EVALUATION of FAO COOPERATION in SIERRA LEONE 2001 – 2006 FINAL REPORT VOL I: MAIN REPORT ROME APRIL 2007 List of Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................... i Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... vi Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Approach and Team Members.............................................................................. 3 2. The National Context............................................................................................. 5 2.1. Agricultural Sector and Food Security in Sierra Leone 5 2.2. Donor Assistance to Sierra Leone in Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, and Food Security 13 3. FAO Representation in Sierra Leone...................................................................15 3.1. FAOR in the Evaluation Period 15 3.2. Technical Backstopping and Support from FAO Headquarters and Regional/Sub- regional Office 20 3.3. Cost-Effectiveness of Operations 21 3.4. Overall Conclusions 25 4. Summary of Activities and Results in Major Areas Supported by FAO in Sierra Leone.....................................................................................................................27 4.1. The FAO Portfolio in Sierra Leone 27 4.2. Emergency Rehabilitation Interventions 28 4.3. Development of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Development Strategy (including Right to Food) 31 4.4. Operation Feed The Nation (OFTN) – Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) 35 4.5. Seeds 39 4.6. Fair Trade 40 4.7. Telefood Projects 42 4.8. Other Areas 43 4.9. Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) 44 4.10. Cross-cutting Issues 46 5. Results by FAO Services .....................................................................................49 5.1. Sharing and Applying Knowledge 49 5.2. Partnership Building 50 5.3. Capacity Building 51 5.4. Resource Mobilisation 52 6. Conclusions and Major Recommendations........................................................55 6.1. Conclusions 55 6.2. General Recommendations 57 6.3. Sector-specific Recommendations 60 ii Annex list ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ANNEX 2: EVALUATION OF GCP/SIL/023/GER ANNEX 3: EVALUATION OF GCP/SIL/022/GER ANNEX 4: EVALUATION OF TELEFOOD PROJECTS IN SIERRA LEONE ANNEX 5: REVIEW OF TCP PROJECTS IN SIERRA LEONE ANNEX 6: SIERRA LEONE IMPACT STUDIES ANNEX 7: PROJECTS REVIEWED BY THE EVALUATION ANNEX 8: LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED iii Foreword Foreword Did FAO cooperation perform well in Sierra Leone between 2001 and 2006? The question is not an easy one to answer, and yet the overall effectiveness of development cooperation is an issue of increasing concern. While individual projects and programmes generally have specific objectives that include indicators at the different levels, this is not the case with FAO cooperation in a particular country. All that has been formulated is the expectation that the Organisation will contribute to achieving the MDGs, i.e. that it must be judged with regard to relevance and effectiveness (development impact). Furthermore, FAO is not a donor. Rather, the partner country concerned is a member of FAO and FAO is accountable to its members. And the partner country – in this case Sierra Leone – can (hopefully) declare itself satisfied with the services offered. Is it possible to carry out an evaluation in such circumstances? The terms of reference are geared towards: cooperation strategy and relevance of the programme; developmental effectiveness; institutional arrangements, modalities and processes; functioning of the FAO Representation – although precise targets for achievement are not mentioned. Then there is an emphasis on specific programmes and projects – financed by FAO-TCP or from external sources – which were carried out by FAO during the evaluation period. Even if links do exist between the individual initiatives, one simply cannot speak of a programme in this context. In the early part of the evaluation period, international support to Sierra Leone – and with it that of FAO – was dominated by emergency aid. Subsequently, the focus was on restoring agriculture on a more normal basis. These were very different types of assistance. We began by attempting to assess the various projects and programmes according to internationally recognised evaluation criteria: Relevance: Is FAO doing the right things? Efficiency: Is FAO doing the right things in the right way, i.e. cost-effectively? Effectiveness: Do FAO activities help to achieve the objectives? Impact: Do FAO activities contribute to the achievement of overarching development goals (e.g. MDGs) and, if so, how? Sustainability: Are the results sustained beyond the period of FAO assistance? The evaluation did not only look at the design, implementation and results of emergency and development projects; it also assessed the work carried out by the FAO country office in Sierra Leone and support to the country given by the FAO Regional Office in Accra and FAO headquarters. Germany was the most important external financier of development projects during the evaluation period. Four projects in Sierra Leone were supported through the bilateral fund of the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection (BMELV); these were in the areas of food security / agricultural advice; seed production; right to food; and fair trade. Germany cooperated closely with the evaluation and two team members were seconded by the German international cooperation agency GTZ. i Foreword The entire team was welcomed and treated in a friendly and obliging manner in Sierra Leone. The decision makers in the Sierra Leonean Government – especially the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) – showed a great deal of interest in the mission. They confirmed what they saw as the valuable support of the FAO Representation. Nonetheless, the staffing and institutional capacity of the ministries, as well as of the decentralised structures that were newly formed in 2005 (District Councils), are such that an efficient and effective cooperation remains dogged by many fundamental weaknesses. The answer given once in response to a question about priority setting summed up the situation: Priorities? We have so many priorities! The final evaluation was preceded by an inception mission undertaken by the FAO Evaluation Service in July 2006, to gather information and consult with the Government, members of the UN system and other donors on the issues to be covered. The next step was the conduct of impact studies at field level on key programme areas (Farmers’ Field Schools and emergency interventions), carried out by a Sierra Leone team under supervision of the Evaluation Service. The final evaluation was held in February 2007. The eight-member evaluation team (a staff member and a consultant from the FAO Evaluation Service, an FAO Internal Auditor, three international consultants and two national consultants) met all together for the first time in Freetown. Also present as a resource person was the former FAO Representative, Mohammed Farah. Although he retired in August 2006, the FAOR post was still vacant at the time of the evaluation. The allocation of tasks and roles in the team posed no problems whatsoever. The project visits, conducted in small groups, provided an extremely useful insight into the conditions surrounding development cooperation in the rural areas of Sierra Leone. The desire to live peacefully alongside one another was expressed convincingly everywhere, so that hope for corresponding progress in development was reinforced, despite the prevailing difficulties. With the completing of this report – to which everyone made their expected contribution – I would like, as head of the evaluation team, to thank the members of the team for the successful and goal-oriented team work undertaken. The absorbing work proved to be no hindrance to a positive atmosphere – on the contrary! We wish FAO – and Sierra Leone – every success in implementing the recommendations we have proposed. In future, it may then be easier to answer the question: Did FAO cooperation perform well in Sierra Leone? Klaus Pilgram Team Leader of the Evaluation ii Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations ABU Agricultural Business Units ADB African Development Bank AFSP FAO Procurement Service AOS Administrative and Operational Support ASR Agricultural Sector Review ASREP Agricultural Sector Rehabilitation Project BADEA Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa BMELV German Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme COIN Country Office Information Network CORAD Consortium for Rehabilitation and Agricultural Development CRS Catholic Relief Services CTA Chief Technical Advisor DACO Sierra Leone Development Assistance Coordination Office DGB Director General’s Bullentin DFID Department for International Development DPAC Development Partnership Aid Coordination Committee DTIS Diagnostic Trade Integration Study DWH Data Warehouse (FAO) ECU Emergency Coordination Unit EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOR