OFFICE OF EVALUATION Project evaluation series

Evaluation of the project Protecting and Improving Household Food Security and Nutrition in HIV/AIDS Affected Areas in Manica and Sofala Provinces Final Report

July 2015

PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES

Evaluation of the project Protecting and Improving Household Food Security and Nutrition in HIV/AIDS Affected Areas in Manica and Sofala Provinces

Final Report

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF EVALUATION

July 2015 i Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

© FAO 2015

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

For further information on this report, please contact:

Director, Office of Evaluation (OED) Food and Agriculture Organization Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome Italy Email: [email protected]

GCP/MOZ/079/BEL

ii Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... v Acronyms and abbreviations ...... vi

Executive summary ...... 1

1. Background and purpose of the evaluation ...... 8 1.1 Methodology of the evaluation ...... 8

2. Context of the project ...... 11

3. Analysis of project’s concept and design ...... 13 3.1 Project’s concept and logic model ...... 13 3.2 Project design ...... 15

4. Analysis of the implementation process ...... 17 4.1 Institutional arrangements ...... 17 4.2 Project Management ...... 18 4.3 Financial resources management ...... 23

5. Analysis by evaluation criteria ...... 27 5.1 Relevance ...... 27 5.2 Effectiveness ...... 28 5.3 Efficiency ...... 41 5.4 Sustainability ...... 45 5.5 Impact ...... 46 5.6 Other evaluation criteria ...... 47

6. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 51 6.1 Conclusions ...... 51 6.2 Recommendations ...... 53

iii Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Tables and figures

Tables Table 1. Number of persons interviewed by evaluation team...... 9 Table 2. Distance (in Km) from provincial capitals to project districts ...... 18 Table 3. Summary of backstopping missions ...... 22 Table 4. Total project budget and funds delivery ...... 23 Table 5. Actual project budget and delivery ...... 23 Table 6. Delivery rate per budget line ...... 26 Table 7. Training of trainers (ToT) ...... 29 Table 8. Refresher training ...... 29 Table 9. FFS groups established by the project ...... 30 Table 10. Community based natural resources committees in the 4 project districts ...... 34 Table 11. Training courses provided by the Project by component ...... 40 Table 12. Disaggregated rates in project allocations ...... 42

Figures Figure 1. Project logframe result chain ...... 14 Figure 2. Timeline of project team contracts ...... 20 Figure 3. Actual expenditures by project budget line ...... 24 Figure 4. Allocation of project funds by budget line (ProDoc, Budget Revision –BR- and real expenditures) ...... 25 Figure 4. Delivery rate by component ...... 43

iv Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Acknowledgements

The evaluation team would like to thank all the people involved in preparing and facilitating this evaluation. We wish to thank representatives of all the stakeholders we met, including the staff of several line ministries of the Government of Mozambique, the Belgian Cooperation and organizations of the civil society, for their time and information. In particular, we would like to thank FAO Mozambique, the Project Team and staff of other FAO projects in the region for their support, time and information. We are very grateful especially to all the beneficiaries in the various communities we visited for sharing with us their perceptions and insights about the Project.

Composition of the evaluation team

Evaluation team Carmen Lahoz, Team Leader and Food Security Expert Orlando Gemo, Team Member and FFS Expert

FAO Office of Evaluation Raquel Cabello, Evaluation Manager

v Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Acronyms and abbreviations

BR Budget Revision BSF Belgium Survival Fund BTO Backstopping Technical Officer CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organisation CNCS National AIDS Council DDS District Directorate of Health DPA Provincial Directorate of Agriculture DPE Provincial Directorate of Education DPS Provincial Directorate of Health ESAN II National Food Security and Nutrition Strategy ET Evaluation Team ETD District Technical Team FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FBO Faith Based Organization FFS Farmer Field School FPMIS Field Programme Management Information System FSN Food Security & Nutrition GDP Gross Domestic Product GoM Government of Mozambique JFFLS Junior Farm Field and Life School LOA Letter of Agreement LTO Lead Technical Officer M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal MEC Ministry of Education MINAG Ministry of Agriculture MISAU Ministry of Health MMAS Ministry for Women and Social Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRMC Natural Resources Management Committee OED FAO’s Office of Evaluation PARPA II Second Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty PASAN Action Plan for Food and Nutritional Security PCU Project Coordination Unit PDH Provincial Directorate of Health PLWHA People living with HIV/AIDS PME Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation ProDoc Project Document PROFASA Programme for Families without Illiteracy RENAMO Mozambican National Resistance SDAE District Services of Economic Activities SDEJT District Education Service SDSMAS District Services of Health, Women and Social Action vi Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

SETSAN Technical Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition ToT Training of Trainers TRM Tripartite Review Meetings UN United Nations UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group

vii Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

viii Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Executive summary

Background

ES1 The final evaluation of the project “Protecting and improving household food security and nutrition in HIV/AIDS affected areas in Manica and Sofala provinces”, GCP/MOZ/079/BEL, was carried out from April to June 2015 by a team of independent consultants and FAO evaluation manager from FAO Office of Evaluation (OED)

ES2 The final evaluation aimed at (i) providing an independent assessment of the overall results of the project and (ii) documenting lessons learned and putting forward recommendations for the design and implementation of on-going and future projects implemented by FAO in Mozambique, in particular for project GCP/MOZ/116/BEL, also funded by the Belgian Government.

ES3 The Project was a three-year programme funded by the Belgian Government, through the Belgium Survival Fund (BSF) and was implemented by FAO in collaboration with the Government of Mozambique (GoM). The Project was conceived as the “exit/consolidation phase” of the cooperation programme jointly implemented in Manica and Sofala provinces by the GoM, the BSF and FAO during the period 2002 and 2009. The Project mainly focused on strengthening and scaling up successful activities from previous phases in the following four districts: Gorongosa and Caia (Sofala province) and Gondola and Macossa (Manica province).

ES4 The Financial Agreement between FAO and the Government of Belgium for the implementation of the Project was officially signed on 25/07/2011. However, the real implementation of the Project started in December 2010 with carry-over funds from the preceding phase. The total budget of the Project was US$ 2.6 million (plus US$ 340.000 from the previous phase).

Methodology

ES5 The evaluation has followed the UNEG Norms and Standards1 and adopted the internationally recognized evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. The Evaluation Team (ET) adopted a consultative and transparent approach and made use of the following methods and tools: (i) a desk review of available documents, (ii) a matrix with key evaluation questions; (iii) semi-structured interviews with key informants and stakeholders (iv) direct observation during field visits in the four project districts: Gorongosa, Caia, Macossa and Gondola; and (v) a de-briefing workshop in Maputo with the main stakeholders to discuss the main findings of the field mission.

ES6 The ET noted serious data limitations, such as poor quality of key reports, lack of project M&E system and database or incomplete and disorganized information related to the various project components, which could negatively affect the evaluation. As a result and in order to get the most complete picture of the project’s performance, the ET interviewed more than 70 people including representatives from provincial and district government FAO, NGOs, CBOs, etc. The ET also visited the four districts where the project was implemented and discussed with 6 groups of project beneficiaries, more than 100 people.

ES7 The draft evaluation report was shared with the project task force, including FAO-Maputo and the LTO, for its revision. The suggestions and comments considered relevant by the ET were integrated in the report which was finalized in July 2015

1 United Nations Evaluation Group, http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards

1 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Key findings

ES8 The Project’s logic model is well conceived, focusing on capacity building with a holistic approach. The Project design does not provide key elements, such as an exit and gender strategies or guidelines and recommended activities for the consolidation of project components. In addition, the lack of a participatory design led to some unrealistic expectations and assumptions.

ES9 The institutional arrangements were well conceived in the Project Document Lack of leadership, poorly motivated staff and limited supervision and backstopping from FAO negatively affected the project implementation. The lack of timely and adequate decisions resulted in a low implementation rate, great allocation of funds to human resources and travel and the one-year of inactivity of project staff.

ES10 The Project is relevant to Mozambique’s poverty reduction plans and the national food security and nutrition strategy. It is also relevant to FAO Strategic Objective 1 and is in line with the priority areas of the Country Programming Framework (CPF 2012-2015). Equally, the Project is relevant to the BSF goal.

ES11 Overall, the Project has been moderately unsatisfactory in meeting its immediate objective due to the following main reasons: insecurity problems, delays in the disbursement of project funds, difficulties in the implementation of the LOAs, unmotivated project personnel, and insufficient coordination, supervision and backstopping. Some Outputs (2, 4 and 6) were poorly achieved and others (3 and 5) were definitively not achieved.

ES12 The Project’s efficiency has been negatively affected by implementation delays mainly caused by the insecurity situation in Sofala province and the lack of a timely decision to overcome the situation. This fact together with the difficulties in implementing the LOAs and the insufficient planning and financial control led to an unbalanced distribution of resources (very high for staff and low for project activities), which resulted in poor project results.

ES13 The majority of the activities still need to be consolidated even that the Project was the consolidation phase of an eight-year programme in the region. The ET identified some risk factors (i.e. government financial constraints, insufficient human resources, insufficiently trained technical staff, among others) that could jeopardize the sustainability. In addition, the lack of a well-developed exit strategy contributed to the limited sustainability of the Project.

ES14 The positive impact of the Project is related only to the implementation of the FFS methodology, and, to a lesser extent, to the “model mothers”’ component. Even in these components, the impact could have been greater by increasing the technical support, mainstreaming nutrition in agricultural activities, organizing refreshment trainings, increasing the supervision and backstopping of project activities and reaching a larger number of beneficiaries.

ES15 The Project increased women’s participation in FFS, which have contributed to improving their livelihoods. However, it also contributed to perpetuating traditional gender roles, by involving women only in activities aiming at increasing food production or improving the nutritional of status of family members, which are their traditional activities. The Project did not promote women’s literacy nor raises awareness among the communities on gender equality issues that could have enabled the fully participation of women in the Project

ES16 The Project did not establish any partnership with self-help groups, farmers groups or NGOs, to scale-up investments in support of the target group, as it was envisaged in the project Document. Partnerships could have been an efficient mean for bringing together the complementary knowledge, skills and resources to achieve capacity goals (i.e literacy training programmes) and could have also contributed to the consolidation of project activities (i.e. FFS).

2 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Conclusions

ES17 Based on the lessons learned and evidence emerged throughout the evaluation, the ET drew a number of conclusions, which can be organized around the three key evaluation questions as follows.

ES18 To what extend the project management strategy and approach was effective in strengthening and scaling up the activities undertaken by previous BSF projects in Manica and Sofala provinces?

ES19 The project implementation approach was not successful in achieving the desired project outcome. The strategy of giving the entire responsibility of the implementation of project activities to district officials has proven to be inadequate. Difficulties in the implementation of the LOAs and the little support provided by the project technical team, partially due to the insecurity situation in the Gorongosa district, led to a limited achievement of results.

ES20 Lack of leadership, poorly motivated staff and limited supervision and backstopping from FAO have contributed to two key shortcomings:

i) Misunderstanding of the project overall goal of building the capacities of district and provincial services providers for targeting vulnerable households and small-holder farmers, in order to meet their food and nutrition security needs. The scope of Project implementation was too narrow, as it focused on creating new FFS, delivering training and, at the very end, carrying out some nutrition activities. Some outputs, envisaged in the ProDoc, were eliminated without apparent justification. In addition, no synergies were sought, nor partnerships established, in order to consolidate the interventions and achieve more sustainable results. ii) Decisions to overcome key difficulties faced by the Project -in particular its low implementation rate, the allocation of funds mainly to human resources and travel, and especially the one-year inactivity of project staff- were taken too late or were inadequate.

ES21 The lack of both a timely baseline survey and a well-developed M&E system negatively affected the proper monitoring of the Project and prevented from keeping the stakeholders informed of its progress and taking the necessary decisions for improving its implementation.

ES22 To what extend the capacity of smallholder farmers, in particular women and youth, were increased to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner?

ES23 Capacity development of smallholder farmers in agriculture, nutrition and, to a lesser extent, in the sustainable use of natural resources has been the focus of the Project. However, the target achieved was lower than originally envisioned and the activities still needed to be consolidated to have a long-lasting impact. It can be concluded, therefore, that the Project results were overall poor, taking into account that this was the consolidation phase of two previous projects.

ES24 The Project created 255 FFS with 7,295 members (4,484 women) and trained 194 FFS facilitators (21 women). The Project contributed to improving FFS members’ knowledge on agriculture and nutrition, which has translated into better agricultural practices and increased production and income. FFS members were empowered and established strong bonds with other members of the groups. Despite these positive results, however, the project achievements were less than 50% of the set targets (600 FFS and 18,000 farmers receiving extension services from FFS). Moreover, the majority of FFS facilitators did not receive refreshment training to ensure the adequate achievement of knowledge and skills, and no synergies were obtained with activities of local partners to support FFS initiatives, such as income generating activities, which could have facilitated the consolidation of the groups and their sustainability.

3 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

ES25 The Project has attempted to develop the capacity of the NRMC members to improve the sustainable management of natural resources, as well as the management and accountability of the community fund for implementing productive activities. However, the training and backstopping were insufficient for producing any positive impact on the livelihoods of the population. In fact, the few members trained (80 people in a 3-day training course) did not receive any additional training or adequate support to develop adequate capacity in this area.

ES26 Seventeen FFS and one hundred and twenty NRMC members were trained in income generating activities –construction of “Gorongosa type” silos and beekeeping – and received materials for starting up these activities. NRMC beekeepers increased the honey production, and therefore, their income. Training in the construction of silos had a two-fold objective: to create employment and to disseminate improved storage practices, in order to avoid post-harvest losses. As regards this last goal, only few large-scale farmers showed interest in building this type of silos. FFS members considered that the size of the silos was too big for their needs, the cost of the materials was too high, and the silos did not allow storing the two crops (maize and sorghum) they annually produce.

ES27 As regards the objective of increasing farmers’ capacity to improve nutrition at household level, the Project developed a nutrition module for FFS facilitators, which has proven to be too complex and not tailored to farmers who are barely literate. The module was not pre- tested nor validated by the facilitators, and never reached the targeted audience, as it was not reproduced. The Project also trained one hundred women in nutrition using the “model mothers” methodology. This methodology, which aims at increasing the knowledge on nutrition and health issues was not adequately supported by refreshment sessions and periodic backstopping by the DPS, due to its late implementation.

ES28 Women and youth were identified in the ProDoc as the main target beneficiaries of the Project for capacity development. The Project lacked a gender strategy and the gender approach used only aimed at increasing women’s participation in project activities, especially in FFS, where 61% of the members were women. In addition, the Project did not promote women’ participation in income-generating activities or in decision taking processes, partly due to their high illiteracy rate and the perpetuation of the gender-biased traditional roles of rural communities. As regards youth, no activities were carried out to increase their capacities and improve their livelihoods.

ES29 To what extend the capacity of the district and provincial partners for planning, implementing and monitoring food security and nutrition actions was strengthened at district level?

ES30 The Project neglected this component that could have contributed to creating an enabling environment for improving the food security and nutrition of the targeted districts. No activities were carried out aiming at strengthening the capacity of local partners (district technical team, food security focal point, NGOs and CBOs and provincial technical staff) for planning and implementing food security and nutrition interventions in the districts, as it was envisaged.

Recommendations

ES31 The recommendations put forward by this final evaluation aim at providing guidance to future projects designed and implemented by FAO, in general, and, more specifically, to the BSF Project “Food Security and Nutrition Programme (FSNP) in Gaza Province” (GCP/ MOZ/116/BEL), which has similar objectives and approach.

Recommendation 1: To FAO for improving project design

The ET recommends that FAO carry out participatory context analysis during the design phase of the projects, which would enable a more realistic and accurate identification of beneficiaries’ needs and assessment of local partners’ capacity.

4 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

ES32 This may include the following activities:

• To identify and involve a wide range of stakeholders in the design process, including government representatives (directors and officers), NGOs, CBOs, the private sector and future project’s beneficiaries. • To use available and updated data and information from reliable reports. • To learn from the experience and best practices of other organizations and identify potential synergies and complementarities. • To assess the technical and operational capacity of main partners. • To identify the capacity development needs of main partners for the implementation of the project. • To conduct a gender analysis

Recommendation 2: To FAO for improving project management

The ET recommends strengthening the coordination, supervision, backstopping and monitoring of the project for improving its performance and results, including a clear definition of roles and responsibilities and an efficient mechanism of financial control.

ES33 The following actions are suggested:

• To appoint a full time coordinator, with leadership and team building capacity, for the full life of the project. • To increase the supervision of projects by FAO focal points through frequent field missions, discussions with the project team and partners, strategic planning, and the analysis of project reports, in order to identify problems and take timely and appropriate decisions for improving the implementation. • To increase the technical support of FAO backstopping officers in key project areas (i.e M&E), through permanent communication and regular field missions. • To undertake a baseline survey and establish an M&E system at the beginning of the project, with appropriate indicators and realistic targets for monitoring the progress towards outputs and outcomes. • To enforce the preparation and timely submission of quality reports, both six-moth progress reports and reports from field visits and key activities (i.e. training), with clear recommendations and follow-up actions. • To enhance the capability of addressing rapidly and in a coordinated manner the problems and constraints that may arise during the project implementation through convening specific meeting of all stakeholders (TRM) or establishing a task force if necessary. • To increase the control and monitoring of financial resources.

Recommendation 3: To FAO, the BSF and the GoM for the consolidation of FFS

The ET recommends the FFS be supported by continuous technical assistance during at least three years, from their establishment to the graduation, a post-graduation strategy to be developed in a participatory way.

ES34 More specifically the ET suggests:

• To ensure the identification of FFS groups interested in starting up income-generating activities and local partners who could support this type of initiatives and promote the establishment of partnerships among them. • To support the FFS for the opening of bank accounts • To elaborate a post-graduation strategy in a participatory manner • To increase the representation of women as facilitators and in the FFS decision making structure. • To promote the exchange of experiences and facilitate the establishment of partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector for literacy training and the implementation of income-generating activities 5 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

• To pre-test the nutrition module and revise it, if necessary, and ensure the facilitators are familiar with it before the training.

Recommendation 4: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for improving the nutrition status of vulnerable households.

The ET recommends mainstreaming nutrition in all project components to ensure that nutrition is addressed through a comprehensive approach.

ES35 More specifically, the ET recommends:

• To recruit a nutrition specialist, either on a full-time or short-term consultancy basis with periodic backstopping, in all FSN projects to ensure that nutrition is mainstreamed in all project components. • To integrate nutrition education in all FSN projects, including regular training and supervision, adapted to the target population’s needs, in order to facilitate long-lasting behavioural changes.

Recommendation 5: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for improving community based natural resources management

The ET recommends additional work in this area, in close coordination with national stakeholders (especially the SDAEs and the Provincial Directorates of Tourism), to further consolidate the NRMC to become an effective and transparent mechanism that promotes the development of the community.

ES36 The following actions are recommended:

• To support the revitalization and legalization of community funds and training in their financial management. • To promote the involvement of the community in the allocation of community fund. • To promote the exchange of experiences and facilitate the establishment of partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector.

Recommendation 6: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for gender mainstreaming in FSN projects

The ET recommends developing a clear strategy for mainstreaming gender in project activities, taking into account the key role of Mozambican women in FSN and the burdens they face due to gender inequalities.

ES37 More specifically, the ET recommends:

• To promote women literacy training in all FSN projects, through partnerships with specialized local institutions. • To include a gender specialist position in all FSN projects, to ensure that the project has a strategy aiming at integrating gender in all project’s components. • To raise awareness on gender inequality among both men and women in the communities. • To include women in income-generating activities taking into account their needs and interests. • To ensure equal participation of men and women in FFS and NRMC decision making.

6 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

1. Background and purpose of the evaluation

1 The final evaluation of the exit-consolidation phase of the project “Protecting and improving household food security and nutrition in HIV/AIDS affected areas in Manica and Sofala provinces”, GCP/MOZ/079/BEL, had two main objectives: (i) to provide an independent assessment of the overall results of the project and (ii) to document lessons learned and put forward recommendations for the design and implementation of on-going and future projects implemented by FAO in Mozambique, in particular for project GCP/MOZ/116/BEL, also funded by the Belgian Government. Annex 1 includes detailed Terms of Reference (TOR) of the evaluation.

2 The Project was conceived as the “exit/consolidation phase” of the cooperation programme jointly implemented in Manica and Sofala provinces by the Government of Mozambique (GoM), the Belgian Survival Fund (BSF) and FAO during the period 2002 and 20092. The rationale of the project was to ensure the sustainability of successful activities undertaken by previous projects. The Project mainly focused on strengthening and scaling up the following previous project’s components: (i) Farmer Field Schools (FFS), (ii) Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLS) and (iii) Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). Nutrition education and capacity development were incorporated as cross- cutting issues. The Project was implemented in the following four districts: Gorongosa and Caia (Sofala province) and Gondola and Macossa (Manica province).

3 The Financial Agreement between FAO and the Government of Belgium for the implementation of the Project was officially signed on 25/07/2011, with an initial duration of 3 years. The total budget of the Project was US$ 2.6 million.

4 The independent evaluation was carried out from April to June 2015. It was conducted by an evaluation team (ET), composed by two experts with experience in food security, FFS methodology and evaluation, and the FAO evaluation manager.

1.1 Methodology of the evaluation

5 The evaluation has followed the UNEG Norms and Standards3 and adopted the internationally recognized evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. The evaluation used a consultative and transparent approach with the involvement of internal and external stakeholders throughout the process. Initial findings were validated through triangulation with different informants; the resulting evidence was used to support conclusions and recommendations.

6 The ET relied mainly on qualitative methods: (i) a desk review of available documents, (list of documents in Annex 2); (ii) a matrix with key evaluation questions; (iii) semi-structured interviews with key informants and stakeholders (checklist of topics for the interviews in Annex 3 and list of people interviewed in Annex 4); (iv) direct observation during field visits in the four project districts: Gorongosa, Caia, Macossa and Gondola; and (v) a de-briefing workshop in Maputo with the main stakeholders to discuss the main findings of the field mission.

7 The initial idea of carrying out a survey to gather information on the FFS members’ perception of the results obtained by the Project in terms of agricultural productivity, food security and nutrition and human and social capital development was dropped since there was no sufficient time to draw an adequate sample of FFS.

8 The Final Evaluation focused on the following key questions:

• To what extent the project implementation strategy was efficient in strengthening and scaling up the activities undertaken by previous BSF in Manica and Sofala provinces?

2 Projects GCP/MOZ/027/BEL (2002-2008) and GCP/MOZ/079/BEL (2005-2009) 3 United Nations Evaluation Group, http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards

7 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

• To what extent the capacities of smallholder farmers, in particular women and youth, were increased to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner? • To what extent the capacities of district and provincial partners for planning implementing and monitoring food security and nutrition actions was strengthened at district level?

9 For the overall assessment of the project design, the implementation process and the evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact, the ET used the following rating scale: highly unsatisfactory; unsatisfactory; moderately unsatisfactory; moderately satisfactory; satisfactory; and highly satisfactory

10 During the preparatory phase of the evaluation, the team leader met with the OED Evaluation Manager to agree on the methodology and review the project documentation and the evaluation programme. A field mission to Mozambique was undertaken between April 26th and May 13th 2015. In Maputo, the ET had a briefing with the project focal point and other FAO staff and carried out interviews and skype conferences with former project staff and backstopping technical officers (BTO). The ET carried out field visits to the two provincial capitals and the four districts where the project was implemented. In each province/district, the ET met with representatives of key government institutions and with groups of project beneficiaries. Back in Maputo, additional meetings were held with FAO staff and a debriefing session was organized to share the evaluation’s key findings with the main stakeholders.

Table 1. Number of persons interviewed by the evaluation team

People FFS Model mothers NRC Total members groups members

Manica Province 21 30 8 16 75

Sofala Province 36 60 12 8 116

Maputo & Teleconference 15 15

Total 72 90 20 24 206

11 In order to get the most complete picture of the project’s performance, the ET interviewed more than 70 people including representatives from provincial and district government FAO, NGOs, CBOs, etc. The ET also visited the four districts where the project was implemented and discussed with 6 groups of project beneficiaries, more than 100 people (Table 1).

12 The following limitations and constraints affected the evaluation:

• Impossibility of interviewing key persons due to (i) their unavailability, since the evaluation was carried out 5 months after the end of the Project, and (ii) the turnover of government officials. • Disorganized, incomplete and, in some cases, unavailable project documentation. • Lack of consistency between the project logical framework approved and the one used in the progress reports. • Lack of relevant baseline information: the baseline survey was carried out the last year of project implementation. • Absence of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information system. • Poor quality of the terminal report: unverified and incomplete data and lack of analysis of project results.

13 In view of the poor quality of the terminal4 report and the data limitations that would be further explained, the ET tried to gather all relevant information from various sources and organize it in the best possible way, in order to get the most complete picture for evaluating the project’s performance. This evaluation report is therefore more qualitative and descriptive than what the ET would have carried out if more reliable and complete data had been available.

4 The ET suggests a in-depth review of the terminal report 8 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

2. Context of the project

14 Mozambique is one of the world’s poorest and underdeveloped countries, ranking 178 out of 187 countries in the last Human Development Index5. Despite its impressive economic annual growth rates of about 7% over the last twelve years, poverty and food insecurity continue to be severe and widespread. According to the 2014 SETSAN Vulnerability Assessment Committee Results, the prevalence of poverty represents 54.7 percent of the total population, and 43 percent of children under five year in rural areas suffer from chronic malnutrition (stunting). The economic growth has not yet significantly contributed to generating sustained development and to creating new jobs (local surveys indicate that unemployment rates remain extremely high, between 30 percent and 50 percent). In addition, the low educational level of households, mainly of its female members (adult illiteracy rate of 39 percent) and the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (10.8% amongst those aged 15-49 years in 2013) aggravate this situation.

15 Agriculture is the main economic activity (80 percent of active population), the majority of farmers being women (62 percent). Agriculture contributes to GDP for approximately 25 percent, and more than 90 percent of its production comes from the smallholder’s subsistence farming that is characterized by low yields and returns. The low production is caused more by the lack of market opportunities rather than the potential of the land to produce good returns. In addition, rural families are used to suffer for recurrent “hunger” periods of different duration every year, due to their weak production capacity, poor access to resources (land and other natural resources) and lack of other sources of income.

16 Sofala and Manica provinces show, in different aspects, worrying data and trends. Sofala province shows high percentages of families with 6 to 9 household members (31.4%), a high proportion of households caring for orphans (12%) and of elderly headed-households, which represent the worst indicators in the country. Manica Province has experiencing a significant increase of female-headed households (from 21% to 25%) and an alarming increase of heads of holdings without any formal education (from 36% to 50%). Also other indicators show a remarkable deterioration (the percentage of rural households benefiting from extension services has decreased from 15% to 11% and the households with some information on market prices also decreased from 59% to 26%). The prevalence of HIV/ AIDS in both provinces is among the highest in the country (15,5 percent in Sofala province and 15,3 percent in Manica6) Box 1 provides an overview of the specific food security context in the four targeted districts

17 The current Government’s decentralisation policy is being implemented to create a more favourable socio-economic environment at local level, together with a more dynamic and result oriented development policy of districts institutions. Districts Development Plans have been developed but the risk of dispersion of activities, of “ad hoc” interventions and of weak monitoring systems is high. The Central Government channels considerable financial resources to establish District Development Funds for the implementation of projects formulated by the local population. However the lack of sufficient and well-trained human resources represents a bottleneck for the efficient use of those resources.

Box 1. Overview of the districts

Caia. The district is located on the bank of the Zambezi River, being the northern part prone to flooding. The economy is essentially based on rain-fed family farming and small-scale fisheries along the river. The main food crops produced are maize, sorghum, millet, beans, cassava, sweet potatoes, vegetables and tobacco. The district has good market access for agricultural and fishery products. Migration of young people from neighbouring districts seeking employment and business opportunities has increased the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Access to health is poor and the illiteracy rate is 57.8% (79% among women).

5 UNDP, Human Development Index 2014 6 National Survey of Prevalence, Risk Behaviour and Information about HIV and AIDS in Mozambique, 2009. 9 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Gorongosa: The preservation and management of natural resources is essential for local communities as 56% of the land belongs to the Gorongosa National Park. The basis of the economy is rain-fed family farming with few other sources of income. The main food crops are maize, sorghum, millet, beans, cassava, sweet potatoes and vegetables and tobacco. The illiteracy rate is 61.7% (80.1% among women). Despite its agricultural potential, malnutrition rates are very high in the district.

Gondola: The population mainly lives on subsistence family farming. The main food crops are maize, beans, groundnuts, rice, sugar cane, millet, cassava, sweet potatoes and vegetables. The administrative post of Inchope shows high risk of drought during the lean period. The Beira Corridor facilitates the access to the market, however, increases the prevalence of HIV/AID (21.4%). The illiteracy rate among women is 62.1%.

Macossa: The climate is arid and therefore not suitable for rain-fed agriculture. Nevertheless, subsistence family farming is the main activity. The main food crops are: maize, sorghum, millet, beans, cassava, groundnuts, sweet potatoes and vegetables. The district has few market infrastructures. The population density is very low mainly due to the frequent droughts and the vast size of the conservation areas. Thus, the sustainable use of natural resources is key for improving the livelihoods of the communities.

18 Mozambique is a country with a long record of natural or man-made disasters (e.g. war, droughts, floods). Droughts or floods represent recurrent hazards that strongly impact on the food security and nutrition situation of poor communities. In addition, the security situation, which was stable since the end of the civil war in 1992, deteriorated in 2013. The political tension between RENAMO7 and the Government resulted in security incidents in the central area of the country, and the UNDSS imposed a travel restriction in Sofala province, which was only lifted in 2015. This travel restriction had negatively impacted on the project implementation, as it will be discussed further in this report.

7 RENAMO: Mozambican National Resistance 10 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

3. Analysis of project’s concept and design

The Project’s logic model is well conceived, focusing on capacity building with a holistic approach.

The Project design does not provide key elements, such as an exit and gender strategies or guidelines and recommended activities for the consolidation of project components. In addition, the lack of a participatory design led to some unrealistic expectations and assumptions. The analysis of Project’s concept and design is assessed as moderately unsatisfactory

3.1 Project’s concept and logic model

19 Between 2002 and 2009, the Government of Belgium in partnership with FAO and the Government of Mozambique made substantial efforts for improving the food security and nutrition situation of vulnerable households in Sofala and Manica provinces. During this period, a comprehensive programme was implemented which was composed of two different projects with a shared a common conceptual and institutional framework, and partially joint geographical target, as well as a common strategy. The present project was conceived as the “exit/consolidation phase” of this programme.

20 The underlying rationale was to ensure that the successful activities undertaken by the two previous projects be sustained after the end of the Project by the Government and other stakeholders. The Project was built on the lessons learned from the previous projects to limit the risks experienced and consolidate the achievements and good practices, thus ensuring better sustainability (see Lessons learned from previous projects in Annex 5).

21 The expected impact of the Project was to contribute to the protection and improvement of nutrition and food security within the communities affected by HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. In particular, the Project aimed at improving the capacity of vulnerable people in the Districts of Gondola, Macossa, Gorongosa and Caia to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner.

22 Logic model. The Project’s logic model is well defined. By increasing the capacities of vulnerable people to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner, the Project would contribute to the protection and improvement of the nutrition and food security within the communities in the project area. The logframe is straightforward with one envisaged outcome to be achieved through the delivery of six outputs. Figure 1 shows the project logframe result chain.

23 Output 1 and 3 focus on building the capacity of the communities to improve their livelihoods through enhancing participatory extension services and managing the natural resources in a sustainable manner. Along the same line, Output 2 aims at building the capacity of the youth, in particular the orphans, to engage in income generating activities in order to make a living. In addition, Output 5 and 6 aim at strengthening the capacity of local partners to plan and implement nutrition and food security activities in the district. Moreover, Output 4 focuses on mainstreaming nutrition in capacity building activities, giving to the Project a more holistic approach.

24 Building and strengthening the capacity of both the communities and local partners clearly contribute to the achievement of the outcome. However, the Project only focused on Outputs 1, 3 and 4, and the project team made a revision of the logical framework to eliminate Outputs 2 and 5. As a result, the project rationale changed from a comprehensive and integrated approach to a narrower one, still relevant and adequate but limited compared to the initial strategy.

11 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Outcome: Capacity improved among vulnerable people in the Districts of Gondola, Macossa, Gorongosa and Caia for meeting their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner

Output 1: Capacity built among master trainers and farmer facilitators to the extent that they are capable of offering extension services and advice to an increasing number of interested smallholder farmers in the project Districts.

Output 2: Capacity built among facilitators and primary school teachers to the extent that they are capable of implementing the Junior farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) approach in the Project districts.

Output 3: Successful Macossa experience of community-based natural resource management replicated in at least two new “coutadas” and/or other protected areas of the selected Districts

Output 4: Improved education and communication material related to nutrition and health developed and disseminated through 600 FFS and 120 JFFLS

Output 5: District Technical Team, Food Security & Nutrition District Focal Point, representatives of local NGOs and CBOs, technical support staff from Provinces trained and able to plan and implement FSN pro- grammes in the district

Output 6: A participatory system of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) in place and consolidated at District level.

Figure 1. Project logframe result chain

25 The project implementation process reveals that the Project developed and implemented a set of activities without a clear understanding of how the activities were contributing to attaining the outputs and how all the envisaged outputs were essential to achieving the outcome in order to have a long-lasting impact. The narrower approach used has limited the real contribution of the Project to the intended outcome.

3.2 Project design

26 The adequacy of the time-frame and financial resources. The Project is the consolidation phase of a previous project that ended in 2008. This phase started in 2010 with carry-over funds from the preceding phase. However, the official agreement was only signed a year later and the first tranche was disbursed lately, in October 2011. The time-frame of the Project was therefore 4 years with a total budget of US$ 2.9 million (US$ 2.6 million plus a carryover of US$ 340,000 from the I Phase). The ET judges that the budget and time envisaged were adequate to implement the intended activities. The human and financial resources allocated for the implementation were also adequate in order to achieve the expected results; nevertheless some unexpected circumstances negatively impacted on the Project, as it will be explained further in the report.

27 Design process. An external consultant prepared a first version of the project; however the Project Document (ProDoc) did not meet the donor’s expectations. As a result, a second FAO expert worked with the main national, provincial and district partners to redefine the document, which was finally approved in 2011. According to several stakeholders met by the ET, the low involvement of and limited consultation with district partners during the project design led to unrealistic expectations and assumptions. For instance, the Project assumed that the District Technical Teams (ETD) were operational in the four districts and planned to implement some activities through them, which was not the case.

28 Gaps in the project design. The Project was designed in “very general terms”, probably due to the fact that it was the consolidation phase of previous projects. It does not include activities in the project framework or an exit strategy for the consolidation of its various components, which the ET considers essential in this last phase. As regards to gender, the Project set a target of 75% of women in all project activities, however, it does not include a gender strategy or any guidelines for achieving this target. The logical framework lacks some 12 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

key indicators that were to be identified after the baseline survey, which was envisaged at the start of the Project but only was carried out the last year of project implementation.

29 Project’s stakeholders. The ProDoc adequately identified a wide range of stakeholders to be involved in the project implementation, as the main goal was to address food insecurity from a multi-sectorial approach. Project partners included Provincial and District Directorates of all the relevant Ministries (Agriculture, Health, Education, Women and Social Affairs, Tourism), the National AIDS Council, local NGOs and CBOs as well as Belgian NGOs. The original number of stakeholders was drastically reduced, as the capacity building activities for local partners were not carried out.

30 Project’s beneficiaries. The list of targeted beneficiaries in the ProDoc was exhaustive. It comprised: FFS groups established in the previous phase, FFS networks supported in the framework of PAN II, existing NRMC, vulnerable and food insecure households, vulnerable youth, existing groups of women actively participating in literacy programme, health and nutrition officers, model mothers”, social agents, rural schools teachers and adult literacy agents, representatives of producers organizations, and NGOs, CBOs and Faith Based Organization (FBO). Similarly as for the stakeholders, the number of target beneficiaries was also reduced, focusing on the FFS groups created by the Project, NRMC and “model mothers”. It is to be noted that the Project prioritized areas severely affected by HIV/AIDS in Sofala and Manica provinces; however, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) were not among the target beneficiaries.

31 Lack of timely and adequate decisions to overcome the great difficulties faced by the Project, in particular the low implementation rate, the great allocation of funds to human resources and travel, and especially the one-year inactivity of project staff.

13 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

4. Analysis of the implementation process

The institutional arrangements were well conceived in the project document. Lack of leadership, poorly motivated staff and limited supervision and backstopping from FAO negatively affected the project implementation. The lack of timely and adequate decisions resulted in a low implementation rate, great allocation of funds to human resources and travel and the one-year of inactivity of project staff. Overall, the implementation process is assessed as unsatisfactory by the ET.

4.1 Institutional arrangements

32 The Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG) undertook the overall coordination of the Project, through its Provincial Directorates in Manica and Sofala Provinces. The Project envisaged to have more Government partners: the Ministry of Health (MISAU), the Ministry of Education (MEC), the Ministry for Women and Social Affairs (MMAS) and the National AIDS Council (CNCS), in particular the ProDoc stressed the need to ensure complementarities and coordination with the Ministry of Health for strengthening the nutrition component.

33 At provincial level, the Provincial Directorates of all the Ministries involved (MINAG, MISAU, MEC, MMAS, Tourism and the CNCS) designated Provincial Focal Points for the coordination of project activities. However, the Project only signed LOAs with the Provincial Directorates of Agriculture (DPA) of both provinces and did not provided any support to the other sectors. As a result, the DPAs, in particular the Extension Services and the Forest and Wild Fauna Services, had an active role in providing guidance and coordinating activities related to the FFS and NRMC components, while the involvement of the Provincial Directorates of Education and Health (DPE and DPS) was limited to initial discussions for the start-up activities of the JFFLS and the nutrition component, and their participation in two annual planning meetings (2011 and 2012). Provincial SETSAN focal points also participated in these planning meetings. The other Provincial Directorates were not actively involved in the project implementation or in the coordination mechanisms.

34 At District level, the District Administrator was the entity responsible for the overall coordination of the Project. The ETD, representing the technical unit, was envisaged to directly interface with the Project. It was foreseen that a District Food Security Focal Point would be identified within each ETD, to act as the liaison officer with the project team and coordinate the different food security and nutrition activities in the districts. The Project also envisaged the establishment and consolidation of networks of civil society actors for food security and nutrition. These networks were supposed to be gradually involved and participate in the districts development decision-making8. The ProDoc envisioned quarterly meetings between the project team and the district institutional and technical counterparts for the joint monitoring of project activities.

35 However, these institutional arrangements at district level never took place: the District Food Security Focal Points were never nominated and few coordination meetings were held, only in 2012. The Project focused on the implementation of FFS and NRMC activities, through LOAs signed with the District Services of Economic Activities (SDAE) of the four districts. In the last six months, LOAs were also signed with the District Services of Health, Women and Social Action ( ) for implementing nutrition activities. The project team did not promote or facilitate a multi- sector and multi-actor coordination of food security and nutrition initiatives at district level. As it will be analyzed further in the report, the ET considers that the lack of guidance by a coordinator, the limited supervision and the long period of project inactivity led the project team to put special focus on the implementation of FFS and NRMC in order to achieve some results.

36 The Steering Committee, which involved the Government, the Donor and FAO was established in 2012, and only held two Tripartite Review Meetings in 2012 and 2014. It is to be noted that no partner requested a TRM in 2013 to discuss the problems arising from the lack of security in Sofala province and propose solutions for the continuation of project activities, as it will be explained in the following section.

8 It is to be noted that building the capacities of the ETD, the food security focal point and representatives of NGOS and CBOs to be able to plan and implement FSN activities in the districts was one of the main goals of the Project. 14 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

4.2 Project Management

37 Inadequate location of the Project Coordination Unit. The project was managed by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) located within the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (DPA) of Sofala Province (Beira city). The choice of locating the PCU in Beira was a Government’s decision approved by the donor, based on the fact that FAO already had a strong presence in Chimoio (Manica province), where it ran another project9. This decision aimed at keeping FAO presence in the two provincial capitals (Beira and Chimoio) and ensuring the integration of the project’s activities into the government’s programmes. However, this decision resulted in very high costs of transport and duty travel, since the distances from Beira to the four districts are much higher than from Chimoio (see Table 2).

Table 2. Distance (in Km) from provincial capitals to project districts

Gorongosa Caia Gondola Macossa Beira 213 415 180 470 Chimoio 130 332 20 268 Difference 83 83 160 202

38 Insecurity situation in the project area. The Project management was negatively affected by the insecurity situation that arose in Sofala province by mid-2013. As mentioned earlier, political tensions between the Government and RENAMO led to the UNDSS to impose a travel restriction in the Sofala province in June 2013. As a result, the project team based in Beira City could not visit the districts where the project was been implemented. After few months, FAO proposed the donor to move the project base from Beira to Chimoio. The negotiations lasted very long, and finally, FAO decided to change the duty station of the technical team leaving the administrative assistant in Beira. The move to Chimoio only happened in July 2014, meaning that for more than a year the project team did not provide the technical support required to the local partners resulting in a significant slow-down of project activities.

39 Recruitment of project team in various stages. It was envisaged that the PCU should be composed of a national project coordinator with background in FFS methodology, a FFS/ JFFLS expert, a monitoring & evaluation (M&E) officer, a community-based natural resource management expert and an administrative assistant for the whole duration of the Project. In agreement with the BSF, it was decided to develop a start-up phase with the carry-over of USD 340,000 from the I Phase, while awaiting the approval of the exit/consolidation phase proposal and the first release of funds. The start-up phase commenced in December 2010 and it was agreed to initially recruit the FFS expert and the administrative assistant in order to roll out FFS activities during the 2010-2011 agricultural campaign The recruitment of the national coordinator, the community-based natural resource management expert and the M&E officer only took place in early 2012, as the first tranche of funds was disbursed in October 2011. An additional FFS expert was recruited in 2012 for better assisting the FFS in the districts. The ET found unclear on which basis this decision was taken10. The M&E officer resigned a month after was recruited and a new officer was finally hired in October 2012.

40 Gaps in the project team. Only in 2012 were all planned project’s positions filled. The project coordinator resigned at the beginning of 2013 claiming family reasons; the recruitment process for the new coordinator was initiated immediately thereafter. However, this process was not concluded due to the new UN movement restriction measures effective in June 2013 mentioned earlier. As a result, the FAO Office in Maputo decided not to proceed with the recruitment until the security would improve, in order to save project funds. By the time the project staff moved to Chimoio, it was not worth recruiting a new coordinator, as the project was to end in December 2014. In addition, the initially recruited FFS expert resigned in December 2013 and the M&E officer was fired in November 2014. Figure 2 shows the timeline of the project team contracts (the shaded area indicates the period during which the project team could not the districts due to the UN travel restriction).

9 OSRO/MOZ/703/WBK “Securing the livelihoods of rural orphans and vulnerable children in Mozambique”, more commonly referred to as “Celeiros da vida” project. 10 The FAO focal point claims that this decision was taken following a BTO recommendation, but the BTO could not confirm this information. 15 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

41 A year of inactivity due to the UN travel restriction. In 2012, the project implementation made some good progress under the direction of the project coordinator. The team members focused on planning and assessing the status of previous project activities and visited the districts very often. However, they only submitted monthly reports during 2012 as requested by the Project Coordinator, and the reports were frequently of poor quality. It is to be noted that district government officials stated that the project staff did not frequently visited the districts, just every 2/3 months for 2/3 days. As already mentioned, the project team stayed in Beira city for one year without any reported activity. During this year, they only had telephone contact with the districts to monitor the implementation of project activities. During this period, the staff showed no motivation for supporting the Project with desk activities, such as systematizing project outputs, reviewing and analysing project activities and/or producing training and communications materials. They did not receive any orientations from the focal point in Maputo or the Lead Technical Officer (LTO) to make an efficient use of their time.

Figure 2. Timeline of project team contracts

42 Limited supervision. The FAO Representation in Maputo appointed a technical focal point for the Project, in charge of technical guidance and supervision, and an operations officer responsible for the logistics, administration and finance. After the resignation of the coordinator in December 2012, the technical focal point assumed a more proactive coordinating role with the aim of ensuring the adequate implementation of project activities in order to achieve the expected results. The technical focal point claimed to have had frequent contacts with the project team via email and telephone and also to have participated in several field missions11. According to the available documentation, there are only reports from four two-day field missions12, out of which just two were to provide technical support. The available back-to-office reports of these missions include few recommendations and follow-up actions. The poor project results reveal insufficient supervision and lack of strategic planning and adequate decision taken in a timely manner.

43 District officials as the main implementing partners. At district level, local partners were responsible for the direct implementation of project activities. As mentioned earlier, the Project signed Letters of Agreement (LOA) with the DPAs of Sofala and Manica provinces and with the District Services of Economic Activities (SDAE), responsible for agriculture and other economic activities, and the District Services of Health, Women and Social Action (SDSMAS) in the four project districts. SDAE was the main counterpart and assigned an extensionist as the focal point for the Project. The LOAs had two main objectives: (i) to give government institutions the responsibility for the implementation of the FFS, JFFLS and community based natural resource management activities and to train district staff in order to ensure the project’s continuity and scaling up beyond its duration and scope, and (ii) to provide technical and methodological support to local institutions to improve the development and follow-up of FSN initiatives in the districts. This approach differed from that used in the I Phase of the Project, which was based on direct implementation through its own facilitators and extensionists, and was considered not appropriated in terms of sustainability, institutional and capacity building and national ownership.

11 According to the financial records, the focal point visited more frequently the project area in 2102 when the Coordinator was still working. 12 One technical mission in 2013 to support the M&E officer with the base line and the revision of the logical framework and three missions in 2014: the first to organize the move to Chimoio in May, the second to participate in the final TRM in August and the last for the closure of the project in December. 16 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

44 Difficult implementation of the LOAs. The implementation of the LOAs was problematic. On the one hand, district officials complained of the long negotiation and approval processes of the LOAs, the limited financial resources allocated for the adequate implementation of project activities and the difficulties to advance the last 20% of the budget. On the other hand, FAO operations officers claimed that the long processes were partially due to the lack of accurate and timely information from the districts and also the districts were not justifying properly the expenses, even for small amounts, and had to organize field mission to help them with the accounting. In the last year of project implementation, many LOAs were approved to accelerate the implementation of project activities but they were implemented with little supervision and in a short time to achieve sustainable results.

45 Poor quality of progress and terminal reports. The project team prepared semi-annual progress reports. In the first two years of project implementation (2011 and 2012), the progress reports were of very poor quality, as they only provided a detailed description of project activities and an outline of the problems encountered and the actions taken to resolve them. They did not report on the progress achieved in terms of outputs vis- a-vis expected results, nor did they provide any recommendations on how to address bottlenecks, nor, more in general, on the way forward. In 2013, the project team started using a new reporting format, which included an assessment of the workplan implementation and execution of the budget, a logical framework matrix13 to track the project results, a list of key achievements and problems encountered and some follow-up actions. Despite the new format, the quality of the reports remained very poor, as they did not allow effectively monitoring the progress of the project, and sometimes they just repeated the information provided in previous reports. In view of the poor reporting skills of the project team, FAO hired an external consultant for the elaboration of the terminal report. Nevertheless, the quality of the report did not improve: it just copied the data of the last progress report without any verification and did not provide any analysis of the results.

46 Limited guidance from the Steering Committee. A Steering Committee was set up with national and provincial government representatives, as well as representatives of BSF and FAO, with the aim of providing overall policy guidance and strategic directions to the Project. Only two out of the three Tripartite Review Meetings (TRM) envisaged were held. The first TRM took place in June 2012 to review the project performance and constraints, and make recommendations to improve its implementation. It is to be noted that some recommendations, such as establishing partnerships with government institutions to provide literacy training to FFS women members, so that they could become FFS facilitators, or the non-renewal of the contract of one of the FFS experts in 2013, were not implemented. The second and last TRM was held in August 2014 to discuss the status of the activities undertaken by the project from 2010 to 2014, taking into account the exceptional situation faced by the Project due to the insecurity problems, and agree on the necessary steps for the phasing out and closure of the Project. Both the Government and FAO representatives requested a project extension due to the delays in the implementation of the activities resulting from the security problems, which could have hampered the fully achievement of project outputs and outcome. The donor representative made clear that a project extension in this case was against the BSF-policy, as the current project was already an extension of previous interventions.

47 Insufficient Technical backstopping. Technical backstopping was provided by the FAO Sub-regional Office from Sothern Africa in Harare and FAO HQ in Rome. Overall, four backstopping missions were carried out from 2011 to 2013 to assess and review the progress achieved in the areas of FFS, nutrition and M&E and make recommendations for their improvement (see Table 3). The missions were of high quality and provided clear and concrete recommendations. Nevertheless, there was no further technical backstopping after July 2013, when the project team suspended the monitoring visits to the districts.

13 It is also to be noted that the outcome and some outputs, indicators and targets included in the matrix were different from those approved in the logical framework. According to FAO staff, some discussions were held with the donor to modify the log frame and an M&E BTO worked with the project team to revise the indicators; however, the revised logical framework was never approved. 17 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Table 3. Summary of backstopping missions

Project component Date Objective FFS June 2011 Assessing to what extend the project is meeting its objectives and making recommendations for improvements Nutrition October 2012 Reviewing the nutrition chapter of the FFS training manual and drafting the a curriculum outline for nutrition Training module for FFS Facilitators and the TOR for the consultant FFS November 2012 Reviewing the FFS component of the project and recommend- ing improvements in establishment of viable FFS M&E July 2013 Reviewing the Project log frame and M&E system (Joint mission) FFS Follow up on progress in development of baseline for the project, particularly on progress in collecting secondary data as agreed during the mission

48 No evidence of the existence of an M&E system. The ET could not verify the existence of a proper M&E system, as it was highlighted by the M&E BTO. The available project information was disorganized, incomplete and scattered in various files in different computers. As a result, the ET spent a lot of time searching for a database, M&E reports and tools and other relevant information in the electronic material provided by former project staff and FAO technical officers. The ET found many files with tables containing detailed information, mainly of FFS, but there were many inconsistencies and discrepancies among them. It is likely that the M&E officer took the information with him when he was fired.

49 Absence of a project exit strategy. Although the project was a consolidation/exit phase of the BSF long-term programme in Manica and Sofala provinces, a specific exit strategy was not developed for the different components of the project. One of the recommendations of the last TRM was the elaboration a workplan for the period August-December 2014 including all required activities for the proper closure of the project in the four districts. A detailed workplan and a budget were prepared for the completion of the envisaged project activities for 2014 but without specific measures for their consolidation.

4.3 Financial resources management

50 Tables 4 and 5 show the initial and actual project budget and the delivery rates.

Table 4. Total project budget and funds delivery

Initial budget Amount (US$) Budget Consolidation Phase 2 622 222 Carry-over from I Phase 349 000 Total consolidation phase 2 971 222 Delivery 1 879 301 Delivery rate 63%

Table 5. Actual project budget and delivery

Funds received Date Amount (US$) Carryover from Phase I October 2010 349 000 1rst tranche October 2011 919 700 2nd tranche July 2013 655 439 Total 1 924 139 Delivery 1 879 301 Delivery rate 98% 18 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

51 Delivery rate. The Project had an initial budget of US$ 2.9 million, including US$ 2.6 million approved plus a carry-over of approximately US$ 349,000 from the I Phase (see Table 4. During the first year of project implementation, it operated with the carry-over funds, because the first tranche was only received in October 2011. The second tranche was requested in October 2012 and only arrived in July 2013, and the last installment was never disbursed, following the donor’s decision of not extending the Project, which was announced in the second TRM in August 2014. By that time the Project had executed 56% of the total budget. Five months later, at the end of the project, the delivery rate reached 63% of the total budget. However, taking into account that the last tranche was not disbursed, the delivery attained 98% in January 2015 (see Table 5). Delays in the disbursement of funds negatively affected the project implementation.

52 Expenditure concentrated on human resources and travel. The delivery rate was particularly low for the direct implementation of project activities (see Figure 3), which resulted in a poor achievement of results (see section 4.4.3 Effectiveness). The bulk of expenditure concentrated on human resources (28.3%) and travel (19.7%), which jointly represented 48% of the total budget (21% higher than initially planned and 7% higher than in the revised funds allocation). This delivery rate can be explained by the following reasons: (i) a second FFS expert, not planned in the ProDoc, was hired in 2012 and therefore the project team had two FFS specialists during 2012 and 2013, which resulted in increased expenditure for staff and duty travel, and (ii) the project practically stopped its activities from June 2013 to June 2014 due to security reasons; however, the full team remained on duty during the entire year, which resulted in project staff expenditure not matched by project activities. The ET considers that the high investment in human resources and travel could have been justified only if a significant increase in the project activities’ implementation rate had taken place, which was not the case.

Figure 3. Actual expenditures by project budget line

Source: FPMIS

53 Limited financial planning. The work plan included in the ProDoc did not show estimated costs by activities or outputs, but only indicated the budget lines as per the Oracle codes. The ET could not verify the existence of financial planning for the first three years of project implementation (2011-2013); only the 2014 work plan included a financial plan. The ET wonders if the project team did not develop any financial planning or monitoring tools due to the lack of a project coordinator during a significant part of the project life.

54 Adequate budget revision to adjust the budget to the new implementation strategy. The Project Document (ProDoc) envisaged the signature of LOAs with partner institutions for the implementation of project activities (24% of the total budget was initially allocated to “Contracts” – see Tables 4 and Figure 3). Training activities and direct support to the

19 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

beneficiaries were included in the LOAs, while the procurement of inputs and equipment were to be directly managed by the project team (20% of the total budget allocated to “Expendable procurement”), who was also responsible for the technical backstopping of the institutions signatories of the LoAs. However, due to the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the LOAs mentioned earlier, FAO decided to modify the implementation strategy and assign more responsibilities to the project team in order to accelerate the implementation rate.

55 A budget revision was carried out in 2012 to realign the budget to the new requirements (Figure 4 shows the allocation of funds by budget line in the Prodoc, the budget revision and the real expenditures). The following adjustments were made:

• a reduction in the budget allocated to contracts, as LOAs were to cover only transport cost and duty travel of government officials • an increase in the budget allocated to training and travel, since training activities were to be directly carried out and supervised by the project team. • a reduction in the budget allocated to expendable procurement, which implied a reduction of the inputs for field activities • an increase in the budget allocated to human resources, as a result of having two FFS experts

In addition, the project revision did not contemplate the establishment of partnership with NGOs or CBOs with demonstrated implementing capacity, which could have contributed to the timely achievement of the results. The relevance and adequacy of the budget allocations will be further analyzed in this report (see the Efficiency section).

Figure 4. Allocation of project funds by budget line (ProDoc, Budget Revision –BR- and real expenditures)

Source: FPMIS and ProDoc

56 Limited control of budget expenditures. Despite the budget revision carried out to better align the budget to the project requirements, the final delivery rate reveals that some of the final expenditures incurred by the Project by budget line were either higher or lower than the revised allocated budget (Table 6 shows initial and revised budget allocations and the final delivery disaggregated by year).

57 Lack of adequate supervision and poor analysis of the efficiency. The ET considers that the Project operated more efficiently in 2011, taking into consideration that the focus of the Project was capacity development, in particular the development of farmers’ capacity. In 2011, 50% of the total training for facilitators was carried out by only one FFS specialist, (see Annex 6), although no activities were undertaken for other Project components. Contrarily, the number of training courses decreased in 2012, when the project team was complete

20 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

and the number of contracts for the implementation of activities was smaller than the following years. This fact indicates a lack of adequate supervision and poor analysis of the efficiency of the project, which did not allow the team to take adequate decisions for improving the Project’s performance.

Table 6. Delivery rate per budget line Budget Delivery Budget line Pro-doc Last BR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) general (%) Human resources 19.60 24.24 11.4 18.4 31.1 23.6 36.7 28.3 Contracts 23.0 13.24 0.0 1.6 1.8 4.1 23.3 6.8 Travel 7.60 16.76 21.7 20.1 27.8 16.2 8.6 19.7 Backstopping 2.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.6 Project activities 1.3 2.6 5.0 1.8 1.9 3.1 Project team 17.4 15.7 21.1 12.6 5.7 14.9 Training 6.00 7.91 38.5 23.3 13.2 23.0 5.4 16.0 Expendable pro- 20.00 8.96 0.5 10.9 4.4 11.4 7.9 7.6 curement Non expendable 3.80 6.23 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.7 procurement Technical support 2.00 1.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 Services General operating 6.00 9.31 16.4 13.1 8.9 9.9 6.0 9.3 Expenses Support costs 11.60 11.50 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Total general 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 12.0 38.9 24.8 21.1 100.0 Source: ET with FPMIS data

21 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

5. Analysis by evaluation criteria

5.1 Relevance

The Project is relevant to Mozambique’s poverty reduction plans and the national food security and nutrition strategy. It is also relevant to FAO Strategic Objective 1 and is in line with the priority areas of the Country Programming Framework (CPF 2012-2015). Equally, the Project is relevant to the BSF goal. The Relevance deserves to be considered highly satisfactory

58 Relevance measures the extent to which the objectives of the development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies. This section will therefore analyze the relevance of the Project in relation to Mozambique’s development priorities, to FAO and other international policies, and to the donor’s development strategy.

59 Relevance to Mozambique priorities. The Project was designed during the implementation of the Second Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty (PARPA II, 2006-2009). The PARPA II lied upon three main development pillars: governance, human capital and economic development, and identified HIV/AIDS, orphans, gender inequality and regional disparities as areas of growing concern. Food security was identified as one of the cross- cutting issues, described both as a cause and an effect of poverty. The project therefore is completely aligned to this national poverty reduction policy.

60 As regards sectorial policies, the National Food Security and Nutrition Strategy II (ENSAN II) adopt a comprehensive approach to food security and nutrition by tackling the four pillars of food security. ENSAN is operazionalized by the Action Plan for Food and Nutritional Security (PASAN). The Project is fully in line with the ENSAN II and PASAN, as its main goal is to build the capacity of vulnerable people for meeting their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner.

61 Relevance to FAO and other international policies. At the time of the Project’s design the FAO Strategic Framework 2010-2019 was still in effect. The Project has contributed to the FAO Strategic Objective H “Improved food security and better nutrition”, in particular to the organizational results H04 and H0514. In 2013, the FAO Strategic Framework was reviewed, but the Project remained relevant, as it contributed to the Strategic Objective 1 “Contribute to the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition” of the revised Framework

62 The Project is consistent with the country’s National Medium Term Priority Framework (NMTPF 2008-2012) and is in line with the priority areas of the Country Programming Framework (CPF 2012-2015), developed during the project implementation (see Annex 7). This is an indication that the Project is relevant to FAO’s work in Mozambique, and also to the MINAG as the CPF defines the support FAO provides to the Government of Mozambique.

63 The Project perfectly fits into the FAO/UNDAF strategic context that identifies the key role of FAO as follows: “through food security funds programme… the focus will be on building the capacity of the communities to improve livelihoods through management of the available resources and establish the infrastructure to facilitate access to non-available but necessary ones; provide training at subnational level, in particular community participation and consultation mechanisms”. Finally, the Project is relevant to the capacity development strategies required for achieving the Millennium Development Goal 1 on hunger reduction, through the integration of food security objectives into long-term and broad-based poverty reduction policies and strategies to support country level interventions.

14 H04: “Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to generate, manage, analyse and access data and statistics for improved food security and better nutrition“ and H05: “Member countries and other stakeholders have better access to FAO analysis and information products and services on food security, agriculture and nutrition, and strengthened own capacity to exchange knowledge” 22 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

64 Relevance to donor’s priorities. The Project is supported by the BSF, which aims to improve the food security and nutrition at household level, in African Sub-Saharan countries or regions suffering from a chronic food deficit. The BSF prioritized the following sectors: the decentralisation process to strengthen communities and districts; management of communal territories; safeguarding agricultural production with a network approach; improve basic health services; enhance basic infrastructure to serve the communities; basic education and functional literacy; and the reinforcement of the role of women. The Project is relevant to the goal and sectors identified by the Fund.

5.2 Effectiveness

Overall, the Project has been moderately unsatisfactory in meeting its immediate objective due to the following main reasons: insecurity problems, delays in the disbursement of project funds, difficulties in the implementation of the LOAs, unmotivated project personnel, and insufficient coordination, supervision and backstopping. Some Outputs (2, 4 and 6) were poorly achieved and others (3 and 5) were definitively not achieved.

65 Project effectiveness is assessed by examining to what extent the intended objectives and outcomes were achieved. The ET used the logical framework approved by the Government of Mozambique, the BSF and FAO in 2011 as the reference document for assessing the project’s effectiveness, since the revised version prepared by the project team in 2013 was never approved. This section is organized in three main components, namely the assessment of: (i) the achievements at output level, (ii) the achievements at outcome level, and (iii) the overall project effectiveness.

Achievements at outputs level

66 Output 1: Capacity built among master trainers and farmer facilitators to the extent that they are capable of offering extension services and advice to an increasing number of interested smallholder farmers in the project Districts.

67 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: training of FFS master trainers, facilitators and extensions, technical and financial support to MINAG and NGOs implementing FFS, and methodological and financial support for the organisation of FFS District Network. The set targets were: 600 FFS consolidated, 1,800 smallholder farmers receiving extension services from the FFS, and 4 master trainers trained.

68 Activities related to this output started in the first year of project implementation (2011) and were carried out throughout the life of the project, in three districts: Caia, Gorongosa and Gondola (Macossa was not included, due to its low agricultural potential). The project signed LOAs between FAO and the SDAEs of the three districts for the implementation of this component.

69 Training of facilitators in the FFS methodology was the first step for implementing this extension methodology. FFS facilitators are usually dynamic and motivated farmers from graduated FFS who need to acquire and improve their technical, facilitation and organizational skills. The Project organized 6 trainings of trainers (ToT) between 2010 and 2012. These courses took place in Gorongosa and Chimoio and had duration of 2 weeks. Facilitators and extensionists were trained following the curriculum developed for FFS in Mozambique. In overall, 194 facilitators were trained, out of whom only 21 were women. The scarce number of women is explained by the high illiteracy rate and the traditional gender roles. In addition, refreshment training was carried in 2011. In this one-week course 43 facilitators were trained. The project did not organize any training for master trainers. See Tables 7 and 8.

23 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Table 7. Training of trainers (ToT)

Table 8. Refresher training

District 2011 Men Women Total Caia 10 3 13 Gorongosa 10 2 12 Gondola 16 2 18 Total 36 7 43 Source: Progress Reports (2010 -2014) & SDAE rep.

70 Despite some data discrepancies, the ET concluded that the facilitators trained established 255 FFS in the 3 districts with 7,295 participants (4,484 women and 2,811 men)15. A large number of the FFS (71.3%) received the project funds for the implementation of the activities, and 59,2% of the FFS graduated (See Table 9). The main reason for not receiving the project funds was related to the difficulties faced by the group for opening a bank account (usually because of the lack of Identity Card of the members). Lack of time and resources were the main causes for not evaluating and graduating all the schools. At the time of the mission, 10 FFS were legalized as associations and 76 were not operational.

Table 9. FFS groups established by the project

District FFS Total No. No. FFS FFS that Associat. Active in created members woman man graduated received 2015 funds Gondola 42 1,183 542 641 20 40 1 12 Caia 101 2,893 1,918 975 37 30 3 67 Gorongosa 112 3,219 2,024 1,195 94 112 6 100 Total 255 7,295 4,484 2,811 151 182 10 179 Source: Progress Reports (2010 -2014) & SDAE reports

71 Three District Field Days (one in each district) were organized in 2012 to provide the FFS members with an opportunity to display, and share with other farmers the results of what they had learned, with the aim of motivating non-member farmers to initiate new FFS. Field Days were also an efficient opportunity for empowering and building self-esteem of the groups, by showing the good results achieved. No Field Days were organized in 2013 and 2014, nor exchange visits, which are a good opportunity to exchange ideas, techniques and methodologies between FFS groups and facilitators, due to the delays in the disbursement of funds and the security situation.

72 FFS has proved to be an effective extension methodology, by offering to the FFS members the opportunity to improve their livelihoods (at the economic, social and health status level). One of the main successes of this methodology, which was verified by the ET, was the development of personal and organizational skills. Smallholder farmers, who used to work in isolation, are now better organized and benefit from the exchange of knowledge and experiences. The methodology has also exposed farmers to new agricultural concepts and

15 The progress reports claimed the Project assisted 540 FFS (11,238 farmers) of which 250 were created by the Project and 290 by previous projects. The only project activity that could be verified in relation to previous FFS was the initial assessment of the number of FFS in the districts. However, there is no record of any planning including these schools or refreshment training for facilitators to strengthen their support to previous FFS. Refreshment training included previous FFS trained but with the aim of creating new schools. 24 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

more efficient farming practices that contribute to increasing their productivity and income and improve nutritional status of their households. The FFS curriculum also included special topics (nutrition, health, HIV/AIDS…) that were jointly selected by the group, based on their interests. The FFS groups visited during the evaluation stated their high level of satisfaction with the learning process and the results achieved in terms of social and human capital development, as well as agriculture and food security and nutrition improvements. These benefits were especially important for women, who could participate in a decision making process for the first time in their lives.

73 Although the intention of the FFS methodology does not rely on its permanent application, the majority of the FFS members emphasized their willingness to continue implementing activities as a group. They realized the advantages of purchasing agricultural inputs and selling their crops together. Some FFS are planning to start income generating activities. For example, a FFS visited in Caia started a credit and savings schemes following the approach introduced by “Fundaçao contra a Fome” in a nearby community. Some members expressed their disappointment for the lack of resources for micro projects after graduation, which was the normal practice in the FAO PAN II project; their expectations for a project fund for micro projects had been encouraged by the FFS expert, but this component was not included in this project.

74 Eleven FFS networks (6 in Caia and 5 in Gorongosa) were informally established among those created by the Project. The group selected the more experienced and dynamic facilitator as the “contact farmer facilitator” of the network, in charge of leading the group. Contact facilitators act as the assistant extensionists and support the network in solving technical agricultural problems. The extensionists appreciate very much their role, in particular the dissemination of specific agricultural messages and the assistance provided to the farmers. Some contact facilitators stated to feel proud of their role, but they emphasized the need for more technical training and support. For the time being, the networks do not have any other objectives. It is to be noted that ADPP in Gorongosa district has started building a warehouse in partnership with one of the FFS networks.

75 District agricultural extensionists were responsible for promoting the establishment of FFS and providing technical support to the facilitators. The LOA signed between the SDAE and FAO provided financial support for the implementation and monitoring of these activities. The number of extensionists in the SDAEs was too small (i.e. 31 extensionists in the three district, but only 24 supporting FFS)16 to provide the required assistance to the increasing number of FFS in the districts, apart from the regular extension services they provide to the district smallholder farmers. In the interviews held with the extensionists, their main concerns were the insufficient training for an efficient performance of their duties17 and the lack of financial resources for the consolidation and scaling up of the FFS at the end of the project. The extensionists also stated that they have not established any FFS outside of the project scope because of the high costs involved (ToT training and the FFS funds); however they work with farmers groups with similar methodology, but without any funding.

76 An additional activity -which was not envisaged in the original Project-, was the training of artisans and the provision of materials for the construction of silos of the “Gorongosa type” (1Mt capacity). Seventeen members of the FFS (5 in Caia, 8 in Gorongosa and 4 in Gondola) were selected and trained in the construction of the Gorongosa silos and twelve extensionists in improved storage practices, to avoid post-harvest losses. They were provided with the materials (most of them locally available) to build a demonstration silo aiming at the dissemination of its benefits in the community. However, the ET was informed that only few large-scale farmers showed interest in building this type of silos and explored the reasons for this lack of interest among the FFS members with the extensionists, facilitators and farmers; the main reasons provided were: the size of the silos (too big for their needs), the high cost of the materials required and the lack of capacity for storing the two crops (maize and sorghum) they annually produce.

77 Output 2: Capacity built among facilitators and primary school teachers to the extent that they are capable of implementing the Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) approach in the project districts.

16 3 out of 7 extensionists in Caia, 12 in Gorongosa and 9 out of 12 in Gondola supporting FFS 17 All the extensionists were trained in the FFS methodology in a 2 weeks ToT but just few of them participated in refreshment training as only one of this courses was organized by the project. 25 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

78 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: training of JFFLS facilitators, technical and financial support to schools engaging in JFFLS, exchange visits between JFFLS and post-JFFLS, support to youth through engagement in FFS and/or income generating activities. The targets set for this output were: 120 JFFLS graduated, 2,000 vulnerable youth participating in JFFLS and 120-240 JFFLS facilitators trained.

79 The ET faced serious problems in gathering information related to this output, due to the limited knowledge the main partners had of the activities carried out and the scarce information provided in the progress reports. It is to be noted that this output was removed from the M&E framework in all progress reports since May 201318.

80 Some district officials interviewed claimed that the current project did not support the JFFLS, while others were confused about the actual activities implemented by the Project, as the JFFLS project (OSRO/MOZ/703/WBK), more commonly known as “Celeiros da vida”, was located in the same districts. Furthermore, they all agreed that JFFLS are not functioning anymore. Contrary to those opinions, a representative of the Provincial Directorate of Education (DPE) of Sofala province claimed that the DPE is disseminating the JFFLS methodology through Educational Sessions, the JFFLS teachers trained by the JFFLS project are sharing their experience and district extensionists are providing technical support to the agricultural and livestock activities in the schools.

81 According to the information provided in the 2011/2012 progress reports, an assessment of the JFFLS (2 schools per district) was carried out in early 2012 and the school director and the JFFLS facilitator were requested to prepare project proposals to be integrated in the 2012 project workplan. These schools developed, therefore, proposals that were included in LOAs to be signed with the District Education Service (SDEJT) in the four districts. These LOAs were, however, never signed because the FAO Representation in Maputo decided to include these activities in the LOAs with the SDAEs. In addition, the progress reports mention the implementation of 2 training courses for JFFLS in 2012. The first course was carried out in Caia with 30 participants trained in business management and the second was held in Macossa, with 12 members of a JFFLS association trained in “associativism” (setting up and strengthening associations). The main constraint identified by the project coordinator for achieving this output was the difficulty in reaching the former JFFLS participants once the project “Celeiros da vida” came to an end. Apart from these two training courses, no other activities were carried out.

82 Output 3: Successful Macossa experience replicated in at least two new “coutadas” (game ranches) and /or other protected areas of the selected districts.

83 The Macossa experience was developed by the Project GCP/MOZ/027/BEL, also funded by the BSF in the same districts. The project played a key role in the negotiations between communities and private operators of existing coutadas and game ranches. The project also carried out the re-zoning of Coutada 9, along with the setting-up and training of the natural resources management committees (NRMC). Awareness, sensitization and training activities on natural resources management brought about changes in attitudes and practices: decreased uncontrolled fires and poaching, as well as a different perception of the value of locally available natural resources by the local communities.

84 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: training of provincial/district officers and of community representatives on community-based natural resources management, training of community members on NRMC, methodological and financial support for participatory mapping, zoning, negotiating and consensus building among stakeholders. The set target was the replication of the Macossa experience in at least 2 new “coutadas” and /or other protected areas of Gorongosa or Macossa districts.

85 The provincial and district government officials requested to prioritize the legalization and “revitalization”19 of the NRMCs, in addition to training their members on natural resources

18 However, in the November 2013-April 2014 report, the legalization of a JFFLS as an association in Caia is reported in the list of achievements. 19 Removing the steering committee due to misuse and arbitrary allocation of funds and replacing all members with more reliable ones. 26 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

management and supervision (fiscalização), as well as on the sustainable and adequate use of community funds. The legalization was a key issue, since this is a requirement for receiving the twenty per cent of public revenues generated by commercial activities (logging and trophy hunting) in the “coutadas” or protected areas20. Until recently the funds were transferred either into a “solidarity account”21 or to a NRMC member’s personal bank account, but in order to avoid misuse of funds the committees are now requested to be legally constituted and have their own bank account to receive the funds. These funds are intended to compensate the communities for the restrictions imposed by private operators, and aim at increasing their assets and income and improving their livelihoods22. They are administrated by the NRMC.

86 The data provided in the progress reports concerning the activities implemented by the Project, specifically in relation to this project component, do not match with the information gathered in the interviews with the SDAE officials in the districts. According to the latest project data, the Project assisted the 31existing NRMC and contributed to the legalization of one committee in Macossa (See Table 10). According to the district, however, the Project only provided technical assistance to 7 NMRC (4 in Macossa and 3 in Caia). The number of committees legalized by the project (1 committee) was confirmed.

87 Activities related to this output started in 2012 with the assessment of the status of the committees in the four districts. In 2012, the activities focused on Macossa district, where a training course on natural resources management was organized for 50 NRMC members. In 2013, 30 people from the four districts also received this training in Gorongosa. According to the project reports, two additional trainings on sustainable management of natural resources were carried out in Macossa and Caia in 2013/2014, but no detailed information of these trainings was made available. In addition two SDAE officials in Macossa district were trained on leadership and financial management so that they could train the NRMC steering committee members. The support and supervision of the NRM technical officer to these activities was poor and insufficient.

Table 10. Community based natural resources committees in the 4 project districts No. of Members Legalized Legalized Organization CBRNM Men Women Total by the supporting project the legalization Gorongosa 7 88 38 126 7 0 ORAM Caia 7 120 51 171 4 0 ORAM + FAO 079 I Phase Macossa 6 77 32 109 4 1 WWF + FAO 079 I Phase Gondola 11 126 47 173 1 0 FAO (no project reference) Total 31 411 168 579 16 1 Source: Project information

88 The ET visited two NRMC in Macossa and Caia and met with the SDAE of both districts to exchange views on the committee’s status and performance. Lack of transparency and poor accountability in the allocation of community funds were the main concerns raised in relation to some committees in Macossa district. Reportedly, the funds were only benefitting the NRMC members and the traditional leaders (regulos and nfumos)23. In addition, district authorities were worried because some committee members were negotiating with illegal operators (poachers and loggers) in return for money. In Caia district, the SDAE plays an

20 According to Article 102 of the Regulations to the Forest & Wildlife Law 21 Solidarity account is a bank account in the name of few people that represent a group that will carry out a joint activity 22 Sustainable use of existing resources, through agriculture in certain areas, the development of small resource management initiatives (fruit tree nurseries, honey production), handicrafts and other services (carpentry, shifting blacksmiths from trap production to tool and production, hives production) are some activities that could be funded by the 20% community fund. 23 In Nhaunga, the NRMC committee gives 10% of the community fund to the “regulo” and 1,000 MT to each of the 20 mfumos. The committee decided to buy a car for the regulo and motorbikes for the steering committee members. They also bought agricultural inputs for the members` wives. 27 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

important role in advising the committees about the pertinence of the projects24 to be funded in order to benefit the communities. This approach, which may prevent the misuse of funds, has started to be implemented in Macossa.

89 Training on beekeeping was carried our in Macossa and Caia districts. Overall, 120 NRMC members (90 in Macossa and 30 in Caia) were trained and 90 beekeeping kits (only hives) were distributed. The beekeepers were satisfied with the project support, as they increased their honey production and could sell the surplus to a private company (Micaia). The hives were locally produced in Gorongosa, which contributed to increasing artisans’ income. Beekeepers stated the need for additional training and for protective clothing, which would enable them to work during the daytime25. It is to be noted that beekeeping protective clothing was purchased in 2012/2013 with the project funds but was never distributed; it is stored at the DPA in Sofala province since then26.

90 Project GCP/MOZ/027/BEL supported a theatre group in Macossa district to develop some plays with messages aiming at decreasing uncontrolled fires and poaching, and promoting the value of locally available natural resources. Their live performance was proven to be a very successful mean to disseminate messages to the communities. The present project covered the transport costs of this group to perform these plays in 8 communities.

91 Output 4: Improved education and communication materials related to nutrition and health developed and disseminated through 600 FFS and 120 JFFLS.

92 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: review of existing FFS and JFFLS curricula in terms of nutrition and health messages, incorporation of nutrition and health aspects in FFS and JFFLS curricula, training of JFFLS and FFS trainers and facilitators on nutrition and health topics, and monitoring implementation of nutrition and health aspects of FFS and JFFLS. Targets were already mentioned above in the wording of the output.

93 In 2012, a preparatory meeting with nutritionists of the Provincial Directorate of Health (DPS) of Sofala province was held, to plan the nutritional activities to be carried out by the Project. It was agreed the Project would elaborate a module on nutrition to be integrated in the FFS curriculum and would run a pilot training in Gorongosa and further sessions in the 2 provinces. LOAs were to be signed with the DPS of Manica and Sofala provinces for the implementation of these activities.

94 These LOAs were, however, put on hold because, following the I TRM, it was decided to request a backstopping mission from FAO-Rome before taking any decisions about the activities to be implemented in relation to this component. The mission took place in October 2012 and it was decided to undertake the following activities: (i) to prepare a module on nutrition for the FFS curriculum of FFS facilitators and (ii) to support the “Model Mothers” programme of the Ministry of Health, which includes a strong component on nutrition, focusing on practical food preparation using local products. Two women from each FFS group and NRMC were to be trained as “model mothers” in order to increase the reach and impact of nutritional education within the target groups.

95 In 2013, an international consultant was recruited to prepare the training module on nutrition. The consultant, however, did not speak Portuguese nor have experience in the FFS methodology or deep knowledge of the Mozambican context. Before drafting the module, the consultant participated in a 3-day field mission to Gorongosa and Chimoio to visit some FFS. The consultant also participated in a FFS Master Trainer’s session in which the consultant had the opportunity to discuss the outline of the nutrition module with the participants. The nutrition training module is a high-quality technical document, including relevant topics for the target audience. However, the form in which it is presented is too

24 Projects aiming at improving social services (education, health…) or the sustainable use of existing resources, through agriculture in certain areas, the development of small resource management initiatives (fruit tree nurseries, honey production), handicrafts and other services (carpentry, shifting blacksmiths from trap production to tool and production, hives production). 25 At present, they only work at night when the bees are less active, in order to avoid bee stings. 26 During the evaluation debriefing, the FAO Representation in Maputo committed itself to immediately deliver the beekeeping protective clothing to the beekeepers trained by the Project. 28 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

complex and not tailored to farmers who are barely literate. The module was not pre- tested, nor validated by FFS facilitators, nor shared and discussed with district nutritionists. It was not reproduced or used by the Project, (but it has been utilised by the project GCP/ MOZ/MOZ/111/EC “Support to accelerate progress towards MDG 1C in Mozambique”, which is currently being implemented in various provinces in Mozambique).

96 With regard to the “model mothers” component, the first training, targeting 20 mothers, was conducted by district nutritionists in Gorongosa in 2012. The training was very practical and focused on food preparation using local products, among other nutrition and health topics. LOAs with the District Services of Health, Women and Social Action (SDSMAS) of the 4 districts were signed between June and July 2014, for scaling up this activity. Each SDSMAS organized a five-day training course for 20 model mothers (FFS or NRMC members) and 2 local leaders. The training consisted of various sessions practice-oriented, since many participants were illiterate. The main topics addressed were: food preparation using nutritious local products, the importance of breastfeeding, HIV/AIDS and frequent health problems (malaria…) and good hygiene practices. In addition, 20 cooking kits were distributed to the first group trained in Gorongosa27. The delivery of cooking kits to the 80 participants of 2014 training courses was envisaged, however, the purchasing process was still not finalized by the time of the evaluation.28

97 The ET interviewed 3 groups of trained “model mothers” in Gondola, Gorongosa and Caia: they all expressed a high level of satisfaction with the training received, as it increased their knowledge on nutrition and health issues. In addition, they claimed to have earned greater social recognition in their communities and also that their children were gaining weight. On the flip side, they complained of the little support received for the training sessions and demonstrations they organized for their neighbours. Reportedly, only few of them received the cooking kits and they had to charge small amounts of money to the mothers for purchasing the products for the demonstrations, which prevented the poorest ones from participating. In addition, they stressed the need for refreshment sessions and periodic backstopping from the districts nutritionists. The ET also noted that some of the messages they were conveying to the mothers were incorrect29 and could have negative consequences. Regular supervision monitoring could have corrected these inaccuracies.

98 “Model mothers” is a methodology being used by the SDSMAS for specific target groups, namely mothers with undernourished children, pregnant women or women living with HIV/AIDS. The project initiative to scaling up this practice was welcomed by the district health directors; however, they mentioned some constraints, such as a too short time for implementing the LOA (July-December 2014) and the limited financial resources. As a result, the SDSMAS were unable to organize a proper follow-up of the training (monitoring visits and refreshment courses), which is a normal practice in this methodology. It was also mentioned that the activities were carried out without any participation or technical support from the Project

99 An additional activity related to nutrition was the distribution of orange-fleshed sweet potato vines in order to improve the nutritional status of the population, especially young children, by increasing vitamin A intake. Three MT of orange-fleshed sweet potato vines were distributed to FFS members in Gondola, Gorongosa and Caia and one MT to the NRMC members in Macossa. The members planted the vines in a common yard for their multiplication and further distribution among other farmers.

100 Output 5: District Technical Team (ETD), Nutrition & Food Security (NFS) District Focal Point, representatives of local NGOs and CBOs, technical support staff from Provinces trained and able to plan and implement nutrition and food security activities in the district.

27 Unfortunately, many of these mothers had to flee their homes due to the political tensions in Gorongosa district in 2013 and they lost their cooking tools. 28 During the evaluation debriefing, the FAO Representation in Maputo committed itself to immediately finalize the process and deliver the kits to the “model mothers”. 29 For instance, a mother stated that a pregnant woman needs to take “pills” and others mentioned that a child that is not breastfed until the age of six months will have intestinal worms. 29 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

101 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: planning the training programme, delivering training, disseminating field training material, holding exchange meetings and ensuring constant follow-up and regular M&E. No concrete targets were set.

102 No activities were carried out to strengthen the capacity of local partners (district technical team, food security focal point, NGOs and CBOs and provincial technical staff) for planning and implementing food security and nutrition interventions in the districts. The ET believes that the project team misunderstood the aim and scope of this output. In the progress reports, some activities carried out by NGOs or other institutions in the districts, or directly funded by the District Development Fund, were reported as a contribution to achieving this output, although the Project did not participate. Even activities reported for other project components (JFFLS or NRMC) were included under this component.

103 The ET interviewed a representative of the Planning and Administration Department of Gondola district, who was unaware of the Project and never met a member of the project team. In the past, GIZ provided support to the Administration for the elaboration of the District Development Plans and the management and monitoring of the projects funded by the District Development Fund, which are mainly food security or income generating initiatives. Presently, this Department does not receive any technical assistance and is looking for partners to train the district staff in financial management, and planning and monitoring of project activities.

104 Output 6: A participatory system of Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation (PME) in place and consolidated at district level.

105 The activities envisaged to achieve this output were: assessment of the existing PME system, formulation of approaches for improving it, stakeholders training on PME, PME periodic review for adoption and testing of improvement measures, annual review and planning, conduct of: a baseline survey in the first trimester, a impact assessment in the last semester and an independent evaluation. No concrete targets were set for this output.

106 The ET faced some constraints in assessing the extent to which this output was achieved. As a matter of fact, the ET could not interview the Project M&E officer, as he had been fired and was not available. In addition, no proper database30 was made available and the existing information was disorganized and incomplete. Further, the information provided in the progress reports is too general, vague and repetitive, without any details of the monitoring activities performed.

107 According to the available information, a results-oriented monitoring plan was designed at the end of 2012, but no further information on its implementation could be found. Different monitoring tools were also designed and used, but the information was not analysed and systematized. Reportedly some tools were revised and modified, but it was not possible to verify their utilization.

108 A 3-day training on M&E tools was carried out in the Gorongosa in early 2013, to train the participants in FFS and NRMC data collection, in order to update the project database. The participants were: the SDAE focal points, one health technical official and one education technical officer of each of the four districts (overall 12 people).

109 Although a baseline survey was a planned and budgeted activity, FAO did not carried out the survey, as the Project started without receiving the first disbursement of funds, and it was decided to prioritize the FFS component. When eventually the funds were made available (October 2011), it was considered inappropriate to undertake a baseline survey given that some of the activities had already been carried out. In addition, a baseline study elaborated during the I Phase could be used to assess the progress of the Project. Nevertheless, in the I TRM, the BSF representative requested the submission of the baseline survey and also the revision of the project indicators to enable the assessment of the outputs and outcome and improve the quality of the progress reports. It was

30 It is likely the M&E Officer took the M&E database and other relevant information with him when he was fired. 30 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

then decided to request an M&E backstopping mission from FAO to get guidance on the relevance of the existing data and the necessary steps to ensure a proper follow-up of the project.

110 The mission took place in July 2013 and together with the project team and FAO focal point the log frame and M&E system were revised, and the project outputs and indicators redefined. It was agreed with the donor that FAO would initiate a tender process to commission the baseline survey to a private entity. By the time the company had been selected, however, the security situation deteriorated in Sofala province, making the survey in Gorongosa and Caia impossible to be carried out. The baseline survey was finalized in June 2014, too late for providing baseline data, and only included the two districts in Manica province. In addition, the rapid appraisal of the project results, envisaged at the end of the project, was not carried out.

Achievements at outcome level

111 The project’s overall outcome, as stated in the ProDoc was “Capacity improved among vulnerable people in the Districts of Gondola, Macossa, Gorongosa and Caia to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner”. The Project was expected to achieve this outcome by increasing local capacities of two target groups:

• Vulnerable smallholders, in particular women and youth; • District and provincial service providers targeting vulnerable households.

112 The achievement of the Project Outcome was to be assessed by comparing the number and proportion of the households in the target population that have: (i) improved knowledge and (ii) applied improved practices related to food security and nutrition (including agricultural production, natural resource management, nutrition, etc.) with the corresponding baseline data collected at the start of the Project. However, as mentioned before, the baseline survey was only carried out in 2014 and just in two districts, and, therefore, the pre-post evaluation was not possible. As a way forward, the ET revised the baseline study carried out in 2006 (Project I Phase) to check if it could be used as a second- option for the assessment. However, since the 2006 survey provides aggregated data of four districts of Manica and Sofala provinces, which only included one of the districts of the II Phase (Gondola), the comparison was not feasible.

113 In the absence of quantitative data, the ET had no other choice that to rely on a qualitative assessment of the information gathered from meetings, interviews and field observations, as well from the review of project documents, being aware of the limitations of this appraisal.

114 The outcome concerning the improved food security and nutrition capacity of the target group of vulnerable smallholders was partially achieved. FFS members improved their knowledge on agriculture and nutrition, and are implementing bettered agricultural practices and increasing their income. NRMC members improved their knowledge on a sustainable use of natural resources and beekeeping; and women of the communities improved their knowledge on nutrition, health and good hygiene practices. However, these results only relate to a limited share of the target population and the overall project targets were not achieved. In addition, the majority of the training courses were of short duration (2-5 days), which did not ensure the adequate acquisition of knowledge and skills development, especially taking into account that no refreshment courses31 were carried out (See Table 11 for training courses) Furthermore some results still need to be consolidated, in order to fully achieve the expected outcome.

115 The outcome related to the second target group – district and provincial service providers - was not achieved. As mentioned before, no activities were carried out to strengthen the capacity of the district and provincial partners for planning and implementing food security and nutrition activities at district level. Only few SDAE officials were trained on FFS methodology and sustainable use of natural resources and few ETD officers were trained on PME and the quality of training was considered poor.

31 Apart from one FFS refreshment course for 43 facilitators. 31 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Overall assessment of project effectiveness

116 The component in which the project has been more effective was that of capacity building for the establishment of FFS. However, less than 50% of the project targets were met, although this component (Output 1) was implemented throughout the project’s life (2011-2014)32. This limited achievement was due to various reasons apart from the security problems in the Gorongosa district. On the one hand, the number of district extensionists who provided extension services, not only to the FFS but also to other smallholder farmers in the districts, was very limited (24 extensionists for 4 districts in which agriculture is the main economic activity). On the other hand, the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the LOAs discouraged the delivery of additional funds, which could have enabled to speed up the activities.

Table 11. Training courses provided by the Project by component

Source: ET after data from Progress reports and information gathered through interviews with partners.

117 In addition, some activities should have been carried out to make this component more effective. For example, although district extensionists acquired the know-how required for scaling up the FFS methodology, they still needed refreshment training to improve their performance. The same argument applies to the FFS facilitators. In addition, some FFS did not receive the funds and others were not graduated.

118 As far as the replication of the Macossa experience in other coutadas or protected areas is concerned, the Project focused on supporting the NRMCs in Macossa district. Nonetheless, only one committee was legalized with the project assistance and few committee members were trained in this district. It is remarkable that the NRMCs in Macossa district that received more support from the Project were those with the greatest accountability problems in the use of the 20% community fund. The ET believes that the participation in a training course alone is not enough to change poor practices and build new capacities. The Project would have improved greatly its effectiveness if it had implemented a range of

32 The implementation of activities slowed down in Gorongosa district from mid 2013 to mid 2014 due to political unrest. 32 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

activities for NRMC, such as on-the job training or mentoring. Activities to raise awareness of the communities on the sustainable use of natural resources and also increase their participation in the process of allocating the 20% fund would have also contributed to improve the results of this component.

119 With regard to the nutritional component, delays in the start-up and implementation of project activities substantially limited its effectiveness. The nutrition module for the FFS facilitators training was developed in 2013, but it was neither pre-tested nor reproduced. As a result, nutritional education was not provided to the target population (FFS and JFFLS). In relation to the “model mothers”, there was no time for an adequate follow-up and supervision, since activities only started in the last semester of the Project. The ET questions the effectiveness of the training and cooking demonstrations carried out by the mothers without any monitoring and refreshment training. The inclusion of a nutritionist in the project team could have contributed to accelerating the implementation of this component, by providing it with technical support, thus achieving more sustainable results.

120 The assessment of the effectiveness of the establishment and consolidation of the PME system (Output 6) entails great difficulty. It could have been a well-developed PME system operational from 2012 to 2014, however the available evidences suggest the contrary. Despite the evidence of well-elaborated annual workplans, produced in participatory planning exercises, the monitoring of activities was inadequate. Taking into consideration also the untimely realization of the baseline survey and the lack of a final appraisal, the effectiveness of this output is moderately unsatisfactory.

121 As mentioned above, the Project insufficiently supported the JFFLS (Output 2) and the development of capacities of district and provincial partners to plan and implement food security and nutrition interventions in the district (Output 5), and thus the effectiveness of these outputs is completely unsatisfactory.

5.3 Efficiency

The Project’s efficiency has been negatively affected by implementation delays mainly caused by the insecurity situation in Sofala province and the lack of a timely decision to overcome the situation. This fact together with the difficulties in implementing the LOAs and the insufficient planning and financial control led to an unbalanced distribution of resources (very high for staff and low for project activities), which resulted in poor project results. Efficiency is therefore assessed as unsatisfactory.

122 Efficiency is a measure of how economically resources and inputs (mainly funds and time) are converted into results. Data constraints did not enabled the ET to carry out a unit cost analysis of the main project components. The project efficiency has been negatively affected by the following factors:

• Poor security situation in Sofala province • Weakness in the design of the project implementation framework • Inadequate location of the project team • Delays in the disbursement of funds and in procurement and decisions-making • Limited coordination • Lack of financial planning • Difficult implementation of the LOAs

123 Measuring efficiency. The FAO financial corporative system is limited to the Oracle codes, which do not allow the monitoring of the budget allocations for project component or by output/outcome. In order to estimate disaggregated data in budget allocations, the ET analyzed the transaction listing and was able to track most of the expenditures33 (see Table 12 and Figure 4).

33 The support of the FAO Operation Programme in Maputo was much appreciated. 33 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

Table 12. Disaggregated rates in project allocations

Project components Total general % by component % of total budget FFS component 712,499.96 100 37.9 FFS activities 420,012.46 59 22.3 FFS experts (two) * 244,145.08 34 13.0 LoA SDAE/DPA 48,342.42 7 2.6 NRC component 137,568.69 100 7.3 CRN/beekeeping 13,142.01 10 0.7 LoA SDAE 8,052.19 5 0.4 NRM expert* 116,374.49 85 6.2 Nutrition component 39,177.74 100 2.1 LoA SDSMAS 28,207.56 72 1.5 Nutrition manual for FFS facilitators 10,970.18 28 0.6 Backstopping 15,055.82 100 0.8 FAO Maputo 68,270.40 100% 3.6 Other project staff 343,809.30 100 18.3 Project Coordinator* 114,208.11 17 6.1 M&E Officer * 90,898.08 26 4.8 Project Administrative Assistant* 79,449.45 23 4.2 Drivers* 59,253.66 33 3.2 Project related expenses 293,182.60 100 15.6 Others 53,534.04 100 2.8 Contracts 43,669.76 82 2.3 Consultants 9,864.28 18 0.5 Support costs 216,202.85 100 11.5 Total general 1,879,301.40 100 100.0 * It includes the salary and travel costs

124 Efficiency of the FFS component. Figure 4 reveals that 38% of the total budget was allocated to the FFS component, although the Project only created and supported 255 FFS out of the 600 envisaged. The recruitment of the second FFS expert34, which was not contemplated in the ProDoc, resulted in a relatively high expenditure, especially taking into account the results achieved. This fact negatively affected the efficiency of this component.

Figure 5. Delivery rate by component

* Expenses related to project management and operations, including office supplies, communications, fuel, vehicles maintenance, etc.

34 As mentioned earlier, it is unclear on which basis the second expert was recruited. In addition, the donor requested the no extension of his contract given the scarce budget resources and the limited project area. However FAO disregarded this request. 34 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

125 The ProDoc established that “16% of the total budget will be used in direct support of the community based actions including FFS, JFFLS and natural resources management”. However, 22% of the total budget was allocated to “direct support” of FFS. It is to be noted that this percentage includes training of facilitators (17%) and the initial fund for FFS and the purchase of some agricultural inputs (5%). As mentioned earlier, the lack of refreshment training also limited the efficiency of this component.

126 Efficiency of the NRMC component. A great share of the funds allocated to this component (85%) was used to cover the costs of the NRM expert (salary and duty travel). Only 10% of the funds earmarked for this component (1% of the total budget) were allocated for training on beekeeping (4-day training course) and on the sustainable use of natural resources management (3-day training course). No refreshment courses were organized. Only 2 SDAE officials were trained on financial management (2-day training), which is the area that needed most support. These limited results indicate the inefficiency in the implementation of the NRMC component which received 7% of the total budget project.

127 Efficiency of the Nutrition component. As regards to nutrition, the Project aimed at developing and disseminating improved education and communication materials through 600 FFS and 120 JFFLS. The Project only carried out two activities: the elaboration of a nutrition module to be integrated in the FFS manual for facilitators and some training in the “model mothers” methodology. Although only a small share of the total budget (2.1% of which 0,6% corresponds to the nutrition module and 1,5% to the model mothers training) was allocated to this component, the results achieved were poor. The module was not disseminated and no refreshment training and monitoring was carried out to strengthen the capacities created by the “model mothers” methodology.

128 Efficiency of implementation mechanism. Despite the difficulties already mentioned for the implementation of the LOAs, this strategy has proven to be an effective way of implementing project activities. The LOAs with the SDAEs for the implementation of the FFS and the NRMC components represented only 3% of the total budget expenditure (Annex 7). Under these LOAs, the SDAE officials supported both the FFS and NRMC, bearing the main burden of the Project, with limited support from the project team. As regards to the nutrition component, the project allocation to the SDSMAS was 1.5% of the total budget for the implementation of the “model mothers” methodology with no support from the project staff. It could be concluded that the LOAs have been the most efficient implementation tool of the Project.

129 Efficiency of project management. The lack of coordinator was identified as the main constraint affecting the efficiency in terms of project management. After the resignation of the coordinator at the end of 2012, the FAO focal point assumed the coordinating role and a FFS expert acted as ad-hoc coordinator, mainly in charge of the day-to-day management. This new coordination mechanism did not properly work as the roles and responsibilities were not well established. As a result, the project operated without a clear leadership and the project team lost its motivation and commitment. This situation was aggravated by the travel restriction and the late decision of reallocating the project team, which had serious technical and managerial impact in the Project. In addition, some outputs/activities (i.e. capacity building of district and provincial partners for planning and implementing food security and nutrition activities at district level or the baseline survey and final appraisal) that were the responsibility of the coordinator were not implemented. The ET concludes that the project management in terms of technical assistance, staff management and monitoring was inefficient.

130 Efficient of Government and donor inputs. The contribution of the partner country was provided as envisaged in the ProDoc. Provincial and District Governments provided the required support for the proper implementation of the Project, mainly through the provision of government staff (extensionist and nutritionists) at field level. As regards to donor inputs, the delays in the disbursement of the two tranches caused some implementation constraints. Additionally, the decision of no extending the project and therefore not delivering the last tranche negatively affected the consolidation of some activities.

35 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

131 Efficiency of project time. The project was not executed in a timely manner mainly due to the security problems, the late arrival of the second tranche and the donor’s decision of the non-cost extension, which could have contributed to make up for the lost time. The late decision of reallocating the project due to the lack of security in Sofala province was very costly. During 13 months, the project financially supported 6 project staff (2 FFS experts, the NRM expert, the M&E officer, the administrative assistant and a driver) for not performing any activity, and even their contracts were renewed after 6 months of inactivity. The cost of this staff during this period represented 8% of the total budget expenditure.

5.4 Sustainability

The majority of the activities still need to be consolidated even that the Project was the consolidation phase of an eight-year programme in the region. The ET identified some risk factors (i.e. government financial constraints, insufficient human resources, insufficiently trained technical staff, among others) that could jeopardize the sustainability. In addition, the lack of a well-developed exit strategy contributed to the limited sustainability of the Project. Sustainability is assessed as unsatisfactory.

132 Sustainability relates to the likelihood that the stream of benefits generated by the project would continue after closure. However, for benefits to continue, the availability of certain services (e.g. extension services, technical support) is required beyond the project framework. This section considers personal and social capital, viability of project activities and institutional factors as critical predictors of sustainability.

133 The government of Mozambique has embraced FFS as an extension approach for providing support to smallholder farmers to achieve the goal of agricultural development and economic growth. FFS extension methodology is accepted as one of the most effective extension approaches for increasing agricultural production and productivity of poor farmers. Quality, continuous technical support is key for scaling up the FFS methodology, which involves the availability of financial resources for training the extensionists and facilitators and monitoring the activities in the field. The lack of the required financial resources was identified at the main constraint for consolidating and scaling up the FFS approach.

134 FFS has proved to be an important approach for building human and social capacities and for beneficiaries’ empowerment. The Project, by using this extension methodology, has contributed to developing farmers’ skills and knowledge, encouraging learning from peers and strengthening communication skills and group-building. FFS members actively participated in decision-making processes that brought about positive changes in farmer’s attitudes and practices. The empowerment of the beneficiaries, especially of women, has represented an important contribution to achieving the sustainability of FFS.

135 The FFS groups created by the Project have been very diverse in terms of internal cohesion and consolidation; while some groups are planning future activities, other groups have already disappeared. According to the SDAE directors and the extensionists only the FFS groups involved in a joint income generating activity will continue functioning. For this to occur in a larger scale, it would have been necessary to support the FFS groups in establishing partnerships with NGOs or CBOs active in the area, to develop productive projects. Another option would have been training and supporting the FFS members in the elaboration of micro projects to be submitted the District Development Fund. The Project did not envisage these consolidation activities, which could have contributed to the sustainability of the groups.

136 With regard to the NRMCs, the support provided was limited and still requires substantial additional assistance (legalization, training, raising awareness) in order to improve the capacity of the committee members and the communities in the sustainable use of natural resources and proper utilization of the community funds. The SDAE does not have the required financial and human resources to provide the needed support to these committees.

36 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

137 The Project invested resources in producing the nutrition module for the FFS facilitators’ manual, but did not train the facilitators and extensionists nor reproduced the manual in order to allow the dissemination of adequate nutrition messages to the communities. The module was later reproduced and distributed by the FAO project GCP/MOZ/ MOZ/111/EC, to be used by the FFS facilitators trained by this project. In order to ensure sustainability of this project component, it is necessary that the nutrition module reach the FFS facilitators trained by the Project and that they receive the adequate training.

138 The Project started to build “model mothers”’ capacity to disseminate nutrition, health and hygiene good practices among their neighbours. However, this intervention was not consolidated, as additional training and frequent monitoring and supervision visits would have been required to achieve the desired results. It is unlikely that the SDSMASs, with their scarce financial resources, will be able to continue supporting these “model mother” groups, since their priority are the groups of mothers with undernourished children, pregnant women or women living with HIV/AIDS.

139 National, provincial and district government have supported the Project since the beginning. They were involved in providing overall guidance to the Project through the Steering Committee and also provided the available human resources at district level for the implementation of the activities. Although the Government showed great interest in the project intervention, it is uncertain that it will be able to provide the required financial and human resources for the consolidation of the Project activities.

140 The Project did not have an exit strategy, not even for the last six-months of implementation. After the last TRM in which the no extension of the Project was announced, the project team prepared a workplan for the phasing out, which only included the completion of the activities but did not formulate a feasible strategy for their consolidation.

5.5 Impact

The positive impact of the Project is related only to the implementation of the FFS methodology, and, to a lesser extent, to the “model mothers”’ component. Even in these components, the impact could have been greater by increasing the technical support, mainstreaming nutrition in agricultural activities, organizing refreshment trainings, increasing the supervision and backstopping of project activities and reaching a larger number of beneficiaries. Project impact is therefore assessed as only moderately unsatisfactory.

141 The Project’s envisioned impact is “Nutrition and food security protected and improved within communities affected by HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases”. Assessing the impact implies, therefore, measuring the changes that have occurred as a result of the Project (whether positive or negative, direct or indirect, intended or unintended), in terms of food security and nutrition for the following domains: (i) human and social capital; (ii) food security and agricultural productivity; (iii) nutrition; and (iv) natural resources and the environment.

142 As far as the human and social capital is concerned, the interviews with the FFS members suggest that the FFS methodology has brought a positive change in the member’s self- esteem and empowerment. Its participatory approach has contributed to creating strong bonds within the group, and has promoted farmers’ willingness to learn and improve their living conditions. In the case of the “model mothers”, the ET believes the Project has contributed to increasing the social recognition of women in the communities.

143 Although there is no accurate information for assessing the impact of the Project in relation to improvements in household food security, the ET believes, based on the interviews with the beneficiaries, that some project activities could have had positive and lasting impact in the communities. As regards agricultural activities, the production and productivity of the majority of FFS members have been increased, which has led to an increase in their income.

144 Similarly, no accurate information is available for assessing to what extent the nutritional status of the beneficiaries has improved. However, some remarks made by the FFS 37 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

members and “model mothers” during the interviews suggest that the beneficiaries are diversifying their diet, by including more vegetables and other local products, and the children are gaining weight.

145 With regard to natural resources and environment, no information is available and no evidences emerged to confirm any positive changes in the sustainable use of natural resources. On the contrary, the SDAE confirmed that illegal activities have increased in the “coutadas”, due to the negotiation between community members and illegal operators (poachers and loggers). Additional training and awareness-raising campaigns could have prevented some of these actions.

5.6 Other evaluation criteria

Gender equality

146 Gender issues are an increased area of concern in Mozambique, because of the alarming socio-economic situation of women in the country. Extremely high levels of women- headed households living below the poverty line and of women illiteracy in rural areas35 led the Project to target women and women groups. It was envisaged that at least 75% of the participants in project activities would be different types of women groups.

147 Although the Project design did not include a gender strategy or guidelines for mainstreaming gender in its various components, its implementation and monitoring increasingly targeted women’s, especially in the FFS component. As already mentioned, the number of women members of FFS was much higher than the number of men (4,484 women versus 2,811 men). As regards FFS facilitators training, however, only 10% of the facilitators trained were women (21 women against 173 men). Their low illiteracy level and the perpetuation of the gender-biased traditional roles of rural communities could explain this low number of women facilitators36.

148 FFS methodology increases empowerment, especially of female members. In the meetings held with FFS members, women reported to have gained both technical and social skills that have enhanced their abilities to manage and make decisions relating to farming activities at the household level. They also reported having stronger social ties, enhanced status within their community and being treated with more respect. While some reported increased self-confidence in their interactions in the community, others stated that traditional gender roles within the household remained the same.

149 No disaggregated data were available concerning women participation in leadership and decision-making positions of both the FFS and the NRMC. The ET believes, based on meetings with FFS and NRMC members, that some women were part of the steering committees, mainly as bookkeepers, while positions with higher responsibility (president, vice-president and secretary) were usually filled by men.

150 Likewise, there is no accurate information on women participation in other trainings provided by the Project. The interviews with government official and beneficiaries suggest that the majority of the participants in other trainings (beekeeping, silos construction, sustainable use of natural resources, business management and M&E) were men. It goes without saying that 100% of the participants in the model mothers’ methodology were women. Once again, the reasons for the low involvement of women in capacity building activities were their high illiteracy rate, the gender-biased traditional roles, their low participation in leadership positions (steering committees) and their low representation in government institutions (in particular SDAE). The Project did not take any action to address these problems.

35 62.5 % of women-headed families live below the poverty line (51.9% in men-headed families) and an average of 70% of women are illiterate in rural areas (96% in Macossa district). The Government adopted the National Gender Policy and the National Plan for Women Development as the new policy framework to mitigate women vulnerability and discrimination 36 Husbands did not allow their wives to leave their homes for two week to participate in a training course where the majority of participants are men. 38 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

151 The Project envisaged the establishment of partnerships with the Ministry of Education (i.e. through the PROFASA37 programme or adult literacy agents), NGOs and CBOs for including women in the project area in adult literacy programmes. In the I TRM held in 2012, the BSF noted that the Project had not made any progress in this regard, and strongly recommended to take immediate and decisive actions to incorporate women in literacy training programmes so that they could fully participate in project activities. It is to be noted that no actions were taken to address this concern.

152 The Project used a gender approach mainly aiming at increasing women’s participation in project activities in order to achieve the target set. However, this target was only partially achieved and only in relation to the FFS (61.5% of FFS members were women38. Women’s participation in income-generating activities (i.e beekeeping) and managerial and financial training was very limited.

153 Overall, the gender approach of the project is assessed as moderately unsatisfactory. The Project increased women’s participation in FFS, which have contributed to improving their livelihoods. However, it also contributed to perpetuating traditional gender roles, by involving women only in activities aiming at increasing food production or improving the nutritional of status of family members, which are their traditional activities. The Project did not promote women’s literacy nor raises awareness among the communities on gender equality issues that could have enabled the fully participation of women in the Project. Although the Project lacked a gender strategy and did not have a gender specialist, the team could have requested backstopping support in this area or even developed a gender strategy during the year they could not visit the districts due to security problems.

Human-rights based approach

154 The project did not have a rights-based approach and did not explicitly integrate the Right to Adequate Food. Integrating the Right to Food into food security and nutrition programmes is a complex issue that requires political commitment, understanding of the approach, strong institutions, civil society participation, access to justice and recourse mechanisms, as well as knowledge, capacities, time and resources. None of these elements was contemplated during the design, implementation and monitoring of the Project.

155 The ET tried to verify if the right to food was implicitly incorporated into the project’s design and implementation. For this assessment the following elements were examined: focus on disadvantaged and marginalized groups, inequities to be addressed well identified, fully integration of gender issues and good governance (participation, inclusion, empowerment, accountability, etc.), multi-sectoral coordination mechanism with the participation of beneficiaries and a participatory M&E system. The majority of these elements were not incorporated in the project design and implementation; the ET concluded, therefore, that the Project did not explicitly or implicitly integrate the right to food in its design, implementation and monitoring.

Partnerships and alliances

156 FAO implemented the Project in collaboration with the Government of Mozambique. District institutions, mainly SDAEs and SDSMASs, were responsible for the implementation of project activities, while the project team was in charge of ensuring guidance in the planning, providing technical backstopping and leading the monitoring. The ProDoc included the establishment of partnerships, with existing self-help groups, farmers groups and NGOs, to scale-up investments in support of the target group, and as one of the main mechanisms to achieve the project objectives. Nevertheless, the Project did not establish any partnership with other development partners.

37 Programme for Families Without Illiteracy 38 Obviously 100% of the participants of the model mother’s were women. 39 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

157 With regard to capacity development, which was the main objective of the Project, partnerships could have been an efficient mean for bringing together the complementary knowledge, skills and resources of different partners, in order to achieve capacity goals and objectives. This would have been particularly relevant for literacy training programmes and for other training and support that development partners could have provided to project beneficiaries.

158 Partnerships could have also contributed to the consolidation of project activities. The Project invested heavily in creating and strengthening farmer groups, many of them ready and willing to start new income generating initiatives for improving their livelihoods. The Project could have promoted partnerships between these groups and NGOS and CBOs in view of creating and consolidating social and economic opportunities for poor farmers, strengthening their empowerment to take part in decision making, and sharing the benefits of improved livelihoods.

40 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

159 Based on the lessons learned and evidence emerged throughout the evaluation, the ET drew a number of conclusions, which can be organized around the three key evaluation questions as follows.

160 To what extend the project management strategy and approach was effective in strengthening and scaling up the activities undertaken by previous BSF projects in Manica and Sofala provinces?

161 The project implementation approach was not successful in achieving the desired project outcome. The strategy of giving the entire responsibility of the implementation of project activities to district officials has proven to be inadequate. Difficulties in the implementation of the LOAs and the little support provided by the project technical team, partially due to the insecurity situation in the Gorongosa district, led to a limited achievement of results.

162 Lack of leadership, poorly motivated staff and limited supervision and backstopping from FAO have contributed to two key shortcomings:

(i) Misunderstanding of the project overall goal of building the capacities of district and provincial services providers for targeting vulnerable households and small-holder farmers, in order to meet their food and nutrition security needs. The scope of Project implementation was too narrow, as it focused on creating new FFS, delivering training and, at the very end, carrying out some nutrition activities. Some outputs, envisaged in the ProDoc, were eliminated without apparent justification. In addition, no synergies were sought, nor partnerships established, in order to consolidate the interventions and achieve more sustainable results. (ii) Decisions to overcome key difficulties faced by the Project -in particular its low implementation rate, the allocation of funds mainly to human resources and travel, and especially the one-year inactivity of project staff- were taken too late or were inadequate.

163 The lack of both a timely baseline survey and a well-developed M&E system negatively affected the proper monitoring of the Project and prevented from keeping the stakeholders informed of its progress and taking the necessary decisions for improving its implementation.

164 To what extend the capacity of smallholder farmers, in particular women and youth, were increased to meet their food security and nutrition needs in a sustainable manner?

165 Capacity development of smallholder farmers in agriculture, nutrition and, to a lesser extent, in the sustainable use of natural resources has been the focus of the Project. However, the target achieved was lower than originally envisioned and the activities still needed to be consolidated to have a long-lasting impact. It can be concluded, therefore, that the Project results were overall poor, taking into account that this was the consolidation phase of two previous projects.

166 The Project created 255 FFS with 7,295 members (4,484 women) and trained 194 FFS facilitators (21 women). The Project contributed to improving FFS members’ knowledge on agriculture and nutrition, which has translated into better agricultural practices and increased production and income. FFS members were empowered and established strong bonds with other members of the groups. Despite these positive results, however, the project achievements were less than 50% of the set targets (600 FFS and 18,000 farmers receiving extension services from FFS). Moreover, the majority of FFS facilitators did not receive refreshment training to ensure the adequate achievement of knowledge and skills, and no synergies were obtained with activities of local partners to support FFS initiatives, such as income generating activities, which could have facilitated the consolidation of the groups and their sustainability. 41 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

167 The Project has attempted to develop the capacity of the NRMC members to improve the sustainable management of natural resources, as well as the management and accountability of the community fund for implementing productive activities. However, the training and backstopping were insufficient for producing any positive impact on the livelihoods of the population. In fact, the few members trained (80 people in a 3-day training course) did not receive any additional training or adequate support to develop adequate capacity in this area.

168 Seventeen FFS and one hundred and twenty NRMC members were trained in income generating activities –construction of “Gorongosa type” silos and beekeeping – and received materials for starting up these activities. NRMC beekeepers increased the honey production, and therefore, their income. Training in the construction of silos had a two-fold objective: to create employment and to disseminate improved storage practices, in order to avoid post-harvest losses. As regards this last goal, only few large-scale farmers showed interest in building this type of silos. FFS members considered that the size of the silos was too big for their needs, the cost of the materials was too high, and the silos did not allow storing the two crops (maize and sorghum) they annually produce.

169 As regards the objective of increasing farmers’ capacity to improve nutrition at household level, the Project developed a nutrition module for FFS facilitators, which has proven to be too complex and not tailored to farmers who are barely literate. The module was not pre- tested nor validated by the facilitators, and never reached the targeted audience, as it was not reproduced. The Project also trained one hundred women in nutrition using the “model mothers” methodology. This methodology, which aims at increasing the knowledge on nutrition and health issues was not adequately supported by refreshment sessions and periodic backstopping by the DPS, due to its late implementation.

170 Women and youth were identified in the ProDoc as the main target beneficiaries of the Project for capacity development. The Project lacked a gender strategy and the gender approach used only aimed at increasing women’s participation in project activities, especially in FFS, where 61% of the members were women. In addition, the Project did not promote women’ participation in income-generating activities or in decision taking processes, partly due to their high illiteracy rate and the perpetuation of the gender-biased traditional roles of rural communities. As regards youth, no activities were carried out to increase their capacities and improve their livelihoods.

171 To what extend the capacity of the district and provincial partners for planning, implementing and monitoring food security and nutrition actions was strengthened at district level?

172 The Project neglected this component that could have contributed to creating an enabling environment for improving the food security and nutrition of the targeted districts. No activities were carried out aiming at strengthening the capacity of local partners (district technical team, food security focal point, NGOs and CBOs and provincial technical staff) for planning and implementing food security and nutrition interventions in the districts, as it was envisaged.

6.2 Recommendations

173 The recommendations put forward by this final evaluation aim at providing guidance to future projects designed and implemented by FAO, in general, and, more specifically, to the BSF Project “Food Security and Nutrition Programme (FSNP) in Gaza Province” (GCP/ MOZ/116/BEL), which has similar objectives and approach.

Recommendation 1: To FAO for improving project design

The ET recommends that FAO carry out participatory context analysis during the design phase of the projects, which would enable a more realistic and accurate identification of beneficiaries’ needs and assessment of local partners’ capacity.

42 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

174 This may include the following activities:

• To identify and involve a wide range of stakeholders in the design process, including government representatives (directors and officers), NGOs, CBOs, the private sector and future project’s beneficiaries. • To use available and updated data and information from reliable reports. • To learn from the experience and best practices of other organizations and identify potential synergies and complementarities. • To assess the technical and operational capacity of main partners. • To identify the capacity development needs of main partners for the implementation of the project. • To conduct a gender analysis

Recommendation 2: To FAO for improving project management

The ET recommends strengthening the coordination, supervision, backstopping and monitoring of the project for improving its performance and results, including a clear definition of roles and responsibilities and an efficient mechanism of financial control.

175 The following actions are suggested:

• To appoint a full time coordinator, with leadership and team building capacity, for the full life of the project. • To increase the supervision of projects by FAO focal points through frequent field missions, discussions with the project team and partners, strategic planning, and the analysis of project reports, in order to identify problems and take timely and appropriate decisions for improving the implementation. • To increase the technical support of FAO backstopping officers in key project areas (i.e M&E), through permanent communication and regular field missions. • To undertake a baseline survey and establish an M&E system at the beginning of the project, with appropriate indicators and realistic targets for monitoring the progress towards outputs and outcomes. • To enforce the preparation and timely submission of quality reports, both six-moth progress reports and reports from field visits and key activities (i.e. training), with clear recommendations and follow-up actions. • To enhance the capability of addressing rapidly and in a coordinated manner the problems and constraints that may arise during the project implementation through convening specific meeting of all stakeholders (TRM) or establishing a task force if necessary. • To increase the control and monitoring of financial resources.

Recommendation 3: To FAO, the BSF and the GoM for the consolidation of FFS

The ET recommends the FFS be supported by continuous technical assistance during at least three years, from their establishment to the graduation, a post-graduation strategy to be developed in a participatory way.

176 More specifically the ET suggests:

• To ensure the identification of FFS groups interested in starting up income-generating activities and local partners who could support this type of initiatives and promote the establishment of partnerships among them. • To support the FFS for the opening of bank accounts • To elaborate a post-graduation strategy in a participatory manner • To increase the representation of women as facilitators and in the FFS decision making structure. • To promote the exchange of experiences and facilitate the establishment of partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector for literacy training and the implementation of income-generating activities 43 Evaluation of Protecting and Improving Household Food Security in Manica and Sofala

• To pre-test the nutrition module and revise it, if necessary, and ensure the facilitators are familiar with it before the training.

Recommendation 4: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for improving the nutrition status of vulnerable households

The ET recommends mainstreaming nutrition in all project components to ensure that nutrition is addressed through a comprehensive approach.

177 More specifically:

• To recruit a nutrition specialist, either on a full-time or short-term consultancy basis with periodic backstopping, in all FSN projects to ensure that nutrition is mainstreamed in all project components. • To integrate nutrition education in all FSN projects, including regular training and supervision, adapted to the target population’s needs, in order to facilitate long-lasting behavioural changes.

Recommendation 5: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for improving community based natural resources management

The ET recommends additional work in this area, in close coordination with national stakeholders (especially the SDAEs and the Provincial Directorates of Tourism), to further consolidate the NRMC to become an effective and transparent mechanism that promotes the development of the community.

178 More specifically:

• To support the revitalization and legalization of community funds and training in their financial management. • To promote the involvement of the community in the allocation of community fund. • To promote the exchange of experiences and facilitate the establishment of partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector.

Recommendation 6: To FAO, the BSF and the Government for gender mainstreaming in FSN projects

The ET recommends developing a clear strategy for mainstreaming gender in project activities, taking into account the key role of Mozambican women in FSN and the burdens they face due to gender inequalities.

179 More specifically, the ET recommends:

• To promote women literacy training in all FSN projects, through partnerships with specialized local institutions. • To include a gender specialist position in all FSN projects, to ensure that the project has a strategy aiming at integrating gender in all project’s components. • To raise awareness on gender inequality among both men and women in the communities. • To include women in income-generating activities taking into account their needs and interests. • To ensure equal participation of men and women in FFS and NRMC decision making.

44