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 pro- grams 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 sup- port 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 to- tal 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

Load more