half of the participant; contributed material. The Foundation’s grant funds were allocated to the 12 projects for the following uses: Tbe Role of Other Donors in ● 46 percent for equipment: construction, infrastructure costs for wells and/or irriga- ADF-Funded Projects tion systems in 7 projects, tractors in 2; All 12 organizations visited had external ● 5 percent for vehicles/transportation: funding sources in addition to ADF, and 4 used trucks or motorcycles were purchased in those funds for the ADF-funded project. In 9 5 projects, rented in 1; of the 12, more than one outside donor sup- ● 18 percent for revolving credit funds, a ported the organization and/or ADF-funded component of 4 projects; project. The outside donors included U.S. AID ● 10 percent for agricultural inputs: seeds, (PfP; Ross Bethio), the World Bank and Afri- fertilizer, implements for individual can Development Bank (AFC), other bilateral farmers in 4 projects; donors (Dakoro; Union Kaoural; PfP), European ● 9 percent for salaries and office expenses: religious donors (Morogoro; Silveira House), while 9 projects had staff, ADF funds paid European PVOS (Ross Bethio; Union Kaoural), staff salaries in only 5 cases; U.S. PVOS (PfP; Malihai), private foundations ● 4 percent for training and technical assis- (Dakoro; PfP), and the U.S. Ambassador’s Self- tance obtained outside the project; and Help Fund (NGK; Ross Bethio), ● 9 percent for other expenses: ADF audits and evaluations, contingency funds, and OTA teams found that in four cases some an ADF documentary film.1 alternative funding was available for the project had ADF funds not been provided. Alternative funding was less certain in six cases; in two cases, no viable alternative funding was avail- ‘Total greater than 100 percent because of rounding, able for the project. 70

Therefore, the Foundation is not the only fun- few cases, ADF-funded activities also obtained der of its grantee groups nor, in many cases, some African government funding (Tutume) or of their projects, Often its money is being used government-supplied technical assistance. For with that of other donors to provide larger example, district water officials in Kenya de- amounts of funding than would be available signed the NGK water system and supervised from a single source or to provide for continu- technical aspects of its construction. ity of projects from one grant to another. In a

~~SUSTAINABILITY~~

What is Sustainability and How Can Key elements of sustainability for rating the It Be Measured? 12 projects were: Sustainability is generally understood to ● economic aspects, including market for the mean that the project activity and/or its posi- product, provision for recurrent costs, tive results will continue after the grant period preparation of business plans, and finan- ends. It can be judged on several levels: sus- cial management capabilities; tainability of the resource, of certain activities, ● organizational/social aspects, including of the project, of the local group and/or the in- quality of leadership, track record of the termediary organization. Also, sustainability organization, participation of members in has economic, environmental, technical, and decisionmaking, access of the organization social elements, and policy factors can inter- to financial resources, and whether or not vene. Therefore, sustainability depends on current activities would continue and other many dimensions of an activity and failure in activities were planned, how the funded one area can jeopardize sustainability overall. activities contributed to growth of the group; The Foundation includes most of these ele- ● environmental aspects over the next 3 to ments in its project appraisal checklist: 5 years and longer, including positive and negative impacts on renewable resources ● financial sustainability; and identification of any measures to mit- ● project self-sufficiency, generating enough income to cover costs; igate negative impacts; ● technological aspects, including site speci- ● probability that the funded organization ficity (whether or not the technology was will pursue other projects after the funded sustainable in the locale), access to train- one; and ing and technical assistance, and confor- ● effects on the environment. mity to national development plans and These criteria were expanded for this assess- policies regarding the technology. ment. For example, expecting that environ- Ultimately, sustainability can be judged only mental sustainability might be a problem for after a grant is completed. Just 1 of the 12 ADF as it has been for other donors, OTA based projects visited (NGK) had completed the ADF its considerations of environmental sustaina- grant period, and that only recently. But plan- bility, in part, on questions that emerged from ning and decisionmaking for sustainability the reviews of ADF’s project files regarding should occur throughout the project cycle, renewable resource technologies (box 4-2). Therefore, the presence or absence of these ele- Teams sought a range of specific data during ments often are indicators of what will happen site visits and other interviews in Africa (app, in the future. These rankings define the near D). future as 3 to 5 years. Box 4-2.—A Look at ADF’s Files: ADF’s Use of Renewable Resource Technologies OTA examined ADF’s files of projects relating to agriculture and renewable resources, identifying the types of technologies used and attempting to determine how ADF accounts for environmental sustainability. ADF’s grassroots mandate appears to have high potential. ADF is well placed to become the primary assistance agency that blends ecological concerns with the urgency for Africans to raise adequate food and to provide adequate water. The Foundation is positioned to help Africans “break the infernal cycle of people being forced to misuse their natural resource base, ” as one African forester describes it. Even without such an ambitious goal, however, ADF could make improvements in its work to avoid environmental problems. This review’s most important finding is that ADF project documents contain little information on field-tested and accepted technologies that could:

● mitigate additional stress on existing resources, and ● help increase farm yields and incomes on a sustainable basis via proven methods such as water conservation, windbreaks, terracing, native trees, sand stabilization, and agroforestry plantations. Files tend to yield incomplete and insufficient information to determine what resource-related activities are underway and to identify the environmental impacts of agricultural projects. Evidence is strong, however, that ADF-funded organizations could use resource-related technologies much more often as primary and adjunct project activities. Yet the Foundation is not ignoring the need for environmental protection and the use of resource- related methods. For example, ADF has funded several activities that integrate resource concerns into predominantly agricultural projects. Of 56 projects examined, 3 dealt significantly with resource- related activities and 9 projects had resource activities as accompanying measures. The Foundation could do more, however, to account for such concerns on a more sophisticated level, more thoroughly, and more systematically. Agricultural projects that involve mechanical soil preparation, land clearing, or water development efforts where yields are large should raise flags in the minds of ADF staff. The Foundation’s position is difficult because it responds to local initiatives and many Africans, like many other agriculturalists and donors, presently do not give environmental protection high priority. Yet, according to the OTA desk reviewer: “Any organization dispensing development funds, regardless whether local people, at present, place any emphasis on the ecological sustainability of their resource base or not, needs some sort of “ecologic malpractice protection”. . . , If this is not done, those who authorized funding. . . may be responsible (after .5, 10, or 20 years) for having contributed to making matters worse instead of better; good intentions and focusing on other, important criteria notwithstanding.” The key is providing new information so that local people are more completely informed about alternatives that might better serve them. The Foundation’s expanding outreach and training activities could help fill this need,

~~SOURCE: Fred R, Weber, “Desk and Office Review of ADF Activities: Renewable Resource Technologies, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987. 72~~

Assessing Sustainability in for vegetable marketing and milk processing. 12 ADF-Funded Projects They have hopes of purchasing a truck and building a storage cooler for produce. Only one Finding: One-half the ADF-funded projects were project was judged to have a low chance of be- judged to have a high potential to be sustained ing sustained: the team identified economic, over the next 3 to 5 years; another 5 were organizational, technical, and environmental judged to have a moderate chance to be sus- factors that jeopardized sustainability of the Tu- tained over the same period, although not nec- tume tractor-hire scheme in Botswana. The essarily in the same form as proposed. other five projects may be continued but with Longer-term sustainability was not ascertain. their effects decreasing over time. Finding: Strong community support for the In some cases, a particular activity within the activity and the local organization was iden- project is more likely to be sustained than tified as an important factor fostering sus- another, however, suggesting that projects often tainability of the projects visited, while the will change with time. For example, OTA teams lack of careful economic and environmental felt that the activities most strongly supported planning were common constraints to sus- by participants would have a better chance to tainability. continue: herd reconstitution rather than literacy in Dakoro, Niger; water supply rather than Six ADF-funded projects were judged to have reforestation in Kikatiti, Tanzania. Flexibility a high potential for sustainability over the next in adapting to new circumstances was assumed 3 to 5 years (table 4-5). Sustainability means the to be an important component of sustainability. project activity was judged likely to continue for this period. Overall, projects sponsored by grassroots organizations were rated more sustainable than those of intermediary organiza- 1. Economic Sustainability of tions, and projects awarded grants in 1985 rated ADF-Funuded Activities slightly better than those funded in 1986. Three-quarters of the ADF-funded projects were judged to have a moderate to high chance These six projects are more likely to reach of being sustained economically, but one- a greater number of people and/or have an ex- quarter faced a low chance (table 4-5). For expanded impact on those involved. An excellent ample, OTA found a good to very good market example is the recently completed water and for the products of four projects, an adequate irrigation system in Kenya (NGK). Vegetable market in four, and a poor market in two. But and milk production has significantly increased when OTA teams asked whether or not formal as a result of the water supply to each farm. or informal, simple market analyses and busi- The management committee is discussing plans ness plans had been prepared for the activities,

~~Table 4=5.—Rating Sustainability of 12 ADF Projects~~

No. of projects rated Elements of sustainability High Moderate Low Overall sustainability for next 3 to 5 years ...... 6 5 1 1. Economic sustainability of activity...... 5 4 3 2. Organizational/social sustainability Local group/s ...... 6 4 2 Intermediary organization ...... , ...... 5 2 1 3. Environmental sustainability For next 3 to 5 years ...... 8 3 1 After 5 years ...... 2 9 1 4. Technological sustainability...... 7 4 1 NOTES: aE1ght grant recipients visited were intermediary ovlanizations 73 they found that only three had market analy- OTA’S assessment teams considered a number ses and only one a business plan (AFC). of factors related to the organizational sustaina- A greater problem was lack of provision for bility of grassroots groups, intermediary orga- recurrent costs of the activity after ADF fund- nizations and their local sub-groups. The or- ing ended: five projects rated low, three aver- ganizational sustainability of 1ocal groups was age, and four high. While six projects had for- similar to that of the intermediary organizations mal or informal strategies to cover costs, too (table 4-5). But the two had different strengths. often it was not based on careful or accurate For example, seven of eight intermediary orga- economic analysis. Recurrent costs of the activ- nizations were rated high on leadership; six ity were expected to be covered by income were low on members’ decisionmaking; seven produced by the project activity, income from had high or moderate access to financial re- a related activity (e.g., rental of the truck in two sources. Local groups, on the other hand, rated projects was not only paying for itself, but better on members’ decisionmaking (10 of 12 would provide income for the project), outside projects were high or moderate) but lower on donors (PfP), African government subsidies leadership (one-half were high) and access to (Tutume), or community fundraising efforts. financial resources (4 were low and 6 moderate). Intermediary groups have certain advan- While criticizing the lack of financial plan- tages for sustainability, such as access to out- ning to cover future costs of maintaining project activities, OTA teams still judged several projects to have a moderate chance of being sustained because of the level of support of the community and their past record in raising funds internally and externally (e.g., the Kikatiti water system). Traditional community fundraising efforts can best meet sporadic needs, such as the breakdown of a pump, but not regular expenses such as paying the monthly electric bill and the system’s guard. But the local groups’ affiliation with an intermediary organization, in this example the National Malihai Club, could assist them obtain additional outside resources. Financial management was rated high in four projects (all southern Africa projects), moderate in six, and low in two. In both the low cases, problems centered around accountability between the intermediary organization and local groups regarding use and control of ADF funds. For example, intermediary organizations did not communicate openly and share decisionmaking with local groups regarding ADF funds. Eight groups had received some financial technical assistance or training, and three had plans to receive financial training. 2. Organizational and Social Sustainability Photo credit: ADF/Christine Fowles Sustainability is implicit in ADF’s mandate: future Sustainability of the project activity often is generations should benefit from current development closely linked to the future of the group funded. projects. 74 side resources; however, they also have special belts (Kikatiti, Morogoro, Ross Bethio) or use problems. PfP, for example, maybe unable to integrated pest management methods (Boiteko) continue successful work because external to minimize negative environmental effects in funds are shrinking. the future. But implementation of these plans was disappointing. Artificial organizations established with little rationale other than obtaining an ADF grant A number of specific concerns warrant (e.g., Dagnare) had a poor chance of being sus- greater consideration by ADF and project tainable. Other groups’ continuation may be managers: more certain than that of their project activi- for tractor hire projects: the danger of in- ties, especially if such activities are new to them creased soil erosion and weeds and con- (Malihai, AFC). Long-established groups (Sil- comitant risk to farmers’ future produc- veira House) were judged to have a better tion; destruction of grasslands and trees; chance of survival than a project sub-group pri- for irrigation projects: the danger of water- marily organized to carry out one activity with logging, salinization, soil erosion and com- resources from the intermediary organization. paction; destruction of trees, grasslands; Management training can help promote or- and potential health problems; ganizational sustainability and innovation. dangers to health and soil fertility with in- Eight projects had received such assistance and creased pesticide use; another three had plans to obtain it. For exam- dangers of monocropping to soil fertility, ple, one of NGK’s project leaders received com- pest resistance and diversified diets and munity development training from a Kenyan income; and training institute and his skill was an impor- the potential of increased water supplies tant reason for the success of the water project. to cause overstocking and overgrazing by livestock. The differing judgments between short- and 3. Envirnmental Sustainability of longer-term environmental sustainability were ADF-Funded Activites closely related to an assessment of the appro- Environmental sustainability was assessed in priateness of the technologies chosen by the short- and medium-term and a number of projects. concerns were identified. Two-thirds of ADF- funded projects were judged to have a high po- 4. Technological Sustainability of tential for short-term environmental sustaina- ADF-Funded Activites bility (table 4-5). Far greater uncertainty exists about their long-term environmental sustaina- The Foundation’s funded activities were tech- bility. nologically sustainable for 11 of 12 cases (table 4-5). Teams judged that 5 of the 12 projects The kinds of agricultural projects that ADF entailed relatively high-technology approaches, funds are known to have a variety of negative another 5 used relatively high-cost technologies, environmental impacts. Government officials, and 9 included relatively high-risk technologies. outside experts, and project managers varied The latter, especially, seemed to call long-term in their awareness of this. The Foundation and sustainability into question. But based on in- project managers often made no clear assess- terviews with local researchers, other experts, ment of potential problems. A few organiza- and government officials, the teams considered tions, however, had carried out some activities that technology choices were probably appro- which increased awareness or helped improve priate in every case but one, and that they were conditions. For example, one project helped not too high-risk to the participants involved participants practice intercropping (PfP) and given the context. two conducted some conservation education (Kikatiti, PfP). Several ADF-funded organiza- Team members in one case were convinced tions mentioned plans to plant trees or shelter- by local experts that a technology known to 75 have detrimental effects elsewhere was sus- government priorities in all cases but one (PfP). tainable in their locale. Researchers at Sokoine In that case the activity had the strong support University in Tanzania felt that tractor-hire of local Kenyan officials interviewed precisely schemes could be an appropriate way to in- because it was meeting a recognized gap in pub- crease sustainable agriculture in parts of the 1ic programs by providing rural credit for Morogoro region because of rainfall, popula- women. tion density, compensating practices to con- serve the land, government policy, and other factors, But questions about long-term environ- Factors Fostering and Constraining mental impacts remain, and a need exists to Sustainability 1) document effects on soil and grasslands of the tractor plowing schemes being imple- OTA teams identified the following factors mented now by the government and others, 2) that contribute to the sustainability of a num- design and carry out mitigating measures, and ber of ADF-funded projects: 3) do comparative studies with ox-plow use to ● availability of technical assistance and determine in which areas, and with which training, farmers, animal traction is more advantageous, ● strong intermediary organization with While this tractor-hire program was judged good track record, appropriate, the other one visited in Botswana ● good local leadership, was not. Tutume was the one project where the ● environmentally sound activities, technology did not seem sustainable for envi- ● adequate financial management and ronmental and economic reasons, even though planning, it was government-subsidized. ● good markets, In judging sustainability of the technologies, ● low-risk technologies for participants, and OTA teams also considered whether the spe- ● complementary government policy. cific activity was in conformity with national The following were identified as constraints development plans because a favorable policy to sustainability: environment and supportive public services can complement an activity. For example, Tan- ● lack of or poor financial or environmental zanians interviewed argued the tractor schemes planning, of the 1980s would be more successful than the ● intermediary organization deficiencies in failed ones of the 1960s and 1970s in part be- target group identification and monitoring, cause spare parts and petroleum were available and from government programs favoring mechani- ● women not involved in management of zation. Technologies were in conformity with projects relating to their work.

~~REPLICABILITY~~

What Is Replicability and How Can Replicability usually refers to extending the It Be Measured? impact of the funded activity, or its benefits, beyond the group originally included in the proposal. Some experts consider replicabiIity as Replicability is often desired by donors be- the “multiplier effect.” Often, replicability cause it can increase the impact of their project refers to adoption of an activity or technology funding, Groups such as ADF that fund small- by non-participants or by those in other geo- scale projects intend not only that the projects graphic areas without additional funding from will benefit local people, but also that they will the donor. have larger impacts on social and economic development. The assumption is that the activity Replicability rarely means an exact duplica- is beneficial and should be replicated. tion of projects using a “cookie cutter” model 76 or “blueprint” approach. Such attempts have adoption of technologies by non-partic- failed in the past because of ecological, social, ipants. cultural, economic, and other differences between regions and groups. Evidence of project impacts on national policies and institutions was also sought. ADF is concerned that its projects be replicable; its criteria for replicability include:

● results are likely to be disseminated, and Assessing Replicability in ● the project is likely to be repeated. 12 ADF-Funded Projects OTA expanded ADF’s criteria and collected information on several elements of replicabil- Finding: Ten of the ADF-funded projects were ity for the 12 projects visited (app. D). Replica- rated to have a moderate or high degree of bility of project activities, technologies, and or- replicability, and two a low chance of being ganizational processes were each considered replicated. Self-help processes were judged separately because the same or other groups more replicable than the technologies sup- might replicate the problem-solving or planning ported. The relatively high cost of the tech- process used for a project, but not the project nologies and high equipment expenses were activity itself. And the process of taking best major constraints to replicability of project advantage of a situation and recognizing the activities. unusual conditions necessary for an activity to Replicability of technologies and of organiza- succeed can be replicable even though unique tional processes was weighed in overall ratings social, cultural, physical and other aspects of for each project (table 4-6). These overall rat- each particular situation might make project ings were similar for grassroots groups and in- activities non-repeatable. The following meas- termediary organizations. Projects awarded ures were incorporated into the final assess- grants in 1984 and 1985 rated higher in replica- ment of replicability: bility than those committed in 1986. For exam- technological replicability: the degree to ple, PfP’s project was judged highly replicable. which other groups have financial and Since 1980, PfP in Kenya had tested methods physical resources (including infrastruc- to work with and train local women’s groups, ture) to use the technology; whether tech- to help them establish savings clubs and loan nologies can be readily learned; committees, and to administer revolving loan organizational replicability: which man- funds. Many staff had worked with PfP for at agement structures, processes, and styles least a decade. PfP recently had applied this could be used by others; methodology to credit for agricultural inputs level of dissemination: efforts by funded and its methodology was applicable to other organizations to spread what they learned; groups.

~~Table 4-6.—Rating Replicability of 12 ADF Projects~~

No. of projects rated Elements of replicability High Moderate Low Overall replicability in region/country...... 3 7 2 1. Technological replicability ...... 5 5 2 other groups have access to financial resources...... 2 3 7 other groups have needed physical resource base ...... 3 7 2 technologies readily learnable...... 8 3 1 2. Organizational replicability...... 7 3 3. Level of dissemination ...... 2 2 2 NOTES: aDue t. the ~reliminay stage of two projects, it was impossible to judge dissemination of Project results. 77

Replicability is not the only measure of have access to funds. Thus, for those who con- project impact, however. One successful project sider repetition of the technology or the spe- (NGK) was rated low on replicability. Another cific sector activity by another group as the core project, the Tutume project in Botswana, was of replicability, more than half of ADF projects being replicated by the sponsoring intermedi- were not replicable. ary organization using government subsidies. The lack of other suitable physical settings But the OTA team found that the flaws of the or infrastructures generally was not a serious project were serious enough to question constraint to technology transfer, nor were the whether replication was desirable. technologies too difficult for other local people to learn. In one case, lack of capability to 1. TechnoIogical RepIicability control access to the benefits of the activity was Almost all of the technologies used by ADF- identified as a constraint to replicability. While funded projects can be replicated (table 4-6). NGK successfully completed its water and ir- The greatest constraint, however, is that many rigation system, OTA’S assessment team gave could not be repeated without a large grant from it a low rating on overall replicability because ADF or another external funder. There was a self-help construction of gravity-fed water sys- low chance in seven cases that other groups tems is possible in only a few regions in Kenya. could implement the activity since they did not More important, none of these regions are in

~~.,.. .- ,.. .~~

~~● * - ~. . . . .~~

~~Photo credit: OTA/Scott McCormick~~

~~Not all projects should be replicated Unacceptable levels of soil erosion may result because the tractor-hire project in Tutume, Botswana, plowed this land.~~

~~. — ——~~

newly resettled areas where local groups can loan funds during the 2-year grant period. In- control access to the water. Also, the water sys- stead, it provided training and loans to 92 tem was expensive and few funders, including groups and cannot meet further demand. Grass- the Kenyan government, provide such large roots organizations can disseminate results amounts of funding to small communities. through active membership in larger organi- Thus, the circumstances critical for success zations. For example, Ross Bethio is sharing limited the project’s ability to be replicated what it learned about the organization of ir- elsewhere. rigated rice production through its membership in FONGS, a national association of village 2. Organizational Replicability groups in Senegal. Aspects of the sponsoring group’s manage- However, in only three cases (PfP, Morogoro, ment structure, function, or style could be ben- and Ross-Bethio), was there evidence that non- eficial to other groups in three-quarters of the participants had adopted the technologies in- projects (table 4-6). Examples of promising or- troduced by ADF-funded projects. Demon- ganizational elements included the open man- strated yield increases in these examples led agement style of Boiteko, the interlocking outsiders to begin to copy some of their neigh- church committee structure of Morogoro, the bors’ successful activities. tri-village management committee of NGK, and national union membership to share informa- Finding: Three of the projects had some position illustrated in Ross Bethio. Generally, OTA tive impact on national-level institutions. found that the processes, like project activities, Three projects had an impact on national in- cannot be rigidly repeated. For example, one stitutions; all were successful projects run by weakness of the Union Kaoural project in Sene- small grassroots organizations. Ross Bethio in gal was that the intermediary organization’s Senegal was among the first village associations leaders imposed an inflexible project model on to obtain credit from a new National Agricul- all participating villages. tural Credit Bank; its success has led to the ex- Few, if any, project activities or technologies pectation that others can follow. In Botswana, funded by ADF were innovative in themselves. Boiteko’s success with its vegetable garden and Using the technologies was often an innova- poultrylegg production has influenced think- tive experience for the project participants or ing in the Ministry of Agriculture where it is an innovative activity for the locale, however. seen as a successful pilot project. Leaders have The uniqueness of each group and its setting provided technical assistance to a similar hor- means that each group must develop its own ticultural project funded by ADF in Botswana. activity, assess its own resources and needs, Water and agriculture officials from other dis- and make decisions about the best way to reach tricts in Kenya are looking at NGK with inter- its goals. These activities are at the core of the est. Government water/irrigation projects often development process. Enabling other groups are not completed and are more costly than to engage in these activities may be the most NGK’s project. replicable work ADF funds. Factors Fostering and Constraining 3. Level of Dissemination Replicability A majority of the funded groups made some In addition to the constraints listed previ- effort to spread what they learned (table 4-6). ously, another problem is that organizations Most intermediary organizations, for example, rarely documented concrete results that project intend to implement the ADF-funded activity activities brought to the participants, limiting in a number of locations, then to expand fur- their ability to publicize results to other com- ther. PfP, for example, expected to train 30 munities and outsiders, including government women’s groups in managing small revolving officials and outside donors. ADF promoted 79 shared learning in several cases by funding Replicability often depends on conditions travel costs for exchange visits between projects outside of a group’s control, such as market and for managers to attend meetings. Good prices. For example, late government payments communication of project leaders with local for maize were limiting PfP’s ability to assist officials enables the officials to bring the project new groups in Kenya. to the attention of others.

~~RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PARTICIPATION, RESULTS, SUSTAINABILITY, AND REPLICABILITY~~

An analysis of the interconnections between means. Nevertheless, participation alone is not participation, results, sustainability, and always enough to ensure the success of an replicability has implications about what ADF activity. funding can accomplish. It also can improve Success in bringing benefits to participants ADF’s ability to select and monitor projects. helped sponsoring organizations gain support Although this sample is too small to provide and widen participation in the activity and a rigorous test of correlation, some interesting group. Examples include the large numbers of patterns emerge from this review of 12 projects. local women’s groups who want to join PfP’s Complementarities, or positive correlations credit program and farmers who want to reg- among the four critical issues, suggest that more ister for Morogoro’s tractor-hire/input program than one desirable outcome can be achieved and AFC’S credit program. The positive effect simultaneously and that proposal analysis and of results on participation is consistent with project monitoring must be done holistically. development literature and the experience of Trade-offs, or negative correlations, identify schools that provide training and technical dilemmas for the Foundation and other devel- assistance to community organizations in the opment organizations because they may sug- United States (e.g., the Industrial Areas Foun- gest that achieving certain results can have un- dation in New York City, New York). Accord- desirable costs in other areas. ing to this view, organizations develop by identifying realistic actions that bring participants Complementarities concrete benefits due to their collective effort. ADF’s legislation is based on the assumption Thus, OTA’S team members were concerned that increased participation improves results. that some ADF staff believe that ADF-funded Generally, this report confirms that assumption. groups grow as much through failure as suc- For example, projects that rated high on par- cess and attributed some problems in ADF’s ticipation also rated high or moderate in results, grant monitoring to this attitude. while projects that rated low on participation Success in bringing concrete improvements also rated low or moderate in results. NGK’s to participants was found to be a condition of successful completion of the water system was replicability. For example, the financial success due, in large part, to the labor and other con- of the Boiteko group is the reason other groups tributions of the residents. High levels of par- want to start similar projects in Botswana. But ticipation allowed local groups to overcome not every successful project is considered deficiencies in other areas in all cases, but espe- highly replicable. cially in Dakoro and NGK. In these cases, a sense of “ownership” by the local group increased the potential for the continuation of activities. Since the activities meet real needs, Trade-offs also exist, however, between par- people work to maintain them, even if the ini- ticipation and results. If board members or tial external investment was beyond their other decisionmakers are chosen from elite 80 groups, such as more highly-educated persons and better replicability than those of grassroots and government officials, they often can help groups but these advantages are not automatic local groups gain access to financial and tech- and often occur at the cost of less participa- nical resources, but they also tend to dominate tion of beneficiaries in project design and im- groups. This was seen in the Kikatiti, Tutume, plementation. But possible advantages of grass- and Union Kaoural projects. The same ten- roots groups in participation may correspond dency is true for technical assistance providers, with lesser results. In certain instances, their although OTA also saw exceptions to both, for impact, while affecting fewer people directly, example, in the Boiteko project. may be deeper. Given the proper context and careful effort, successful grassroots projects can Placing too great an emphasis on achieving be models for others and even affect national ambitious project results in too short a time policy. Alternatively, changing the ways inter- period can restrict participation, just as too mediary organizations do business may have much emphasis on participation can lessen re- a profound impact on the national setting and sults, at least in the short-term. Slowing down alter the structures that constrain or enhance the pace of change and gradually increasing local efforts. Understanding these potential participation can help bring about longer- differences is important for tapping the actual lasting results. Since cultural norms, such as strengths of each. women’s low participation in decisionmaking, do not change quickly, ADF should be expected Also trade-offs exist between participation to fund groups in which women’s participation and sustainability, particularly environmental may not be equal but which are at least mov- sustainability. Often the environmental prob- ing in the direction of becoming more participa- lems presented by new technologies are dimly tory within the local context. The perceived perceived and take a back seat to the immedi- conflict between participation and results may ate, pressing need for increased water or agri- be, in fact, only a problem in the short-term. cultural production. For example, the people in Tutume, Botswana, wanted tractor plowing Another apparent conflict, between replica- but the OTA team concluded that the long-term bility and participation, was seen in attempts results of plowing are likely to be disadvanta- to impose external models, which hampered geous. While this is a problem for all donors, achieving results in one project, Union Kaoural, it poses an especially difficult challenge for precisely because the desires of the local groups ADF because of its mandate to support self-help were not taken into account. This inflexible ap- efforts. proach to replicability was a problem for some intermediary organizations as they attempted A related trade-off is evidenced in the likeli- to expand their programs to new sub-groups, hood that the success of some project activi- and for some persons selected to provide tech- ties can cause environmental problems, e.g., nical assistance to grassroots groups. Flexibil- Ross Bethio’s irrigation of 100 acres and the ity in adapting to new circumstances, by project acreage plowed by the Tutume and Morogoro managers and funders, was identified as im- projects. Typically project beneficiaries will not portant in achieving results, sustainability, and experience the negative economic impact of replicability. environmental damage for some time, even though in Tutume the harm is sufficient to Funding intermediary versus grassroots threaten short-term economic benefits. The groups also involves trade-offs. Projects of in- donor’s role is to help project managers see the termediary organizations may have the poten- potential dangers and plan ways to minimize tial for broader results, greater sustainability, them. 81

~~PROJECT FINDINGS, PR0GRAM CHOICES, AND ADF’S MANDATE~~

OTA’S assessment of 12 ADF-funded projects OTA’S review of ADF’s files in Washington, identified many areas where the projects’ per- which looked at 58 projects, pointed to a simi- formance is good. But in several key areas, ADF lar lack of attention to participation and con- is falling short of its mandate, This is especially cerns regarding financial or economic viabil- true for important aspects of participation, sus- ity, technical soundness, and environmental tainability, and replicability. One-third of the sustainability, Second, interviews with U.S. am- visited projects had low overall levels of par- bassadors, AID mission staff, representatives ticipation, even considering the local context; from other public and private development ADF’s decision to fund two of them was ques- agencies, and ADF’s in-country staff led to the tionable. Although ADF-funded projects visited conclusion that the projects visited were typi- were judged likely to attain short-term objec- cal of the country programs in at least five of tives and benefit some people, a number raised the six countries visited. In the sixth country, questions regarding the overall impact and Kenya, the 2 projects visited seemed to be per- aspects of longer-term sustainability. Of spe- forming better than all but 1 of the 13 other cial concern to OTA was the portion of agri- ADF-funded projects, based on information in- cultural projects using relatively high-risk tech- cluding ADF’s own evaluations of its projects nologies and the lack of consideration of in Kenya. Third, OTA’S findings parallel and environmental impacts. Only two projects rated confirm many conclusions reached by the low in overall replicability, using a generous authors of ADF’s 1987 evaluations of 10 measure that includes replicability of manage- projects, ment processes. By a more conventional defi- nition, over half of the projects would be diffi- The Foundation has had just 4 years to turn cult to replicate. its legislative mandate into an operational program. ADF faced difficult choices along the Participation, sustainability, and replicabil- way, given the complexity of its mandate and ity are fundamental to ADF’s mandate, mak- the challenges of African grassroots developing weaknesses in these areas a particular con- ment. It has had to balance the distinct and, cern. The need for participatory development at times, apparently contradictory aspects of permeated congressional testimony and debate the mandate in allocating resources (time, during the long process of the Foundation’s in- money, and staff) and setting priorities. The ception and is a recurring theme throughout Foundation’s choices sometimes were influ- the authorizing legislation. Sustainability and enced by external factors such as congressional replicability were implicit in the discussions pressure to quickly obligate funds following its preceding ADF’s establishment. Appreciable own false start, staff and budget limitations, and positive impacts over time and across locations the varied circumstances it faced in each Afri- were expected to be a major outcome of sup- can country. These combined choices are porting grassroots development. Congress codi- reflected in the project results discussed here, fied these expectations by specifying that ADF’s The next chapter presents OTA’S findings on funded efforts contribute to “social and eco- how ADF’s choices have produced both posi- nomic development. ” tive and negative results for its funding pro- The findings regarding the 12 ADF-funded gram. Also, chapter 5 suggests how different projects discussed here appear to be applica- choices may improve ADF’s performance in ble to the Foundation’s larger portfolio. First, relation to its mandate. Chapter 5 OTA's Findings About ADF's Funding Program CONENTS

Page Summary ...... 85 Introduction 85 What’s Working Well ...... 86 Areas for Improvement ...... 87 High Priority Improvements 88 I. ADF’s Relationship With Applicants and Grantees ...... 88 Z. Improved Analysis Before Funding Grants ...... 90 3. Project Monitoring ...... 99 4. Use of African Staff...... 101 5. Plans, Communication, and Coordination at the Country Level...... 103 Lower Priority Improvements ...... l. Timeliness of ADF’s Practices 2. Agreements With African Governments ...... 3. Program Evaluation and Research...... The Cost of Implementing OTA’s Suggestions......

~~Boxes Box 5-1. A Look at the Files: ADF’s Use of Agricultural Technologies~~

~~5-2. Factors in Assessing Agricultural Technology ...... ,0...6 ●~~

~~5-3. A Renewable Resource Decision Tree ...... *****. .~~

~~Table Table Page 5-1. Desk Reviewer’s Assessment of Agricultural Soundness ...... 94 Chapter s OTA's Findings About ADF's Funding Program~~

~~SUMMARY~~

● ADF has a committed staff with consider- of ADF’s African staff in project identifi- able African experience and has contracted cation, approval, and monitoring; and with qualified Africans to help carry out its —increase communication with other devel- program. It has supported the growth of opment organizations, especially those that grassroots leadership and organizational ca- assist similar recipients, in the countries pacity and the majority of the projects it has where ADF has programs. The Foundation funded are agricultural projects. should begin to develop country strategies, identifying its niche in each country. ● A number of high priority changes would improve ADF’s ability to meet its mandate: ● A number of lower priority but important —revise and clarify the roles of staff in their changes also would contribute to ADF’s ef- working relationships with applicants and fectiveness: grantees; —streamline the project approval process —improve ADF’s social, organizational, tech- and reduce unnecessary delays, nical, environmental, and economic anal- —conclude agreements with African govern- ysis and facilitate better planning by ments where appropriate, and applicants during the project approval —address issues regarding the scope of process; ADF’s current portfolio of funded projects, —improve communication with project man- e.g., consider funding a more balanced mix agers and be a more active facilitator to of social and economic development activ- assist them identify problems and re- ities and projects, and linking research and sources during project implementation; funding programs more closely. —progressively enhance the responsibilities

~~INTRODUCTION~~

The project findings presented in chapter 4 Although one function of OTA’S assessment are an important starting point for looking at was to provide a snaphot of ADF’s current pro- ADF’s program in detail. This chapter inte- gram, a more important goal was to identify grates that information on ADF-funded projects ways that ADF could improve its program. The with information gained from interviews with emphasis of this chapter, then, is on areas ADF staff in Washington and Africa, the re- where ADF could enhance its ability to meet view of ADF’s Washington files, recent ADF its congressional mandate. However, a discus- evaluations of 10 projects, and meetings with sion of possible improvements in ADF’s fund- other donors and technical assistance pro- ing program is best placed in the context of viders, researchers, and African officials. what the Foundation is doing well.

~~85 WHAT’S WORKIN6 WELL~~

ADF has a strongly committed staff with considerable African experience. Most of the Washington-based staff have lived and worked in Africa, typically as Peace Corps Volunteers or staff and, thus, know something of the local cultures and languages in at least one African country. In addition, ADF is selecting qualified Africans to be Regional Liaison Officers (RLO), Country Resource Facilitators (CRF), and technical consultants to support its program. Most significantly, relative to its mandate, ADF-funded projects have enhanced grassroots leadership and the capacity of funded organizations to manage their own activities. The Foundation makes a laudable effort to allow control of the project to remain in the hands of funded groups. For example, ADF disburses money directly to African organizations, which manage their own funds. In most cases, ADF allows the groups to choose their own techni- Photo credit: ADF/Tom Katus cal assistance for project design and during im- Paul Maina, shown examining seedlings with farmers, plementation. Three groups have used ADF- directs the Farming Systems Kenya (FSK) project but funded planning grants to design their projects. he has shared FSK’S experience with additional Generally, project leaders interviewed by OTA ADF-funded organizations. said they had cordial relations with ADF. ing funding for revised activities or costs and The Foundation provided helpful support and extending the grant period, assisted several suggestions while some of the 12 visited groups projects. In at least one case, ADF used its sim- were developing their proposals: ADF awarded plified procedures for approving amendments a planning grant to the Dakoro project in Ni- under $25,000. ger, suggested that participants provide labor at NGK in Kenya, and wrote or helped write OTA found some additional examples of help- proposals based on suggestions of the group ful actions by ADF while monitoring grants. in the projects from southern Africa. Also, ADF Concerns about financial accountability and asked the director of a successful agricultural reporting, including sending outside consul- project, Farming Systems Kenya, to advise tants to check on use of ADF funds, resulted another project being developed in Morogoro, in improved recordkeeping and bookkeeping Tanzania. in several projects. ADF follow-up on the role of technical assistance helped a male advisor Usually, the Foundation has been flexible and responsive to changes suggested by project provide more participatory help to a group of female participants at the Boiteko project in leaders during project design and implemen- Botswana. Visits by the ADF African Country tation. In Ross Bethio in Senegal, for example, Resource Facilitator helped improve relations ADF allowed project managers to switch to new with local officials in the Dakoro project in providers of technical assistance and to differ- Niger. ent models for pumps and the project vehicle after signing the Grant Agreement. ADF’s flex- The high proportion of agricultural projects ibility in allowing grant amendments, increas- in ADF’s portfolio is appropriate given the per- 87 centage of the African population engaged in search by African development professionals agriculture. The focus on increasing food pro- is different from and more flexible than most duction and rural incomes is consistent with other research funding programs; the recipi- the goals of many African national development ents need not be affiliated with an African gov- plans and other U.S. development assistance ernment agency or university or, during their programs. Using the simple yardstick of meet- research, with an American university. ing stated objectives, OTA’S team members felt In addition, ADF has made an effort to spread that the performance of ADF-funded projects its work through publications such as Advance, is at least equal to that of most funding pro- Beyond Relief and the Assessment by Devel- grams in Africa. opment Journalists. It has taken the need for The Foundation has begun a promising evalu- good congressional relations seriously. ADF ation process by contracting African profes- has established and maintained good relations sionals to conduct evaluations of 10 projects with many African government officials, on na- and by sponsoring the first evaluation confer- tional and local levels, and with African am- ence of project managers. Its funding of re- bassadors in Washington.

~~AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT~~

This assessment also identified significant own internal assessments of its funding pro- areas for improvement. Overall, OTA deter- gram and portfolio. mined that ADF could be making better decisions about what projects to fund, and that ADF Each of the following sections identifies ac- staff often has ineffective contact and commu- tions ADF should take and suggests ways that nication with applicants and grantees and could they can be accomplished. Also, a variety of better support their self-help efforts. Recurring additional ideas are provided to supplement the problems are identified in the findings that fol- initial suggestions. The suggestions are drawn low, but each is not applicable to all projects, from the experiences of a variety of private and or to the same degree, or equally relevant to official development assistance programs. all countries where the Foundation has pro- Much of this experience is relevant to ADF but grams. Of necessity, the findings and the sug- the Foundation has a unique mandate that differs from other official U.S. development gestions for dealing with them often overlap. assistance organizations. Fulfilling its mandate should include learning lessons from others and The areas identified for improvement are applying them creatively. Also, ADF should be listed in two groups: the first five are of high- able to suggest additional ways to meet the con- est priority and reflect a broad consensus cerns discussed. among the OTA assessment’s participants. Staff The analysis in this chapter is based largely roles in relation to applicants and grantees, on a late 1987 “snapshot” image of ADF’s pro- project approval and monitoring practices, and gram, which continues to evolve. ADF has in- reponsibilities of African staff were most com- dicated it is aware of and in the process of ad- monly cited as areas needing improvement. dressing many of these issues. Considerations about country-level communication and planning, also included in the first Every suggestion carries a price tag in time group, can help improve project selection and or money. In some cases, suggestions would follow-up. The second group includes lower pri- add to ADF’s non-grant costs and to the already ority issues, such as the need to reduce the aver- long grant approval process. In other cases, age time taken for project approval and start these suggestions could make better and more up, reach agreements with African govern- timely use of existing resources. Such consider- ments where appropriate, and increase ADF’s ations are noted below. 88

High Priority Improvements found as many cases of inappropriate interven- tions with negative consequences and poor 1. ADF's Relationship With Applicants and follow-up on good recommendations. Granteess ADF made major changes in project design Finding: Too often ADF has had an ineffective in several cases without significant input from relationship with applicants and grantees. participants. In each of these cases, ADF had Often ADF is too passive, but at times it is some basis for making the changes and the too involved. In the former case, potential to project leaders formally accepted the changes assist the group’s development is neglected. by signing the grant agreement. But the altera- In the latter, the self-help process may be tions hurt the project’s ability to meet ADF’s bypassed inappropriately. The resulting goals to foster local participation in self-help inadequate information, insufficient analy- efforts. sis, and inappropriate follow-up action has limited the degree to which the Foundation’s For example, in a project in Senegal, ADF funded projects are meeting ADF’s mandate. removed the participants’ highest priority— cereal banks—from Union Kaoural’s original Discussion.— ADF often takes a passive, proposal and dropped another element—phar- hands-off approach to its applicants and gran- macies—in one-half of the villages. Union tees. As a result, the Foundation’s working rela- leaders continue to disagree with the consul- tionships are often less effective than they could tant’s findings that these two priorities would be. This approach is in part the outgrowth of duplicate existing services. ADF’s decision was a valid rejection of other approaches which cited by the Union’s leadership as one factor deny participants control; it is also due to an that increased tensions among its members; implicit and debatable assumption that the lack ultimately a majority of the member groups left of capital is the only constraint to rural devel- the association. opment. And it is the outcome of logistical limitations imposed by distance. One major con- In another case, ADF compromised with lo- cern is ADF’s handling of the approval process. cal government officials who insisted on sub- Often ADF is too accepting of proposals, in part stantial changes to the project proposed by a because it too strictly interprets its mandate to herders group in Niger. Placed in an awkward support self-help projects designed by African position by mistakenly bypassing these officials groups. ADF assigns priority to local control, earlier, ADF agreed to several unnecessary assuming that local participation accompanies project modifications and to placing an inap- it. This focus on local control also leads them propriate degree of control in the hands of these to doubt the need for technical expertise on staff officials. ADF accepted a budget for technical (8). However, this lack of balance in ADF’s ap- assistance prepared by the officials which in- proach works against its fulfillment of its man- cluded payments for services that already were date to foster participation and support self-help included in their government job descriptions. efforts. Project leaders and participants were unaware of these provisions and expressed disagreement In other cases, ADF has not hesitated to sug- after details of the technical assistance budget gest and require changes in project design. This (which represented at least 20 percent of the inconsistency causes some confusion among total project budget) were described.’ ADF staff and its grantees about ADF’s role in relation to project design and implementation, 2ADF had a different understanding than local officials in Although some efforts have been taken to clar- Dakoro regarding payments to the government technicians. ify and explain ADF’s expectations, more needs ADF’s understanding was that the technician would be removed 1 from the government payroll during project implementation. to be done. OTA teams found instances where Since the departure of the OTA team the government techni- ADF provided helpful advice, but they also cian has been transferred and ADF reports that a private technician has been identified to fill that position. ‘Workshops held in Togo and Zimbabwe in early 1988, with OTA’S concerns regarding government involvement during sessions for applicants on how to prepare a proposal for ADF the purchase and distribution of livestock to participants have and for grantees on ADF’s monitoring procedures, are a step been lessened with more active involvement of ADF’s Niger staff in this direction. member during those operations. 89

Inappropriate design changes were made in log with applicants, helping ensure that vari- other cases in response to justifiable ADF con- ous options have been considered. It assumes cerns. For example, in the Dagnare project in that leaders of local organizations are capable Niger, an artificial organization was established of analyzing their needs and selecting among of groups with little previous organizational options if provided with adequate information. connection but including poorer farmers to Another staff responsibility would be to evalu- overcome ADF’s reservations about the income ate critically the appropriateness of ADF’s fund- level of the original applicants. ing of the project relative to the various aspects of its mandate and the Foundation’s accounta- Sometimes good recommendations to deal bility as a publicly-funded institution. This en- with valid ADF concerns were not followed tails obtaining independent verification of the through effectively. The Kikatiti project in Tan- information received from project leaders, zania offers several examples: ADF put conditions on the grant requiring that a maintenance ADF should also revise its approach to project plan for the water system be developed and that monitoring. The Foundation should develop a a Tanzanian firm audit the village treasurer’s clearer policy regarding staff responsibilities, books before funds were disbursed. ADF also including guidelines about when and how to be- recommended that the group receive training come involved that are consistent with the en- and technical assistance from two related Ken- tirety of its mandate and its responsibility as yan projects. But a year later the maintenance a funder. plan bore little relationship to the actual costs In this process, the Foundation should review of maintaining the system, parts of it were not and revise job descriptions for the Foundation feasible, and the proposed users’ fee was not Representatives, the Regional Liaison Officers, accepted by the beneficiaries. ADF disbursed and the Country Resource Facilitators to reflect grant funds to the Malihai Arusha organization more conscious roles as facilitators and evalu- based on an audit showing village books in ar- ators. Also, ADF should determine and discuss rears for 13 months, but did not require a timeta- with potential grantees the nature of their rela- ble for turning over the management of project tionship early on, for example, agreeing how funds to the community which would have to actively ADF will be involved during the ap- maintain the system. Project leaders did not at- proval and implementation periods. This rela- tend the planned training at the Greenbelt tionship should be flexible and renegotiable Movement headquarters in Nairobi nor was based on periodic review. some recommended technical assistance provided. Other ways that ADF could examine the implications of all aspects of its mandate for staff Suggestions for Improvement.—Because of responsibilities include: these problems, ADF should reconsider the im- ● plications of the various aspects of its mandate hold a staff retreat to discuss the relation- concerning its relationships with applicants and ship between the various components of grantees. In particular, ADF should better bal- ADF’s mandate and revised staff roles in ance the various parts of its mandate. For ex- relation to applicants and grantees, ● ample, elements of participation (in addition examine how other organizations with sim- to local control) and contributions to social and ilar funding programs work out the poten- economic development should be addressed tial conflicts between responsibility as a more effectively in those relationships. To do funder for ensuring that money is well this the Foundation will need to revise the spent and responsibility to grantees to sup- responsibilities of its staff in project approval port their control of their own projects, and ● and monitoring. invite organizations, such as the Council on Foundations or the Ford Foundation, Although specific relationships should ac- to provide staff training on reviewing and commodate each situation, one staff role dur- monitoring grants, emphasizing methods ing approval would be that of facilitator. This appropriate to the evolving relationships would entail informed, active, and sensitive dia- between ADF and its grantees. 90

2. Improved Analysis Before Funding Also, ADF could: Grants ● use planning grants more extensively to en- Finding: ADF’s pre-funding analysis of project able funded groups to take part in pre-grant proposals is often inadequate in one or more analysis and improve preparation of their of several critical areas: the social-political projects, context, organizational factors, technologi- ● review the adequacy of the Grant Appli- cal choices, environmental implications, and cation Form, Project Approval Checklist, economic constraints and opportunities. Rating Sheet, and the Project Assessment Discussion. —ADF has neglected some impor- Memo, and tant elements in pre-funding analysis, in part ● study and adapt the pre-funding analysis because of a lack of financial and staff re- methods used by other funders with simi- sources. Also, its reluctance to engage appli- lar mandates. cants in dialog and one-sided emphasis on local centrol often have discouraged more effective pre-approval analysis. The resulting Finding: Critical elements of participation, such lack of information and adequate analysis has as participants’ involvement in decisionmak- led to funding at least some projects whose abil- ing and their support for project activities, ity to meet their own objectives and ADF’s goals as well as access to projects by women, mi- is problematic. nority groups, and poor people often are not sufficiently addressed in ADF’s pre-funding Every ADF-funded project does not have aII of the weaknesses discussed here, nor do they analysis. OTA’S review of ADF’s funding pro- exist in the same degree in every instance. gram indicates that it is only partially ful- Therefore, the suggestions should be applied filling its congressional mandate to foster the on a case-by-case basis. The ability to select participation of poor people in their own de- appropriate approaches for each funded project velopment. is one that every successful funder needs and ADF needs to strengthen its skills in this area. Discussion.— ADF’s emphasis on local control has not been supplemented with sufficient Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF should analysis of these and other issues relating to improve pre-funding analysis, stressing simple participation. Key data are not collected and, and inexpensive methods of gathering and an- therefore, cannot be included in ADF’s ongo- alyzing data. This analysis then needs to be bet- ing evaluation of its work. For example, ADF ter incorporated into funding decisions. has made little attempt to disaggregate data col- To accomplish this better pre-approval anal- lection to reflect the participation of significant ysis, the Foundation should make better use of subgroups, particularly women, in its projects. its existing Project Approval Guidelines, Rat- ing Sheet, and the Project Assessment Memo Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- (See ch. 3). For example, the Foundation Rep- tion should more carefully analyze participants’ resentatives and field staff should provide bet- support for, access to, and decisionmaking in ter supporting documentation for major or the proposed activities and in organizations problematic aspects of a project. Also, staff seeking funding. Also, ADF should encourage should spend more time (e.g., 3 days) in the field improved participation in all projects based on prior to presenting a proposal to ADF’s Project this analysis. Review Committee, meeting with prospective To make these changes, ADF should disaggre- project leaders and participants separately and gate its data collection regarding project par- verifying the information received from appli- ticipants, decisionmakers, and beneficiaries by cants with independent experts. In addition, gender, ethnic group, and economic status.’ staff should receive training in analytical meth- Also, ADF should establish standards for re- ods such as rapid rural appraisal so that they 3 can quickly obtain the most needed infor- ADF plans to collect this data in its computerized informa- mation. tion system beginning in 1988. —

91 jecting proposals on the basis of a lack of par- were also a problem in two other projects ticipation; its standards should be linked to (Dakoro, Niger; Union Kaoural, Senegal). ADF community norms. ADF should also track did not seem to identify the extent of the prob- changes in participation during its monitoring lem or incorporate it in funding decisions. process, The lack of in-depth knowledge about the The Foundation could use these methods to funded groups could be a factor in the high implement this suggestion: proportion of intermediary group projects in ● revise the grant application form so that which participation is low. For example, sev- applicants themselves provide disag- eral of the intermediary organizations visited gregated information about project leaders, had difficulty working with subgroups (AFC, participants, and the community, and Malihai); had this been identified as a problem ● hold workshops for project leaders to de- early on, some provision could have been velop ways to encourage participation. agreed on to assist the intermediary organization, Knowledge about the larger organizations’ Finding: ADF’s pre-approval analysis of appli- track record, stage of development, experience cant organizations is often weak, especially with the proposed activity and local groups, and regarding their social-political context, stage other sources of funding are critical in making of development and, in the case of intermedi- appropriate decisions regarding the timing and ary organizations, their relationship with lo- level of funding. Without such knowledge, de- cal groups. As a result, ADF sometimes termining the best level of interaction with a makes inappropriate funding decisions. grantee during project planning and implementation is difficult. Discussion. —ADF needs better information regarding organizational history, strengths, Finally, since each of the 12 organizations weaknesses, and local context of applicant orga- visited had received outside funds, more con- nizations. Lack of knowledge of local realities sideration of the relationship of the ADF grant in some cases led ADF to accept problematic to the work supported by other funders and the aspects of proposals without question. For ex- rate of growth of the organization would have ample, in the Ross Bethio project in Senegal been important. ADF grants need to be con- ADF accepted farmers’ assertions of their land sidered in relation to each other as well, For claims and was unaware of the existence or ve- example, in Senegal ADF gave one small com- hemence of the rival claim. Had it been better munity (5 kilometers from Union Kaoural’s informed, ADF could have encouraged medi- headquarters) a grant of $80,000 at the same ation or, like the Ford Foundation, decided not time it awarded Union Kaoural a $106,000 grant to fund the group at that time. for similar activities in 25 communities in the area. Tension among villages increased as a re- While establishing a working relationship sult. Funding an activity without considering with local government officials is the respon- its impact on other development efforts in the sibility of the applicant, ADF can play a broker locale may inadvertently undermine wider role and verify that an acceptable relationship efforts. has been established prior to project approval. This can bring increased access to resources Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- needed by the project. For example, local water tion should improve its analysis of organiza- officials designed and supervised the construc- tions’ strengths and weaknesses and the likely tion of the NGK water system in Kenya. But impact of the funded activity on them before in Kikatiti, Tanzania, because such a relation- approving grants. This involves analyzing the ship could not be worked out, ADF justifiably social and political setting in which the orga- funded a private contractor, leaving local offi- nization works, including its relationship with cials without an investment in maintaining the local officials, funders, other development ef- system. Poor relationships with local officials forts, and local groups. Also, ADF should in-

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 4 92 volve prospective grantee organizations in pre- organizations often is inadequate, resulting funding analysis, which would help build in- in decisions to fund some projects with ques- stitutions, an important aspect of ADF’s tionable technical soundness and, often, mandate. problematic environmental sustainability. Also, ADF’s approach has not worked to ex- To better understand organizations’ strengths pand the choices of technologies available to and weaknesses, the Foundation should potential grantees. differentiate between intermediary organizations and grassroots groups in its pre-funding Discussion.—ADF’s project approval process analysis, modify its current forms to reflect this inadequately provides for verifying the tech- distinction, and obtain information about their nical soundness of proposals (box 5-I; table 5- stage of development and future plans. Also, 1). Potential problems and negative evidence ADF should contact other funders of prospec- are rarely identified in appraisal documents. tive grantees more consistently to assess the Foundation staff currently lack sufficient tech- group’s track record, its access to other re- nical skills for some of this analysis. Generally, sources, and the relationship of the new grant ADF has not facilitated the use of alternative to ones already funded or proposed. technologies nor has its funding program ad- In addition, ADF could: vanced the development of improved indigenous technologies. While several ADF-funded ● use planning grants to build institutional groups gained improved access to technical in- capacity, especially to increase grantees’ formation as a result of ADF’s approval proc- management and technical skills and the ess, such cases are in the minority. Some ex- ability of intermediary organizations to amples of the consequences of insufficient work with local community groups, technical analysis include: unrealistic well- ● provide ADF’s African staff with small repair plans (Dakoro, Niger), overly optimistic budgets to assist applicants with training production projections (Union Kaoural, Sene- (e.g., for bookkeeping, management) as gal), overlooked environmental degradation needs become apparent, (Tutume, Botswana), and unknown capacity of ● consider disbursing funding to train proj- water source (NGK, Kenya). ect managers prior to funding other aspects of project activities, such as providing Many agricultural technologies that ADF equipment and materials, and funds are those with a poor track record in ● consider increasing funding for training Africa, e.g., irrigation, rural water supply, ru- components of grants where appropriate. ral credit, and tractor-hire programs. This provides ADF an opportunity to demonstrate the To foster institutional capacity, ADF could effectiveness of the self-help approach where support steady growth of an organization as others have failed but it also adds to the bur- opposed to supporting overly ambitious short- den of verifying feasibility. Nine of the projects term plans. In some of the projects reviewed visited used relatively high-risk technologies. by OTA, the ADF grant more than doubled the Much current research questions the sustaina- organization’s budget. The Foundation could bility of higher-risk technologies. OTA teams, consider the applicant’s experience managing after conducting interviews with local research- increasing amounts of funds, and not award ers and other experts, judged that technology large grants to organizations without adequate choices were probably appropriate in 11 of the experience. It could use a series of increasing 12 projects, but were concerned that in most grants to help build capacity gradually. Also, cases ADF apparently had not attempted to con- ADF could review the impacts of its current firm whether or not they were appropriate. practice of disbursing the majority of its funds More appropriate technologies might have been early in the grant period. available but ADF had not asked project man- Finding: Pre-funding analysis of technical and agers if they considered other options, nor pro- environmental factors by ADF and applicant vided information on low-cost technologies ——

~~Box 5-1.—A Look at the Files: ADF’s Use of Agricultural Technologies OTA examined 27 ADF project files in depth and an additional 30 less intensively to evaluate~~

the types of technologies used in ADF-funded projects and to determine the technical and economic soundness of these projects. Certain findings Were positive: project documentation shows consistent improvement over time, the Foundation uses an excellent checklist for approving projects, and ADF’s senior management recognizes and is willing to correct Weaknesses in technical staffing. Other, serious concerns remain. No rigorous analytical framework is applied consistently to assess a project’s technical coher- ence and feasibility and economic soundness, sustainability, and replicability (table 5-I). The qualitative application of the approval checklist allows criteria to be met Without providing supporting data or analysis. The generally poor performance of ADF-funded irrigation projects in Kenya and Mali, documented in ADF evaluations, demonstrates ADF’s lack of understanding of technical factors that can make or break a project. Apparently, ADF has not fully learned the lessons of these early problems and the Foundation continues to give too little priority to ensuring technical soundness. The files, for example, do not address explicitly the complex factors that determine whether tractors make technical sense. Yet one-third of ADF’s agricultural projects include support for tractors. Also: ● Many ADF-funded projects include multiple-sectors but the combinations sometimes are not the most advantageous. For example, irrigation projects also could introduce fertilizer and improved seeds, but most apparently do not. ADF could support more integrated cropllivestock systems, a particularly appropriate type of multiple-sector activity. But since this work is very demanding of technical and managerial resources, it is often advisable to pursue single sector projects or sequence sectors over time. • Technical assistance is used infrequently during project preparation, although it is more common during implementation. • Production and marketing activities dominate ADF’s portfolio. Natural resource-related activities play a relatively minor role in ADF’s portfolio (only 10 percent of projects) relative to the magnitude of environmental problems in Africa where agricultural intensification is increasing pressures on the resource base. Some of these problems can be attributed to the ADF staff’s lack of training and experience in the key technical areas of a majority of ADF agricultural projects: agronomy, crop and livestock science, agricultural engineering, and hydrology. Senior management notes that budget limitations prevent hiring additional technical staff, The Foundation chooses to hire generalists with community development and cross-cultural experience for the Representative positions and has recently hired part-time in-country staff with technical skills. OTA’S examination of ADF’s files shows clearly that ADF does not adequately increase grantees’ access to improved technical advice.

~~SOURCE: Peter J. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987.~~

blending indigenous and outside approaches Some ADF staff resist improving in-house in new ways. technical capacity. They are mistakenly concerned: Other evaluators looking at different ADF projects came to the same or even stronger con- .,, that emphasis in key design and implemen- clusions. The ADF team evaluating five West tation issues would shift away from local Africa projects recommended that “no project “responsibilization’ and capacity building— should be financed” until the applicant con- to which they give highest priority among ducts a feasibility study, addresses the prob- project objectives—toward technical feasibility lems identified, and has the revised plan ap- which they appear to associate with a top-down imposition of foreign expertise and loss of lo- proved by an ADF expert consultant.’ cal control. . . . this is a false dichotomy which —..— 4Abdoulaye Djegal, “A Report on the Evaluation of Five ADF can be solved through more imaginative ap- Projects in West Africa,” ADF, July 1987, p. 26 (Dalakana Project), proaches. , . . if done properly, solid technical and pp. 27-28 (Narena Project). input to assess project feasibility and to refine 94

~~Table 5-1 .—Desk Reviewer’s Assessment of Agricultural Projecta Soundness~~

Percent of Projects Uncertain/ Adequate/ Inadequate/ Not lack feasible infeasible done information A. 12 projects with major irrigation component 1. Quality of technical assessment ...... — 58 — 42 2. Use of technical assistance in performing assessment ...... — 25 42 33 3. Desk reviewer’s assessment of technical feasibility...... 25 — — 75 4. Economic cost/benefit analysis done ...... — 8 92 — 5. Economic sustainability ...... 25 17 — 58 6. Environmental sustainability ...... 42 — — 58 B. 5 projects with major tractor component 1. Quality of technical assessment ...... — 60 — 40 2. Use of technical assistance in performing assessment . . — 20 — 80 3. Desk reviewer’s assessment of technical feasibility...... 20 — — 80 4. Economic cost/benefit analysis done ...... — 20 80 — 5. Economic sustainability ...... 20 40 — 40 6. Environmental sustainability ...... — — — 100 C. 8 projects with major seed/fertilizer component 1. Quality of technical assessment ...... — 50 — 50 2. Use of technical assistance in performing assessment ...... — 13 25 62 3. Desk reviewer’s assessment of technical feasibility...... 25 13 — 62 4. Economic cost/benefit analysis done ...... — 12 88 — 5. Economic sustainability ...... 25 38 — 38 6. Environmental sustainability ...... 50 — — 50 aBaSed On 25 projects reviewed in depth SOURCE” Peter J. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987

elements in design do not contradict the foster- striking in a continent where the limits of pro- ing of local competence and confidence. Rather duction systems make such concerns of criti- 5 it can contribute directly to it. cal importance. Potential negative impacts on the environment, and measures to mitigate As another team of ADF’s evaluators of a fail- them, have not been identified early enough in ing project in Kenya said: a number of ADF projects. For example, ADF’s Projects should have feasibility studies car- end-of-project evaluation of NGK in Kenya ried out before they are funded to determine noted that irrigation could lead to soil erosion. their viability. Unsuccessful projects tend to The suggested mitigating measures would have discourage people, lower their morale, and kill been easier to implement if this study had been their initiative. They also lose confidence in the conducted before the construction of the water management and the sponsor and it becomes system began. Projects including tractor-hire difficult to motivate them again for similar G and irrigation schemes raise red flags for those activities. with experience in conservation of renewable The Foundation’s lack of attention to issues resources. Too often, ADF has failed to recog- of environmental sustainability and risk are nize such flags.

SPeter J. Matlon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” contractor Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF should report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Au- perform sufficient technical analysis to be rea- gust 1987, pp. 18-19, and 23. sonably certain that proposed technologies are ‘Hilda Kohnhiriwa, et al. “KWAHO/Taita Integrated Rural Community Water Project (TIRCOWAP), Project Evaluation Re- workable and sustainable. Also, ADF should en- port,” ADF, July 1987, p. 25. courage applicants to consider a range of tech- 95

OTA is not recommending expensive AID-type feasibility studies, but brief, independent verification by a qualified professional, usually available in-country. Outside verification is needed even if the applicant organization has some technical expertise. If an applicant shows sufficient promise, but insufficient planning, a small planning grant would enable them to obtain technical or other help needed to plan their project adequately or test various approaches on a small scale. The plan would then be reviewed by ADF or a local contractor with relevant expertise. The Foundation can improve its technical analysis of project proposals by increasing the staff’s capability for making technically sound funding decisions, especially Foundation Rep- resentatives. ADF should initiate a training program to familiarize the Representatives and the Africa-based staff with a broader range of technologies, including “low-resource” and other methods that build from local resources and skills. ADF staff needs additional skills in issues related to technical and economic feasibility and training in sharpening community develop- Photo credit: OTA/George Scharffenberger ment skills. The addition of African Country Improved pre-funding analysis would have identified Resource Facilitators to provide technical assis- technical problems in the plans to repair this well at tance is a step in the right direction, although Bundu Eggo, Niger. the experience and skills of the people selected should reflect the types of projects funded if nologies and suggest alternatives where appro- they are to best fulfill their responsibilities. priate. In this process, ADF should identify the potential environmental effects of project activ- Additional training could be offered to ex- ities and encourage applicants to minimize neg- isting staff in a number of substantive areas, ative effects and build on positive changes. ADF depending on the priority needs of the individ- should devise various ways to ensure that suffi- ual. ADF could invite technical experts to pro- cient analysis is done by applicants themselves. vide workshops to its staff, or ADF could send staff members elsewhere for training. The ADF should develop a variety of ways to ver- Foundation could identify institutions in Africa ify technical soundness and decide which which provide training in rural organizing or would be appropriate for each project. For ex- community development and attend the train- ample, ADF could ask applicants to obtain writ- ing alongside community leaders, or they might ten verification from local researchers or ex- benefit from attending intensive 7 to 10 day perts testifying to project soundness and trainings at one of the community organizing detailing what additional planning may be schools in the United States, for example. needed. ADF staff should itself obtain such verification during the pre-approval process. Or ADF staff may lack qualifications necessary ADF could hire in-country consultants to check to appraise the work of technical consultants on project plans, spending a day or two on site. for some projects, even with additional training. Some of OTA’S contractors felt this could sibility to suggest options to grantees and be corrected with contracts for activity-specific provide ADF with a critical analysis of the technical skills. Others felt that ADF needs project plans. Revised work statements and ori- more staff with technical backgrounds to de- entation sessions could accomplish this. ADF fine and assess the work of technical contrac- could develop guidelines for what should be tors and who could be trained in participatory included in these analyses (box 5-2) and for the community development if needed. qualifications of persons conducting them. The analysis suggested is to verify that applicants’ At the same time, ADF should emphasize to plans are adequate and sound, and identify its technical consultants and providers of tech- where improvements are needed. It is not a sub- nical assistance that, although local decision- stitute for the applicants’ own planning. The making is to be respected, they have the respon- approach should stress dialog among equals

Box 5-Z.—Factors in Assessing Agricultural Technology A complex set of factors determine the success of agricultural projects. Irrigation, tractor, and seed/fertilizer projects are unlikely to have their intended results if these factors are neglected. ADF and its funded groups need to take them into account for their activities to be sustainable. Expensive or elaborate studies are not needed. Instead, ADF and applicants should seek a brief independent review, i.e., external professional verification that the proposed project plans adequately account for the following factors. ADF might award a planning grant if further analysis is warranted, While problems in some areas could be resolved at once, others might require monitoring and project changes throughout the grant period. (1) Irrigation project components:

● hydrological parameters, ● crop mix and extent of complementary input use, • expected input levels and yield response, ● rules for water access and water management procedures, ● water quality, drainage, and possibility of long-term salt build-up, ● labor conflicts with rainfed activities, • farmers’ familiarity with irrigated agriculture, and ● market depth, factor and output prices, and price impacts of the project. (2) Tractor project components: ● initial capital costs without subsidies (non-replicable attribute), ● access to fuel, spare parts, maintenance, ● field size distributions, fragmentation, and dispersion, ● soil types and crop mix (yield response), ● rules determining access to tractor services, ● density and quality of secondary roads, ● slope and topography, and ● soil erodibility and rainfall intensity. (3) Seed/fertilizer project components:

● availability of improved cultivars—their input, response and yield stability (source of performance information: research station results or on-farm tests?), ● types and amounts of fertilizers, ● crop/fertilizer price ratios, and ● long-term effects of fertilizer use,

~~SOURCE: Peter j. MatIon, “Consultant’s Report to OTA, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987, 97~~

and two-way communication between ADF’s ● identify several in-country technical ex- contractors and project managers. The scope perts to review project proposals in their of work could include recommendations to im- individual areas of expertise, e.g., irriga- prove the project activity and an assessment tion, agronomy, animal science, of the degree to which these recommendations ● identify several U. S,-based technical ex- are acceptable to participants. ADF could also perts who could provide a technical review provide training in community development of proposals, and methods for these experts, stressing the need to include the group in all stages of their work. ● require that the Project Assessment Memo include information on technical analysis, ADF could use additional means to improve whether or not the applicant has explored technical analysis, such as: other technology options, tried a small pi- . implement streamlined ways of making de- lot project, knows of others who have con- cision regarding environmental impact, ducted similar activities; and whether or e.g., Webter’s decision tree (box 5-3), not a small planning grant is preferable.

Box 5-3.—A Renewable Resource Decision Tree Avoiding resource degradation requires that project-related decisions be made knowledgeably and consciously. A decision tree such as the one below could help ADF and its funded groups ensure that this is the case. 1. Does the proposed activity alter renewable resources? la. If no, resource sustainability is not an issue; make a statement to that effect in project documents, No further action is required on the subject. lb. If yes, go to #2. 2. Determine the extent of planned or expected environmental consequences. Whether changes are “small” or not, depends on the eco- or agro-climatic zone the project site is in. Develop and use simple field guidelines with illustrative criteria such as: ● Normally, total land-clearing less than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) is not severe, provided slopes are gentle (under 10 percent). ● Normally, irrigation schemes less than 5 hectares (12.5 acres) do not have significant adverse consequences, especially if trees and shrubs are planted along drainage canals, roads, etc. ● Water development schemes delivering less than 5 cubic meters of total, additional water per day are sufficiently small not to cause additional stress on other resources. Do these guidelines indicate that the effects of the project are minor? 2a. If yes, ascertain that basic mitigation techniques have been added (if they are not incorporated into the program already). 2b. If no, or if, based on experience with similar projects, other reasons exist to suspect potentially adverse impacts on natural resources, go to #3. 3. Undertake an expanded resource analysis. Elaborate the magnitude of adverse consequences and recommend specific, practical ways to avoid or mitigate problems. For example, suggest that where tractors are introduced, all ground preparation be done along contours (instead of in the fall-line of slopes). Or introduce trees and shrubs along drain ditches and access roads and provide each farm unit with a corner for fruit and food trees in irrigation schemes. Where land clearing is involved, leave strips of natural vegetation: 10 meters wide every 50 or 100 meters of cleared land; if slopes are cleared, these strips should be placed parallel to the contour lines, etc.

~~SOIJR(; E Fred R Weber, “Desk and Offlc.e Re\iew of ADF Actlv!tles Renewable Resnurce Technologies, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Tef hnolu~y Assessment, August 1987 98~~

Finding: Pm-approval economic analysis by ap- would have raised questions about the Dakoro plicants and ADF has been lacking or poor project’s cooperative store (such stores have a for many ADF-funded projects. Therefore, poor track record in the Sahel and previous ADF has funded a number of projects with stores run by the same managers failed); questionable economic and financial viabil- Morogoro’s plan to purchase maize produced ity. by project participants (dropped by project managers as unrealistic by the time of the OTA Discussion.— Income-generating projects visit); and the plans to maintain the NGK and need simple market analyses and business Kikatiti water systems (fundraising plans ap- plans. All projects need plans to cover mainte- proved by project leaders would not meet pro- nance and repair, especially of vehicles and jected costs of maintaining the systems). The waterlirrigation systems, and other recurrent need to include economic and financial analy- costs. Such plans do not exist for a number of sis in proposals was also noted in ADF’s inter- ADF funded projects. Where done, they are nal evaluations of projects in West Africa and often inadequate and ADF had not verified their Kenya. Finally, in making choices among pro- accuracy. spective grantees, the Foundation has not included calculations of benefits and costs per Project documents show little attention to participant or overall economic return. analysis of whether or not project benefits will be sufficient to ensure participants’ continued Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- involvement. ADF does not verify assumptions tion should do more to encourage and help ap- regarding availability of inputs, estimates of plicants do better pm-grant economic planning. recurrent costs and potential market demand, Simultaneously, ADF should do better economic and production and selling price. Considering analysis of project proposals. The methods used the 12 projects visited by OTA, simple eco- should be simple, straightforward, and inex- nomic analysis of key proposal components pensive.

Photo credit: ADF/Tom Katus The products of many ADF-funded projects are sold in markets such as this one in Morogoro, Tanzania. Ensuring that applicants have adequate marketing plans should be a crucial part of ADF’s project approval process. 99

ADF should require applicants to use simple Omissions during monitoring can affect the financial and economic planning appropriate ability of the group to carry out its planned to the project proposal, i.e., simple market anal- project. For example, lack of close monitoring ysis, production plans, and plans for obtain- and dialog with project managers led to confu- ing inputs, maintaining and replacing equip- sion over the role of the intermediary organiza- ment, and providing for recurrent costs. ADF tion in Kikatiti, Tanzania. The Foundation’s dis- could require applicants to submit these plans tance was also at least partially responsible for with their application. The Foundation should lack of follow-upon developing realistic plans independently verify the economic sustainabil- to finance repair and maintenance for Kikati- ity of projects by its own analyses, either by ti’s water system. More seriously, ADF was un- ADF staff or consultants, or others outside of aware of major differences developing between the project. ADF’s evaluation of project finan- the proposal and actual project activities in sev- cial planning should be documented in the eral cases. The most dramatic instance was Project Assessment Memorandum. Also, ADF Ross Bethio, Senegal, where ADF was unaware should explore realistic ways to integrate rough of the conflict over land rights and the fact that estimates of costs and benefits per participant its funds were used to remove Fulani herders and overall economic return into the Founda- from the lands they traditionally used for graz- tion’s funding decisions. ing. In the Union Kaoural project, two-thirds of the recipient groups were changed without Also, the Foundation could consider: ADF’s awareness. ● providing training and technical assistance Generally, systematic follow-up was lacking to project managers to assist them in de- regarding participation in decisionmaking, eco- veloping their economic plans, nomic and financial planning, technical assis- ● providing planning grants or written ma- tance needs, negative environmental impacts, terials, such as how-to guidelines of what and self-evaluation. Many problems and sug- economic plans to include in project gestions identified by ADF evaluators who re- proposals, and ● viewed 10 projects in West Africa and Kenya training. ADF staff in simple economic could have been identified and dealt with earlier analyses, if ADF’s monitoring was stronger, parallel to pre-funding analysis, confusion 3. Project Monitoring about ADF’s monitoring role is due in part to Finding: The way that ADF monitors projects a “hands off” approach, an outcome of ADF’s does not provide enough information for ADF perception of its mandate to maintain local con- to be an effective facilitator during project trol. Determined not to diminish local control implementation. Therefore, ADF misses or foster dependency, ADF has often shunned timely opportunities to assist grantees and the more active role of a facilitator during increase the likelihood of project success. project implementation, opting instead for the Discussion.—All funders find that grant more cautious role of observor. Although ADF modifications must be made as projects are im- has developed a good monitoring checklist, it plemented, especially if pre-planning has been is not completed by ADF staff after reading less than ideal. ADF has shown a high degree progress reports or making site visits. Nor are of flexibility y in some cases in the face of chang- staff required to document information on this ing project circumstances and this should be checklist. continued. However, in other cases, ADF’s lack Lack of funds for staff travel to project sites of information and passivity at critical junc- in Africa at times contributes to inadequate tures let opportunities slip away to assist gran- monitoring. While most projects are visited tees in addressing problems and to reinforce once a year, often it is a quick visit. ADF staff their success. accompany project managers, especially of the 100

intermediary organizations, and have little time In general, ADF should give higher priority to talk privately with participants or outside to monitoring by spending additional time and experts. resources in the field. ADF projects could be visited at least twice a year (at least once by Quarterly progress reports could be an im- the Foundation Representative). Sufficient time portant monitoring tool but the instructions of should be allowed for dialog with project what project managers should include in these managers, local project committees, and par- reports are sketchy and they usually do not con- ticipants as well as for meetings with persons tain critical information. Project information outside of the project to obtain independent flows to Washington too often without the views. The degree and kind of monitoring de- Foundation providing constructive feedback to pends on the needs of each project. For exam- grantees. Many project managers, and at least ple, when serious problems arise, more frequent one African staff member, complained of the meetings could be planned between ADF staff lack of feedback on these reports. The Foun- and project managers. dation’s own evaluation of East African projects found the same need for improved monitoring Also, ADF should continue to develop and and increased feedback. implement its plans for internal and external evaluation of funded projects, recognizing the The Foundation is aware that monitoring can- different purposes and timing of each. Inter- not be done from afar and decided to contract nal evaluation and monitoring procedures are with staff who are closer to the funded groups. primarily designed to help the funded group However, ADF has not optimized their role in learn and to assist in its planning. Thus, such project monitoring. For example, Country Re- evaluation should be conducted by the group source Facilitators have been instructed not to throughout the project cycle. External evalua- become involved in issues related to project tions are primarily for accountability and learn- management and they do not regularly receive 7 ing about project impacts by the donor and copies of quarterly reports. Nor do they have others. They are normally conducted at the end sufficient funds for transportation to visit of projects or midstream in longer projects. projects regularly. Both can be done in participatory ways and re- Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- quire collection of baseline data so that progress tion should increase and improve its project can be checked against the situation before monitoring. At a minimum, this means that project activities began. ADF should spend more time with grantees, The Foundation could also address concerns especially with project participants other than regarding monitoring by: leaders and with non-participants. Also, ADF should make better use of its monitoring check- ● revising its quarterly progress report form list (for example, to review quarterly reports, to clarify what information is needed and document findings of field visits, and suggest reducing the processing time (and steps) follow-up actions) and increase timely feedback in Washington, to project managers. ADF should evaluate the ● organizing workshops for project manag- effectiveness of the technical assistance pro- ers that address common issues such as vided with grant funds. project management and participatory evaluation. a For example, a workshop could help grantees develop ways to col- 7ADF reports that their African staff now receive copies of lect information on socio-economic char- project quarterly reports. ADF staff, at a conference in October acteristics of the people served and on 1987, made a number of additional suggestions about the monitoring system including improving information received in the quarterly reports, use of the computerized management information system to improve follow up, and more frequent visits ‘ADF’s workshops for project managers, held in Togo and Zim- by the Country Resource Facilitators. ADF plans to implement babwe in early 1988, helped explain ADF’s monitoring pro- these suggestions in 1988. cedures. 101

project impacts on yields, the environment, strengthen Africans’ capabilities, another and participants (30,9), and aspect of its mandate. ● studying monitoring systems of other funders Discussion.—An improved project appraisal of community organizations, such as the and monitoring process would be difficult to workshops that the Kellogg Foundation implement without having ADF staff in- sponsors for its overseas grantees, and ex- country. African staff now play primarily an ploring ways to reduce reporting require- administrative role with little analytical or deci- ments when there are several funders of sionmaking responsibility for project approval one project. and monitoring. The terms of the new cooperative agreements with the Country Resource 4. Use of African Staff Facilitators address only some of these issues. Finding: ADF African field staff are underused For example, the current agreements with both in pre-funding analysis of projects and in Regional Liaison Officers and Country Re- project monitoring. As a result, ADF’s source Facilitators emphasize monitoring decisionmaking procedures are slowed, the responsibilities, but do not mention a role in Foundation misses helpful analysis regard- analysis during the approval process. In fact, ing applicants and grantees, and the projects one African staff person understood his respon- miss the benefits of closer facilitation. Also, sibility was to pass proposals to Washington ADF is losing important opportunities to without comment on their merits. ADF staff

Photo credit: ADF/Joe Kuria The Foundation could tap the expertise of its African staff by assigning them greater responsibility. Here, Gilbert Maeda (Country Resource Facilitator for Tanzania) and Tom Katus (Foundation Representative) discuss the Albalbal Water De- velopment Project in northern Tanzania with Maasai project participants. 102 has discussed expansion of the roles of the Re- size of ADF’s program. ADF is already mov- gional Liaison Officers and Country Resource ing to merge the two positions. Also, ADF Facilitators, but current emphasis is placed on would need to increase contract time and sup- familiarizing new staff with ADF. ply African staff with budgets adequate to carry out their greater responsibilities. African field staff could play a key role in working with applicants during development Careful recruitment, selection, and training of their projects and/or in helping ADF weigh of African staff to fill the new country coordi- project proposals. This will require carefully nator positions would be an opportunity to im- balancing responsibilities to two clients: the approve ADF’s analytical abilities. For example, plicants, to whom the field staff could provide the new ADF country coordinators could fur- assistance directly or indirectly, and ADF, to ther develop a roster or talent bank of techni- whom the field staff would provide critical cal consultants and research groups in the evaluations of proposals’ merits. Like staff of country to help ADF review proposals, help any funding organization, they would be ex- applicants develop proposals, and provide on- pected to disclose previous associations with going technical support, monitoring, and evalu- applicants, and in case of conflict of interest, ation. Each could identify an expert agrono- decline to take part in decisions regarding mist, livestock scientist, and irrigation specialist funding. to provide an in-country review of relevant African and American staff would need ad- proposals. While ADF could request these ex- ditional resources for training and transporta- perts to providepv bono services, they should tion to assume these increased responsibilities. be prepared to pay professional rates. Also, Training in working with community groups, Country Resource Facilitators could help bro- techniques for rapid rural appraisal, and spe- ker other support services, including those of cific technical training would be particularly local governments, PVOS, and other funders. helpful. Giving increased responsibility to its The new country coordinators could be given field staff would make ADF a more participa- discretion over a small fund to provide train- tory organization and add another dimension ing or technical assistance to groups, or to as- to ADF’s role of building African institutions. sist ADF in project appraisal. For example, field Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- staff could use these funds for exchange visits tion should progressively increase its African of project managers or to allow recipients to staff’s responsibilities for outreach, project attend conferences. They could also identify identification, assistance to applicants, pre- information relating to technologies used by funding analysis, monitoring, and evaluation. grantees or their other needs and resource In the process, ADF should restructure other centers where this information is available. staff responsibilities, especially those of the ADF could also explore giving the African staff Foundation Representatives, to reflect the in- a greater role in project approval beyond pro- creased responsibilities of African staff. Also, posal analysis. ADF should explore giving its African staff in- As the responsibility of African staff increased responsibilities for project approval, for creases, the responsibilities of the Washington- example, for projects below a specified funding level. based Foundation Representatives would need to be adjusted accordingly. They could, for ex- This will require that ADF revise job descrip- ample, supervise and train field staff, develop tions for staff to reflect new responsibilities and regional funding and training strategies, and make other institutional adjustments. For ex- coordinate the development of country plans. ample, upgrading the Country Resource Facili- The Representatives could provide general tator job description could eliminate the need direction and oversight but leave increased for Regional Liaison Officers, since one field decisionmaking to the country coordinators, staff person per country is sufficient given the for example for small grants. 103

A related issue involves decentralization of looked and opportunities for greater impact funding decisions. Eventually ADF might con- have been lost. sider establishing formal regional offices in While it is common for a new organization Africa. One option would be to move the Foun- to stress its uniqueness and difference from dation Representatives from Washington to the other programs, this “go it alone” approach has field to head up such offices.’ However, such prevented ADF from taking advantage of ex- a major change in ADF’s structure is unwar- periential learning of others committed to ranted at this time because it would be prohibi- similar goals. It has resulted in missed oppor- tively expensive in relation to the size of ADF’s tunities for the Foundation to improve its per- project portfolio. A sufficient number of skilled formance and for ADF to share valuable in- Africans exist to make Africa-based Americans sights with others. unnecessary at the country level. Insufficient communication exists between Another option would be to allow regional ADF and the U.S. embassy and AID in most staff (Foundation Representatives and country countries. In certain circumstances, such as coordinators) to assume larger roles in grant- when a dispute exists between the African and making decisions while the Washington review U.S. governments, it is advantageous for ADF committee’s power was reduced, The Ford to maintain distance from other official U.S. Foundation, for example, allows regional programs. But adopting an arm’s length ap- offices in Africa to make funding decisions be- proach for all countries is not always advanta- low $50,000. All applications are received and geous. Several ambassadors and AID directors acted on at the regional office. Proposals over feel that ADF’s grant size, falling between the this amount require approval in New York, but small grants of the Ambassador’s Self-Help monitoring is done by the regional office. Fund and large AID grants, gives ADF a natural niche in U.S. development assistance. AID S. Plans, Communication, and officials, likewise, consistently mentioned the Coordination at We Country Level lack of communication with ADF, even when Finding: ADF’s inadequate communication and ADF funded a group AID had previously lack of coordination with other private and worked with or was currently funding. AID official development groups limit its ability staff felt that its experience and technical ex- to learn from their experience and help ADF- pertise could be useful to ADF. At least one mis- funded projects obtain additional resources. sion director felt that they would have much to learn from the Foundation, Discussion.—The Foundation has been lax in contacting other donors about prospective Better communication does not mean, how- projects. There has been insufficient commu- ever, a loss of independence. ADF’s legislated nication in Africa between ADF and private mandate and its status as an independent funders, including U.S. and European PVOS, agency not tied to short-term U.S. foreign pol- and between ADF and official U.S. develop- icy objectives make it inappropriate for AID ment efforts such as the Agency for Interna- officials to expect ADF funding to conform to tional Development (AID). Often there is little AID development assistance strategies, such or no interaction even when ADF is funding as those enunciated in the Country Develop- the same African organization or project. As ment Strategy Statements, Nor should AID or a result, critical information has been over- the U.S. Embassy have a role in project approval (13).

‘ADF, like the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), has decided Communication with the Peace Corps is not to establish full regional offices. But IAF Foundation Repre- somewhat better and has been helped because sentatives are responsible for one country (and a number of coun- many ADF staff formerly worked for the Peace tries have more than one IAF representative). ADF Foundation Representatives have responsibilities for three to four countries Corps, including two of the Regional Liaison with active programs (i.e., where ADF has awarded grants). Officers and at Ieast one Country Resource 104

Facilitator, and many staff maintain profes- Some experts feel ADF could best fill gaps in sional ties with their former colleagues. In one U.S. development assistance by emphasizing case visited, a Peace Corps Volunteer was the its complementarities with rather than differ- contact who informed the community about ences from other groups. For example, coop- ADF (the NGK project in Kenya). erating with some private agencies could enable ADF to take advantage of its special Suggestions for Improvement.—ADF should arrangement with U.S. government and Afri- increase communication with other develop- can officials; cooperating with official pro- ment agencies. At a minimum, the Foundation grams could allow ADF to take advantage of should meet with those groups that share fund- its greater flexibility to be an innovator. ing of projects and organizations to discuss plans regarding funding and to determine if col- Improved communication might become col- laboration is appropriate. laboration in some cases. Who to collaborate ADF was established as an independent but with and how would differ from country to complementary organization which should co- country, based on each project’s particular ordinate with other U.S. development assis- needs and the resources of ADF and the other tance activities “to the extent possible” (Sec- donors. tion 504b) and share its learning with others. For example, ADF could meet with the administrator of the Ambassador’s Self-Help Fund (or representatives of the small grants programs of the Canadian government and the European Economic Community) to review portfolios. This might help ADF locate local organizations that have successfully planned and carried out a project with a small amount of outside funds and that are ready for a larger grant that ADF could provide. Or ADF could consider tapping the technical expertise of AID or other private or official donors familiar with similar activities or organizations in the locale of a ADF applicant to verify the potential sustainability of activities proposed by the applicant. ADF could benefit from checking with other donors familiar with the ADF applicant or its proposed activity in the locale to obtain additional sources of information on the project. However, U.S. agencies or other donors should not have any approval authority. AID and ADF might consider cofunding projects at the same time, or AID might fund a project after ADF funding has been completed. This, however, could entail some loss of local control by the funded group. The same constraint might apply even if AID funding were provided indirectly through a PVO. But

Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle the problem of donors exercising too much control over a project is not restricted to official Efforts to promote tractor use have a mixed record in Africa and ADF should learn from other donors’ suc- programs and ultimately the African organiza- cesses and failures with tractor projects. tion must choose which constraints are accept- 105 able. In the case of the women’s credit program tion’s Country Profiles come closest to being of PfP/Kenya, AID’s Women in Development country-specific long-range plans. However, office funded it directly before ADF and AID ADF has not prepared Country Profiles for 16 is continuing to fund it after ADF through of the 19 countries where it has funded projects, another organization, World Education’s Ru- The profiles for Senegal and Tanzania contain ral Enterprise Program, with good chances of basic information available elsewhere and some PfP’s maintaining local control, insightful interpretation (e.g., references to what certain official policies have meant for Also, ADF could consider other ways of in- poor people), but give a fairly superficial anal- creasing coordination: ysis of the context of grassroots development ● compile information on other funders’ pro- efforts. Both profiles were based on interviews grams to refer applicants not eligible or less with African, American, and European repre- suitable for ADF funding to others, sentatives of non-governmental organizations ● explore opportunities to share office space (NGOS), grassroots organizations (not in Sene- and technical resources, including techni- gal), research and training organizations, and cal libraries and resource data bases, with donors. Although both profiles made some im- organizations such as the Peace Corps, in- portant program recommendations (e.g., iden- ternational research programs, and PVOS, tified opportunities for ADF involvement), nei- and ther included preliminary funding priorities ● study the funding processes of other nor proposed an outreach strategy for ADF in donors, especially-those funding similar that country. Nor has there been follow up to kinds of organizations and activities. fill in the gaps. ADF makes little attempt to relate each country’s funding program to its Finding: ADF does not prepare country-specific profile. planning strategies to guide its use of resources and relate its work to the context of Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- other local development efforts. Therefore, tion should develop brief (10-20 page) annual the Foundation’s impact is lessened and it has country plans and use them to guide its fund- yet to find its niche in each country. ing program in each country. These papers should present a profile of the Foundation’s Discussion.—Little evidence exists, despite funding program that year and project its direc- claims, that the Foundation is seeking and find- tion for the next year, e.g., identify priority pro- ing funding opportunities untapped by other gram areas and perhaps geographic areas and donors, ADF’s funding portfolios do not appear types of groups for funding. Also, ADF should to be tailored to each country’s needs and, in attempt to develop a clear niche in each country. some cases, seem to be overly influenced by staff preferences. Outreach and project iden- ADF staff should more carefully identify its tification are haphazard and not well linked to niche in each country and how it can effectively long-range planning. fill it. That niche will be different for each country, since it should be tailored to the needs, op- The Foundation Representatives prepare re- portunities, and government situation of each, gional strategy memos that vary in format and and it should be developed in concert with depth. These internal memos are more like others concerned with grassroots development. work plans containing information on the sta- The rationale for the suggested program focus tus of ADF’s funding program, on particular for the year could include discussion of how grants, travel plans, budget, and selection of ADF’s funding strategy complements those of African staff, In only a few instances do they other donors in the country. These can only identify funding program priorities. emerge after much communication with others Annual country plans are best placed in the in each country. The program areas identified context of long-range planning. The Founda- in the country plan then become the basis for 106

Photo credit: OTA/George Honadle A country strategy should identify a few high priority funding areas to best use scarce resources. In Zimbabwe, for example, ADF funds are helping the national Agricultural Finance Corporation carry out its strategic plan to help small farmers’ groups such as this one in the Pungwe Valley. designing an outreach program and/or select- such as funds to attend workshops, interview ing among a large number of applicant researchers, and visit projects funded by others. proposals. ADF’s African field staff could have major responsibility in developing country plans. The country plans would sharpen and update the general funding goals identified in the Coun- The revised profiles also could identify any try Profiles, where these exist. The country unique social-political characteristics of the plans or strategies could also build on the Coun- country that might affect ADF’s work. For ex- try Profiles by specifying the best overall ap- ample, the OTA team that visited Southern proach or mix of approaches to support local Africa concluded the present approach of ADF development. Of critical importance are deci- to official U.S. programs characterized by lack sions about ADF’s levels of operation (i.e., fund- of contact was appropriate in Zimbabwe, where ing community groups, intermediary organi- the U.S. political presence is not entirely wel- zations, parastatals, individual enterprises, and come, but inappropriate in Botswana, where even the possibility of collaborating with gov- this constraint does not exist. The country pro- ernment programs). files and plans could include a discussion of how ADF can cooperate most advantageously The profiles and plans should identify fund- with local authorities, which must be based on ing gaps without narrowing the focus to a sin- an understanding of the government’s devel- gle sector or issue, which would be inconsist- opment plans. For example, Kenya’s “District ent with ADF’s purpose to support local Focus on Rural Development” presents an op- initiatives. Nor should they be inflexibly applied portunity for ADF to support activities of grass- and prevent ADF from responding to new op- roots groups for which complementary serv- portunities. ices and resources are available at the local level. If ADF decides to continue actively in- Plans for outreach to specific kinds of grass- volving senior staff in the preparation of the roots groups in specific areas of the country revised profiles, it could prepare only one or for certain kinds of activities could be part of two a year. ADF could delegate the prepara- the country strategy, as could be plans for co- tion of the new profiles to Foundation Repre- ordination with other donors and government sentatives and African staff. Also, the Founda- officials. The Foundation could provide its staff tion could benefit from: with a budget (in addition to the allocation for project-related expenses) to carry out activities ● studying the planning processes used by to support the development of the country plan, others. The Ford Foundation’s regional 107

strategies and IAF’s biannual country “re- ther internal processing and preparation for viewlpreview” processes might suggest startup took an average 3.5 months between ideas, ’[) and ADF signing the Agreement and disbursal of ● preparing streamlined profiles, identifying the first check. its particular niche and funding priorities The long time required for project approval, in each country (focusing on the types of start up, and actual transmission of funds neg- information now included in Volume 11 of atively affected projects in nearly half of the the Country Assessment Profiles), with cases visited; two projects lost a year’s produc- help from ADF’s African field staff. tion (Dagnare in Niger, Morogoro in Tanzania). Delays also discouraged participants and un- Lower Priority Improvements dermined support for project leadership in the In addition to the high priority suggestions Dakoro project in Niger; led to a hastily confor improving ADF’s operations, several other structed irrigation system in Ross Bethio, Sene- areas were identified. These include shorten- gal, which may result in technical flaws; and ing the time taken for project approval and start- generally contributed to internal tensions up, completing operating agreements with Afri- within groups. Delays in disbursing ADF funds can governments of countries where ADF has also were identified as a serious problem by funded projects, and directing more attention the ADF team evaluating Kenyan projects, to evaluating ADF’s own funding portfolio and These delays were costly because of currency funding program. devaluations in Botswana and Tanzania and inflation in Zimbabwe and other countries. As 1. Timeliness of ADF's Pratices a result, project costs to the applicants were Finding: An unnecessarily long time passes increased and funding was effectively lowered, between ADF’s receipt of project proposals In at least one case (Boiteko), ADF did not ad- and first allocation of funds to successful just the grant following a currency devaluation applicants. As a result, some project results and thereby the group suffered a loss in the are jeopardized and ADF’s credibility is de- grant’s value. creased. Some delays are outside of ADF’s control. But Discussion.—ADF’s approval process is un- other delays are caused by the inefficient exe- duly long compared to other funders which cution of and/or the many steps in the ADF ap- fund grants of comparable size (e.g., private proval process in Washington and faulty com- foundations, IAF, PVOS). For the 12 visited munication with project managers in Africa. projects, an average of 12.5 months elapsed be- Some delays could be avoided by working more tween the date the proposal was first submitted closely with promising applicants, to ADF and the date the first check was dis- Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- bursed (table 4-I), Within this period, an aver- tion should streamline its project application, age of 5.5 months elapsed between submission review, and approval processes. At a minimum, and approval by the Project Review Commit- ADF should publicize what it does not fund as tee (PRC) and seven months between such ap- a way to decrease the number of ineligible approval and the date the first check was sent. plications received. Then it should improve the Following approval by the PRC, approval is re- application screening process to eliminate the quired by the Board of Directors, followed by applications with the least promise for meet- congressional notification, and then the Grant ing ADF’s mandate early so staff will have more Agreement is sent to Africa for signature. Fur- time to spend working with the more promising candidates. The key is for ADF to develop IoFor an example of applying an IAF country strategy and ra- ways to streamline this process while at the tionale for program priorities, see Bradford Smith, “Why Fund a Day Care Center in Sao Paulo?” Grassroots Development.’ Jour- same time improving its approval and monitor- nal of the Inter-American Foundation, vol. 11, No. 2, 1987. ing practices. Also, the Foundation should con- 108 tinue to identify ways to speed transmission of propriations Committees to simplify notifi- funds to grantees. cation procedures further, ● Better initial data collection and increased monitor how recent changes in the Board involvement of African field staff could speed of Directors’ approval of projects affect the the consideration of proposals. For example, time involved and whether sending money spending more time up-front in site visits, re- through the commercial bank selected by ADF speeds the transmission of funds from quiring better planning by applicants before ADF to projects in every country, and they submit proposals, and clearly identifying ● and dealing with problems early in the proc- identify the reasons causing the average ess can save time in the long run. 3.5 month delay between ADF’s signing the Grant Agreement and actual disbursal of The Foundation should be more selective at the first check to develop ways to speed each stage of the approval process, starting with the process. project identification. A more systematic approach to outreach and initial screening would 2. Agreements With Afician Governments enable ADF to reduce the amount of time spent Finding: ADF has not yet completed accords or on inappropriate funding requests. For exam- reached informal understandings with 13 of ple, ADF could study the large number of request letters and initial applications that have the 19 countries in which it funds projects.11 not been funded and publish lists of what it gen- This can lead to confusion regarding African erally does not fund in the ADF brochure, flyer, governments’ roles in ADF-funded projects, delay project implementation, and may and newsletter. hamper the Foundation’s ability to resolve Also, ADF could work more with others to conflicts with local officials. identify groups that best meet ADF criteria, Discussion.—For most official and major especially after identifying country program PVO funding programs, agreements spelling priorities. A good example is ADF’s identification of the Morogoro Diocese project. An out the purposes of funding and the roles of donors, recipient organizations, and govern- ADF team interviewed staff of the Development ment officials are generally reached before Services Department of the Christian Council funding begins. These agreements could help of Tanzania, who provide technical services to clarify the roles of local officials in relation to grassroots development projects, while devel- ADF projects. ADF has suspended new funding oping the Tanzania Country Profile. ADF’s Rep- resentative reviewed a number of proposals in Kenya since early 1987 due to the lack of an official accord. In certain cases, an African gov- from the Council’s member organizations, iden- ernment may prefer an informal written tified one as a likely candidate for funding, and understanding, eliminating the need for a then met with the Development Department of formal agreement. the Morogoro Diocese to discuss project funding. Suggestions for Improvement.–ADF should Also, ADF could streamline its processes in complete formal and informal agreements expeditiously, continuing to communicate with these ways: and use the assistance of the American embassy ● examine other funders’ pre-application in negotiating the accord. processes for ways to design its own. De- velop pre-application forms used to make the first screening decisions before prospec-

tive grantees submit complete proposals, llIn early 1988, ADF agreements with Sierra Leone and ● signed send project notifications to Congress even Ghana, reducing the number of countries without agreements during recesses and work with the Ap- to 11 of 19. 109

3. Program Evaluation and Research ing how project expenses will be raised after Finding: ADF’s funding portfolio does not re- the grant period ends from a variety of sources flect the full range of possibilities granted in including program income, grassroots fundrais- its legislation. While some of these limitations ing, support from other donors, government may be justified, the Foundation may be programs, and membership dues. narrowing its impact unnecessarily. The Foundation has made no loans or loan Discussion.—The vast majority of ADF’s guarantees, although both are allowed by its project portfolio emphasize economic develop- legislation.]’ While the Board of Directors has ment, while its legislative mandate also includes supported making loans, budget and OMB- social development. Nearly 75 percent of 86 determined staff ceilings prevented ADF from project abstracts reviewed had a small-enter- hiring personnel with the expertise to analyze prise component and 25 percent a revolving loan applications. In addition, ADF is dis- credit component. Many ADF-funded eco- couraged by the fact that loan repayments nomic projects contain social development would go to the U.S. Treasury. Thus, ADF has components, such as training, but these areas decided to award grants to African intermedi- usually receive a small percentage of the ADF ary organizations for revolving loan funds in- grant funds. A high proportion of funds go to stead of making loans or loan guarantees (23). construction, equipment, and vehicles (5 I per- Current ADF practice is to fund only private cent in the 12 projects visited) versus skill de- non-profit groups. ADF policy now disallows velopment (4 percent for training and techni- the funding of parastatals” (although ADF cal assistance). funded two parastatals in Zimbabwe in 1985). ADF’s decision to emphasize income-gener- The legislation, however, also allows funding ating activities over social development projects for public and for-profit groups. The Board of has major implications for the way it is imple- Directors’ decision has constrained ADF fund- menting its mandate. While income-generating ing to some intermediary organizations, espe- projects certainly can be consistent with the cially in countries with socialist governments, mandate, the Foundation’s expectation that and has exacerbated tensions among intermedi- income-generating projects become completely ary organizations, local groups, local officials, self-supporting within a 2 to 3 year average and ADF. For example, the major reason for grant period seems unrealistic. Evaluations of the delay in start-up of the Kikatiti grant in Tan- other funding programs show how difficult it zania was the 9 months it took the organiza- is for economic development projects to be- tion to obtain its non-profit status so it could come self-sustaining. Grants and loans to eco- meet ADF criteria. Such projects managed by village officials may be de projects of lo- nomic projects of low-income groups have a facto relatively high failure rate (24,33,36). cal governments. Designating such groups as PVOS may obscure important issues relating Applying the same standards to social devel- to local participation. opment efforts is even more unreasonable. Most successful social programs in the United Suggestions for Improvement.—The Founda- States could not have fulfilled a similar cri- tion should periodically evaluate the sectors it terion. The Foundation has not funded social funds, the types of projects it funds, and the uses development projects because of concerns that to which its funds are put. For example, ADF they are not sustainable without continued de- should examine the balance between projects pendency on donors or governments. This is that have economic versus social development not always true, however. Some social devel- goals and between expenditures on capital goods opment projects may be short-term, e.g., a leadership training course. For others the real IZIAF a]50 has not made any loans or loan guarantees. question might be less that of self-sufficiency 13A Parastata] organization has a mixture of public and Pri- and more of developing realistic plans detail- vate ownership or management, usually with public control. 110

(such as equipment) versus those that build peo- loan guarantees and/or loans. However, ADF ple’s skills and the capacity of their organiza- should first implement priority improvements tions. Also, ADF could consider eventually de- in its grants program, making it inadvisable to veloping loan and loan guarantee programs. The begin a loan program in the immediate future. Foundation could develop guidelines for fund- ADF’s Board of Directors and staff also could ing public entities and private for-profit groups develop guidelines for funding organizations when local realities make that desirable. which are public in some respect. This would Social development projects include commu- prevent confusion and misunderstanding be- nity organizing projects, programs of networks tween ADF and the applicants who now must or coalitions, leadership training programs, le- present themselves as totally private entities. gal assistance/advocacy programs, self-help cul- The guidelines, especially those related to par- tural and educational projects, and alternative ticipation of beneficiaries in decisionmaking, health education projects. They also include need not be substantially different from those training in management, organizational devel- for private, non-profit entities. Guidelines might opment, human resource development, mem- have to be country-specific, however, since bership development, fundraising, and finan- each country differs in designating public and cial planning—activities designed to strengthen private status. Similarly, guidelines could be a group’s capacity to carry out its purposes. developed for funding private for-profit entities where appropriate. ADF’s Board of Directors and staff could discuss the mixture of social and economic de- Finding: The Foundation has not paid sufficient velopment activities in ADF’s portfolio and con- attention to evaluating its own funding pro- sider a wider range of perspectives on gram (as opposed to evaluating its funded grassroots development. The Foundation could projects). Nor is its research program re- tap the experience of its Advisory Council to sponding to the issues raised by its funding develop criteria for funding social development program. As a result, ADF is losing opportu- projects. ADF staff could visit organizations nities to make the most effective use of its providing training to grassroots groups and own experience and to share that knowledge PVO coalitions while developing its country with others. profiles and strategies. Discussion.— ADF has not yet examined the In the future, ADF could consider making strategic choices about development implied loan guarantees to encourage African banks or in its funding portfolio, such as its emphasis other institutions to provide credit to small on economic over social development activi- farmers or community groups which the insti- ties and the technology choices it is support- tutions might otherwise be reluctant to make. ing, particularly within agricultural projects. The Foundation has yet to tailor its research This would reduce ADF’s responsibility for itself managing a loan portfolio as well as use funding programs to its regular funding pro- ADF funds to leverage additional resources for gram. Research grants have had little relevance grassroots groups. For example, the Ford Foun- to the issues of participation, sustainability, and dation is developing a loan guarantee program technology choices of the groups ADF is fund- to encourage Senegal’s National Agricultural ing. Nor has the Foundation critically analyzed its expansion into new countries, the distribu- Credit Bank to increase loans to members of a national federation of village and regional tion of funds among regions, and among coun- PVOS. Later, ADF might consider making loans tries within regions. Despite, or perhaps because of, the criticism it has received about its on a pilot basis to grantees that have already administrative costs, ADF has not done its own successfully implemented activities. Or ADF analysis of the optimal balance between grant could combine grants and loans to groups with and non-grant costs. a solid track record. A change in ADF’s legislation would allow loan repayments to return Suggestions for Improvement.–ADF should to ADF and thus facilitate ADF’s initiation of periodically review its portfolio and address 111 some of the major policy issues identified here ● broaden its portfolio by using the research such as the technologies it supports, the alloca- program to support research related to tion of funds among and within regions, and technologies appropriate for grassroots de- the balance between grant and non-grant ex- velopment. Previous OTA reports have penses. ADF should postpone expansion into identified the need to bridge the technol- new countries until it has made high priority ogy gap for PVOS and grassroots groups, improvements, then received a significant in- establish information banks on low- crease in congressional appropriations. The resource technologies, and collect and ADF research program should be redirected to store traditional knowledge before it is lost. respond to the needs of the funding program. For example, few donors are supporting local resource management, such as in- Reviewing its portfolio and redirecting its re- digenous grazing and irrigation efforts, search program are both issues for strategic ADF could study its funded projects for les- planning and may be appropriate issues for sons in these areas that might be applica- ADF to address as it prepares its next Five Year ble to other projects, Plan, ● develop a rationale to guide regional and ADF’s research program has an important country-by-country distribution of ADF role to play as ADF faces these and other pol- funds, and icy issues, ADF could: ● prepare criteria to guide expansion into new countries. ● do brief (5-10 page) biennial assessments of its country programs and use them to provide guidance for the research program, 112

~~THE COST OF IMPLEMENTIN6 OTA’S SUGGESTIONS~~

This chapter has identified priority areas for ADF and providing more extensive assis- where changes would improve ADF’s ability tance to applicants and grantees. Some funds to more fully implement its mandate. Within would cover increased travel to Africa, espe- each section, “shoulds” (general approaches cially by Foundation Representatives. and measures that are likely to be necessary Using funds for these purposes will temporar- for ADF to better meet its mandate) are distin- ily increase the proportion of costs that ADF guished from “coulds” (other complementary spends for non-grant purposes, yet some peo- ways to address the same issues). Also, the dis- ple maintain that these costs are already too cussions covered how time can be saved, while high. While a thorough review of ADF’s ex- accomplishing more, especially during project penditures for overhead and grant-making was appraisal and planning. beyond the scope of this study, OTA found that Implementing these suggestions, however, concerns regarding ADF’s proportion of non- will be costly. Using existing resources more grant costs may be overstated. Two organiza- efficiently would enable ADF to implement tions provide guidelines on appropriate levels some of these suggestions at minimal cost. of overhead costs for philanthropic organiza- Nevertheless, added resources are needed to tions, which ADF resembles in some ways. The support the suggested changes to enable ADF Council of Better Business Bureaus advocates to do improved pre-funding analysis and to take that at least 50 percent of all income be spent a more active facilitator role with promising on programs and activities directly related to applicants and grantees. The major recommen- the organization’s purposes (14). The National dations cited here could be implemented for Charities Information Bureau expects manage- an additional $500,000 to $700,000 a year, ment and fundraising costs to be less than 40 according to OTA’S review of ADF’s estimates percent and program expenses at least 60 per- for salaries, workshops, travel, and contracts. cent (27). ADF’s non-grant costs (43 percent in An apportionment reflecting the priorities set fiscal year 1987) are not unreasonable by these out in this report would result in a majority of measures. the increase going to ADF’s African staff, ap- Often ADF’s non-grant costs are compared proximately 25 percent for additional Washing- inappropriately to PVO levels. The Foundation ton staff and their travel, and the remainder does not stretch its staff with volunteers and, for short-term contracts for technical analysis, as a U.S. government agency, pays salaries training for staff and consultants, and the re- mandated by the U.S. Civil Service. ADF uses search program. federally-controlled regulations for travel, The additional funds going to Africa would which is inherently expensive because of the increase African staff time and the resources distances involved. Monitoring more than 100 they would need to take on the suggested new small-scale, grassroots efforts in 19 countries responsibilities (funds for salaries, office space, is staff- and travel-intensive by nature. Also, travel, and a small amount for project support). the Foundation’s congressionally-mandated ef- Additional Washington staff could include forts to disseminate its results are costly. In. more program assistants, a Foundation Rep- addition, start-up periods, which often stretch resentative, and/or technical expertise. Some for several years, are administratively expen- funds could be used for short-term contracts, sive for any new organization. principally in Africa, for appraising proposals —- —-

~~Chapter 6 Lessons for Other Development Assistance Organizations CONTENTS~~

Page Summary ...... 115 Introduction...... 115 Lessons About Participation ...... 116 Lessons About the Role of African Staff and African Organizations ...... 117 A Lesson About Relationships with Capitol I-Ml ...... 119 Lessons About Boards of Directors and Advisory Groups ...... 119 Lessons for Others Conducting Assessments ...... ,...... 119

~~Box Box Page 6-1. The Common Problems of Groups Similar to ADF...... 116 Chapter 6 Lessons for Other Development Assistance Organizations~~

● OTA’S findings regarding the African Devel- zations wishing to contribute to grassroots opment Foundation’s (ADF) funding pro- development. gram are similar to those of the Foundation’s ● The Foundation has established effective 1987 internal evaluations of 10 projects as working relations with Congress, character- well as recent evaluations of Appropriate ized by direct communication, that are in- Technology International, the Inter- structive for other official or publicly funded American Foundation, the International groups. Fund for Agricultural Development, the U.N. Development Fund for Women, and U.S. pri- ● Many organizations face similar issues re- vate voluntary organizations. garding the composition and roles of their Boards of Directors. ● ADF can serve as a model for other groups ● in certain aspects of its funding program, for This report contains lessons that could help. example, maximizing local control of exter- others ‘who seek to evaluate development nally funded activities, using Africans to pro- assistance programs. For instance, conduct- vide technical assistance and to conduct ing both program and project assessments evaluations, and awarding grants for plan- creates complementary pictures of an orga- ning to local groups. Also, the Foundation’s nization’s status while external evaluations work with African intermediary organiza- are useful additions to internal ones. tions provides an example for other organi-

Private voluntary organizations also often ✎ In many ways, ADF and its funded projects share the problems faced by others; in some share common problems: limited replicability, ways ADF can be an example for other devel- lack of sustainability, isolated programming opment assistance organizations. The strengths context, insufficient planning and manage- and weaknesses of ADF-funded activities, ana- ment, and weak databases and evaluation (40). lyzed in chapter 4, are common to similar ef- Because ADF in some ways resembles a pri- forts funded by others. Chapter 5 highlighted vate funder more than governmental develop- what OTA learned about ADF’s funding pro- ment agencies such as AID (e.g., projects and gram and suggested possible improvements re- grants are generally small and its operating style garding the role of African staff, pre-grant so- is flexible and participatory) it is not surpris- cial, economic, technical, and environmental ing that ADF shares some of the problems iden- analysis, project monitoring, and other issues. tified as common among PVOS, especially those The Foundation’s deficiencies in these areas, that fund community groups in Africa. Gov- too, are shared with other development assis- ernmental funders, PVOS, and others have tance organizations and recent evaluations of much to learn from each other in tackling these similar organizations raise many of the same shared problems and ADF can contribute to, concerns (box 6-l). as well as learn from, such a discussion.

~~115 — —~~

~~116~~

Box 6-1.—The Common Problems of Groups Similar to ADF Chapter 2 notes four agencies that have programs in some respect similar to ADF’s. Recent evaluations show that the groups share many common problems such as the need to work out relationships with other funders and the need to address project impact and replicability. These evaluations raised the following concerns: Appropriate Technology International’s (ATI) evaluation was conducted by AID. It noted ATI’s need to: improve its technical and commercial appraisals of projects; give higher priority to “soft” technologies such as market analysis; improve the management of field operations, monitoring, and evaluation; strengthen attempts to replicate its work; increase efforts to disseminate lessons learned; consider making mid-course adjustments more often; and find ways to maximize its impact (16). Inter-American Foundation. This internal evaluation highlighted concerns regarding: the lack of clear articulation of funding priorities within Latin American countries, economic sectors, and development objectives; ad hoc project selection; and the relationship of the Foundation to other organizations (50). International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). This evaluation, conducted by AID, raised concerns about: IFAD’s relationships with other donors (e.g., finding its own niche and providing co-financing); the sustainability of its efforts; how well it is reaching women; problems with monitoring and evaluation; dissemination of its knowledge; and sponsoring a program potentially with too broad a focus (39). The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Important program issues aris- ing from this internal evaluation include: links between UNIFEM’S activities and those of other development groups; fuller involvement of local experts and leaders; improved delivery systems; concen- tration on projects with the greatest potential impact; support for a variety of multi-faceted projects. Project-related concerns also were raised, including: • the impacts of external factors on project success or failure, Ž monitoring local and national activities, ● accounting for divisions of family labor in project design, ● assessing and building institutional viability, and ● providing technical training for extension workers (38). .

Grassroots development efforts in Africa have ample by relying on Africans to provide tech- had some success i-reproving food production nical assistance and conduct evaluations, by and conserving natural resources (20,37,48) and providing planning grants to local groups, and the Foundation is among the funders support- by leaving control in the hands of funded orga- ing creative approaches and achieving positive nizations. These are the kinds of lessons that results. In particular, ADF is setting a good ex- ADF can share with other organizations.

~~LESSONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION~~

Many development assistance groups claim of ownership in the work. Larger donors, such to support grassroots development, which en- as U.S. AID, differ from ADF in important tails the effective participation of beneficiaries ways—size of funded activities, pressure from in development. However, ADF often succeeds various interest groups, government-to- in maximizing the control of local groups and government funding, legal framework, and organizations over their projects, which en- other factors. Thus they cannot duplicate ADF’s hances the results because people feel a sense approach entirely. However, they could adapt 117 certain of ADF’s methods, such as favoring quires understanding the local context and African initiatives and ensuring that important sound baseline data on factors such as income, project-related decisions are made by African gender, social relations, ethnic groups, and the participants. Other ADF approaches to local local political context, as well as information control—such as encouraging funded groups on project activities. Although ADF has much to select their own technical assistance—are to improve in addressing these more difficult more directly transferable to private grant- aspects of participation, its experience trying makers, including some PVOS and others work- to balance different aspects of its mandate— ing at the local level. supporting local control and stimulating expanding participation of the poor—will be rele- The Foundation’s experience shows that sup- vant to other organizations. porting participatory development requires careful analysis of who participates, when and Like participation, other key concepts in de- the various ways that people participate. Avoid- velopment assistance require redefinition and ing approaches that place expatriates in de facto more effective implementation in the face of charge of African projects is an important first a history fraught with less-than-expected re- step. Although giving funds directly to African sults. The Foundation and OTA agree that organizations can reduce the problem of exter- replicability, for example, depends less on nal control, participation by beneficiaries can replicating actual project activities than on the still be lacking and additional efforts may be replicability of the processes that the projects appropriate to foster broad participation. Par- had engendered. The Foundation, with its ex- ticipation in decisionmaking is key to effective plicit mandate to learn from and share its ex- overall participation but funders often fail to periences, its access to U.S. Government assess roles of all the people involved in enough resources, and its opportunity to forge connec- detail to determine whether the beneficiaries tions with private groups, is well-placed to take really take part in this process. It is also impor- part in defining and implementing approaches tant to measure progress in enhancing partici- with impacts beyond the projects themselves. pation in terms of the local context. This re-

LESSONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF AFRICAN STAFF AND AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONS Encouraging Africans to take positions as that expectations will be met. ADF’s ability to staff members or consultants in development identify and contract with Africans deserves assistance groups has real benefits. Africans recognition; other groups could follow its know the local situation, especially its cultural, example. political, and macroeconomic contexts; their support is more cost-effective because housing, Many African non-governmental groups are overseas travel, and per diem costs are often attempting to forge new relationships with their less (not because they are paid less for their American counterparts. African organizations professional services but because other ex- seek to use their growing expertise to help penses can be less); and impacts beyond the American and European organizations plan, immediate project results snowball as ever- manage, and evaluate externally funded activ- greater numbers of Africans are given oppor- ities. Often, this requires that U.S. PVOS and tunities to use and enhance their skills and private donors reconsider how they work in spread their knowledge. The Foundation has Africa: how should they shift more responsi- demonstrated that it is possible to find a wide bility to African staff; how should they support variety of African experts for tasks many other African groups rather than or in addition to funders assign to expatriates and that clear their own activities? statements of their work increase the likelihood Simultaneously, additional U.S. development ships form. For example, ADF has an opportu- assistance money is being used to help develop nity to further learn about, then share, the public and private African institutions. For ex- results of its work with private African inter- ample, larger amounts of official development mediary organizations. This assessment of assistance are being channeled via U.S. PVOS ADF’s work shows that projects of intermedi- to assist in strengthening local organizations. ary organizations require different approaches Thus, questions like these will need to be an- to pre-funding analysis and monitoring than swered within the official U.S. and private de- those for local organizations, especially when velopment assistance community. ADF has participation is a goal of the donor. Moreover, been in the vanguard of American funders intermediary organizations commonly have which support private African organizations. special technical assistance needs as they be- Thus, ADF’s experience is likely to become in- gin to work with local groups or poor farmers. creasingly important to others given this on- Also, intermediary groups, American and going evolution of African/U.S. PVO rela- African staff of U.S. groups, and providers of tionships. technical assistance all need clear guidance re- The Foundation’s experience can highlight garding ways to relate to local groups that fos- specific areas to address as these new relation- ter self-reliance. This has been a focus of the 119

ADF funding program from the beginning. to help bring about that awareness. Also, ADF Long-term institutional change can be facili- may be able to share its positive experiences tated as African government officials become working with African governments with out- aware of the successes of grassroots develop- side development assistance organizations that ment efforts. ADF can use its special status as have been cautious about entering into closer a U.S. Government-funded organization and relationships with local officials. good relations with many African governments

The Foundation has nurtured its relationship funds. The Foundation’s small size and its his- with Members of Congress and staff on Capi- tory of congressional support may contribute tol Hill. ADF’s senior staff have a good work- to this situation, factors that larger organiza- ing relationship with high-level officials both tions such as U.S. AID do not share. Whatever in Congress and the Administration and have the reasons, however, ADF’s work is not ham- an admirable and unusual directness in pro- pered by the quasi-adversarial attitude that viding information. As a result, ADF has a repu- sometimes shapes AID’s congressional rela- tation for cooperation and responsiveness sim- tions (46). ilar to some PVOS that receive government

~~LESSONS ABOUT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AND ADVISORY GROUPS~~

Many organizations are reconsidering the tisan considerations suggests some important roles played by their boards of directors and lessons. A politically balanced board, for advisory groups. In some cases, they are find- example, can be an asset to publicly funded ing that advisory functions can be filled more organizations and can help avoid program dis- cost-effectively without official groups (e. g., by ruptions during changes of administrations, bringing in individuals to conduct seminars on Appointing board members with an under- state-of-the-art topics). In other cases, members’ standing of a group’s mandate can reduce the unavailability for frequent meetings may sug- time it takes to educate new board members, gest giving more responsibility to staff. Staff In addition, defining clear roles for the board planning retreats, for example, can sometimes that focus on policy oversight is a way to tap substitute for the strategic planning that aboard” the strengths of members and help prevent in- or advisory committee might provide. appropriate micromanagement. The Foundation’s experience with a new board and one shaped to a large degree by par-

This assessment has shown how important broader program, many things were learned it is to conduct program assessments in con- that might not have been evident by studying junction with project evaluations. The results the project level alone. At the same time, the of each highlight different aspects of an orga- findings about the functioning of the funding nization’s work and suggest different ways to program were obtained by a careful examina- improve its effectiveness. By examining ADF’s tion of specific projects. —

~~120~~

Unfortunately, the costs of combined pro- Certain of OTA’S methods, such as conduct- gram and project assessments are high and ing a single brief visit to each project, are grassroots groups and private funders often appropriate only for comparable outside evalu- lack the resources to undertake such a compre- ators. Alternately, self-evaluations conducted hensive assessment. Therefore, every effort throughout an individual project’s lifetime should be made to draw on previous work and could be more participatory and provide more to communicate with others before undertak- specific, helpful, and timely feedback to project ing new assessments. Defining critical issues managers, for example, and be a significant and selecting minimum data sets can be done aspect of project management. Methodologi- on the basis of past and similar assessments cal lessons from this work that are applicable at little expense. to most outside assessments include the need for: placing Africans and women on every field Also, this effort illustrates ways for internally team to increase understanding of the local set- conducted assessments to complement those ting and to ensure access to the greatest num- done by external groups. For instance, some ber of project participants; allowing enough issues identified by OTA’S work were raised time to visit each project to accommodate the in ADF’s first project evaluations, thus provid- professional and social needs of the evaluators ing partial confirmation of the Foundation’s in- and the people being visited; interviewing par- ternal evaluations. Although internal efforts are ticipants, managers, and others independently always important, occasional external exami- of each other to get beyond the “official” view nations can provide information that only out- of project activities; and providing for review siders, with fresh viewpoints, are likely to and feedback by the staff of the organization provide. under examination. Appendixes Appendix A ADF Projects Awarded From Fiscal Year 1984 Through Fiscal Year 1987

ADF Projects Obligated Through Fiscal Year 1986 Country Project Name *Type/Sector Grant Benin L’Amicale des Ressortissants de Houndjohoundji ...... A: 10 $ 26,613 Benin Songhai Project ...... A: 4,9 150,872 Botswana Tutume ...... A: 4 40,144 Botswana Boiteko Agricultural Management Association...... A: 4 27,288 Botswana Tswelelopele Production Project ...... A: 4,9 3,400 Botswana Blockmaking Production Project ...... A: 7,9 37,523 Cameroon Binshua Water Project ...... A: 10 123,457 Cameroon CEDAC ...... A:4,7 250,000 Cameroon NDU Water Supply ...... A: 10 48,826 Egypt Integrated Rural Technology Center (IRTECTAP) ...... /1:2,3 119,545 Ghana Osu Canoe Fishing Shop ...... A: 4,9 32,025 Ghana LMK Labadi Community Bank ...... A: 7,9 62,400 Ghana Rural Small Scale Dev. Scheme and Swine Project ...... C: 4,9 39,637 Guinea Kaback Village Fishing Project ...... A: 4,9 189,388 Guinea Kindia Pineapple Producers ...... A: 4,9 225,687 Kenya ATAC Appropriate Technology Advisory Comm...... A: 2,7 83,040 Kenya Kenya Beekeeper’s Association (KBA)/Kibwezi...... A: 2,7,9 75,871 Kenya KWAHO/TIROCOWAP Taita** ...... A: 2,5,10 108,773 Kenya Farming Systems Kenya, Ltd.** ...... A C: 2,4 111,245 Kenya Mwenda Women’s Group ...... A C: 4,9 3,428 Kenya Kenya Dental Association ...... A: 7,5 40,115 Kenya Human Care Alliance ...... A: 5,6 25,794 Kenya Kenya Women Financial Trust** ...... AC: 2,7 152,625 Kenya Njoguini, Gitero, and Kabati** ...... A: 3,10 247,313 Kenya Partnership For Productivity** ...... AC: 2,7 198,478 Kenya Ushindi Youth Project ...... A: 7,9 34,500 Kenya Songa Development Committee Projects ...... A: 3,10 11,585 Kenya GBM Green Belt Movement ...... A: 2 58,745 Lesotho LDTC Research on Group Training ...... AC: 2 100,719 Lesotho Levi’s Nek Training Program ...... A: 2,9 21,777 Lesotho Morija Vocational School ...... AB: 2 42,804 Lesotho Moteng Women in Self-Help ...... A: 2,9 15,022 Lesotho Ramosebo Village Development ...... AC: 2,7,9 25,347 Lesotho Ha Sematle Village Development ...... A C: 9 17,584 Lesotho Lesotho Handspun Mohair ...... A: 7,9 105,415 Liberia Agro-Industrial Company ...... A: 4,9 17,784 Liberia Boys Town** ...... A: 4,10 141,931 Mali L’Association Malienne d’Assistance Technique Villageoise . . . . A: 4 34,152 Mali COPCC Sewing and Training School** ...... A: 2 50,774 Mali Narena Village Dev, Project** ...... A:4,1o 242,703 Mali UNFM Segou/Soke Cooperative** ...... A: 4 109,687 Mali GTB Women’s Dye Craft Cooperative ...... A: 9 14,500 Mali Private Agricultural Coed Training Center ...... A: 2 74,830 Mali Dalakana Integrated Village Development ...... A: 4,5,10 250,000 Niger Dagnare Agricultural Society ...... AC: 4,10 89,619 Niger Iniminak** ...... A: 4 13,463

~~123 83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 5 124~~

ADF Projects Obligated Through Fiscal Year 1986 Country Project Name *Type/Sector Grant Niger Association of Nigerian Women ...... A: 2,4,10 249,200 Niger Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative (DHC) Planning ...... A: 2,4 7,255 Niger Small Trader Project ...... A: 9 700 Niger EPAP ...... A:9,1O 40,115 Rwanda IWACU -Training and Credit Extension Coop ...... C: 4 233,000 Rwanda EPR Small Animal and Seed Distribution ...... C: 4 102,747 Rwanda APESA School Farm ...... A: 2,4 39,749 Senegal Dialambere Community Development Project...... A: 4,5,10 77,739 Senegal Diego Peasant Farm Association ...... A: 4,7,10 119,011 Senegal Horndolde...... A:4,1O 51,163 Senegal Ross Bethio...... A: 4,10 162,095 Senegal Union Kaoural ...... A: 4,7,10 104,770 Sierra Leone Eastern Clinic ...... A: 4,5,9 247,684 Sierra Leone Cheshire Self-Help...... A:4,2 3,774 Sierra Leone Yendeh Village Development Association ...... A: 4,9 19,371 Somalia Haqabtir ...... AC: 4,2 55,989 Somalia Weaving, Marketing, and Revolving Fund Supply ...... A: 7,9 76,284 Tanzania Malihai Club ...... A: 10,4 65,616 Tanzania Mufundi Educational Trust ...... A: 2,4 104,752 Tanzania Presidential Trust (PNFT) ...... A:9 10,900 Tanzania Morogoro ...... A: 4,7 236,998 Togo FUCEC ...... C:8 112,874 Zambia Desai Revolving Fund...... AC: 2,9 14,025 Zambia VIS Scotch Cart Project ...... AC: 2,9 66,357 Zambia AME Mechanical Training Center ...... AC: 2,9 20,686 Zambia ZFDS Water Project ...... A: 10,5 20,795 Zambia ZCSDSelf-Help Fund ...... ABC:4 81,198 Zimbabwe ORAP Technologies** ...... AC:4 114,498 Zimbabwe NCDPZ Self-Help Projects ...... A: 4 12,803 Zimbabwe Honda Valley Fish Project ...... A: 4,9 67,183 Zimbabwe Environment, Development, Activities ...... B: 7 2,115 Zimbabwe Oneness Youth Promotions ...... A: 9 59,984 Zimbabwe Silveira House Dev. Fund** ...... A: 8 3,298 Zimbabwe Tabudiria Training Center ...... A: 2 122,027 Zimbabwe Beatrice Dairy ...... A: 4 24,392 Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea ...... AC: 4 101,537 Zimbabwe Tariro Poultry Project ...... A: 2,4 10,848 Zimbabwe Talent Consortium...... A: 1,2 112,700 Zimbabwe Art Roots Cooperative ...... A: 7,9 14,238 Zimbabwe ChiPinRe Water District and Sanitation Project ...... A: 2,10,5 138,934 *Type: A=Development Assistance, B=Research Assistance and C=Third Party Revolving Loans

Sector:l = Communication 4 = Agriculture/Crops/Animals 7 = Management/Capacity Building 2 = Education 5 = Health Care 8 = Multi-Sector 3 = Energy 6 = Housing 9 = Small Business 10 = Water Resources **Grant amendment providing additional fundsto FY 1984 and/or FY 1985 projects. SOURCE: African Development Foundation, Congressiona lPresentation: F’iscal Year 1988 (Washington, DC: February 1987) . 125

~~ADF Projects Obligated in Fiscal Year 1987 Country Project Name Grant $~~

Benin Agricultural Community Development Project ...... 1,5 00 Botswana Backyard Gardening Project ...... 48,152 Botswana Micro-Enterprise Credit Project. ..,...,...... 133,488 Botswana Nthoo Typing School Project ...... 11,999 Cameroon CEDAC Food Production and Marketing Project ...... 250,000 Ghana Peki-Dzogbati Oil Palm Nursery Project...... ,...... 182,133 Lesotho Village Workshop and Revolving Fund Project ...... 116,143 Liberia Self-Help School, Health and Agricultural Project ...... 93,365 Liberia United Liberia Inland Church Academy Project...... 24,694 Mali Agro-Nord Project ...... 97,488 Niger Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative Project II ...... 107,922 Senegal Post-Symposium: Development Alternatives Project...... 19,387 Senegal Revolving Loan Fund for Grassroots Initiatives Project ...... 215,301 Sierra Leone YEA Agricultural and Food Production Project ...... 250,000 Sierra Leone Yele Rural Electrification Project . . ., ...... 250,000 Somalia Daryeel Planning Study Project ...... 7,864 Somalia Gum Resin Development Project ...... 159,947 Tanzania Feasibility Study for the Albalbal Water Project ...... 3,822 Tanzania Albalbal Water Development Project ...... 233,077 Tanzania Marangu Schoolmarm Project ...... 40,588 Togo Agoto-Godo Agricultural/Livestock Infrastructural Project ...... 71,740 Togo FUCECs Baseline Study ...... 23,672 Togo Novissi Onion Production Project .,...... 8,395 Togo Produce Storage Project ...... 11,006 Togo UNICOOPEMA Pilot Credit Program ...... 250,000 Togo Watsidome Gardening/Small Animal Husbandry Project ...... 22,087 Zimbabwe Furniture Manufacturing project ...... 220,624 Zimbabwe Matsvaire Village Development Project ...... 103,270 SOURCE: African Development Foundation, January 1988. Appendix B Summaries of 12 ADF-Funded Projects Visited by OTA1

Farm Rehabilitation for the Agricultual Society of Dagnare Organization: Dagnare Agricultural Society Site: Three sites in western Niger (Dag- nare, Lamorde, and Ganky-Bassarou) Activities: Rehabilitate irrigated fields (pumps, pipes, canals, control gates, wells) and provide tools and technical assistance. Grant Size: $88,817 The Setting.—The fields of the Dagnare Agricul- tural Society (a form of village-level cooperative known as a mutuel in French) are the first that will be rehabilitated under this project; they are located Photo credit: OTA/George Scharffenberger across the Niger River from Niger’s capital, Niamey. The lands to be irrigated for the Lamorde Agricul- Leaders of the project at Dagnare. tural Society are located several kilometers upstream, on the outskirts of Niamey. Those of Ganky-Bassarou scheme. Despite the fact that little production has are approximately 45 miles south. taken place over the decade, the group remains well- The OTA team visited two of the three sites. The organized, cohesive, and participatory due largely contrast between the membership of the two groups to dynamic leadership, the educational level of its is striking. In Dagnare, the participants are rela- members, and the improved prospects provided by tively well-off civil servants (mostly retired) or other ADF funding. The group has regained much of its salaried workers; poor farmers predominate in lost influence and includes members of several of Ganky, although a definitive profile is impossible the capitol’s most powerful families. Six of the four- since eventual participation in the project for the teen members are women, most widows of origi- Ganky Mutuel is still undetermined. Dagnare mem- nal members. Several are active in group manage- bers describe the participants in the Lamorde ment and decisionmaking. Mutuel as falling somewhere between the other two By contrast, the Ganky MutueZ is new and poorly in terms of socio-economic profile. organized, and has uncertain objectives. The vil- The mutuel form of agricultural organization is lage received brief fame 2 years ago when the Ni- encouraged by the Niger government as the most ger government held up the community’s initiative appropriate ownership/management formula to im- in dry-season manioc production as a model for the plement its strategy of small-scale production rest of Niger. In fact, however, production and mar- projects. The Dagnare MutueZ is one of the oldest keting was largely on an individual basis rather than mutueh in Niger. It began in 1965 with a govern- through the mutuel. ment grant of land and credit to its original Interviews with community members show that founders—a small group of 13 influential civil ser- they have poor information about the proposed vants. The breakdown of its pump in the mid-1970s ADF-sponsored activity (especially women), a low and a decline in political favor following the fall level of participation in project design and a con- of former President Diori disrupted the irrigation centration of control in decisionmaking in one family (the family of the president of the Dagnare IThese 12 summaries provide an overview of the 12 ADF projects in group). A mutuel does exist in Ganky but written Africa that were visited by OTA’S field assessment teams. Each contains records were inaccessible or non-existent and its details about the project, its setting, the sponsoring organization, and the findings of the OTA team. officers were uncertain as to who was or was not

~~126 127~~

a member or how membership was determined. the group’s legal status and ADF’s fund transfer Group leaders estimated the members at 300. Com- mechanism), the funds remained untouched in the munity members made little distinction between the group’s account for 2 months. The Dagnare presi- local cooperative (a larger unit grouping several vil- dent felt they had not received clear instructions lages) and the village-level Ganky Mutuel, The ques- from ADF that they could begin. The group had held tion of access to the irrigation scheme was equally planning meetings and made contacts with the unclear. equipment suppliers and technical services they Increased variability in the timing and quantity would need to implement their scheme. In Ganky, of rainfall across Niger has exaggerated the vulner- four meetings on the ADF project had been held ability of its rainfed cropping systems. For the in- but the level of understanding and preparation for dividual farm household, this has translated into the project is low among the members of the com- erratic and generally lower income and food sup- munity. One reason for the delay is that the family plies, Although Niger has performed better than head on whose land the project is to be installed many Sahelian nations facing similar conditions is ill. Related to this, the OTA team raised questions and its exports of uranium did provide some res- about the security of land rights for the project, since pite, the decline in agricultural production has everyone in the community referred to the area as meant increased fiscal and trade deficits. Tapping “the old man’s land.” The land is currently being the irrigation potential of the Niger River is seen farmed during the dry season by women who use by both farmers and the government as one means it to grow vegetables. When asked, village leaders of breaking this decline. As a host of problems have informed the team that only family heads (i.e., men) surfaced to dampen the high level of expectations would be given plots in the new irrigation scheme, associated with large irrigation schemes, Niger has Women, they said, would be given other land to begun to encourage small-scale irrigation as a via- grow their vegetables. ble alternative. Conclusion.— OTA’S assessment team was unani- The Project.—The Dagnare project began as a pro- mous in its conclusion that the Dagnare project posal from the Dagnare group to finance the reha- should not have been funded in its present form. bilitation of their existing irrigation scheme— Although the logic of ADF’s argument in funding principally by providing new electric pumps and a relatively better off group of people who would repairing canals, gates, and other facilities. The use their higher level of education and organiza- group attempted to get commercial credit since tion to assist poorer farmer groups is persuasive, 1976 but was unsuccessful. A number of private the team felt that such an outcome was unlikely in voluntary organizations (PVOS) were also contacted this case. The Dagnare group has not proven them- but the proposal was rejected because of the group’s selves to be effective farmers, they view the irriga- relative wealth. Encouraged by the ADF Founda- tion scheme only as a supplement to their income tion Representative, Ganky and Lamorde were in- rather than a principal economic activity, the eco- cluded in the proposal after ADF had rejected it nomic viability of their own scheme is questiona- twice because of inappropriate economic level of ble, and the group members expressed serious res- the Dagnare participants. A new organization was ervations about their role as advisors to other proposed which would link the three agricultural groups. Finally, the Dagnare members were largely societies. Dagnare is to play a leading role and pro- unaware of and opposed to the idea of reimbursing vide technical assistance and support to the other 20 percent of the grant sum for loans to other two areas. groups. Since there is little likelihood that Dagnare The details of the Dagnare efforts are the best doc- will be an effective catalyst to help poorer farmers umented in the proposal but many aspects remain develop their productive potential, there is little to be worked out by the Dagnare group with the justification for supporting them under ADF’s help of ADF-funded technical assistance. Details of mandate. the other groups’ plans have been left to a later date. One alternative ADF could have used would have A key element of the proposal is that each group been to fund the other groups directly without go- will pay back 20 percent of its grant into a revolving through Dagnare. Providing those groups with ing fund that would be used to support future credit a technical assistance fund to pay for the services needs for the three groups or others, that the Dagnare group is supposed to provide could As of the OTA visit, little had been accomplished. have been as effective and certainly less expensive Although the Dagnare group had received funds af- if the main objective of the project were to help these ter considerable delays (caused by problems with poorer groups. This solution would have been 128 equally problematic, however, because the Ganky participants (10 from the Farfarou sub-family of the group clearly lacks organizational strengths, it has Fulani and 14 of the Touareg ethnic group) are from shown a low level of participation in program de- other camps in the same valley. All participants are sign, and questions exist about that scheme’s tech- men selected for participation by the traditional nical and economic feasibility. hierarchies of the individual groups. For the The OTA team’s prognosis for the future of the Kasasawa, need as well as willingness to maintain Dagnare project is not enthusiastic. The dynamism livestock were major factors in selection for par- and know-how of the Dagnare core group will prob- ticipation, according to the project’s leader. A dis- ably lead them to reach their own objectives in the advantaged minority in a very poor country, the no- short to medium term, but these objectives are much madic herders who will participate in the project less grandiose and altruistic than those in the project are easily among the poorest one-third of the total documentation. Ganky’s and Lamorde’s fate are less population. certain and much more problematic.z The project idea originated with the Kasasawa who, in response to the loss of large proportions Dakoro HordersF Cooperative of their herds in the early 1980s, had formed “Kun- gal Fado Mango” or KFM—literally, “the organiza- Organization: Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative tion born of large strides.” KFM built on and Site: Bundu Eggo, Niger strengthened traditional family and community Activities: Reconstitute livestock herd, repair bonds to seek common solutions to their threatened well, establish cooperative store, pro- way of life. The other groups were added as benefi- vide literacy training, and improve ciaries of what came to be called the Dakoro animal and human health. Herders’ Cooperative project at the insistence of the Grant Size: $7,255 (planning grant); $108,275 administrative authorities in Dakoro, who feared potential difficulties in favoring one ethnic group The Setting.–Bundu Eggo (literally Eggo’s well) over the others. Although the other groups were ac- is a nomad camp consisting of a 74-family commu- cepted by the Kasasawa as beneficiaries of new live- nity founded by the ancestor of the current popula- stock, the Kasasawa did not plan to include them tion who dug the well and gave it his name. The in other components or in decisionmaking. No well is also used by other communities living in the meetings uniting all participants or beneficiaries surrounding valley. During the rainy season, Bundu had taken place other than those organized by ADF Eggo is home to only a few members of the com- or its contractors. munity who live in its four mud and thatch huts. As stated above, the project is primarily in re- During the dry season, depending on that year’s sponse to a major loss of livestock experienced in grazing and watering strategies, other members of the drought years of 1983 and 1984. An ADF-funded the community come to stay, building temporary technician calculated this drought killed nearly 40 structures from poles, hides, canvas, and cloth. The percent of all livestock. Its other components ad- camp is 60 kilometers north of the local adminis- dress additional concerns which support a strategy trative town, Dakoro, which in turn is a l0-hour of increased sedentarization. The negative experi- drive, mostly on good paved road, east of Niger’s ence of having to flee with their herds into Nigeria capital, Niamey. Bundu Eggo is connected with several years earlier had motivated several of the Dakoro by a dirt track in generally poor condition. group’s leaders to seek external support to lower Just outside Dakoro, rainfed cultivation ceases be- their vulnerability during drought years and per- cause rainfall is too scarce and uncertain. It is an mit the Kasasawa to stay in their own grazing areas. area of wide undulating plains punctuated by The Bundu Eggo group has a longstanding relation- widely dispersed sand dunes—the border zone be- ship with an American photographer, Carol Beck- tween the true desert to the north and the arable with, whose book and articles have provided them savannah. with special access to the outside world. It was Ms. The vast majority of the participants involved in Beckwith who introduced the group to the future the Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative project (50 of the ADF Foundation Representative, who was then in 74 families) are from the Bundu Eggo camp and are Niger working for a different organization. These nomadic herders of the Kasasawa group of woodabe— contacts provided the avenue that led to ADF a sub-family of the Fulani ethnic group. The other support. The Project.–The Dakoro project represents two 2ADF reports that subsequent to the OTA team visit, the Lamorde ADF grants. In late 1985, ADF approved a $7,255 Agriculture Society has been dropped from the Dagnare project. planning grant to provide technical assistance to 129 the cooperative to formulate a specific proposal. distribution plan, according to the cooperative Financing delays, problems in finding appropriate leader, had only been discussed with those who technical assistance, and the logistical challenges would receive livestock and not with the entire of working with a distant nomadic group meant that group. Local experts interviewed by the OTA team a proposal was not completed until 1 year later. At felt that this type of indirect decisionmaking, involv- that point, local government officials who had been ing considerable one-on-one interactions rather bypassed in the project design process objected and than large public meetings, was consistent with threatened to block the project. At their insistence traditional norms. changes were made which substantially altered the Conclusion. —The OTA team found numerous shape of the project. In addition to the inclusion flaws in the Dakoro project design but were unani- of the other ethnic groups mentioned above, the offi- mous in their high rating of the project as consist- cials insisted that the dry season agriculture com- ent with ADF’s mandate. ADF is one of only a few ponent be dropped, and that purchases of goats and organizations in Niger which support initiatives of sheep be substituted for cattle. A local government semi-nomadic herders to modestly adapt their technical service agent was designated as the tech- threatened lifestyles and systems of production. nical coordinator of the project and counterpart to Herder groups such as the Kasasawa are clearly the cooperative’s leader, Project participants agreed among the poorest of the poor throughout the Sa- to these changes when informed by ADF that they hel and have been bypassed by most government had little choice. Due to overestimates in the origi- and foreign donor development programs, ADF is nal planning grant budget, only half of that first notable in its attempts to maintain a modicum of grant was actually disbursed. control in the hands of the herders themselves, the The second Grant Agreement for approximately compromise with local officials notwithstanding, $85,000 to implement the new plan was signed just It was readily apparent to the OTA team that the prior to the OTA team visit in September 1987. No herders of Bundu Eggo feel deep appreciation and funds from the second grant had been received. The respect for ADF and its Representative. project budget, developed by the Dakoro local gov- The largest concern raised by the OTA team with ernment officials, contains five main components: respect to the Dakoro project was that of the role $35,ooo for the purchase of sheep, goats, camels, given local government authorities. The opposition and donkeys to replace approximately 10 percent engendered by ADF’s lack of contact with local offi- of the herd lost in the recent drought; $8,250 to build cials and ADF’s determination to do something for and stock a cooperative store that would provide the Bundu Eggo group left ADF in a poor bargain- basic necessities for the community; $6,750 for a ing position. It is ironic that the conflicts engen- literacy program; $8,550 for repairs to the commu- dered by ADF’s approach in Niger have led to more nity well; $1000 for basic medicines for both live- government control in several ADF projects than stock and people; and $17,500 for the technical in those of PVOS which have been willing to “play assistance to support the project (approximately the game” by involving officials in their program- one-half for local government technical service ming activities from the beginning. agents). Over $26,000 (nearly 30 percent of the to- Specifically, the OTA team had concerns that un- tal grant amount) is earmarked for ADF’s documen- less closely supervised by ADF’s local Country Re- tation of the project. source Facilitator, the purchase and distribution of Interviews with the project participants indicated livestock could result in an undue portion of the that the replacement of livestock was their highest benefits accruing to merchants and officials rather priority and there was considerable disappointment than participants.3 The OTA team found the salary that the cattle had been replaced by sheep and goats. and benefits expected by government officials to Milk from cows is the main element in the Woo- do what is already their job as inappropriate.4 dabe diet. The repair of Eggo’s ancient well was Other problematic aspects included: the technical their second priority. Few community members were aware of the project’s other components and 3ADF has subsequently reported that ADF’s Country Resource Facili- many expressed opposition to the idea of literacy tator in Niger did indeed actively participate in the purchase and distri- training, which they saw as an imposition on their bution of livestock and that the concerns expressed by the OTA team were not realized. way of life. There was an equal degree of confu- ~ADF had a different understanding than the local officials in Dakoro sion and disagreement regarding the role of the lo- regarding payments to the government technicians, ADF’s understand- cal government technical agent in the project al- ing was that the technician would be removed from the government payroll during project implementation. Since the departure of the OTA team though some felt that the government presence the government technician has been transferred and ADF reports that would assure a fairer distribution of livestock. The a private technician has been identified to fill that position. 130 feasibility of the proposed well repair (dangerous (SAED), many Ross Bethio farmers have had access at best and likely to be impossible given the state to irrigated lands for two generations. Although of the existing well); the financial viability of the SAED’S strategies have often resulted in high debt cooperative store, given limited management/com- for many farmers, access to irrigated land and the mercial experience and the negative experiences possibilities of salaried positions with sugar and of previous, much smaller stores run by the same tomato canning operations nearby and in the re- individuals; and the disagreement regarding the gional capital of St. Louis, translate into higher aver- need for literacy. A more gradual approach, with age income levels in Ross Bethio than many other more training at its earlier stages would have had areas of the country. All people have not, however, fewer financial and management risks. Experts con- benefitted equally. Access to irrigation and to em- sulted in Niger could not reach consensus regard- ployment is restricted and is becoming more criti- ing a final concern, the problem of the long-term cal with population growth and general economic environmental impact of the grazing systems be- decline. Local herders have been particularly hard ing perpetuated by this project. Nor was there agree- hit by recurrent drought and have had generally less ment on the significance of the change from cattle access to irrigation or employment alternatives. to sheep—a point felt by some to be immaterial since The Youth Association of Ross Bethio is among the Kasasawa were likely to sell a portion of the the more dynamic of many similar organizations small ruminents received from ADF to buy cattle of young adults throughout the country. The vast anyway. majority of its 265 members (100 men and 165 These concerns notwithstanding the team felt that women) are between the ages of 15 and 35. About the most important component of the project, the 35 percent (mostly men) have attended primary purchase of livestock, would meet its objective. school and 20 participants have gone on to second- Once received, the herders were likely to manage ary school. them successfully according to traditional systems The problem of access to irrigated land is particu- with or without the advice of the government tech- larly acute for this age group. Although many of nician. The other components are more problematic them come from families with access to irrigation, but also of less significance to the beneficiaries. The those plots are still in the hands of their elders or “bottom line” for the Dakoro project is whether or risk being divided into uneconomically small plots not the project will provide or at least move toward when passed on to this generation. For many peo- a long-term solution to the vulnerability of the ple, the solution has been to seek local salaried em- herders’ current existence. It is too early to tell the ployment or emigrate to the urban centers of St. outcome, but the fact that the project has given the Louis or Dakar—strategies that are proving to be community a temporary respite, experience in prob- increasingly unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the current lem solving, and most of all, hope, is more than development of water and salinity control along the enough justification. Senegal River and the government’s land policies regarding the development of irrigation have raised Equipment So Strengthen the fears that outsiders, either Senegalese or foreign, Agricultural Activities of the Youth will be given rights to land around Ross Bethio. Association of Ross Bethio The Youth Association of Ross Bethio was formed in 1974 in response to the challenges posed by Organization: Youth Association of Ross Bethio drought. Its well-organized structure, active mem- Site: Ross Bethio, Senegal bership, group discipline, and capable leadership Activities: Irrigated agriculture—rice, tomato have led to a series of successful activities in small- and vegetable production. scale irrigation, reforestation, livestock, and the im- Grant Size: $158,639 provement of community infrastructure (roads, mosque, village pharmacy, women’s center, etc.). The Setting.—Ross Bethio is located on the Sene- Its activities have attracted attention and financial gal River in the north of the country, four hours support from a number of external donors. The drive on paved roads from the capital, Dakar. It is Association’s success with its first 40 hectare irri- located in an area where rainfed agriculture has gation system (financed by the Dutch organization been particularly hard hit by the downward trend NOVIB) led them to seek funding for expansion. The in rainfall and where irrigated agriculture has taken ambitiousness of their plan caused them to be on growing importance. As a center for a state- turned down by several donors before coming to owned agricultural development organization ADF, 131 —.

The Project.—The AD F-funded project has added tion NOVIB) and through credit arranged through over 100 hectares of irrigated land to the Associa- Senegal’s new National Agricultural Credit Bank. tion’s fields, thus providing a major increase in the The Association is one of the first to receive pro- land available to its members. ADF’s grant has paid duction credit from the bank. for two irrigation pumps to draw water from a large Although women expressed the hope of having irrigation canal; the clearing and preparation of the access to more land in the future, they favored the new irrigated fields, including the construction of collective formula for working their land and did canals and dikes; and a small pick-up truck to trans- not complain about the disparity of access and ben- port supplies, produce, and participants. efits between men and women. In fact, for many Rice production began in September 1987 despite this was their first access to irrigated lands of their major delays in the transmission of funds from ADF own, to the Association, low levels of water in the source Conclusion. —The Youth Association of Ross canal, and a land dispute involving the local herders Bethio fits well into the ADF mandate. While per- who had traditional grazing rights to the area de- haps not among the poorest of Senegal’s poor, the veloped under the project. The Association followed group’s identification of access to irrigation as a due process to gain title to the land and an eventual major determinant of future well-being is correct “amicable settlement” was reached, but the dispute and farsighted. The project already has begun to required the intervention of armed police to remove achieve one of its principal goals—the return of vil- the herders from the land—an operation partially lage youth from the urban centers. Apart from the financed by ADF-supplied funds according to an regrettable incident of forcing the herders off the Association official. On the more positive side, the land to make way for the irrigation project and the Association’s determination to succeed is shown unresolved long-term impacts of irrigation on land in their tremendous efforts to begin production, de- and water resources, the project gives evidence of spite limited water in the source canal, by moving attaining the kind of sustainable results and expan- tons of mud by hand to dig channels to feed their sion of opportunity called for in ADF’s mandate. irrigation system. The Association’s operations are based on a high Production is impressively organized, Male mem- degree of centralized decisionmaking and dis- bers of the Association run the irrigation system, cipline, but it is an effective and probably unavoid- supply 200 hours of work per season in collective able management method given the high degree of teams. Land access rights for men and women as coordination and timing inherent in a 100+ hec- well as the distribution of benefits to each are orga- tare irrigation scheme. Participants expressed high nized differently. Men are given individual fields levels of confidence in the group’s leaders and there averaging 3/4 hectare. Production is on an individ- was evidence that leadership was responsive to and ual basis, although operations where timing is crit- held accountable by the members. ical such as planting are performed by the collec- Organization issues are likely to become acute in tive work groups. Allocation is on a year-to-year the short to medium term, especially the on-going basis and considers the number of mouths to feed allocation of land within the irrigated area. Will the and the level of effort contributed to collective work leadership’s method for allocation according to teams. The 165 women involved have been allocated need and effort continue to go unchallenged? How only 20 hectares to be worked collectively in teams. will new members be accommodated? What will Although production, cost, and total benefits are happen as the “youths” grow older? The Associa- still uncertain, project staff estimate benefits on the tion’s proposed solution (further expansion of the order of $90 for men and between $50 and $115 irrigated area) may be unrealistic because few out- for women. Division of benefits on the women’s side organizations are willing to commit the level fields will be made on the basis of the number of of funding provided by ADF. Also, several experts days worked and the amount of effort contributed. believe that at 150 hectares the scale of operations Cost and production estimates used by the Asso- is already beyond the maximum point of efficient ciation to arrive at these figures were judged real- production, istic by local experts, although the fuel costs of the A further challenge will be to maintain access to pumps chosen by the group were not known since short-term credit to finance the high costs of inputs. the model of pump is new to the area. The credit from the National Agricultural Bank this All inputs (diesel fuel, seed, fertilizer, etc.) are be- year cannot be assumed to be on-going and, according provided by the Association through its own ing to Association officials, was far less than budget (bolstered by funds from the Dutch organiza- needed. The unproven cost and maintenance rec- —

132 ord of the Association’s choice of pumps is an ad- services and input support has left people with few ditional cause for concern. The OTA team’s feel- options beyond moving to other regional capitals ing is, however, that the group’s performance in the or Dakar. past, the resourcefulness and dynamism of its Village-level youth associations are traditional in leadership, and the dedication of its members will Senegal. In recent years, many of these groups have find solutions to these problems. The prognosis for been energized anew and have formed regional and the long-term future is clouded only by the eco- national level associations. The Association of nomic and ecological uncertainties facing irrigated Young Farmers of the Casamance (AJAC in French) rice and tomato production along the Senegal River. has been one of the more dynamic regional associations. It in turn has encouraged the formation of sub-regional unions of village groups such as the Union Kaoural Union Kaoural, which began in 1982. The Union Organization: Kaoural Federation of Cooperatives Kaoural is highly structured with a Board of Direc- Site: Twenty-five village associations in tors and a constituent assembly with representatives the Kolda region of Senegal of its member groups. The reality, however, is less participatory or cohesive with a high degree of cen- Activities: Collective orchards and gardens; dairy cattle feeding centers and vil- tralized control resting in a few individuals and con- lage pharmacies. siderable instability of membership. Thirty-nine village groups were in the Union Grant Size: $103,832 when ADF negotiated its grant. Since then, 63 new The Setting.—The Union Kaoural is an associa- groups have joined but 27 have withdrawn (the tion of village youth groups based in the village of majority leaving with some rancor and despite the Media Koundie (30 kilometers to the east of Kolda). fact that they were slated to receive benefits from The Kolda Region, although connected by good the ADF project). Two additional segments of the roads to the rest of Senegal, is among the country’s Union are in the process of being spun off more most isolated and disadvantaged areas in terms of amicably. The village-level associations visited by social and productive infrastructure. This is partly the OTA team expressed confidence in the Union explained by the distance to Dakar (8 hours by road), leadership (OTA did not visit any groups that had and partly due to the fact that, for political and eco- withdrawn) and showed evidence of being par- nomic reasons, it had been relatively neglected by ticipatory and enthusiastic about the proposed government development programs. Outside atten- activities. The dedication and hard work of several tion to agricultural development in the zone has also of the Union’s leaders was evident. The Union has been lacking despite the fact that the region is less received operational and project funding from a constrained by rainfall patterns, depleted soils, and range of NGO donors, mostly through the aegis of population densities than much of arable land in AJAC. Senegal. It is a zone where a sedentary branch of The Project.—The Union Kaoural project being the Fulani ethnic group is traditionally dominant. funded by ADF is designed to provide collective op- The Union Kaoural is estimated by its leaders to portunities for income generation. The project is include over 3,000 members in 79 village groups. a scaled down version of the original proposal pre- Observations and interviews by OTA team mem- sented to ADF. The Union’s first priority (a cereal bers indicate that a considerably lower number are bank) was dropped from the proposal at the sug- actually active in the group’s activities. Approxi- gestion of an ADF consultant and a second compo- mately 45 percent of the members are women, and nent, village pharmacies, was reduced by one-half. 75 percent are between the ages of 15 and 30. In The remaining project includes four principal activ- the Medina Koundie village group, fewer than 10 ities that have been allocated among the 25 villages percent have gone to school. All but a few village chosen by the Union’s leadership to benefit from groups are predominantly Fulani. Members broadly the program. reflect the income level of their communities but ADF funding will provide materials for 10 col- the leadership comes from relatively more affluent lective orchards, 10 collective gardens, 2 dairy cat- and powerful families. tle feeding centers, and 5 village pharmacies, Both Low income and underemployment, particularly dairy centers (15 percent of the project budget) are during the dry season, are major facts of life in the being built in Medina Koundie—one for an asso- Kolda region, even more than in other areas of Sene- ciation of herders who are not members of the gal. The lack of alternative employment and gov- Union. The other components are identical “cookie- ernment assistance to farmers through extension cutter” activities where the Union provides mate- 133

rial inputs and the local village association provides logistical difficulties in implementing a project in labor. All purchasing of materials and their distri- 25 villages spread across an area of hundreds of bution is being handled by the Union, including the kilometers with only one good road and one small contracting and payment of salaries for the well dig- vehicle raise tremendous questions as to ultimate gers and masons. The Union has used ADF funds outcomes. The fact that some progress can be seen to provide bookkeeping training to the treasurers is to their credit. of the local groups. Its leaders also talked of pro- The lack of effective individual input into project viding some technical assistance and further train- planning and implementation is equally disturbing. ing in vegetable gardening and fruit tree produc- Each component was designed by the core group tion directly or in conjunction with AJAC. in Medina Koundie, which also decided which vil- As of the OTA visit, wells and basins had been lage should get what activity. Each is being imple- completed and tools and fencing delivered to 8 of mented according to an identical plan with the the 10 villages that are slated to receive gardens. Union controlling all the funds, hiring all the skilled Wells had been started in two others. The buildings labor, and supervising all the work. Not only is this for the two dairy centers also were complete, but method likely to cause difficulties given the differ- in the opinion of the OTA team one of the build- ence between the membership, environments, and ings and both of the wells shown were built prior organizations of the individual village groups but to ADF funding. Purchase of the cattle was partially it also precludes the development opportunity that completed. The team was told that materials for the could have been provided by giving the local groups orchards were ordered and would be soon de- a greater role in project design and implementation. livered. Although village participants seemed generally Overall, the project is behind schedule. Part of knowledgeable about the project, they were una- the delay was reported to come from slowness in ware of its financial aspects and several were un- communciations and especially in the transfer of clear about what was expected from them. There funds from ADF to the Union. Opposition from lo- were several instances where the village groups cal government officials, particularly over the village failed to take important action while they awaited pharmacies, was another problem which, although instructions from the Union. not altogether resolved, gave indications of being The lack of basic feasibility studies raises addi- addressed. A further problem has been the tight con- tional questions, No evidence exists to show that trol exercised by the Union’s manager (animateur thought had been given either at the village or Union in French). His illness and lack of a deputy at one level to eventually marketing what will be produced, point in the negotiations caused significant delay. Poor transportation infrastructure and the lack of Poor planning was a final problem. Adequate al- local markets could cause disappointing returns. lowance was not made for the costs of transport- Records from the vegetable production activities of ing the materials from the purchase point to Me- the Medina Koundie village group showed net dina Koundie and then out to the remote village losses for the past two years despite their location members. on a paved road and in closer proximity to the larger Financial records on the use of ADF funds were market town of Kolda than many of the other par- non-existent or “not available. ” Those records that ticipating villages. The distribution of any proceeds did exist, combined with interviews with project generated is a further unresolved and potentially staff and participants, as well as observation, all in- thorny issue. Most groups talked of all proceeds re- dicate the possibility that substantially less materi- maining in the group for investment in community als and money were being used in construction and infrastructure or to be used for social obligations equipment than was planned for in the project of the members (a common practice in small income proposal, generating activities of village youth groups, but Conclusion. —The individual village-level organi- more problematic with larger projects). This form zations and their members seem to fit the ADF man- of distribution might be inconsistent with the ob- date, but OTA team’s visit raised questions regard- jective of increasing income possibilities and stem- ing significant aspects of the project’s design. The ming rural to urban migration, The proposed plan Union Kaoural appears to be going through a period of the Union’s leaders to “tax” village groups 40 of instability where the exigencies of a project of percent of their profits to establish a revolving fund this magnitude give evidence of having a negative that could be used to do similar projects in other influence. The centralization of its de facto struc- member villages was not known by many groups ture, internal management and organizational defi- and not popular with those that were informed. Two ciencies, the lack of basic financial records, and the added cautions: the success of village pharmacies —

134 and cattle feeding centers has been extremely low Early failures taught the Bishop important les- elsewhere in Senegal. sons—the need for technical expertise and training, Given these uncertainties, the future prognosis and especially, the active participation of the peo- is less than bright for the type of profitable collec- ple in development efforts. As a result, a participa- tive group enterprises envisioned in the project pro- tory church structure was developed to encourage posal. A number of the groups however, showed a two-way information flow between the diocese determination and creativity. The high quality of and the local villages. Each congregation, which in- the wells being built, and the benefits of good fenc- clude several villages, elects a contact committee; ing and quality tools will undoubtedly benefit at three leaders of several congregation committees least some of the participants. The opportunity to form a parish committee; representatives of several undertake the individual micro-projects (the heavy parishes form a deanery-level committee; the sev- handed control of the Union notwithstanding) is eral deanery committees feed into the diocesan also likely to benefit many of the individual village Planning and Development Committee. Farmers, groups, giving them experience in management, women’s groups, youth groups, and pastors from new production techniques, marketing, and orga- each parish are involved in planning and carrying nization. A more thoughtful, realistic, and gradual out projects. approach to assisting the Union Kaoural would have The Project.—The project the Development Com- enhanced these benefits. mittee submitted to ADF, which it met through the Christian Council of Tanzania (a coalition of pro- Integrated Food Dovelopment testant churches], is its most ambitious yet. It aims to introduce modern farm inputs—mainly improved Program seeds, fertilizer, and pesticide—and tractor hire services together with extension advice and credit Organization: Diocese of Morogoro, Development to farmers to increase production of their major Department crop, maize. The Development Committee initially Site: Morogoro, Tanzania planned to purchase, store, and market the maize Activities: Tractor hire; credit for inputs for produced. The goal is to increase productivity per maize production. acre and acreage under cultivation. Grant Size: $248,378 ADF funds would buy 3 tractors to plow group The Setting.—The Anglican Diocese of Morogoro farms for congregations (3 acres each), women’s encompasses nearly 400 villages in 3 districts in cen- groups (2 acres), youth groups (1 acre), and indi- tral Tanzania, a region including productive areas vidual farms (1 acre each). The first year, each trac- with sufficient rainfall for farming and drier areas tor was to plow 10 to 20 acres per day, for a total severely impacted by drought. The area where the of 1,080 to 1,800 acres; a specific package of seed, ADF project was first implemented in 1986 and fertilizers, and insecticides was to be applied by reg- 1987 lies at the edge of the vast rolling plains of the istered farmers who would get one acre plowed at Maasai Steppe. The town of Gairo is halfway be- a charge of about $10. Maize yields were projected tween Morogoro and the new capital Dodoma. Most to increase from an average of 1.5 bags per acre to of the people farm plots averaging several acres and 10 bags. ADF funds would build storage depots and graze small herds of cattle on communal lands. buy a truck. Shortly after awarding the grant ADF A charismatic minister, Reverend Chitemo, is a sent a representative of another ADF-funded proj- main force behind local development efforts. He be- ect, Paul Maina, director of Farming Systems came bishop when the new Anglican diocese was Kenya, to review plans and make recommendations formed shortly after Independence in 1964. Angli- to the Development Committee. Since the Food and cans are the predominant Christian religion in the Agriculture Organization (FAO) was sending sev- area. The Development Committee of the diocese eral hundred Fiat tractors to the Morogoro region, has sponsored a variety of agricultural projects the diocese decided to purchase Fiat tractors, to take since 1970 to improve the nutrition and standard advantage of the supplies of spare parts in garages of living of the Uluglu people. Rabbit, poultry, cit- set up to service the FAO tractors. rus tree, and beekeeping projects are on-going. The project was late getting started: a director and More recently, the diocese began a dairy and goat agronomist were not recruited until February 1987; project. Missionaries working in the diocese ob- only one tractor arrived and that in the middle of tained support for these activities from English and the planting season; the fertilizer also arrived late, Australian religious funders such as Christian Aid. Thus, only 156 acres were plowed, an average of 135

3.5 per day due to breakdowns and the fact that the cerns related to sustainability were economic and sites were scattered. Some farmers had more than environmental. Careful financial planning about one acre plowed; some who were not registered in how to continue the project has not been done. For the program hired the tractor or purchased inputs. example, a market analysis would determine Not all farmers accepted the whole package, given whether the plan to purchase and market farmers’ their aversion to the risk of adopting radically new produce is realistic or would lead to major losses farming practices. Maize yields of project partici- for the Committee. Estimating the costs of main- pants averaged 5 bags per acre, which were higher taining, and eventually replacing, the tractors would than past yields but lower than planned, mainly be- help determine if the current rate charged to plow cause of lower than usual rainfall in the area. House- each acre, somewhat less than the market rate, is hold incomes thus increased $14 (less than the $44 feasible, planned), roughly equivalent to a 10 percent increase. Nor has the Development Committee clearly iden- The OTA team arrived before the second plant- tified potential negative environmental impacts, al- ing season and found participants enthusiastic though the project managers’ plan to plant citrus about the results and many more wanting to par- trees on the block farms to improve the people’s diet ticipate than could. The management had learned could also help prevent erosion. OTA members valuable lessons: more careful planning and record asked if they considered ox plows for some areas, keeping; better training of the contact committees and expressed concern about monocropping (which who selected participants; better effort to recruit could eventually reduce soil fertility, decrease pro- women farmers (nearly one-third of the individual duction of pulses which provide protein, and in- farmers registered for the second year), some of crease risk if the price of maize was to decline]. whom would obtain inputs on credit; farmers would Some danger exists of losing sight of the value of sell maize through regular marketing channels the integrated food program envisioned by the Bishop rather than to the diocese committee and repay their and overlooking the other agricultural projects in loans to the committee; if the two tractors did not the enthusiasm for maize and tractors. arrive on time, project managers would consider renting them. They would plow at least one “block farm” on uncultivated land, which they told the Conservation Education Project OTA team would not disturb the persons who Organization: Kikatiti Village Malihai Club grazed their cattle herds since there was plenty of Site: Kikatiti and Arusha, Tanzania open land. (Most Maasai, among the herders using Activities: Water supply and reforestation the area proposed for the block farm, are not An- Grant Size: $66,168 glican.) Conclusion.—The OTA team was especially im- The Setting.—Kikatiti, situated at the base of the pressed with the mechanism for two way commu- mountains between Mount Meru and Mount nication and input from participants as well as the Kilimanjaro about 22 kilometers from Arusha, has increased yields of the first year participants. Al- a growing population estimated at 1,300 families. though most beneficiaries were Anglicans, they Because of its higher elevation and rainfall, the area were a representative group of the area and in- near Arusha was favored by the white settlers and cluded poor people. In general, the team felt the remains an area of high agricultural potential in project had been overambitious in its proposal, but Tanzania. Most of the Chaga people in the commu- the new managers were making corrections based nity are small farmers, with about 2 to 5 acres of on the first year. OTA concerns about participation land, and in conformity with government regula- were the lack of clarity on how to register and care- tions to reduce pressure of cattle herds on the land, ful supervision of plowing. The interlocking com- admit to raising one cow per acre. Water is a press- mittee structure would help replicate the project ing problem. Women wait in long lines at the well. within the diocese, extending its impact. In some Sometimes they must draw water for household use instances, neighbors already imitated farming prac- from the nearby spring-fed pond used by cattle, with tices that participants learned from the project ex- negative consequences for health of their far-dies. tension agents. The women also walk long distances in search of The church’s long experience with development fuelwood. projects should help ensure sustainability after the In nearby Arusha, a group of environmentalists Bishop retires in late 1987. The team’s main con- established the Malihai (“living wealth”) Club of 136

Tanzania to educate Tanzanians, especially through organization.) Since the district government water boys clubs in secondary schools, to appreciate the engineer would not provide services without pay, wildlife in Tanzania’s national parks and help pre- Malihai Arusha eventually contracted a private firm serve them. Originally within the National Parks for an engineer, who added a 20,000 gallon water (headquartered in Arusha), the Malihai Club of Tan- storage tank to the plans. Thus, much of the con- zania was established in 1983 and obtained fund- trol of the project rested in Malihai Arusha, even ing from the African Wildlife Foundation and though ADF continued to address its communica- World Wildlife Fund/IUCN. The staff still is on the tion to the Kikatiti Chairman. For example, Mali- payroll of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Re- hai Arusha prepares all quarterly reports. The new sources. Awareness of the need to deal with the de- ADF Country Resource Facilitator lives nearby and velopment problems of people living adjacent to the has visited the project often, but his role is limited parks, to prevent their poaching of wildlife, wood, to technical matters; he was instructed not to get and water from the parks, led to the concept of help- involved in problems related to project man- ing communities in “buffer zones” near the parks. agement. Malihai Arusha picked Kikatiti as their first village The delays in project start-up were in part due project for several reasons, including that they to problems in obtaining engineering services and thought it was an area where wood was being the needed equipment (pipes, pump) from Nairobi, poached from Arusha National Park. And a former Kenya, since the supplies were not available in Tan- principal, whose school had sponsored a Malihai zania. The main problem, however, was the long Club, moved to Kikatiti and came to the national time it took for the Kikatiti Club to obtain tax ex- organization of Malihai for assistance. empt status needed to import materials tax free. At Malihai Arusha showed audiovisual materials the time of the OTA visit, the trenches had been about the need to preserve the parks and plant trees dug by most of the men in the village on several during town meetings. In 1985, Kikatiti set up their Saturdays of collective action, and the pipes had own club, consisting of all members of the village just arrived from Nairobi. The pump had not yet and headed by the elected leaders of the village, to arrived, and the storage tank and water points were be in charge of environmental issues. While women not built. Still, public support for the water system could be dues-paying members, they were excluded was high. from management committees, However, less support was evident for the forestry The Project.—The director of the Malihai Club of component. The nursery near the pond was in poor Tanzania first wrote ADF seeking funding for the condition, the fence broken by cattle, with few small national organization. Later, after ADF explained trees. Community leaders agreed the nursery was that Malihai’s proposed work with villages was not working as planned; but might do better when more appropriate for funding, he submitted a pro- the water supply was completed. ($4,000 in ADF posal for an improved water supply and reforesta- funds are for a future nursery, perhaps on the same tion project in Kikatiti. The water project had sev- site.) OTA team members noted that planting trees eral components: a borehole previously dug with around the pond, while it could help protect the AID funds, 4 kilometers away, would be linked to pond, would not affect the watershed. Kikatiti the village, with separate waterpoints for domestic leaders said most seedlings were planted on indi- use and for livestock. The people would dig the vidual plots and denied that women obtained fuel- trenches; ADF funds would provide pipe, electric wood from the national park since it was some dis- pump, technical assistance, a motorcycle, and re- tance away. pair and spare parts for a van for Malihai Arusha, Kikatiti leaders had no idea how much it would The forestry component was a small part of the cost to maintain the water system (e.g., pay the grant. Since the Tanzanian Forest Department pro- monthly electric bill, hire someone to oversee the vides seedlings, ADF funds would help build a vil- system, and set up a fund for eventual replacement lage nursery. of the pump) and noted that during a town meeting ADF awarded the grant to Kikatiti Malihai Club members had not accepted the monthly fee (about with a condition that they develop a maintenance $1.00) proposed by the committee and substituted plan. But following a review by ADF’s auditors, a $1.25 annual fee per household. Nor did they plan Coopers and Lybrand Tanzania, which showed vil- to charge fees from users from outside the village. lage books were 13 months in arrears, ADF decided OTA team members were unable to meet with the to disburse funds to Malihai Arusha. (While tech- Kikatiti treasurer. Despite repeated requests, OTA nically ADF funds were in a joint account, actual team members were also not able to speak to women control of these funds was given to the national in Kikatiti. 137

Conclusion.—Kikatiti was recognized as a local ing independence in 1963, this area of the highlands government when it registered under the Tanzania was part of the Million Acre Resettlement scheme government-sponsored ujamaa program. Since the intended to compensate white settlers and redistrib- community had successfully completed a number ute their land to African farmers. But public funds of on-going projects (e.g., grain mill, cattle dip, and and donor contributions fell short and so private store) and would have to maintain the water sup- land buying companies were formed to combine in- ply, OTA team concluded that (1) a planned disen- dividuals’ savings, purchase large farms, and sub- gagement of Malihai Arusha from management and divide them among the new owners. Gitero was the financial control of the project would have helped; first of the three communities to begin resettlement (2) the water should not be connected until Kikatiti in the late 1970s. By the early 1980s, 250 families develops an economically feasible plan to sustain had settled on the 350 plots in 3 new communities. the system. Despite the lack of financial planning, Shares were for 1 acre in Njoguini, 2 in Kabati, 3 the fact that the community successfully managed in Gitero; but half the families obtained 3 to 5 acres other projects and that water was such a critical and a few up to 20, Most of the new settlers were need led the OTA team to conclude that the water Kikuyu, but about half in Njoguini were Meru. project would probably be sustained by the people. The Gitero Self-Help Committee was formed in It was unlikely that the district water officials would 1982 to obtain water needed by the new residents. provide much support. However, the nursery did Before he left, the white settler who had owned the not seem to have strong support, even though many large estate sold the windmill that had been the recognized the need for more trees. Involvement principal source of power for the old borehole, the of women in the committees could have helped. only water source. The community raised funds to Within the district, few communities have built repair the well and diesel pump. A Peace Corps their own water supply. Since the government of Volunteer assigned to the adjoining district’s water Tanzania does not have the resources to provide office put the committee in touch with the U.S. Am- water to many rural communities, self-help water bassadors Self-Help Fund, which provided $10,000 projects definitely meet a need. However, replica- to replace the windmill in 1983. But the drought bility of this system is limited because few villages of 1984 was devastating. Crops failed, three-fourths have access to the relatively large amount of out- of the communities’ cattle died, and the people were side funds needed for construction, or reliable forced to depend on food aid for survival. sources of electricity. Better relations with the dis- The Project.—To better ensure water supplies, the trict water officials might help others reduce costs people decided to pipe water from a river fed by of technical assistance and maintain the system. glaciers on Mount Kenya so that each household The Malihai Club of Tanzania’s plan to help peo- could have enough water for domestic use, for their ple who live in buffer areas near the national parks livestock, and to irrigate I acre of land. The man- meet their needs is innovative. But to work more agement committee expanded to include seven effectively with other village development projects, elected representatives of each of the three commu- they need to improve their community development nities, Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati (NGK). The lo- skills, learn to work in concert with local leaders, and establish a relationship of trust with them.

~~Njoguini, Giteroo, and Kabati Self-Help Water Project~~

Organization: NGK Self-Help Water Project Com- mittee Site: Njoguini, Gitero and Kabati, Kenya Activities: Water supply for domestic use and irrigated plots. Grant Size: $250,000 The Setting.—The village of Njoguini is located below the forest in the foothills of Mount Kenya, snowcapped year round. The villages of Gitero and Kabati are down in the dry plains which were once Photo credit” ADF/Michael Maren vast wheat farms held by British settlers. Follow- NGK’s first water tank nearing completion in 1986. 138 cal chief and community development assistant Women were growing cabbage, pepper, carrots, and were added as the government’s representatives. tomatoes in the dry season. Cattle were producing Each committee coordinated fundraising and work more milk. for its village and elected representatives to the cen- There were benefits in addition to increased in- tral committee. The central committee approached come from the sale of vegetables. Women no longer the Provincial Water Engineer who began to con- spend long hours carrying water, and they complain duct a survey and design a gravity-fed water sys- of fewer backaches; children have improved hy- tem and asked the Peace Corp volunteer to prepare giene, diets, and time to attend school. In addition, a proposal to ADF and be the project manager. land values doubled as a result of the water supply: ADF’s representative suggested that the labor be rising from $625 to $1250 an acre in Gitero (cur- contributed by the residents, rather than paid by rent land values in Kabati were cited as $750 to $950 the grant, The residents began to clear the course an acre; in Ngoguini, $1818 an acre). and dug 3 kilometers of trenches by the end of 1984, Bouyed by success, the central management com- In spring 1985, ADF awarded $149,000 for the mittee plans to build a storage shed to market project’s first phase and later another $98,000 for vegetables in nearby cities, form a dairy coopera- the second two phases. The objectives were to dig tive with a milk processing plant, and bring electri- a 13 kilometer trench for the main trunk line down city to the area. the mountain and 18 kilometers of distribution lines; Conclusion. —The OTA team was impressed both to build two 50,000-gallon storage tanks and an in- with the participation of the people and the results take. The design allowed each household to have of their effort. The tri-village management structure, an individual tap and for 200 acres to be irrigated. providing a voice for people of different ethnic ADF funds paid the salaries of the manager and a groups and geographic areas, could be replicated counterpart who would be trained to manage the in other areas. Other factors fostering participation system, pipes, and materials for the storage tanks. were the fact that it is a new settlement without en- Each community worked one day a week and all trenched social or political factions, a clearly de- three worked on Saturdays, when large meetings fined area, the leaders are perceived to be honest, were held; committee records show each person and the chief had community development training. worked an average of 115 days. The community The team had some concerns about sustainabil- raised money for the intake high in the rainforest ity of the project, although the track record of the (which had to be protected from roving elephants) group indicates they will probably meet future chal- though harambee fundraisers and a $31 subscrip- lenges. The proposed maintenance charge bears no tion fee. Large boulders were cracked by warming relation to the costs of repair, replacement, and pay- them with fire and then throwing cold water over ment of supervisors of the system. A careful analy- them. They received permission for the pipeline to sis of these costs has not yet been done. Nor has cross the Kenyan Vice President’s very large farm a market analysis been done of the impact of the and for the second storage tank to be located on it. increased vegetable production that could result in District water officials who designed the system su- lower prices. Not much consideration has been pervised its construction, given to mitigating negative environmental impacts By the time of the OTA visit, the main distribu- of irrigation on soil fertility, such as waterlogging tion lines, intake, and two storage tanks were com- and erosion. Nor has a soil analysis been done to plete, and many residents had completed water in- determine which areas are more suitable for irriga- stallation (but not hooked up household water taps) tion. Terracing and agroforestry could be con- to their farms at their own expense. The trained sidered. counterpart was supervising the system. About 100 The management committee also needs to plan to 130 acres were being irrigated. It was unknown for competing claims on the system in the future. if the approximately 100 absentee landowners could Residents across the road have complained to lo- afford the hookup fee ($425) to pay for the 115 days cal officials they do not have access to water for of labor and the additional costs of bringing the line irrigation; others have complained of the diversion to their farms. While the system was designed for of their potential water source. Also, households 200 irrigated acres, some people were irrigating 2 currently irrigating will be reluctant to cut back or 3 acres, and there are 350 farms. Local exten- their irrigated acreage once new households come sion agents had provided training in irrigated pro- on line. duction prior to arrival of the water, and lush vegeta- According to research by government water offi- ble gardens were in evidence on the irrigated plots. cials, only 1 in 15 self-help water projects in Kenya 139

is completed. But few have direct access to the out- and the Ford Foundation, to help rural women be- side resources that NGK received from ADF. While come more self-sufficient. Since credit and commer- a gravity-fed system is relatively simple, there are cial institutions in Kenya require land title deeds, limited sites available for gravity systems in Kenya. traditionally in the name of the husband, as col- Areas for new settlement of entities with the abil- lateral for loans, rural women are unable to obtain ity to control access to the water and manage its credit. PfP provided women with business manage- use are equally scarce. Still, water and agriculture ment training and access to credit. During the pi- officials have looked with interest at NGK, recog- lot project 18 women’s groups received loans, with nizing the contribution of the residents was one- a loan recovery rate of 90 percent, and 54 groups third the cost of the project. At least one other com- received farm inputs on credit. PfP demonstrated munity in the district has begun its own water that it had developed a methodology that helped im- project. prove the incomes of rural women. The Project.—ADF awarded a 2-year grant to Kenya Small Enterprise and PfP/Kenya in 1985, which was later increased to $229,000, to provide: 1) training in credit and busi- Credit Training Project ness management to 30 women’s groups in three Organization: Partnership for Productivity (PfP)/ districts and 2) credit to these groups for income- Kenya generating projects and agricultural inputs. Initial Site: Nairobi and Kakamega, Kenya ADF grant funds were to provide for staff salaries, Activities: Provide women’s groups with train- including eight new extension agents, and the credit ing and credit for small-scale enter- fund. Since PfP’s Board of Directors consists of 8 prises and agricultural inputs, men and its 5 field supervisors are men, it recruited Grant Size: $228,800 women extension agents for this program (by 1987, 8 of 20 extension agents were women). The ADF The Setting.—Partnership for Productivity grant was amended to allow the purchase of four (PfP)/Kenya is a private voluntary organization motorcycles so the agents can visit the women’s which was started by some American Friends groups more frequently, (Quakers) in the Western Province of Kenya in 1969. At the time of the OTA visit near the end of the Since 1975, it has been autonomous with a Kenyan ADF grant period, about 4,000 women were active Board of Directors and staff, many of whom are in credit groups in western Kenya. PfP had provided Quakers. Yet PfP/Kenya continued to receive train- training and credit to 92 groups, more than three ing and other support from the U.S.-based PfP times the number projected. Three officers from through 1986. Its purpose is “to promote both socio- each of the groups had attended special business economic development and human potential devel- training workshops sponsored by PfP. The local opment in rural Kenya by focusing on income- groups vary in size from 20 to 45 members and in- generating” projects. clude landless women, heads of households, and Most activities have been centered in three west- non-literate persons. Although group leaders appear ern provinces, densely populated areas with high to be more affluent than members, the team did not rainfall and high potential for rainfed agriculture, see this as a problem, Each group has a constitu- Cash crops such as sugar, tea, and coffee are replac- tion and is registered with the Ministry of Social ing production of food crops, especially near Lake Services. Building on traditional savings clubs and Victoria. the harambee tradition, the groups demonstrated PfP’s early efforts were to provide management cohesion and the ability to handle complex finan- assistance to individual small-scale business oper- cial transactions and loan repayments. Most of the ators. In 1974, PfP began a rural extension service women understand simple cash flow analysis and to help small entrepreneurs with legal assistance, non-literate women have mastered a red-bag/green- training in business management and financial bag system of money management, in which their planning, as well as some specialized assistance in working capital is kept in red bags and the surplus agriculture and energy conserving technologies, in green bags, The records of the 15 groups visited Credit was provided to complement the training and by OTA team members were clear, up to date and technical assistance. By 1980, PfP decided to work open to all. with groups so it could reach more people. PfP capitalized 50 revolving loan funds with $625 In 1981, PfP initiated a successful pilot project, each. Since the individual loan size allocated is $62, funded by AID’s Women in Development program only 10 women in each group could get loans at first. 140

Each group was expected to show savings of 15 per- Since early 1987, budget reductions had forced ADF cent (about $100) before PfP capitalized the fund. to lay off half of its staff, some of whom had been With repayments, monthly savings contributions, with the organization for years. The only new funder and group fundraising, new loans are made as funds at the time of OTA’s visit was Kenya’s Rural Enter- are available. Each group sets its own interest rate, prise program which channeled AID funds to PfP some charging as much as 120 percent interest, so for an agricultural service center designed to pro- the loan fund will appreciate more quickly. PfP vide income to PfP.5 charges the market rate, increasing its charge on The mechanism by which women can get loans the initial loan to the groups to 14 percent. An in- without collateral depends on their participation ternal evaluation by PfP in 1986 indicated that re- in a group. This model, developed in Latin Amer- cipients of these loans have increased their income ica and tested elsewhere, has proven replicable. by 30 percent. This is its first use in East Africa, and it is likely The OTA team was particularly interested in the to work elsewhere in Kenya. But whether the funds, loans for agricultural inputs made to 62 groups and local groups, can maintain themselves without which received the inputs on credit. Interviews con- PfP oversight is not known. firmed the finding of the internal evaluation that these loans led to an increase in productivity. Poultry-Market Gardon Project • pre-loan: average yield per acre was 3 to 5 bags of maize ($45). Organization: Boiteko Agricultural Management Ž post-loan: average yield per acre was 18 bags Association of maize ($205). Site: Serowe, Botswana OTA team members were impressed with the exten- Activities: Vegetable, poultry, and egg pro- sion advice that combined conservation techniques, duction. such as multicropping, rotation, planting trees, Grant Size: $35,072 using oxen and contour plowing, with improved inputs. The Setting.–The Boiteko Agricultural Manage- OTA found that most of ADF’s $80,000 in the ment Association (AMA) conducts a horticultural credit fund had been disbursed and repaid principal and poultry project in the village of Serowe, in east- and interest had begun to be given out as new credit. ern Botswana, approximately 300 kilometers north If the past track record is any indication, a three- of the capitol of Gaborone. Nine women and one fold multiplier can be expected. However, loan man from the village comprise the AMA group that repayment of the local groups to PfP is currently runs the project, with assistance from a technical low, especially when compared to past PfP pro- manager and a financial consultant. grams. Some 63 percent of the groups were late The area surrounding Serowe, known as the hard- payers, though only 3 of every 10 members were veld, is semi-arid. Arable agriculture normally is late. The primary reason for the lateness, accord- constrained by inadequate and variable precipita- ing to PfP staff, was that the government national tion during most rainfall seasons. In a good year, maize buying board had not paid farmers for their the area can expect to receive between 400 and 450 last season’s crops 6 months after the harvest. millimeters of rain. Reliable supplies of water can- Conclusion.— Informed sources confirmed that not be depended on for any production activity, few, if any, other organizations currently operat- especially horticulture, and the situation has been ing in Kenya provide rural credit as well as PfP. exacerbated by a six year drought that has deci- OTA team members concluded that project out- mated the country’s cereal production, comes could be enhanced in two ways. First, PfP During the last 3 years, the Ministry of Agricul- could develop a more coherent strategy for taking ture has strongly encouraged the development of its advanced members into higher income- horticulture projects as a means of increasing ru- generating activities, either in the formal or infor- ral employment while decreasing dependence on mal sector. Second, PfP needs a donor who can as- South Africa for the importation of most of the coun- sist it over an extended period of time in develop- try’s vegetables. The Ministry supports small scale ing ways to be more self-supporting. Currently PfP producers by limiting the importation of vegetables is in desperate need of outside financing; 94 percent of its budget comes from outside donors and 51n January 1988, ADF’s Project Review Committee approved a new those who funded PfP (e.g., PACT, IBM, Ford, FAO) Institutional Revolving Credit grant of $248,000 to PfP which addresses did not continue their grants ending in 1986-87, both OTA points. 141 that are grown domestically and by providing tech- will eventually increase their present incomes, They nical assistance. also hope to become self-sufficient in technical and The Project.—The Boiteko project attempts to pro- financial management of the project. vide a reliable income source and employment for Conclusion.—The group and the project both face rural people while providing a reliable source of a potentially very productive future because of the vegetables and eggs for the local market within strength of the group’s organizational and participa- Serowe. tory structure. Their open style of management and The Boiteko group has a long history of project sharing of responsibilities have become models for experience, The present AMA represents the re- group development in Botswana. The project faces maining core of a group started in the early 1970s some obstacles because of environmental concerns as a production unit of the Serowe Brigades, a pri- over the resistance of pests to insecticides and the vate vocational training/income generating move- compaction of the soil. In addition, the group faces ment started by a teacher from South Africa, Patrick somewhat severe undercapitalization which forces Van Rensburg. The original Boiteko group was in- lag periods in production while waiting to replace volved in weaving and vegetable gardening and had inputs. over 100 members, However, with the decline of The most encouraging sign for sustaining the the Serowe Brigades throughout the late 1970s and project is the support the group gets from other early 1980s, and some inappropriate technical assis- donors and the Ministry of Agriculture. Boiteko has tance, the Boiteko group disintegrated. become a symbol of success for horticultural pro- During 1984, the Southern Region Field Repre- jects and there appears to be a committed effort to sentative for ADF heard from Van Rensburg, then ensure its longevity. The ministry hopes that the head of a non-governmental organization, that projects similar to Boiteko can be replicated, and the remaining members of the Boiteko group had it appears that other non-governmental groups in hired a technical advisor and wished to continue the country are following the model. Other horticul- their horticultural scheme and add an egg laying tural groups have formed in the villages of operation. The objectives of the group were to pro- Ramotswa and Kanye. However, the one powerful vide members with a consistent supply of income force of the Boiteko group is its solidarity. Many and provide the village and the group with people have commented on the uniqueness of the vegetables, group and it maybe that because of the conditions The group so far has accomplished a great deal. under which it formed and sustained itself, the suc- With the original ADF grant, the group has been able cess of this project may be difficult to replicate. to purchase wire fencing to enclose a 1 hectare plot for the vegetable and egg production operations as well as build a chicken house. Other grants from Tutume Tractor Hire Project an AID-sponsored appropriate technology project Organization: Tutume McConnell Community and from the Canadian University Service Orga- Trust nization provided a windmill for the irrigation bore- Site: Francistown, Botswana hole, a mechanical tiller, and netting for the vegeta- Activities: Rent tractors for plowing and ble nursery. From the proceeds of the project, the hauling. group pays its members approximately $45 per Grant Size: $40,604 month and the members have expanded their operations to include a citrus orchard. The vegetable The Setting.—The Tutume McConnell Commu- operation grosses between $120 and $240 per month nity Trust is an enterprise of the brigade located and the egg laying operation between $420 and $540 in Tutume, a village 110 kilometers northeast of per month. Francistown, in northeast Botswana. The brigades One recurring problem has been a reliable source are private training programs for school leavers of water. The windmill, purchased with a grant to which also provide some employment opportuni- the group, is a prototype for Botswana and has fre- ties and sponsor some businesses to cover their quently broken down. Recently, the group asked for costs. The brigade’s mandate is to provide voca- and received from ADF an amendment to their tional training within profit-making production original grant for a diesel engine pump and irriga- units. tion piping, which will alleviate their immediate Arable agriculture in Botswana is rarely a full time water supply problems. occupation. Most households follow a very diverse The group feels they have accomplished their ob- strategy of income generation, relying on formal jectives, but have hope further that the operation and informal employment opportunities and live- 142 stock production supplemented by food production. ing the off-season. However, there is no evidence Households face significant constraints because of that food production has, or will be, increased be- the paucity and variance of rainfall and the lack of cause of the project for several reasons. First, the draught power for plowing. The draught power con- brigade intends to use the tractor to plow its own straint severely affects female-headed households demonstration plot before proceeding to plow as they are generally the last to be able to borrow farmers’ fields. Because agricultural production is or hire oxen for plowing. Since plowing must be so dependent on the timing of plowing coincident timed to coincide with unpredictable rainfall pat- with the start of the rains, it is questionable that terns, those who plow last suffer diminished or in- this pattern will allow any increase in local produc- significant harvests. tion. Second, the brigade has had a serious prob- The government of Botswana has initiated sev- lem matching the technology to the soil conditions eral programs in attempts to become more self- of the area. A moldboard plow could not be used sufficent in food production. Both of the principle successfully because of the predominance of tree- programs, the Arable Lands Development Program stumps in most of the fields. In switching to a disc (ALDEP) and the Arable Rainfed Agricultural Pro- plow to offset the problem, the upper horizons of gram (ARAP), provide grants and subsidies for the soil structure of the plowed fields has been draught power. ALDEP is an on-going program and damaged leaving them susceptible to wind and ARAP is a drought relief program intended to en- water erosion. courage farmers to plow during the drought. Conclusion. —The project appears to be economi- The Project.—In April 1984, the Tutume McCon- cally sustainable only as long as the subsidy makes nell Trust Brigade proposed a tractor hire scheme the project affordable to the farmers, Several plan- as a solution to the draught power constraints of ners at the district and the national level have com- farmers in the Tutume area, The objectives of the mented that the subsidy is intended as drought re- project were to alleviate the shortage of draught lief and will be discontinued in the near future. power, to increase food production in the area, to There is also the question of who will be able to af- haul manure during the season, and haul bricks and ford the plowing services after the removal of the sand for the brigades during the off-season. The subsidy. Definitely, the poorer farm households project was intended to improve the agricultural were not able to afford such a service before the incomes of the area’s farmers and the operating in- drought and it is unlikely that they will be able to come of the brigade. An amendment to the original afford it in the future. grant provided for a 10 hectare demonstration plot Environmentally, the project faces an even for the brigade. bleaker future. Even though the technical problems The project has provided plowing for approxi- leading to increased soil erosion maybe worked out, mately 60 farmers during the initial season of oper- it is still questionable whether increased farmland ation. On average, each woman has had approxi- should be opened up to monocropping in a fragile mately 1.8 hectares ploughed and each man 2.4 semi-arid ecological zone, The removal of trees and hectares, However, the results of the project must the plowing of large areas of land may have already be viewed in the light of some of the complicating made the area more susceptible to environmental factors, First, the success of the project depends on damage. the affordability of the tractor service. Presently, Organizationally, the project is not sustainable, ARAP provides any farmer a subsidy of $30 per hec- The farmers receiving the services of the brigade tare for hiring draught power, The subsidy means have no say in the decisionmaking of the project that during the drought, the Tutume area farmers or in the demonstration plot research being con- receive the tractor service at no monetary cost. The ducted by the agricultural unit of the brigade. This project is therefore demand driven based on the sub- top-down form of consultation does not allow in- sidy offered by the government. In addition, even put from the farmers and makes later field trials ir- the first farmers who received the service did not relevant with respect to meeting the needs of get their lands plowed until late December, far into farmers. There is no learning or process of group the agricultural season and decreasing their chances empowerment, as no primary groups exist. of realizing a productive harvest. Finally, the project has passed on the large risk The project has operated for one agricultural sea- of farming in a semi-arid environment to the son, The objectives of the brigade have only been farmers, Any increase in soil erosion, or financial partially fulfilled: tractor plowing has been provided risk due to planting increased hectarage, is passed to several farmers in the area and the brigade has on through ADF and the brigades to the rural house- been able to use the tractor to haul materials dur- holds. Past demonstration tractor hire schemes in 143

Botswana have not increased agricultural produc- The area provides a favorable region for the pro- tion sufficiently to cover the costs of production. duction of tea and coffee in addition to several At present the project appears to be replicable be- different food crops. cause the brigades and other NGOS have embraced The AFC has two important credit schemes in the the idea and are promoting it. At least two other valleys, one of which is funded with European Eco- brigades in Botswana have expressed interest in a nomic Community funds and the other financed by tractor hire scheme in their area. As long as the sub- ADF. The ADF project provided medium- to long- sidy remains, such a project has the potential for term loans for the purchase of tea and coffee seed- tremendous popularity. However, the question here lings, and expenses related to land preparation and is not “Can the project be replicated?” but “Should fertilizers and chemicals. Initially, approximately the project be replicated?” From available evidence 144 farmers received loans of approximately $600 and past experience in Botswana, the answer ap- spread out over 3 years. The interest rate charged pears to be negative. is 13 percent per year. The projected numbers of farmers to receive loans under the revolving credit fund are 214 in 1986-87 and 383 in 1987-88. In to- Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea Project tal, there are 500 farm households in the area. Because both tea and coffee take a number of Organization: Agricultural Finance Corporation years to mature, no returns to the farmers have been Site: Honde and Pungwe Valleys, Zimbabwe measured. Estimates made by the AFC and AGRI- TEX, government agricultural research and ex- Activities: Revolving credit fund for coffee and the tension agency, anticipate returns per farmer of ap- tea production. proximately $700 to $1,000 per heciare per year for Grant Size: $101,537 tea and a higher return for coffee. With the average The Setting.—After independence in 1980, the size of a combined tea/coffee plot being one hec- government of Zimbabwe faced the difficult task tare per household, the expectations are that each of restructuring the rural economy of the country household will be able to repay the loan starting in to provide services to the African smallholders pre- year 3 or 4 and have a reasonable profit. viously excluded from participating in economic The project has not been able to yet recover the development. Agricultural production in pre- value of the loans because they are not yet due for independent Zimbabwe favored the large-scale com- repayment. However, it is anticipated that there will mercial sector and institutionally the delivery of in- be a high repayment rate because of the favorable puts and services was directed toward the larger conditions under which the farmers operate, be- farmers, The present objective is to provide access cause of the potentially high returns for coffee, and to inputs and services for the smallholding low- because the AFC will be repaid directly by the mar- resource farmers of the country. keting societies before the farmers receive any The Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) of returns from the sale of crops. Zimbabwe is a parastatal credit institution that was Conclusion. —The possibility of sustainability for founded to provide loans for agricultural activities. this project is relatively high. Economically, the Previously, its experience was mostly with the funds are being used to support fairly high-value larger commercial agricultural sector. For the last cash crops. As long as coffee prices paid to the seven years, the AFC has been redirecting its at- farmers offset the depressed price of tea, the tention to provide loans to smallholders for both prospects for increased income and for the contin- marketable food and cash crop production. They uance of the revolving credit scheme are high. How- make loans available for the short-, medium-, and ever, it is not clear if the economic feasibility plans long-term for crop production expenses including of the project accurately reflect the changing con- land preparation, the purchase of fertilizers and ditions for the marketing of these cash crops. In the chemicals, harvesting, transportation and mar- area, several farmers who have long-term experi- keting. ence with the production of tea have had to sell food The Project.—The ADF funds for the Zimbabwe crops to repay AFC loans. Tea and Coffee Project allowed the group to estab- The project has increased the potential of or- lish a revolving credit fund for the production of ganizational sustainability at the primary coopera- tea and coffee by smallholders in the Honde and tive level and for the AFC. The cooperatives asso- Pungwe Valleys of eastern Zimbabwe, The Honde ciated with the project appear very democratic and and Pungwe Valleys stretch from the Nyanga- participatory, except possibly with respect to Mutare road northeast to the Mozambique border. women’s access to the project. As institutions, they 144 have experienced substantial empowerment because of their involvement in the production of tea and coffee. The AFC has also benefited from the shift in emphasis from the large-scale commercial to the small- holder sector. The ADF funds contributed to sustaining this shift, but did not produce the major incentive for it. Environmentally, the replacement of food crops grown on steep slopes by the more soil-protecting tea crop benefits soil conservation. However, it is not clear how the continuing shift from tea to coffee will affect the degree of groundcover in the area. Alternatively, little or no research has been done on the possibility of intercropping the tree crops Women learn dressmaking as part of the with food crops for soil conservation. There has also Silveira House Project been no analysis of the potential for surface and ground water contamination (or the potential for increased incidence of health problems) caused by in rural development. Some are non-denomina- the increased use of pesticides in the area. tional, while others are religiously based. One of the more respected religious-based institutions is The last issue of sustainability involves the lack of monitoring being done by the AFC, ADF, or the Silveira House. It began as an institution in 1964 primary organizations. The AFC is attempting to with the major objective being to provide a place where people could gather to discuss political is- increase their computer capability to track loans sues. In 1970, Silveira House started an agricultural and recipients, but they must also ensure that data is collected on who is being served and the impacts program centered around groups using the traditional nimbe cooperative labor group for organiz- on the target group. ing purposes. Within several years their activities The AFC revolving credit scheme for tea and coffee production has little potential for replicability expanded to cover over 500 groups within their diocese. in the rest of Zimbabwe because of the specific eco- Silveira House derives most of its present budget logical conditions necessary for the production of from lay contributions solicited by institutions rep- these crops. However, the lessons learned by the resentative of the German Catholic Bishops (MIS- AFC with regard to repayment procedures and the EREOR) and from funds awarded by a Dutch Cath- success of the primary groups could be adapted for other crops and situations within Zimbabwe. This olic development organization (C EBEMO). Its total project has the potential for a significant impact on budget is approximately $500,000 per year. Their the income levels of low-resource farmers and for agricultural program is one of the most expensive, approximately $120,000 per year. the growth of indigenous institutions involved in The Project.—In 1983, the director of Silveira improving access to previously excluded portions of the farming sector, but efforts must be made to House felt that a discretionary fund would be a useful method of providing loans and grants to com- build in monitoring procedures that allow organizations to determine the populations actually be- munities for small-scale projects. This fund would allow rapid responses to groups’ and communities’ ing served and the benefits to them. needs. ADF approached Silveira House at the suggestion of an Oxfam staff member familiar with the Silveira House Development Fund idea, and in March 1985, ADF gave a grant for $15,510. Subsequent grant amendments brought the Organization: Silveira House total up to $20,808. Site: Nine communities, Zimbabwe With the ADF money, Silveira House has pro- Activities: Dressmaking cooperative; animal vided funds for dressmaking cooperatives, livestock and storage facilities; store; farm in- dip tanks, piggery construction, the stocking of a puts and equipment. community store, building sheds for the storage of $20,808 Grant Size: farm inputs, and purchase of farm inputs and proc- The Setting.—Zimbabwe contains a plethora of essing equipment, In all, groups from 10 commu- non-governmental organizations (NGOS) involved nities are scheduled to be assisted with ADF funds. 145

The results so far have been concentrated in nine ilar to ADF’s. Silveira House has a strong training of the communities and interest-free loans have program and works closely with government group been made totaling approximately $8,000. The re- development programs and the groups themselves maining monies of the discretionary fund will be to strengthen local institutions. However, little data dispersed when the groups’ projects are ready for exist to suggest that the target groups reached by funding. An additional $3,298 is budgeted for the Silveira House represent the poorer segments of the purchase of a motorcycle for the agricultural field communities. Of the several activities visited by the staff; however, some problems with the transfer of OTA teams, for example, the piggery project at funds between the ADF and Silveira House have Mwanza and the cattle dip in Chishawasha, prin- delayed its purchase. cipally benefited the more affluent small farmers, ConcIusion.— Silveira House remains one of the those who could afford the entry fee for the piggery most stable and respected NGOS in Zimbabwe, thus project and those who owned cattle. Another con- ensuring the sustainability of the group beyond the cern is that some of the projects encourage women end of the project. It is also likely that because of to learn traditional skills such as dressmaking which the training and organizing skills transferred from are less remunerative than agricultural activities. Silveira House to local communities that the recip- On the positive side, Silveira House has a fairly ient groups will continue to prosper after the ADF large and consistent budget commitment of which funds have been used. Finally, the activity of a the ADF grant is a very small portion, Were the ADF revolving credit scheme being funded by ADF en- funds not available, Silveira House most likely courages the sustainability of the project’s activities. would have been able to secure funds for the dis- Several pros and cons of this use of ADF funds cretionary credit scheme from other sources, When are apparent. The advantages are those of sustaina- the ADF grant is disbursed, Silveira House will bility listed above, plus the probability that the funds likely be able to use its contacts with other donors are being used by an institution with a mandate sim- to raise additional funds. Appendix C Desk Reviewers, Participants in the Methods Workshop, and Members of OTA Field Assessment Teams

~~Desk Reviewers Members of Field Assessment Teams~~

“Aspects of Participation in Projects Funded by the West Africa Team: Niger and Senegal African Development Foundation” by Team Leader: Dr. Virginia DeLancey Mr. George Scharffenberger Associate Professor Consultant Institute of International Studies University of South Carolina Washington, DC Fort Jackson, SC Team Members: “Consultant’s Report to OTA” by Dr. Judith A. Carney Dr. Peter J. MatIon Consultant Berkeley, CA Principal Economist International Crops Research Institute for the Ms. Marthe Doka Diarra Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Chief I-Iyderabad, India Department of Sociology Institute for Research in the Human Sciences “Desk and Office Review of ADF Activities: (IRSH) Renewable Resource Technologies” by Niamey, Niger Dr. Fred R. Weber Owner and Manager Ms. Anne Mendy-Correa International Resources Development and Consultant Conservation Services Dakar, Senegal Boise, ID Mr. James W. Rugh Consultant Sevierville, TN

~~East Africa Team: Tanzania and Kenya~~

Participants in the Methods Workshop Team Leader: Ms. Kathy Desmond Ms. OluBanke Akerele Consultant Deputy Director Arlington, VA U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Team Members: New York, NY Dr. Haidari Amani Dr. George Honadle Senior Lecturer Consultant Department of Economics Rockville, MD University of Dar es Salaam Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Ms. Caroline Pezzullo president Dr. Shirley Buzzard Caroline Pezzullo Associates Consultant New York, NY Takoma Park, MD

~~146 147~~

Dr. Gideon-Cyrus Mutiso Team Members: Mutiso Consultants, Ltd. (Development Man- Dr. George Honadle agement) Consultant Nairobi, Kenya Rockville, MD Mr. Emery Roe Ms. Yvonne Merafe Assistant to the Director Senior Rural Sociologist Survey Research Center Ministry of Agriculture University of California Gaborone, Botswana Berkeley, CA Dr. Anita Spring Associate Dean Southern Africa Team Botswana and College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Zimbabwe University of Florida Team Leader: Gainesville, FL Dr. Scott McCormick Mr. Lovegot Tendengu Environmental Analyst Principal Associates in Rural Development Chibero Agricultural College Burlington, VT Norton, Zimbabwe Appendix D Field Team Methods: The Assessment Materials

Appendix D contains the forms used by the OTA field teams in their assessments of participation, results, sustainability, and replicability in 12 ADF projects; for their assessment of ADF’s country programs; and for their assessment of ADF concerning congressional options.

~~148 149~~

~~PROJECT COVER SHEET (To be filled out from information supplied in interviews with project managers, cross-checked with information from others.)~~

~~1. Project Name start date:~~

~~Organization Name start date:~~

~~2. Amount of money received to date from ADF: US $~~

~~Other funding sources of project/amount/purpose:~~

~~Other funding sources of organization/amount/purpose:~~

~~Percent of organization’s budget received from ADF:~~

~~3. Number and characteristics of persons involved Total Nos. Average income level/occupation male female male female~~

~~Board of Directors~~

~~Staff (of project)~~

~~Staff (of organization)~~

~~Members of organization~~

~~Project participants~~

~~Beneficiaries~~

~~Community~~

~~Comments:~~

~~4. Who makes major decisions? Board of Directors Officers other (specify) ● how selected?: elected ' appointed , assumed • frequency of meetings: • minutes of meetings: yes no~~

~~5. Staff view of project objectives (in priority order) a.~~

~~b. 150~~

~~Do participants’ view of objectives differ from staff’s? yes no If SO, how?~~

~~6. List records kept (eg., meeting minutes, financial records) and rate quality (excellent, adequate, poor). Explain rating.~~

~~7. List previous evaluations (of project and organization), by whom and when~~

~~8. List any differences from data on chart (ADF Funded Projects: September 1984 thru September 31, 1986)~~

~~9. Relationship with ADF~~

~~● When and how did the organization come in contact with ADF?~~

~~● number of ADF visits in last year~~

~~● visits by whom?~~

~~● What do recipients find helpful about the relationship with ADF?~~

~~• What do recipients think could be improved?~~

~~10. Notes re: information sources and reliability of data on this form. 151~~

~~WORKSHEET 1 -– MINIMUM DATA SET: PARTICIPATION~~

~~Name of project:~~

~~1. Who is defined as a participant? Who is defined a project beneficiary (if different from participants)?~~

~~2. Number of responses (under each category) of project management to the following questions:~~

~~How many project participants, ,... a) most, b) half, c) very few, d) none (a) (b) (c) (d)~~

● identified the need ● proposed the activities ● understand the project ● contribute labor ● contribute material ● contribute money ● receive benefits ● share in decisions ● share in evaluation ● are on project committees

~~3. Number of responses (yes and no) of project participants to the following questions on the checklist for participants: Yes No~~

● participated in design ● participated in evaluation ● have access to project records ● could be an officeholder ● have elections for officers ● new people get elected ● efforts to get new people involved ● usually agree with leaders’ decisions ● some groups have more influence If yes, who and why?

~~Comments on data: 152~~

~~4. Who originated the project?~~

~~local leader (type: ) local indigenous PVO intermediary organization church indigenous PVO ( regional, national) parastatal for profit ADF other (specify)~~

~~5. Evidence of changes in project direction due to participant/beneficiary input: yes no. If yes, give examples~~

~~6. Specific benefits to participants (e.g., cash, in kind) as a result of activity~~

~~Benefit No. of participants Average value/amt (men) (women) (men) (women)~~

~~7. Specific contributions of participants (e.g., cash, labor) materials) to activities~~

~~Contribution No. contributing Average value/amt (men) (women) (men) (women)~~

~~8. Number of responses of non-participants to questions on checklist: Yes No~~

~~● familiar with project ● were invited to be in project ● benefit from the project ● could join the project now ● feel benefits distributed fairly~~

~~Summary of reasons persons are not participants and/or why they think project is unfair. —~~

~~153~~

~~9. Meetings/activities in past year (name of group, committe, etc.)~~

~~Date Type of meeting No. attending No.possible Minutes/decisions (M) (F) (M) (F) reflect input (Y,N)~~

~~Number at meeting with OTA team: men , women percent speaking: men , women~~

~~10. Perceptions regarding role of outsiders (interview project staff/leaders) Rating: 1) helpful; 2) ineffective 3) harmful~~

~~a. Technical assistance providers Type Organization Comments on TA relationship Average rating effectiveness 1)~~

~~3) b. Other outsiders~~

~~Comments~~

~~11. For projects of intermediary organizations~~

~~a. No. of subgroups receiving assistance as result of project b. How are they selected?~~

~~c. Subgroups’ relation to intermediaryo organization: ● represented on board of intermediary (yes) (no) ● frequency of contact: times per Who made contact?~~

~~● change adopted in intermediary group program due to input from subgroups: (yes) (no) e.g.~~

~~Comments~~

~~12. Other observations regarding participation: 154~~

~~ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT PARTICIPATION~~

~~Name of project~~

~~1. In what ways and to what extent have intended beneficiaries participated in this project? Assess factors fostering and limiting that participation.~~

~~2. Are the poorest one-third able to participate in the program? Have any groups been excluded from the project? If so, why and how?~~

~~3* How equitably have benefits and costs been distributed?~~

~~4. What specific measures or actions would enhance participation of project participants/beneficiaries? How can the impact of these measures on participation be monitored and measured?~~

~~5* Has the level of participation affected project impact (results, sustainability and replicability)? Describe. 155~~

~~WORKSHEET 2-–MINIMUM DATA SET: RESULTS~~

~~Name of project:~~

~~10. Principle goods and services delivered by project operations to date:~~

~~output Amount/Value Intended Data Source (yes/no)~~

~~2. What intended ouputs have not been achieved?~~

~~a m~~

3. Is there any evidence that participants are better off than non- participants as a result of this project? If SO, give details. Are certain groups of participants (e.g., elites) benefiting more than others?

~~4. Summary of perceptions of increased welfare among participants and non- participant beneficiaries (if applicable) interviewed. (Give numbers).~~

~~Participants Non-participant beneficiaries Men Women Men Women~~

~~Feel project will make them much better off~~

~~Feel project will make them a little better off~~

~~Feel project won’t help them or will make worse~~

~~How were data obtained (e.g., group or individual interviews).~~

83-361 0 - 88 : QL 3 - 6 5. How has the project documented results? How complete is the information? *

~~6. Change in number of organization’s members (and/or project participants) since project began. Give numbers of new participants and dropouts. Provide data source.~~

~~7* List specific evidence of outcomes (impacts, responses, what people are doing differently) that can be related to project implementation or outputs.~~

~~Outcome Intended Data Source (Y) (N)~~

~~a. Economic~~

~~b. Organizational~~

~~c* Social~~

~~d. Environmental~~

~~e. Local or national policy~~

~~f* Technical~~

~~8. Other observations regarding results: 757~~

~~ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT RESULTS~~

~~Name of project~~

~~1. To what degree (high or low) is the project accomplishing its stated objectives? Why?~~

~~2. How does project performance compare to that of similar projects by other groups?~~

~~3. What might have happened had there not been ADF support?~~

~~4. What are the key factors responsible for project outcomes or effects?~~

~~a. economic b. organizational c. social d. environmental e. local/national policy f. technical~~

~~5. How could project outcomes be enhanced? 158~~

~~WORKSHEET 3 -- MINIMUM DATA SET: SUSTAINABILITY~~

~~Name of project:~~

~~1. Was there project activity before the ADF grant? Yes No If so, what?~~

~~2* Is the ADF funded activity intended to continue after grant?~~

~~30 Project and group (if applicable) has: Project Group Comments (y) (N) (Y , N , NA) a. Strategy to maintain leadership, member participation, group cohesion~~

~~b. Strategy to cope with negative environmental impacts~~

~~c. Strategy to cope with negative social impacts~~

~~d. Plan to maintain activity financially/economically after ADF grant (eg, recurrent costs)~~

~~e. If small-scale enterprise --market analysis --business plan~~

~~f. Training program --management --technical --financial~~

~~g. Strategy to gain access to technical assistance/know-how~~

~~h. Plan to do other activities~~

~~i. Strategy to deal with potential opposition to project/group 159 j. Strategy to mobilize and generate complementary resources~~

~~4. Evidence of adaptation in project design/group organization (objectives, activities, organization, etc.) in response to changing circumstances~~

~~What Why~~

~~5. Resources critical to continuation of project/effort and source (local, national, external)~~

~~6. Prospects for continued support of project activity. Or, if project is not intended to continue, prospects for other activities by the group.~~

~~7. Other observations regarding sustainability: 160~~

~~ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY~~

~~Name of project~~

1. What specific factors indicate the likelihood that project outcomes (economic/financial, organizational/ social, environmental, technological, policy outcomes) will be sustained over time? What are constraints to sustainability?

~~2. What specific changes would increase the likelihood of sustainable outcomes? How can they be monitored by ADF?~~

~~3. To what extent has the project changed local technologies and management, and what influence does that have on project/group continuation? 161~~

~~WORKSHEET 4 -- MINIMUM DATA SET: REPLICABILITY~~

~~Name of project~~

~~1. promising project elements (technologies, organizations, process, etc.):~~

~~Element Innovative Conditions required for wider use (y) (N)~~

~~Comments:~~

~~2. Incidence of adoption of specific project methods or technologies among non-participants~~

~~What Who Where~~

~~3. Efforts made by the group or ADF to spread knowledge gained (e.g., radio, newspaper, conferences, exchange visits)~~

~~a. by project~~

~~b. by ADF~~

~~c* by others~~

~~4. Other observations regarding replicability: 162~~

~~ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT REPLICABILITY~~

~~Name of project~~

~~1. What promising project elements (e.g., process, organization mode, technologies) are particularly applicable to other groups and/or to further activities by this group? Why?~~

~~2. Which of these elements are innovative compared to those used in other projects addressing similar issues or situations?~~

~~3. What effects (if any) have there been (or are there likely to be) outside the locale of the ADF-funded project? How can these effects be enhanced?~~

~~4. What lessons have been learned (by ADF, project managers, participants, and others) from this project? 163~~

~~COUNTRY PROGRAM ASSESSMENT~~

~~(Team responses based on all project data, observations and interviews relevant to ADF program in this country).~~

~~Name of Country:~~

~~1. What is your overall assessment of ADF in ? What impact is it having on social and economic development and how could it be enhanced?~~

~~2. Is there evidence that the projects you visited are/are not typical of other ADF projects in the country? Explain.~~

~~3. What is ADF’s track record in comparison with other donors?~~

~~4. What alternative project(s) might the same funds have supported which could have resulted in greater impacts along the lines of ADF’s mandate?~~

~~5* Does ADF appear to respond to real needs?~~

~~6. Is there anything unique or different about ADF? Comment on the effectiveness and appropriateness of that contribution. —~~

~~164~~

~~CONGRESSIONAL ASSESMENT~~

~~Name of team member:~~

~~1. On the basis of all you have learned, would you recommend that ADF’s funding level be increased, decreased or remain the same? Why?~~

2. What are your specific recommendations for improving ADF’s performance? (YOU may include changes in ADF implementation and interpretation of the legislation as well as changes in the Legislation.) List as many as you wish, and indicate your priorities.

~~3. What lessons came out of the ADF assessment that are relevant to other agencies (AID, U.S. PVOS, others) working in African development? Appendix E Field Interviews~~

The OTA field teams interviewed ADF staff in Africa and spoke with nearly 800 people associated with the 12 projects visited. Project managers, participants, staff and board members of funded organizations provided OTA with a great deal of information about their activities. While too numerous to list, they all have our appreciation. The directors of the 12 projects are listed here. WEST AFRICA Mr. Andrew Peppetta General Manager Mr. Macao bii Gao Partnership for Productivity/Kenya Chief Nairobi, Kenya Dakoro Herders Cooperative Dakoro, Niger Mr. Lawrence Murage Chairman Mr. Diallo Moctar NGK Water Project Committee President Naro Moru, Kenya Agricultural Society of Dagnare Niamey, Niger Mr. Samba Der Gaye Coordinator SOUTHERN AFRICA youth Association of Ross Bethio Ross Bethio, Senegal Mr. Ditshwanelo Makwati Project Manager Mr. Demba Dia Boiteko Agricultural Marketing Association Animator Serowe, Botswana Union Kaoural Medina Koundie, Senegal Mr. Bigboy Chavaphi Brigade Coordinator EAST AFRICA Tutume McConnell Development Trust Francistown, Botswana Mr. Phares Makau Programme Coordinator Mr. Clem Machingaifa Planning and Development Committee Provincial Manager Diocese of Morogoro Agricultural Finance Corporation Morogoro, Tanzania Mutare, Zimbabwe Mr. A.K. Ayo Fr. Harold Barry, S.J. chairman Executive Director Kikatiti Village Council Silveira House Kikatiti. Tanzania Harare, Zimbabwe

~~165 166~~

The field teams also met with others in Africa who are not associated with ADF or the 12 ADF-funded projects visited. These included officials of the host governments, U.S. and other development assistance agencies as well as representatives of private organizations. This group of interviewees is listed here.

WEST AFRICA Ms. Cathy Tilford Regional Technical Advisor NIGER Mr. Doug Steinburg Mr. Boubakar Ali Forestry Program Deputy Prefect CARE Dakoro, Niger Niamey, Niger Mr. Mahamadou Issaka Mr. Richard W. Bogosian Chief of Livestock Service U.S. Ambassador Mr. Idi Gonhah Mr. Joseph Saloom Dakoro Co-operatives Officer Deputy Chief of Mission Mr. Salisou Illiassou Ms. Cynthia Aknetteh Dakoro Representative Economic Officer Ministry of Planning U.S. Embassy Dakoro, Niger Niamey, Niger Mr. Amadou Seini Maga Ms. Lynne Gray Prefect Director Maradi, Niger Mr. Mamadou Issa Mr. Sani Bako Deputy Director Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. David Blain Mr. Abdoulaye Moumouni Djermakoye Associate Director Director of International Organizations and Peace Corps Conferences Niamey, Niger Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Ms. Carol Beckwith Niamey, Niger Anthropologist/Photographer Mr. A. El Hadji Habibou Niamey, Niger Minister of Agriculture Mr. Dayton Maxwell Mr. Dourahamane Acting AID Director Secretary General Mr. John Heermans Ministry of Agriculture Forestry Consultant, Forestry Land Use and Niamey, Niger Planning Project Mr. Hamid Algabit Mr. Frank Casey Prime Minister Ms. Cynthia Moore Niamey, Niger Dr. Fred Sauer AID Technicians Mr. Hama Abadou Dr. Rinus ven den Ende Director of Office of Head of State Mr. Mark Matlin Niamey, Niger Integrated Livestock Project Mr. Almoustapha Soumala U.S. Agency for International Development Minister Niamey, Niger Mr. Tankari Abdou Ms. Gretta Shultz Deputy Director, Regional Development and AFRICARE Small Projects Niamey, Niger Mr. Abdou Galadima Small Projects Division Ms. Amy O’Neill Ministry of Planning Mr. Didier Alley Niamey, Niger Lutheran World Relief Niamey, Niger 167

Mr. Abara Djika Mr. Abdoulaye Diop Deputy Prefect president Say, Niger Walo youth Association Ross-Bethio, Senegal SENEGAL Mr. Aly wade Gueye Mr. Walter Williams, Jr. Director President de la Communaute Rurale Arrondissement of Ross-Bethio AFRICARE Department of Dagana Dakar, Senegal Ross-Bethio, Senegal Mr. George Carrier Mr. Khayar Ka Deputy Mission Director Prefect Mr. Khoi Nguyen Le Department of Kolda U.S. Agency for International Development Kolda, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Mr. Sami Daniff Mr. Lanon Walker Head of Centers for Regional Expansion U.S. Ambassador Department of Kolda Mr. Michael Sykes Kolda, Senegal Economic and Commercial Affairs Officer U.S. Embassy Mr. Adama Faye Dakar, Senegal Mr. Cheikh Boy Mr. Abdou Fall Mr. Richard Horowitz Mr. Baba Koita Regional Representative Coordinator of ADF-funded Dialambere Ford Foundation Project Dakar, Senegal Senegalese Government Agricultural Mr. Frank Conlon Research Institute (lSRA) Lutheran World Relief Kolda, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Mr. Thiousso Diallo Mr. Ibrahima Sy Agricultural Engineer Director Government Regional Development Agency for Mr. Pascal N’Dong the Senegal River Valley (SAED) Chief of Multilateral Division, Department St. Louis, Senegal of Economic and Technical Affairs Mr. Martin Fanghaenel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Amadou wade Dakar, Senegal Foster Parents Plan International Mr. Gary Engleberg St. Louis, Senegal Ms. Lillian Baer Dr. Jean-Francois Tourrand Africa Consultants, Inc. Dakar-Farm, Senegal Dr. Moussa Sow Dr. Papa Fall Mr. Cherno Kane Senegalese Government Agricultural Research President Institute (lSRA) CONGAD St. Louis, Senegal Dakar, Senegal Mr. Famara Diedhiou Mr. Khasoum Wone President Deputy Prefect FONGS Arrondissement of Ross-Bethio Thies, Senegal Department of Dagana Ross-Bethio, Senegal 168

Mr. Ali Boly Mr. Yves Morneau Peace Corps Training Consultant (former Second Secretary ADF Consultant) Canadian International Development Agency Peace Corps Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Thies, Senegal Mr. Charles N. Keenja Principal Secretary EAST AFRICA Ministry of Local Government and Cooperative TANZANIA Development Mr. Makara Dodoma, Tanzania Project Water 1Engineer Consultant Dr. M.E. Mlambiti PLANCONSULT Head of Department of Rural Economy Arusha, Tanzania Mr. S.C. Lugeye Mr. David Babu Acting Director of Institute for Continuing Director Education Tanzania National Parks Mr. I.J. Lupanga Arusha, Tanzania Head of Department of Agricultural Education and Extension Ms. Joyce Hamisi Dr. Aku O’Ktingati Executive Secretary Senior Lecturer, Forest Economics Presidential National Trust Fund (ADF-funded Sokoine University of Agriculture Project) Morogoro, Tanzania Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Mr. O.M. Ishumi Mr. L.C.M. Mususa Regional Agricultural Development Officer Partner Ministry of Agricuhure and Livestock Coopers and Lybrand Development Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Morogoro, Tanzania Mr. Donald Petterson Mr. R, Mwsambashi Ambassador Headmaster Mr. Joseph Seagars Reverend Raymond Austin Deputy Chief of Mission Reverend Herb Hafermann Mr. John Kauffman Lutheran Junior Seminary Program Officer, U.S. Ambassador’s Self- Morogoro, Tanzania Help Fund U.S. Embassy Mr. Joseph J. Mungai Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Project Director Mufindi Educational Trust (ADF-funded Project) Mr. Joseph Stepanik Mafinga, Mufindi District Director Tanzania U.S. Agency for International Development Dar es Salaam, Tanzania KENYA Mr. N.K. Mberia Professor R. Mabele District Commissioner, Kakamega Senior Research Fellow Office of the President Economic Research Bureau Kakamega, Kenya University of Dar es Salaam Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Ms. Catherine Wituka Mr. Francis Kima Mr. F. Kihunwra Mr. Oscar Oyalo Secretary, Chief Manager, Planning and Ms. Mary Kekorle Research Extensionists Mr. H.I-I. Akile Kenya Woodfuel Development Programme Mechanization Officer Kakamega, Kenya Cooperative and Rural Development Bank Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 169

Mr. George Griffin Mr. David Kniffen Deputy Chief of Mission Trainer Mr. Daniel Waterman Peace Corps Training Center at Naivasha Counselor for Economic Affairs Nairobi, Kenya Mr. J. Anthony Holmes Mr. C.O. Amonde Second Secretary for Economic Affairs District Officer U.S. Embassy Mr. Paul Gathogo Nairobi, Kenya Chief Mr. Steven Sinding Mr. G, Wambugu Director Extension Officer Mr. Derek Singer Mr. J.K. Mbogo Chief, Human Resources Development Irrigation Officer Mr. M. Peter Leifert Mrs. F.W. Wango Program Officer Home Economist and Horticulturalist Mr. K. Toh District Department/Naro-Moru Division Senior Economist Naro Moru, Kenya Dr. Maria Mulei Mr. M.M. Naivasha WID Program Officer District Water Engineer U.S. Agency for International Development Ministry of Water Development Nairobi, Kenya Nyeri, Kenya Mr. Fred O’Regan Managing Director SOUTHERN AFRICA world Education Rural Enterprise Project BOTSWANA Nairobi, Kenya Mr. Natale Bellochi Mr. S,0. Makondiege U.S. Ambassador Deputy Chief Engineer Mr. Johnie Carson Operations and Maintenance Deputy Chief of Mission Ministry of Water Development U.S. Embassy Nairobi, Kenya Gaborone, Botswana Mr. John Cohen Mrs. Motsumi Senior Planning Chairperson Ministry of National Planning and Development Mrs. Rossina Mannotoko Nairobi, Kenya Secretary General Botswana Council of Women Mr. Michael Westlack Gaborone, Botswana Program Specialist Commodity Analysis and Policy Planning Mr. John Hummond Ministry of Agriculture Director Nairobi, Kenya Mr. John Roberts Deputy Director Mr. S,K. Marisin Mr. Paul Daley Executive Director Agricultural Officer Kenya National Council of Social Services Dr. David Norman Nairobi, Kenya Chief of Party, Agricultural Technology Mr. William Saint Improvement Project (ATIP) Representative U.S. Agency for International Development Ms. Jennifer Sebstad Gaborone, Botswana Program Officer The Ford Foundation Nairobi, Kenya . .

~~170~~

Ms. Ruth Motsete Mr. K. V. Morei Social Concerns Officer General Manager Botswana Christian Council Mr. Percy Maribe Gaborone, Botswana Chief Extension Officer Rural Industries Innovation Centre Mr. Rob Van den Boom Kanye, Botswana Deputy Representative SNV-Netherlands Development Organization Mr. 1. Malobi Gaborone, Botswana District Agricultural Officer Mr. G.L. Mogetsho Mr. Kim Ward Incoming District Agricultural Officer Program and Training Officer/Acting Mr. Letina Director District Poultry Officer Ms. Binkie Ramologa Mr. Tabina APCD, Agriculture and Women’s District Horticultural Officer Development Ministry of Agriculture, Central District Mr. Steve Gibson Training Officer Serowe, Botswana U.S. Peace Corps Captain Kgositau Gaborone, Botswana General Manager Mr. Israel Matenge Serowe Brigades Serowe, Botswana Commissioner of Agricultural Management Associations Mr. F.J. Sigwele Mr. J, Larsen District Agricultural Officer Senior Agricultural Economist Ministry of Agriculture Ms. Elizabeth Muggeridge Tutume, Botswana Agricultural Economist Mr. Gulubane Mr. C.C. Molomo Head of the Small Dam Unit Commercial Tractor Owner Mr. Jetten Tutume, Botswana Technical Advisor ZIMBABWE Mr. Howard Sekwele Mr. Nyamayaro Agricultural Economist Chair Mr. G.D. Horspool Mwanza Development Authority Agricultural Engineer East Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. K.K. Mmopi ALDEP Coordinator Dr. Brian Marshall Ministry of Agriculture Lecturer Gaborone, Botswana Department of Biological Sciences University of Zimbabwe Mr. Sekate Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. Anderson Representatives Mr. Peter Johnson Foundation for Education for Progress/CORDE Chief of Crop Production Gaborone, Botswana Mr. Tekie Chief Horticuhuralist Extension Officer Ms. T.C. Moremi AGRITEX Coordinator of Rural Development Harare, Zimbabwe Rural Development Unit Ministry of Finance and Development Planning Gaborone, Botswana 171

Mr. Ed Fugit Mr. L. Muchatuta Deputy Chief of Mission Agritex Officer U.S. Embassy Mr. D. Chikande Harare, Zimbabwe Coffee Extension Worker Mr. M, Chigwande Mr. Eric Witt Coffee Extension Worker Agricultural Officer and Acting AID AGRITEX Director Juliasdale, Zimbabwe U.S. Agency for International Development Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. S. Dube Chair Mr. Chris Kanyuchi Chikomba II Coop Director of PVOINGO Coordination Chikomba School Ministry of Finance Mutare, Zimbabwe Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. Marcus Hakutangwi Dr. Liberty Mhlanga Assistant Provincial Agricultural and General Manager Extension Officer Agricultural and Rural Development AGRITEX Authority (ARDA) Mutare, Zimbabwe Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. L. Matikinyidze Ms. Lucy Thomas Cooperative Assistant Resident Representative Ministry of Cooperative Development Mr. McDonald Homer Nyanga, Zimbabwe Program Manager, Southern Africa AFRICARE Harare, Zimbabwe Mr. L. N. Mbigi Personnel Manager Eastern Highlands Tea Estate Juliasdale, Zimbabwe Appendix F Reviewers of OTA's Draft

In addition to the 15 members of the OTA field teams, the following staff members of ADF, outside reviewers, and members of OTA’S Advisory Panel on Low-Resource Agriculture in Africa reviewed the draft report.

The African Dovelopment Foundation Ms. Jeanette Whitfield Grants Coordinator Mr. Leonard Robinson, Jr. President Mr. Curtis Boykin Program Assistant Mr. Percy Wilson Vice President Ms. Kerry Hanrahan Program Assistant Mr. Paul Magid General Counsel Ms. Lori Pearson Program Assistant Ms. Lynn Herbon-Gwinn Congressional Liaison Ms. Sithabile Ndiweni Regional Liaison Officer for Southern Africa Ms. Jennifer Douglas Harare, Zimbabwe Policy Planning Officer Mr. Ibrahima Niang Mr. Tom Wilson Regional Liaison Officer for the Sahel Director, Administration and Finance Dakar, Senegal Ms. Constance Jenkins Mr. Joe Kuria Personnel Officer Regional Liaison Officer for East Africa Mr. Scott Boudreau Nairobi, Kenya Financial Specialist Mr. N’Gade Amadou Dr. Paula Donnelly Roark Country Resource Facilitator Director, Research and Evaluation Niamey, Niger Mr. Francis Kornegay, Jr. Mr. Gilbert Maeda Research Specialist Country Resource Facilitator Arusha-, Tanzania Ms. Teixeira Nash Information Officer Outside Reviewers Ms. Cheryl Jones Dr. Gerald Cashion Evaluation Consultant Social Science Advisor Ms. Sandra Robinson Office of Development Planning Director, Program and Field Operations Bureau for Africa U.S. Agency for International Development Mr. Leonard Floyd Washington, DC Foundation Representative, Central Africa Mr. Jim Cotter Ms. Christine Fowles Adjunct Professor Southern Africa Foundation Representative, International Development Program Mr. Thomas Katus School of International Service Foundation Representative, East Africa American University Washington, DC Mr. Leslie Pean Foundation Representative, West Africa Dr. Wendy Wilson Foundation Representative, Sahel/North Africa

~~172 173~~

Dr. Paula Goddard Dr. Jake Halliday Deputy Director Senior Program Manager for Industrial and Center for Development Information and International Business Development Evaluation, Battelle-Kettering Laboratory Bureau for Program and Policy Coordination Columbus, OH U.S. Agency for International Development Dr. Goran Hyden Washington, DC Professor Mr. Doug Hellinger Department of Political Science Co-Director University of Florida The Development Group for Alternative Policies Gainesville, FL Washington, DC Dr. Joseph Kennedy Dr. J. Kathy Parker Director, International Programs Consultant--Social Ecologist AFRICARE Newtown Square, PA Washington, DC Ms. Caroline Pezzullo Dr. David Leonard President Associate Professor Caroline Pezzullo Associates Department of Political Science New York, NY University of California Berkeley, CA Dr. Charles Reilly Vice-President for Learning and Dissemination Mr. Robert Rodale Inter-American Foundation Chairman of Board Rosslyn, VA Rodale Press, Inc. Emmaus, PA Dr. ]ohn Sutter Publisher Dr. John Scheuring Osprey Graphics/Yankee Trader Seeds Department Port Jefferson Station, NY Ciba Geigy Ltd. Basel, Switzerland Advisory Panel Reviewers Dr. Anita Spring Associate Dean Dr. Eugene Adams College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Vice President for International Programs University of Florida Tuskegee University Gainesville, FL Tuskegee, AL Ms. Helen Vukasin Dr. Haidari Amani Environment and Development Program Senior Lecturer CODEL, Inc. (Coordination in Development) Department of Economics New York, NY University of Dar es Salaam Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Mr. Marcus Winter Assistant Director for Natural Resources Dr. Leonard Berry Office of Technical Resources Vice President of Academic Affairs Bureau for Africa Florida Atlantic University U.S. Agency for International Development Boca Raton, FL Washington, DC Dr. Cornelia Flora Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Kansas State University Manhattan, KS Appendix 6 References

1. African Development Foundation, Blueprint for 13, Crocker, Chester, letter to all U.S. ambassadors Action, The Five-Year Plan, 1986-1990 (Wash- in Africa, February 1987. ington, DC: May 1985). 14, Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., The 2. African Development Foundation, “ADF Council of Better Business Bureaus’ Standards Manual—Proposal Review and Project Manage- for Charitable Solicitations, Publication No. 311- ment procedures Handbook, ” Revised May 5, 25129, C1OO 0284, revised January 1982. 1986, 15. DeLancey, Virginia, “Aspects of Participation 3, African Development Foundation, Fulfilling the in Projects Funded by the African Development Mandate, An Assessment Report by Three De- Foundation,” contractor report prepared for the velopment Journalists (Washington, DC: Sep- Office of Technology Assessment, August 1987. tember 1986). 16, Delp, Peter, et al., Promoting Appropriate Tech- 4. African Development Foundation, Congres- nological Change in Small-Scale Enterprises: An sional Presentation Fiscal Year 2988 (Washing- Evaluation of Appropriate Technology Interna- ton, DC: February 1987). tional’s Role, AID Evaluation Special Study No. 5. African Development Foundation, “The ICIPE- 45 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for Interna- ADF Evaluation Conference on Grassroots De- tional Development, November 1986). velopment, Nairobi, Kenya, January 1987” (Wash- 17. Djegal, Abdoulaye, “A Report on the Evaluation ington, DC: 1987). of Five ADF Projects in West Africa,” report pre- 6. African Development Foundation, “ADF Project pared for African Development Foundation, Origins,” undated memo, 1987. July 1987. 7. African Development Foundation, Statement of 18. Executive Office of the President, Office of Man- Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., President, African De- agement and Budget, Budget of the United velopment Foundation, Before the Subcommit- States Government FY 1986, 1987, 1988, Appen- tee on Foreign Operations, Committee on Ap- dix (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- propriations, U.S. House of Representatives, ing office, 1985, 1986, 1987). Washington, DC, Mar. 23, 1987. 19. Fowles, Christine, “The Nairobi Evaluation J3, African Development Foundation, “Operation- Conference,” Beyond Re2ief, vol. 3, No. 1, June alizing the ADF Mandate, ” Appendix I of A13F 1987, pp. 8-9. response to OTA draft report (Washington, DC: 20. Harrison, Paul, The Greening of Africa - Break- December 1987). ing Through in the Battle for Land and Food, 9, Buzzard, Shirley and Edgcomb, Elaine (eds.), An International Institute for Environment and Monitoring and Evaluating Small Business Development–Earthscan Study (London, Eng- Projects: A Step by Step Guide for Private De- land: Paladin Grafton Books, 1987).

velopment organizations (New York, NY: Pri- 214 Honadle, George, “Rapid Reconnaissance for vate Agencies Collaborating Together (PACT), Development Administration: Mapping and 1987]. Moulding Organizational Landscapes,” World 10, Carloni, Alice S., Women in Development: Development, vol. 10, No. 8 (Great Britain: Per- A.I.D. Experience, 1973-1985, Vol. I. Synthe- gamon Press Ltd., 1982), pp. 633-649. sis Paper, A.I.D. Program Evaluation Report No. 22, Kokuhirwa, H,, Maina, D., Mbula, J,, Nzioka, 18 (Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for Interna- C., “An Evaluation Report of the Kenya Projects: tional Development, April 1987). The Kenya Women Finance Trust (KWFT), Kenya 11. Carroll, Tom, “Typology of Grassroots Support Water for Health Organization (KWAHO), Farm- Organizations,” report prepared for Inter-Ameri- ing Systems Kenya (FSK), Njoguini Gitero Kabati can Foundation, August 1987. Self-Help Water Project (NGK),” report prepared 12. Chambers, Robert, “Shortcut Methods of Gather- for African Development Foundation, July 1987. ing Social Information for Rural Development 23. Magid, Paul, ADF General Counsel, memo to Projects, ” in Michael M. Cernea (cd,), Putting Leonard H. Robinson, ADF President, regard- People First—Sociological Variables in Rural ing Responses to OTA Inquiries, Nov. 9, 1987. Development (New York, NY: Oxford Univer- 24, Markham, Jaimie, consultant, former director sity Press, 1985), pp. 399-414, of economic development loan program of the

~~174 175~~

Campaign for Human Development, personal grams on Livelihood, Employment, and Income communication, Jan. 27, 1988, Generation (New York, NY: Ford Foundation, 25. Matlon, Peter J., “Consultant’s Report to OTA,” March 1987). contractor report prepared for the Office of 37. Tull, Kenneth and Sands, Michael, Experiences Technology Assessment, August 1987. in Success, Case Studies in Growing Enough 26. Nash, Teixeira and Boykin, Curtis A., “The ADF Food Through Regenerative Agriculture (Em- Funding Process or How the Izuni Coop Got an maus, PA: Rodale International, 1987). ADF Grant!” Beyond Relief, vol. 1, No. 3, No- 38. United Nations, United Nations Development vember 1985, pp. 1-4. Fund for Women, Development Co-operation 27. National Charities Information Bureau (for- With Women: The Experience and Future Direc- merly National Information Bureau), NIB Stand- tions of the Fund (New York, NY: United Na- ards in Philanthropy (New York, NY: National tions, Department of International Economic Information Bureau, Inc., 1982). and Social Affairs, 1985). 28< O’Regan, Fred, Hellinger, Steve, and Hellinger, 39. U.S. Agency for International Development, Doug, The African Development Foundation: Program Review of the International Fund for A New Institutional Approach to U.S. Foreign Agricultural Development (IFAD), AID Evalu- Assistance to Africa (Washington, DC: The De- ation Special Study No. 21 (Washington, DC: velopment GAP, March 1982). Revised edition Center for Development Infornlation and Evacu- of the report originally published by The Devel- ation, February 1985). opment GAP in September 1977, entitled U.S. 40. U.S. Agency for International Development, De- Foreign Assistance to Africa: A New Institu- velopment Effectiveness of Private Voluntary tional Approach. organizations (PVOsj (Washington, DC: Febru- 29. Reilly, Charles, Vice President for Learning and ary 1986). Dissemination, and Pam Palma, Vice President 41. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, is- for Program Analysis, Inter-American Founda- sues Affecting Appropriations for the African tion, personal communication, Feb. 16, 1988, Development Foundation, Report to the Chair- 30. Rugh, Jim, Self-Evaluation: Ideas for Participa- man, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Com- tory Evaluation of Rural Community Develop- mittee on Appropriations, United States Senate, ment Projects, ISBN 0-942716-05-1 (Oklahoma GAOINSIAD-85-62 (Washington, DC: May 7, 1985). City, OK: World Neighbors, Inc., 1986). 42. U.S. Congress, Foreign Assistance Legislation 31. Ruigu, G. M., Alila, P. O., and Mwabu, G. M., for Fiscal Years 1988-89 (Part 6), Hearings and “The Development of Women Entrepreneur- Markup before the Subcommittee on Africa of ship: An Evaluation of Partnership for Produc- the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of tivitylKenya (PfP) Women in Development Proj- Representatives, Mar. 4, 10, 18, and 19, 1987 ect, ” A Report Submitted to PfPIKenya and (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- prepared for African Development Foundation, fice, 1987). August 1987. 43. U.S. Congress, Legislation on Foreign Relations 32. Saint, William, Representative, Ford Founda- Through 1986—Vo]ume 1, printed for use of the tion, Office for Eastern and Southern Africa, Committees on Foreign Relations and Foreign personal communication, Sept. 11, 1987. Affairs of the Senate and House of Representa- 33. Schramm, Richard, consultant assessing the tives (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- loan program of the Campaign for Human De- ing Office, March 1987). velopment, personal communication, June 18, 44. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Mak- 1987. ing Further Continuing Appropriations for the 34, Sinclair, Molly, “Conflict-Ridden Agency Has Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1988, Con- Provided No Funds for Grass-Roots Africa,” The ference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 395, Washington Post, May 4, 1984, p. A19. Dec. 21, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- 35. Smith, Bradford, “Why Fund a Day Care Cen- ment Printing Office, 1987), p.163. ter in Sao Paulo?” Grassroots Development: A 45. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess- [ournal of the Inter-American Foundation, vol. ment, Africa Tomorrow: Issues in Technology, 11, No. 2, 1987, pp. 46-48. Agriculture, and U.S. Foreign Aid, A Techni- 36. Tendler, Judith, What Ever Happened to Pov- cal Memorandum, OTA-TM-F-31 (Washington, erty Alleviation? A Report Prepared for the Mid- DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Decem- Decade Review of the Ford Foundation’s Pro- ber 1984). —

~~176~~

46. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess- Africa, Headline Series No. 274 (New York, NY: ment, Continuing the Commitment: Agricul- Foreign Policy Association, MaylJune 1985). tural Development in the Sahel, Special Report, 49. Weber, Fred R,, “Desk and Office Review of OTA-F-308 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government ADF Activities: Renewable Resource Technol- Printing Office, August 1986). ogies,” contractor report prepared for the Of- 47. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess- fice of Technology Assessment, August 1987, ment, Enhancing Agriculture in Africa: A Role 50. Weintraub, S., Stedman, Jr., W. P., and Szanton, for U.S. Development Assistance, OTA-F-356 P. L., “The Inter-American Foundation: Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- of the Evaluation Group, ” report prepared for fice, in press, 1988), the Inter-American Foundation, March 1984. 48. Walker, Brian W., Authentic Development in Index Index

NOTE: Page numbers in italics refer to figures and tables. operational, 12, 40 recurrent, of projects, 8, 73, 98-99 Access. See Participation Council on Foundations, 89 Accords, ADF country, 37, 108 Country Assessment Profiles, 37-38, 105-106 Administrative costs, ADF. See Costs, operational Country Resource Facilitators (CRFS), 39, 89 Advance, 50, 87 Credit Advisory Council, ADF, 40 programs, 8, 9, 47, 62, 63, 75, 78, 79, 105 African Development Bank, project funding by, 8, 69 see also Loan program Africare, 40 Agency for International Development, U.S. (AID), 5, Dagnare. See Agricultural Mutuel of Dagnare Project 8, 18-19, 35, 38, 69 Dakoro Herders’ Cooperative Project (DHC), 29, 54, Agricultural Finance Corporation Project (AFC), 54, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 79, 86, 91, 92, 107, 128-130 59, 61-62, 63, 68-69, 74, 79, 91, 143-144 Data, disaggregation of, 25, 56, 90 Agricultural Mutuel of Dagnare Project, 54, 58, 60, Decisionmaking. See Participation 61, 66, 69, 74, 89, 107, 126-128 Delancey, Virginia, 56 Agriculture Desk reviews, 27, 29, 94 inputs for, 8, 46-47, 74 Development Group for Alternative Policies, 35 proportion of ADF grants supporting, 7, 10, 46-47, 86-87 Ambassadors Self-Help Fund, U.S, 8, 41, 69, 103, 104 Environment, See Sustainability Appraisal, rapid rural, 11, 26 Erosion, soil, 8, 66, 68-69, 74 Appropriate Technology International (AT1), 27, 115, Evaluation, program 116 by ADF, 10-11, 48, 87, 109-110 costs of, 8 Appropriations, ADF. See Legislation; No-year funds externa], 7-10, 23-31, 86-87 Assessment improvements suggested from OTA, 10-12, 87-111 flow chart for OTA, 5, 26 internal, 49, 64 forms used by field teams for OTA, 148-164 lessons for other development foundations concern- OTA methods for report’s, 3, 23-31 ing assessments and, 119-120 projects visited by OTA during, 6, 29 list of representative projects chosen for OTA, 6, 54 methods, 25-31 Beyond Re]ief, 40, 50, 87 Board of Directors, ADF initial delay in appointing, 5, 35, 36 Farming Systems Kenya, 86 lessons for other development foundations concern- Five Year Plan (ADF’s 1985), 37, 39, 48 ing, 119 FONGS, 78 partisan nature of, 18, 36 Ford Foundation, 8, 44, 48, 89, 91, 106, 110 project approval by, 42, 43 Foreign Assistance Act—1961, 23 resignation of, 5, 36 Foundation Representatives Senate confirmation of, 17, 36 grant information by, 41, 42-43 Boiteko Agricultural Management Association, 58, monitoring involvement by, 45 59, 78, 79 training for, 95 Boiteko Agricultural Management Association Funding project, 54, 62, 64, 68, 69, 74, 78, 80, 86, alternative, in ADF projects, 69-70 140-141 approval, 11, 42, 43 Botswana, 9, 29, 58, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79, cap on project, 18 80, 86, 92, 107 congressional policy options involving, 14-15 Brooke Amendment, 38 costlbenefit analysis as element in decisions for, 68 independence in, decisions, 5, 37, 38 Carter, ]immy, 35 project portfolio (ADF’s), 11, 37, 45-48 Congress, U.S. proposals for ADF, 36-37, 88-89, 90-99 ADF authorization by, 3, 5, 35 ADF improvement policy options for, 12-19 General Accounting Office (GAO), ADF study and re- ADF lessons concerning relations with, 119 port by, 5, 24, 25, 36, 37 notification of project approval of, 43 Grants oversight of ADF by, 15-17 ADF research, 5, 11, 12, 49, 110-111 costs agreement for, 44, 86 ADF projected budget, 37 approval process, 41-43, 90-99, 107-108 of implementing OTA suggestions, 12, 87, 112 budget for, 46

~~179 180~~

information tools for publicizing availability of, Malihai Arusha organization, 89 40-41, 49-50 Mandate, ADF’s legislative, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 17, 35, 38, monitoring, 5, 44-45 48, 64, 71, 81, 88, 89 Grassroots organization Matabeleland Council of Disabled Persons, 29 project benefits on, 68 MatIon, Peter J., 93, 94, 96 project participation and, 7, 59-60, 63 Media project sustainability of, 72, 73 grant publicizing by, 40-41, 50 technology dissemination by, 78 unfavorable coverage on ADF by, 36 trade-offs involving, 80 Monitoring Greenbelt Movement, 89 by ADF, 65, 99-101 Guidelines approach differences by ADF, 44 for funding organizations, 110 checklist for program, 56, 90, 99-100 grant provision, 18, 90 methods of ADF project by OTA, 10, 23-31 quarterly report’s requirement for, 45, 100-101 Hilliard, Constance, 36 Morogoro. See Integrated Food Development Pro- gram Project Industrial Areas Foundation (New York), 79 Iniminak Pastoralists Project, 29 National Agricultural Credit Bank (Senegal), 9, 78, Inputs, agricultural. See Agriculture 110 Integrated Food Development Program Project, 54, National Malihai Club, 73 60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 86, 98, NGK Self-Help Water Project, 54, 58, 62, 66, 68, 69, 107, 108, 134-135 70, 74, 77, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 94, 98, 104, Integrated pest management (1PM), 74 137-139 Inter-American Foundation (IAF), 5, 18, 19, 27, 35, Niger, 29, 58, 61, 72, 86, 88, 89, 92, 107 44, 115, 116 Nongovernment organizations (NGOS) Interest bearing accounts, 19, 45 project funding by, 8, 69 Intermediary organizations project referrals from, 41 project benefits on, 68 see also Grassroots organizations; Intermediary project origination by, 7, 58 organizations; individual donors project participation and, 60, 63, 64 No-year funds, 18-19, 35-36, 37 project sustainability of, 72, 73-74 technology dissemination by, 78 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 5, 40 trade-offs involving, 80 Oversight, congressional International Fund for Agricultural Development high priority topics for ADF, 16 (IFAD), 27, 107, 115, 116 policy options involving, 15-17 International Security and Development Cooperation Act–1980, 35 Participation, 7-8, 9, 10, 28, 55-58, 65-67 Irrigation. See Agriculture; Water supply; individual access to projects’, 61-63 projects using ADF lessons for other development assistance organizations, 116-117 Kellogg Foundation, 101 assessment forms used by OTA field teams, Kenya, 9, 29, 58, 60-61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 151-154, 155-156 76, 77-78, 79, 86, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 104, benefits from, 63-64, 67-68, 79 105, 106, 108 contributions to, 58-60, 63, 69 Kikatili Village Malihai Club Project, 54, 58, 59, 62, in decisionmaking, 63-64 69, 72, 73, 74, 80, 89, 91, 98, 99, 135-137 by ethnic minorities, 61-62 factors affecting, 64-65 Land local control of, 58-60, 79-80 tenure, 62 women’s, 58, 62-63, 64 value, 62, 68 Partnership for Productivity/Kenya Project (PFP), 48, Legislation 54, 58, 60-61, 62-63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 76, ADF’s 1980 authorizing, 3, 5, 35, 40 79, 104, 139-140 appropriations authorization (ADF), 3, 5, 35-36 Peace Corps, 18, 41, 58, 103-104 congressional policy options involving authoriza- Petty, Reginald, 36 tion and appropriations, 17-lg Planning-grants. See Grants five-year reauthorization, 5, 13-14, 37 Plans, country ADF’s 37-38, 105-107 see also Congress, U. S., individual statutes Policy Loan programs, 47, 75, 78, 79 ADF technical assistance, 64 developing ADF, 109-11o options for Congress, 12-19 funds lost through, 18-19 Portfolio, ADF’s, 11, 37, 45-48 181

Poverty, projects’ impact on, 8, 61-62 organizational, 68, 73-74, 88-89 private voluntary organizations (PVOS), 8, 37 technical, 74-75 ADF’s resemblance of, 38 coordination with, 103 Tanzania, 29, 58, 60, 62-63, 67, 68, 72, 75, 86, 89, 91, problems common to ADF of, 115, 116 99, 107, 108, 109 programs funded by, 67, 69 Technology projects proposed by, 36-37, 41, 58 agricultural, 46-47, 48, 93, 96 see also NGOS; individual organizations choices of, 10, 28, 58, 74-75, 78, 92-94 Project Assessment Memorandum (PAM), 42-43, 90, constraints on transfer of, 7-8, 9, 77-78 97-99 dissemination of project, 9, 28, 76-77, 78 Project Review Committee (PRC), ADF, 37, 43, 49, 90 renewable resource, 71, 97 Technical assistance Quarterly reports, See Monitoring provision of, 8-9, 58, 64, 70 training, 73 Reagan, Ronald, 35 Technology transfer. See Technology, dissemination Reauthorization of project congressional options involving, 13-14 Tractors see also Legislation use of, in funded projects, 47, 63, 66 Reforestation, 59, 69, 74 see also individual projects using Regional Liaison Officers (RLOS), 39 Trade-offs, 61, 79-80 grant information dissemination by, 41 Training improvements concerning, 89 costs of, 8, 45 monitoring involvement by, 45 evaluation, 49 Replicability financial, 45, 73 assessment forms used by OTA field teams, 161-162 grant funds used for financial management, 45 of projects, 9, 28, 75-79, 80 management, 45, 74 Results technical assistance, 73 assessment forms used by OTA field teams, 155-157 Tutume Tractor Hire Project, 54, 58, 60, 63, 66, 67, of projects, 8, 28, 65-70, 79-80 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 80, 92, 141-143 Robinson, Leonard, Jr., 36, 37, 40 Ross Bethio. See Youth Association of Ross Bethio UNIFEM. See U.N. Development Fund for Women Project Union Kaoural Project, 54, 58, 59, 61, 68, 69, 78, 80, 88, 91, 92, 99, 132-134 Sahel Development Fund, 35 United Nations Decade for Women, 27 Senegal, 9, 29, 58, 60, 61, 62, 78, 86, 88, 91, 92, 99, United Nations Development Fund for Women 107 (UNIFEM), 27, 115, 116 Senegal River, 69 Silveira House Development Fund Project, 29, 54, 60, Water supply 61, 63, 69, 74, 144-145 projects funding improved, 46, 47 Sokoine University (Tanzania), 75 see also individual Staff Weber, Fred R., 71, 97 ADF lessons concerning role of African, 117-119 Wilson, Percy, 36 African-based, 5, 11, 12, 39, 45, 92, 101-103 Women consultant’s use to complement, 10, 11, 39, 102 participation in projects by, 7, 8, 10, 58, 62-63, 64 formation of management, 5, 36, 37 project access by, 62-63 growth in, 5, 39-4o rural credit for, 75, 78, 79 limit on size of, 5, 40 World Bank, 8, 35, 38, 69 personal contracts of, 37, 40, 41 World Council of Credit Unions, 40 training, 11, 12, 95, 102 Standards. See Guidelines Youth Association of Ross Bethio Project, 54, 60, 62, Strategies, country, 37-38, 105-107 63, 68, 69, 74, 78, 86, 91, 99, 107, 130-132 Sustainability, 8-9, 10, 28, 67-69, 70-72 assessment forms used by OTA field teams, 157, Zimbabwe, 29, 60, 61, 62, 68-69, 107, 109 158-160 Zimbabwe Coffee and Tea Project. See Agricultural economic, 67-68, 72-73, 98-99 Finance Corporation Project environmental, 68-69, 74, 94-97 factors affecting, 75