WORLD VISION MAURITANIA Final evaluation of the Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program Ruvimbo Mabeza-Chimedza 12/10/2013 ii Contents Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 World Vision’s response ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 The End of Project Evaluation and its Objectives....................................................... 3 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Evaluation Design ....................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Sample size and Sampling Procedures ........................................................................ 4 2.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Process ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 7 2.6 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 7 3. Results ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Household Characteristics ........................................................................................... 7 3.2 Asset Ownership .............................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Level of indebtedness .................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Agricultural production .................................................................................................. 13 3.5 Expenditure patterns ...................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Income sources............................................................................................................... 15 3.7 Voucher expenditure pattern .......................................................................................... 16 3.8 Participation in projects ................................................................................................. 17 3.9 DRR ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.10 Result Areas Reported ........................................................................................... 19 4.0 Discussion of results .......................................................................................................... 25 5.0 Assessment of Project Performance According to the Evaluation Criteria .................. 26 5.1 Relevance .................................................................................................................. 26 5.2 Program Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 28 5.3 Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. 30 5.4 Impact ........................................................................................................................ 34 5.5 Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 38 6.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 40 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 43 Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................. 43 Questionnaire for the final evaluation KEAP II project in Mauritania................................56 KEAP II questionnaire for non participants......................................................................... 65 iii Acronyms ACF ADP Action Contre la Faim Area Development Program BSMP Branding Strategy and Marking Plan CBFV Cash-Based Food Voucher CBP Cash-Based Programming CDPP Community Disaster Preparedness Plans CODEP Department for Coordination of Development (GoM structure) COVACA Community Vulnerability Capacity Assessment CSA DRR Commission de Sécurité Alimentaire Disaster Risk Reduction DME Design Monitoring and Evaluation EMEL Government of Mauritania drought response program ERDM Early Risk Disaster Mitigation ESFP Emergency Food Security Program FEWS NET Famine Early Warning System Network FFP Food for Peace FPMG FY GAM Food Programming Management Group Fiscal Year Global Acute Malnutrition GoM Government of Mauritania HDD Household Dietary Diversity HH Household HHS Household Hunger Scale Kcal Kilocalories Kg Kilogram KEAP Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program KEAP II LMSS Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program, Phase II Last Mile Mobile Solutions M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MBFSM Market Based Food Security Monitoring MIFIRA Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis MT Metric Tons MQ Ministry Quality MU Mauritanian ouguiya (currency) NGO Non-Governmental Organization NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement PDM PIDA Post Distribution Monitoring Program for Infrastructure Development in Africa REIA SPSS Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment Statistical Package for the Social Sciences UNICEF UoM United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund Union of Mayors USD United States Dollars USAID United States Agency for International Development USG VFT United States Government Voucher for Training VFW Voucher for Work WAR West Africa Region iv WFP World Food Program WV World Vision WVI World Vision International v Executive Summary This is an End of Project Evaluation of the “Kankossa Emergency Assistance Project I & II” funded by USAID and implemented in Kankossa District in the Assaba Region by the World Vision Mauritania from March 31, 2012 to October 2013. The project was supported by the USAID to the tune of US$5 266 622.00 inclusive of match funding. Methodology Methods used for data collection included a combination of in-depth interviews with key informants, participant observation, focus group discussions, questionnaire survey and document reviews. The survey questionnaire was administered to 297 participants of KEAP and 197 non-participants who were used as the control group. Quantitative data analysis used the SPSS to determine frequencies and measures of central tendency. Results from the quantitative analysis of the evaluation survey data were compared between participants and non-participants as well as with the baseline data to assess changes that had occurred in the course of the project implementation. Qualitative data analysis was an on-going process from the time of data collection to report writing and it was used to gain an understanding of processes, behaviors, relationships and interactions. The various sources of information were triangulated to ensure that conclusions reached were consistent and based on facts. Findings Overview of performance Views expressed by stakeholders were overwhelmingly positive in respect to KEAP. Most stakeholders considered that the project had been very successful and had benefited their communities. The rating of the project implementation approach was very satisfactory. Of particular significance was its community driven-ness, inclusiveness, partnerships, collaboration and excellent relationships with key institutions. The project took a partnership approach that equitably involved the vulnerable members of the community, experts from the decentralized technical services departments, suppliers of food commodities or vendors, municipal boards as well as their mayors, and the World Vision staff. Communities played a very central role in the project and they were not just passive recipients. The approach recognized the community as a social and cultural entity with the active engagement and influence of community members in all aspects of project activities. While the period covered by the project was too short for some of its benefits to be fully realized, it was clear that the project had effectively responded to the urgent needs of the communities and developed some resilience to future external shocks. The design of the project was most appropriate because it was community-centered, flexible and therefore, responsive to circumstances on the ground, gender and culturally sensitive as well as inclusive. All communities that participated in the evaluation had developed a sense of ownership and always referred to it as their project. They took control of important processes such as identification of the most vulnerable members of their communities and monitoring of project activities. The flexibility in the design allowed the project to remain relevant through adapting to the situation on the ground. A review of the project management and implementation team composition as well as the practices pointed to the fact that a strong well qualified and dedicated team had been put in place to run the project. According to the Base Manager in Kiffa, the success of the project vi was largely due to the well-qualified and experienced dedicated team that implemented the project. The team’s efforts were enhanced by the feedback provided by different stakeholders who included regional staff of World Vision, regional staff of Food For Peace (FFP), World Vision US, the Learning Event of KEAP I, the Realignment Workshop of KEAP II and experts from the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment as well as Mayors and their Municipal boards. The monitoring and Evaluation Framework that was put in place generated a lot of valuable information and feed-back mechanisms that informed implementation decisions and kept the project moving on the right track. This is evidenced by the good quality reports produced. The project was very strong on collaboration with decentralized technical services departments of government and municipal boards. Activities and inputs of the different players were well coordinated and this led to greater effectiveness and efficiency in its delivery. Results Periodic reports compiled by the project staff indicate that most activities that were planned were carried out and most targets set were met. As recorded in the report of the 4th quarter, about 99% of the targeted vouchers were distributed, seed purchased was 284% of what had been targeted, all intended tools were purchased and distributed and the training in DRR was carried out. In some areas such as training in FMNR, targets were surpassed six times over. With women’s vegetable gardening groups, the number of beneficiaries the project set out to reach was surpassed, from an initial target of 50 groups with a total of 500 women members to 27 groups with total membership of 1987 women. The project’s inability to identify 50 groups and only manage 54% of the intended number should not be allowed to blur the huge achievement of reaching 1987 women instead of the planned 500 through fewer groups. Its ultimate objective was to reach at least 500 women and this it did plus much more. With regard to construction of structures such as dikes, half-moons, small earth dams and clearing road paths, most were undertaken to target. The establishment of firebreaks surpassed the target by 22%. Relevance The project was found to be relevant because it responded to felt needs and to the call for that type of assistance by the Government of Mauritania. It was in line with the government’s programmes and priorities. KEAP was implemented in response to a call by government for assistance to vulnerable people who had been affected by low rainfall, which resulted in poor or no harvests as well as loss of livestock. Reducing food insecurity was the major priority for vulnerable households. KEAP II had a recovery objective, which was in line with what reality on the ground demanded. The first phase of KEAP provided 4,070 vulnerable households with access to food as a response to the crisis that hit the Sahel region following a drought. While KEAP II continued with food distribution through a voucher mechanism, it also addressed the issue of recovery and strengthening resilience to external shocks such as droughts by constructing and rehabilitating community infrastructures such as dykes. These responses were most relevant to the prevailing circumstances and fell in line with priorities of vulnerable communities and those of government. Efficiency vii KEAP was adequately funded and the project was efficiently implemented. There was no evidence of poor financial management. A large portion of the funds directly benefited the targeted group. Support from the ADP and the PIDA Base coupled with collaboration with decentralized technical services departments enabled the project to achieve more with the available resources. KEAP did not set up new parallel structures but build on existing ones to implement project activities in communities. These well managed collaborative arrangements were a major contributory factor to the efficiency of the project. Every indication was that financial management was responsible and prudent. This was borne out by the absence of any major financial problem reported during project implementation or mentioned by stakeholders. The fact that a one-month no cost extension was possible without difficulty is testimony that finances were properly managed. Effectiveness The project was very effective in addressing the problem of food and nutrition insecurity among the most vulnerable people. Through Cash Based Food Vouchers, it made food accessible to vulnerable households and according to the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) report produced by the Accountability, Monitoring and Evaluation team in October 2013, about 97.4% of the food recipients used all of it for consumption purposes and only 2.5% admitted to selling some of it. Those that received food reported that the quantity they received lasted for an average of 25 days. The food is estimated to have met 50% of household daily energy requirement. Results from the quantitative survey conducted as part of the final evaluation indicated that the household hunger situation of participants had improved. About 45% of participants surveyed reported to have experienced little or no hunger in the preceding 12 months while the corresponding figure for non-participants was 24%. At the time of the baseline survey, only-26% reported having experienced little or no hunger. The evaluation quantitative survey found that more than 80% of both participants and non￾participating household members in the different age groups were having three or more meals a day. An interesting result to note was that participating households reported to have been spending 46% of their total expenditure on food while non-participants spent 49%. What this tells us is that participating households were redirecting some of their expenditure to non￾food items. No participant reported having borrowed in the preceding 12 months while 5% of non-participants did. However, in the PDM sample 56% of participants indicated that they did not borrow in the preceding 12 months. This huge variance could have been due to the different ways in which the question was presented in the two surveys. Drought, high prices and livestock diseases were reported to have been the major disasters that threatened both beneficiaries and non-participants in the preceding 12 months. However, DRR training had been conducted in their communities and it is hoped that this prepared them to better cope with the disasters. The training received in FMNR would also contribute towards strengthening community resilience. Impact One of the major impact areas of the project was improving access to food by the most vulnerable and therefore averting a looming crisis. The project did not only save lives but it also improved livelihood recovery for vulnerable households and increased their resilience. viii Disaster awareness for response was raised in all communities and preparedness strengthened. Half-moons and dikes made a great impact in increasing vegetative recovery of barren land. In areas where half-moons had been constructed, a change in the vegetation was observed, some non-participants were reported to have constructed them on their own land. The demonstration effects of these techniques were even evident in villages that had not directly participated in the KEAP activities. Key informant discussions with vendors revealed some unplanned or unintended benefits that accrued to the business community. The project created some market linkages that had not existed before its implementation. Some contracted vendors established distribution points in areas that had not had easy access to markets. They continued servicing those areas even after the closure of the project. A non-participating vendor reported that he had benefited from the KEAP because the project hired his transport to deliver tools and other items for distribution. An interesting impact area was gender awareness. The establishment of project, DRR and complaints and feedback committees and the insistence on women’s participation provided an opportunity for people to observe and appreciate their capability and the value they brought into the community initiatives. Most men reported that they were now appreciating women’s contributions in decision-making processes more than they did before. Sustainability Responding to a Post Distribution Monitoring survey question relating to the future of the community projects and their benefits after the close-out of KEAP II, 50% said the committee would maintain the projects and 42% said the project would be maintained by the whole village. In both cases they ascertained that the project would be sustained by the community. The women’s vegetable garden groups that participated in discussions reported that they were going to be able to sustain their activities and the benefits particularly because they had been equipped with new skills that would enable them to do so. They believed that their ability to multiply seed and their knowledge of composting, among other things, were the key determinants in the sustainability of benefits form KEAP. Village committees that had been set up, with the support of municipal boards and the decentralized technical services departments were going to ensure sustainability of the activities that were introduced by KEAP. Conclusion The overall assessment of the project was that it was highly satisfactory. The social mobilization around community projects was successful. Good ratings were achieved in increasing food access and the vegetable gardens where results of the use of some of the new techniques e.g. composting were beginning to show. Structures such as half-moons and dikes were also appreciated but their full benefits are yet to be realized. The evaluation makes a number of recommendations for strengthening similar interventions in the future. These include:  Strengthening capacity of village committees by providing intense leadership training; ix  Incorporating annual disaster planning and preparedness at village level and ensuring village committees in collaboration with municipal boards, take ownership of the processes;  Making a clear distinction between interventions targeted at the different vulnerable groups to ensure that they take into account their special circumstances. For example, interventions that require physically exerting work may not be the most appropriate for the elderly and physically challenged.  Developing a robust exit strategy that engages all key stakeholders;  Redesigning a third phase to focus more resources on recovery and resilience and implement it in a smaller geographical area building on KEAP activities. Greater priority should be given to provision of water for vegetable gardening.  Raise gender awareness among project staff and identify a champion to promote gender sensitivity;  Provide incentives to staff for mainstreaming gender. 1 1.0 Introduction This is an End of Project Evaluation of the “Kankossa Emergency Assistace Project I & II” funded by USAID and implemented in Kankossa District in the Assaba Region by the World Vision Mauritania from March 31, 2012 October 2013. The project was supported by the USAID to the tune of US$2,000,000.00 during the first phase while World Vision provided a match of US$200,000.00 and in the second phase USAID provided US$2,790 627.00 with a matching fund from World Vision amounting to US$275,995.00. The total amount came up to US$5 266 622.00. 1.1 Context The 2010-2011 growing season in the Sahel experienced adverse rainfall conditions, which resulted in crop failure and affected animal production negatively. In Mauritania, food production was estimated to have gone down by 75% from the previous season. This was particularly true in the most affected areas of the Eastern and Southern parts of the country. The prolonged drought which resulted in acute cereal deficits, cyclic and chronic household debt and depletion of livestock combined with a rise in prices of imported cereals and increased transportation costs to render many households food insecure. The Government of Mauritania estimated that 800,000 people were at risk. In December 2011, World Vision conducted a food vulnerability assessment in the affected areas in Mauritania and found that in many villages, particularly in the Assaba region, farmers did not plant anything at all or replanted and harvested nothing or as little as 30%. According to a nutrition assessment conducted by UNICEF in July 2011, malnutrition rates, particularly for children aged 6-29 months rose to as high as 39% for the Global Acute Malnutrition. In addition, there were serious fodder deficits and this had grave consequences for pastoral communities. Many livestock producers were forced to sell their weak and also young animals in an environment where the terms of trade were not favorable for them. The Government of Mauritania declared the situation a crisis and called for assistance. 1.2 World Vision’s response World Vision responded by implementing emergency assistance programs in the communes of Kankossa, Hamoud, Tenaha, Blajmil and Sani in Kankossa District in the Assaba region. In Kankossa District, World Vision assisted 4,070 vulnerable households through the Kankossa Emergency Assistance program (KEAP) which was supported by USAID/FFP under the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) mechanism, to provide life-saving food assistance to communities using food vouchers while strengthening resilience of communities to external shocks through Food Vouchers for Work (VFW) mechanism amounting to $1,332,111. The project was implemented during the period March 31, 2012 2 and October 31, 2013. There were two main activities, namely; 1) Unconditional CBFV for 3 months, in April, May and September, 2012 and; 2) Conditional CBFV for 3 months between June and August, 2012. In November 2012 World Vision Mauritania launched the second phase of the Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (KEAP II). The project aimed to provide food assistance to communities affected by the on-going food crisis while strengthening their resilience to external shocks. Through a Food Voucher for Work (VFW) mechanism 4323 HHs with 25 712 beneficiaries participated, in the Department of Kankossa, communes of Sani, Tenaha, Blajmil, Kankossa and Hamoud. In this 12-months, World Vision implemented a recovery program assistance where they received conditional food vouchers during 7 months. It covered the period November 31, 2012 – October 31, 2013 KEAP Objectives 1. To provide emergency food assistance to vulnerable households through CBVF 2. To create and rehabilitate community assets to enhance resilience through voucher for work (VFW) interventions. CBFV would provide the most vulnerable households with access to food assistance. KEAP II Objectives 1 To reduce chronic vulnerability of affected populations 2 To improve livelihoods recovery for affected populations To achieve the above objectives KEAP II implemented the following main activities: 1 Community Mobilization for Project Implementation & Ownership 2 Food Voucher for Work 3 Disaster Risk Reduction & Community Resilience 4 Vegetable Gardening & Health/Nutrition Messaging 5 Farmers Managed Natural Regenerations (FMNR) KEAP Purpose: In response to the current food crisis, WV proposed the Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (KEAP) to address the needs of 4,070 vulnerable HHs (approximately 24,420 individuals) in 5 communes in Kankossa District in Assaba. The program provided targeted HHs with 6 months of CBFV worth 15,000 UM ($54.55) per HH per month. KEAP II Purpose 3 The project was designed to address both chronic vulnerability (with the most vulnerable people receiving life-saving support) as well as the on￾going need to initiate and continue livelihood recovery. The project focused on recovery and resilience by selecting viable options to support long-term asset creation from existing community livelihood strategies. This was expected to result in reduced exposure to risks and strengthen HHs ability to improve their economic conditions and be able to adapt more effectively to shocks. It targeted the beneficiaries from the first KEAP phase plus 253 new households. 1.3 The End of Project Evaluation and its Objectives The End of Project Evaluation was conducted between October and November 2013. The overall objective of this study is to undertake a Final Evaluation of the Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (KEAP) Phase I and II to assess program achievements relative to the following program objectives:  To provide emergency food assistance to vulnerable HHs through CBFV  To improve livelihoods recovery for affected populations  To create and rehabilitate community assets to enhance resilience through voucher for work (VFW) interventions. The evaluation consisted of three components: 1) an assessment of the well-being of the vulnerable beneficiaries of KEAP; 2) an assessment of the capacities of communities to deal with future external shocks 3) an assessment of the management and implementation capacities/systems. The evaluation focused on providing an independent, systematic and objective assessment of the overall performance of the KEAP II Project including a review of the design, process of implementation and results vis-à-vis project objectives. The evaluation has taken into consideration the project’s relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. In addition, the evaluation documents processes, achievements, key lessons learnt, impact stories & case studies of the twenty-month program to support findings. 2. Methodology This section presents the methodology adopted for the evaluation. It starts with the design of the evaluation followed by sampling methods; data collection; process and data analysis. 4 2.1 Evaluation Design The design is integrated with, the review of project documents, quantitative survey; key informant interviews, focus group discussions and observation. The different data sources were used for triangulation to ensure greater consistency and accuracy. The quantitative survey constituted two sample groups, namely: 1) participants who were involved in the project activities and 2) non-participants, who may or may not have benefited indirectly but did not participate in the project activities. Statistics from the survey reinforce findings from documents, interviews and discussions. Data from the sample of participants is compared with that from the sample of non-participants to assess if there are any differences and also establish if there are any other factors that might explain changes that have occurred during the project period. Non￾participants were used as the control group. In addition, data from the survey will also be compared with data generated in the baseline study to assess the effect of the intervention over the KEAP implementation period. While the methodology chosen may not meet all requirements for controlling influences of extraneous variables it is still useful for generating results for general trends. Within the constraints of the available time and resources, this design was found to be most appropriate. 2.2 Sample size and Sampling Procedures A sample of 494 individuals; 297 beneficiaries and 197 non-beneficiaries from the five communes in Kankossa District was selected (see Table 1 below). Approximately 100 households were interviewed for the survey in each of the five communes. Table 1 Sex Communes Blajmil Hamoud Kankossa Sani Tenaha Total Participants Male 32 30 20 26 34 142 Female 25 39 40 25 26 155 Total 57 69 60 51 60 297 Non Participants Male 24 23 15 23 22 107 Female 14 22 25 11 18 90 Total 38 45 40 34 40 197 The evaluation adopted a multi-stage purposive sampling approach. In the first stage, 48 distribution points were selected using registers. Every second distribution point was selected starting from the top of the registers. For communes such as Kankossa and Sani, that had less than 10 distribution points, all of them ended up being included. The next stage involved a random selection of 100 villages serviced by the selected distribution points. This was done using the registers again by taking every middle village and then one or two others depending on the number of villages being serviced by the distribution points. Some distribution points were only servicing one village while others had as many as eight. 5 Higher numbers of villages were selected from those communes with relatively higher concentration of participants using the approach of picking the odd numbers starting from the top of the register for each distribution point. The final stage was the household level selection. Participant registers were used to select households when the team reached the villages. The reason for doing it was that in cases where participants had moved to other areas they had to be removed from the lists and that information could only be obtained in the villages. Table 1 shows that about 100 households were selected in each commune, about 60 being participants and close to 40 non-participants. For participants, this was done using registers and picking names at regular intervals. Non-participants were purposively selected depending on their availability. 2.3 Data Collection Primary data was obtained through the following:  Interviews using structured questionnaires to collect quantitative and qualitative data from beneficiary households;  Focus group discussions with households, community volunteers and lead farmers;  Key informant interviews;  Dialogues with community and opinion leaders;  Meetings and discussions with staff members of World Vision Mauritania Secondary Sources: The review and analysis of background literature and project reports was considered to be crucial. Document mapping was undertaken with the support of World Vision staff to ensure that all relevant project documents were accessible. In addition, literature on similar initiatives that have been successfully implemented elsewhere was reviewed in order to draw lessons. The following key documents were reviewed:  Baseline survey report  The Project Document  Grant Agreement KEAP Mauritania (summary)  Detailed implementation plans and reports  Periodic reports; Quarterly and monthly reports  Post Distribution Monitoring Reports  Reports from Learning Events 6  Program Updates 2.4 Process From November 1–8, 2013, the evaluator, assisted by a team of 14 enumerators, undertook the data collection in the field. About 297 questionnaires were administered by enumerators to Beneficiaries of KEAP I&II and 197 which were also administered for non-participants. The chief evaluator conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions guided by a set of questions for each category of major stakeholders. Visits to the project sites were undertaken to allow the evaluator to observe some of the work that had been undertaken by beneficiaries. Focus group discussions were conducted with women’s groups, project committees, complaints and feedback committees, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Key informant interviews involved experts from technical departments of the Ministries of Environment and Rural Development, Mayors of participating communes, vendors and staff of World Vision Mauritania. After the end of the data collection, two debriefing sessions were held; one at the Kiffa Base with Base Manager, Kankossa ADP Manager, Project Manager, base staff involved in the project management, a representative from the national office and the second one at the national office in Nouakchott. These sessions allowed for feedback on the findings and clarification as well as elaboration on various issues. Focus Group discussions and key informant interviews helped in developing a deeper understanding of processes and approaches, perceptions and behaviours, relationships, interactions and other factors which might have contributed to the achievement and/or non-achievement of targets. Discussions with staff of the project from World Vision and its partners helped to develop a deeper understanding of the project management and implementation processes. These discussions also assessed their capacity to support the implementation of the project. Using a structured questionnaire survey, the evaluation gathered data to describe the demographic structures of beneficiary households. It investigated the various ways that households met their food and income needs and the strategies they employed to cushion themselves from external shocks. The quantitative survey collected relevant data that was meant to facilitate comparison of some important indicators of success to determine impact against objectives. In the field, some of the data collected, was reviewed, contrasted and compared, allowing the evaluation to formulate a number of preliminary findings. The preliminary findings were presented to the project staff that accompanied the evaluation team in the field in order to verify some of the information obtained in the field and through project reports. 7 2.5 Data analysis Quantitative data collected through a structured questionnaire was entered into the computer using SPSS. The quantitative analysis focused on descriptive statistics to provide frequencies and measures of central tendency. The statistics were then compared with baseline statistics to assess the impact of the project on the lives of participating individuals. The evaluation employed the criteria of assessing relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact in terms of the project objectives, outputs, outcomes and results. Specifically the evaluation assessed the project delivery, implementation and process management. It documented some of the lessons and exemplary practices, ensuring that, weaknesses constraints and opportunities were also identified. 2.6 Limitations One of the challenges with this evaluation was that the project sites were sparsely distributed so that it was difficult for the qualitative survey to cover all communes. Secondly, it was difficult to do justice to the efforts and full achievements of the project because the period of intervention was very short and did not allow some of the potential benefits to be realized within the implementation period. One could only see the potential and not actual outcomes. While some specific effects or impacts of food access interventions could be easily attributed to KEAP, others such as increasing resilience through capacity development of community members and community infra-structural strengthening will only become evident after a longer period. 3.0 Results This section presents a summary of the findings from the quantitative survey. 3.1 Household Characteristics A sample of 494 households was chosen with 297 being participants and 197 non-participants. About 27% of participating households were headed by women while the corresponding figure for non-participants was 24%. This was in line with the baseline survey sample in which 26% of household heads were women. The average size of household for participants was 7.79 and 7.09 for non-participants. Children under the age of five years made up 30% of the households of participants and those between 5 and 18 years constituted 27% of participants. This means that 57% of household members were dependent children whi1e 15% were over the age of 60 years. The proportion of the households that was considered to be made up of the economically most productive was only 28%. The pattern was similar for non-participants whose percentage of household members under the age of 18 years also added up to 57%, with a higher percentage of people over the age of 60 years (18%) and a lower under 5 years percentage of 12%. 8 Variations between the household characteristics of the baseline survey sample and the KEAP Final Evaluation Survey sample are negligible except for the marital status of the head of household. The baseline survey found only 64% of heads of households married while the Evaluation Survey had 83% and 86% beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, respectively, to be married. The pie charts below show a very low education rate with quite a significant proportion with over 40% of both participants and non-participants never having been to school and only 33% having obtained primary basic education. The proportion that reached secondary school and University was insignificant. Level of education Figure 1 Figure 2 Primary or basic 33% Secondary 1% High school 1% Koranic 24% University 0% Never been to school 41% Level of education-Non participants Primary or basic 33% Secondary 2% High school 1% Koranic 19% University 1% Never been to school 44% Level of education -Participants 9 3.2 Asset Ownership Results in Table 2 below suggest that higher proportions of participating households owned the different types of livestock and farm implements than non-participants. However, the table also shows that there was greater asset movement among participants and most of it was negative resulting in lower average number of assets owned by households. Table 2 Assets Participants Non participants % who owned in 2012 # owned in Nov 2012 # currently owned Net asset movement % who owned in 2012 # owned in Nov 2012 # currently owned Net asset movement Camel 5% 2 2.22 0.22 4% 1.14 1.17 0.03 Cattle 55% 9.5 7.32 (2.18) 55% 9.16 8.42 (0.74) Goat/sheep 72% 15.22 13.08 (2.14) 67% 12.27 11.56 (0.71) Donkey 74% 2.14 2.32 0.18 43% 1.76 1.93 0.17 Horse 16% 1.34 2 0.66 14% 1.7 1.4 (0.30) Chicken 28% 4.38 7.16 2.78 25% 6.2 6.94 0.74 Cart 34% 1.05 1.04 (0.01) 25% 1 1 - Hoe 40% 1.09 1.1 0.02 32% 1.11 1.31 0.20 Wheelbarrow 8% 1.08 1.04 (0.04) 6% 1 1 - Plough 23% 1.07 1.07 - 15% 1.03 1.07 0.04 Rake 16% 1.06 0.97 (0.09) 16% 1 1 - Radio 22% 1.02 0.98 (0.03) 19% 1 1 - Phone 24% 1.19 1.13 (0.06) 30% 1.07 1.09 0.02 The main challenges facing these households and the issues that were being addressed by KEAP were food insecurity and vulnerability. To better understand the challenges, the survey looked at the sources of food to ascertain the vulnerabilities. For 72% and 71% of their food requirements, participants and non-participants depended on purchasing while own production only met 9% and 18% of the food consumed by participants and non-participants respectively. An insignificant proportion, 0.4% and 0.5% of food consumed by participants and non￾participating households was borrowed. 10 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 The above pie charts show that 45% of the KEAP participants experienced little or no hunger in the preceding 12 months while the proportion of non-participants were far less than that. At the time of the baseline survey which was during harvest period, only 26% of households indicated that they experienced little or no hunger. The proportion of non-participating households that reported to have experienced severe hunger was relatively high at 19% while that for participants stood at only 5%. Baseline statistics at that point show 13% of households experiencing severe hunger. However, 61% of households experienced moderate hunger at baseline while only 45% of non-participants and 40% of participating households experienced moderate hunger. The composition of the diet for participants and non-participants did not differ much in terms of food groups and according to age group. However, it is interesting to note that at the time of the survey participants had low diversity while non-participants for children under the age of two years had moderate diversity. The rest were similar except for non-participating pregnant women who reported a higher dietary diversity than participating pregnant women. With regard the number of meals per day, the table below shows that more than 80% of children between 25-59 months, for both participating and non-participating households had three or more meals per day. This was also true for other age groups. Pregnant women seemed to fare better among non-beneficiaries. 10% 5% 40% 45% Household hunger participants acute hunger severe hunger moderate hunger little or no hunger 12% 19% 45% 24% Househlod hunger non participants acute hunger severe hunger moderate hunger no hunger 26% 61% 13% Household hunger Baseline Little or no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger 11 Table 3 Participants Non participants Number of meals per day 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Mean 0-24 months 1% 25% 42% 32% - 3.07 3% 36% 35% 26% - 2.86 25-59 months 2% 12% 68% 18% - 3.05 1% 9% 72% 18% - 3.09 Pregnant women 5% 11% 70% 14% - 2.93 - 5% 76% 14% 5% 3.19 Lactating women 1% 12% 76% 8% 3% 3.02 2% 7% 87% 3% 1% 2.97 5-18 years 2% 14% 84% - - 2.84 1% 20% 77% 2% - 2.81 19-60 years 1% 17% 80% 2% - 2.9 1% 20% 78% 1% - 2.8 >60 years 9% 8% 82% 1% - 2.76 - 8% 88% 4% - 2.98 The following pie charts show that a major source of food for both participants (73%) and non-participants (72%) was purchase. Significant variations were observed in the proportion of food from own production and from food aid. About 5% of food consumed by non-participants was borrowed while beneficiaries hardly borrowed. Figure 7 Figure 8 72% 18% 5% 2% 1%2% Source of food non participants Purchase Own production Borrowed Received as gift Food aid Other 73% 9% 0% 2% 16% 0% Source of food Participants Purchase Own production Borrowed Received as gift Food aid 12 Levels of indebtedness for purchases of food tended to be higher for beneficiaries as shown in the table below. 3.3 Level of indebtedness Table 4 Final survey Participants Final survey non participants Amount borrowed for food consumption(Um) 73,900.00 67,400.00 Amount currently owed on food debt(Um) 54,100.00 44,700.00 The pie charts below show that there were three sources of borrowings and beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries followed a similar pattern. The major sources of borrowings were local market vendors who accounted for 69% and 60% of borrowings by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respectively. Relatives were next and then followed by friends. Figure 9 Figure 10 14% 26% 60% Source of food borrowings-Non participants Friends Relatives Local market vendor 10% 21% 69% Source of food borrowings-Participants Friends Relatives Local market vendor 13 The two histograms below show that there were differences observed between prices charged by participating vendors and those by non￾participating vendors. About 73% of the beneficiaries and 59% of non-beneficiaries reported the differences. Beneficiaries reported non￾participating vendors charging higher prices for all food products with the exception of beans while non-beneficiaries found non-participating vendors charging less for rice, beans and vegetable oil. Figure 11 Figure 12 3.4 Agricultural production A wide range of crops were grown by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The most widely cultivated crops were millet, beans and peanuts. The table below shows that for the bulk of the crops beneficiaries performed better than non-beneficiaries in terms of quantities harvested and the duration they would sustain them. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Prices Food products Food price variances- Non KEAP participants responses Prices by Participating vendors Prices by Non Participating vendors 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Prices Food products Food price variances - KEAP participants responses Prices by Participating vendors Prices by Non Participating vendors 14 Agriculture Table 5 Crop Participants Non Participants % who cultivated Quantity of harvest (kg) Duration it sustains them(months) % who cultivated Quantity of harvest (kgs) Duration it sustains them (months) Rice 2% - - 1% 15 1 Sorghum 13% 235 5.1 15% 196 4.53 Millet 60% 259 4 61% 221 4 Maize 46% 105 2.74 38% 128 3.26 Peanuts 55% 70 2.81 53% 83 2.67 Beans 67% 183 5.13 66% 73 3.61 Melons 27% 43 2.91 34% 40 1.55 The following pie charts show that food constituted the highest expenditure item in beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. However, the proportion spent on food was significantly higher for non-beneficiaries. 3.5 Expenditure patterns Figure 13 Figure 14 49% 13% 10% 7% 7% 14% Expenditure breakdown-non participants Food Clothing Health Transportation Telephone Household furniture 46% 15% 11% 7% 11% 10% Expenditure break down-participants Food Clothing Health Transportation Telephone Household furniture 15 3.6 Income sources The histogram below indicates that the major sources of income for beneficiaries were food aid followed by livestock production. For non￾beneficiaries, casual labor and livestock production were the major sources. Figure 15 Food vouchers were redeemed by beneficiaries who had identification cards over a period of fourteen months, for purchase of the four major food items as shown in the table below. Almost every beneficiary purchased rice and only 5% did not purchase cooking oil. 0.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 60,000.00 80,000.00 100,000.00 120,000.00 140,000.00 Amount (UM) Average estimated incomes Participants Non participants 16 3.7 Voucher expenditure pattern Table 6 Food products % who purchased food product Wheat 79% Rice 99% Beans 85% Cooking oil 95% About 99% of beneficiary households reported that their dietary diversity improved due to food vouchers. 13% of these beneficiaries reported to have received additional food aid from other sources. Some beneficiaries indicated that they had not received vouchers at any one point in time. The pie chart below provides reasons cited for not having received vouchers. Note that program reports that were reviewed did not reveal this. As will be shown later, program reports indicate that 99% of all cash based food vouchers were distributed. It is not clear why 14% of participants reported that they did not receive vouchers because they not available. All those who participated in focus group discussions indicated that vouchers were available at the time of distributions. If this was the case, participants who said that vouchers were not available might have been referring to the post KEAP period. 17 Figure 16 According to the reports, 54 vouchers were not distributed in the third quarter because the village did not complete the work for that period. 3.8 Participation in projects The table below shows the percentage of beneficiaries who participated in the following activities. In the areas where the survey was carried out, more participated in the building of dams and dikes as well as transplanting of Zizphus Mauritanium fruit trees, in half-moons than in other activities. Table 7: Participation in activities in the preceding 12 months Activities % of participants who took part in this activity Average # of months they participated in activity Half moon constructions 25% 5.38 Transplanting of Zizphus Mauritanium fruit tree seedlings in half moons 54% 5.29 No work performed that month 41% Vouchers were not available 14% N/A 45% Reasons for not receiving vouchers 18 Building dams and dykes 55% 5.51 Clearing alleys serving as firebreaks 12% 4.17 Deepening and renovation of wells 4% 3.67 In addition to the above activities, 73% of beneficiaries in the sample indicated that they had received training in the pruning of shoots. 3.9 DRR The most reported disasters in the last 12 months were drought, high prices and livestock diseases. This was true for both beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries as shown in the histograms below. 19 Figure 17 Figure 18 3.10 Result Areas Reported This section presents the results reported in quarterly reports. Under the first phase of KEAP, the objective was to distribute unconditional Cash Based Food Vouchers to 4,070 beneficiaries for three months between March 28 and July 29, 2012. Under KEAP II, which built on KEAP I, the first result area was early recovery with the strategic objective of reducing chronic vulnerability for affected populations. The table below shows that almost all, 99% of available vouchers were distributed within the twelve months of project implementation. However, their value was lower at 90% of the total value of vouchers. No targets were set for the volumes of the different food types since beneficiaries had a right choose the proportions that suited them as long as they picked the food items that had been identified for the project. - 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Drought High prices Livestock diseases Flooding Bushfire Percentage Type of disaster Did your household face these disasters in the last 12months-non participants Yes 0 No 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage Type of disaster Was the household affected by the following over the last 12 months￾Participants Yes No 20 Table 8 INDICATOR LOP TARGET QTR 1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 TOTAL % achieved Comment EARLY RECOVERY INITIATED IN TARGETED DISTRICTS OF ASSABA REGION IN MAURITANIA 1 Number of vouchers 30,261 0 4,322 12,918 12,969 30,209 99% Target achieved 1.1 Total value of vouchers $1,650,577 0 $235,765 $618,405 $634,757 $1,488,927 90% Target was almost achieved 2 Total Metric tons of food purchased by beneficiaries using vouchers No target 0 276.358MT 637.714MT 746.164455MT 1,660.236MT There was no target 2.1 Wheat No target 0 47.719MT 102.747MT 10.5816712MT 161.048 MT There was no target set 2.2 Beans (cow pea) No target 0 5.141MT 16.554MT 6.10721205MT 28.802 MT There was no target set 2.3 Oil No target 0 31.028MT 52.875MT 24.89437121MT 108.797 MT There was no target set 2.4 Rice No target 0 192.470MT 501.538MT 208.0011712MT 902.009 MT There was no target set 3 Number of hours worked 2,420,880 0 346 1,033,440 691680 1,725,466 71% Target was under achieved The second result area was the restoration and protection against degradation of arable land. The target was to restore 672 hectares of land and this target was met by the last quarter of project implementation. In this area, most targets were surpassed. The number of people trained in FMNR was more than six times the targeted. Half-moons, dikes, dams and road paths were constructed or rehabilitated. Table 9 Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1 – Arable land is restored and protected against degradation using Food Vouchers for Work INDICATOR LOP TARGET % Remarks 21 QTR1 QTR 2 QTR 3 QTR 4 Total 4 Area of land identified for protection and/or restoration 672 Ha 0 0 0 672 Ha 672 Ha 100% Target achieved 5 Number of structures constructed/ rehabilitated No target 0 147 projects -26 half moons -60 dykes -39 tree planting (sites) FMNR -14 firebreaks -6 rural roads -2 dams 0 0 94 There was no target 5.1 Half Moons 136 hectares 0 5 hectares 24 hectares 28 hectares 57 hectares 42% Target was under achieved (the LOP target had been overestimated) 5.2 Dykes 6607 linear meters 0 315.5 linear Meters 5,955.5 linear meters 484.5 linear meters 6755.5 linear meters 102% Target was achieved 5.3 Small Dams 1716 linear meters 0 100 Linear Meters 1467 linear meters 394 linear meters 1961 linear meters 114% Target was surpassed 5.4 Road Paths 28 Km 0 5 KM 22 KM 6 Km 33Km 117% Target was surpassed 5.5 FMNR with trees planting 175,000 seedlings transplanted 0 0 195,000 seeds planted in nursery 180, 000 trees transplanted 180,000 trees 102% Target was achieved (Due to interest shown by participants, a larger number of farmers were trained instead of five per village) Number of trees pruned No target 0 0 0 7523 7523 There was no target Number of persons trained in FMNR 147 0 0 0 982 people -532 female -450 male 982 668% Target was surpassed 5.6 Kms of fire breaks established 200 km 0 34km 131 km 79 Km 244 Km 122% Target achieved 22 One of the five activities planned for the project was to capacitate communities to manage risks. The targeted numbers of persons were trained in DRR and all five communes had developed and put in place Disaster Mitigation Plans. Table 10 Intermediate Result (IR) 1.2 – Community skills to manage risks are enhanced Indicator Target QRT1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4 TOTAL % Remarks 6 Percentage of beneficiaries (M/F) reporting understanding of the community evacuation or other disaster mitigation plans No target 0 0 0 0 0 There was no target 7 Number persons (M/F) trained in DRR 155 0 0 155 0 155 100% Target was achieved 7.1 Male 122 0 0 122 0 122 100% Target was achieved 7.2 Female 33 0 0 33 0 33 100% Target was achieved 8 Number of Community Disaster Preparedness Plans developed 5 0 0 5 0 5 100% Target was achieved 9 Number of Community Disaster Preparedness Plans in place 5 0 0 5 0 5 100% Target was achieved The project supported women’s cooperatives for vegetable gardening to improve livelihood recovery. It targeted 50 already established groups that had a membership of approximately 10 per group, making a total of 500 intended beneficiaries. The criteria for selection of groups included access to water and already existing groups that were dynamic. Most groups that met the stipulated criteria were constituted differently from what had been expected. Their membership ranged from 10 to 510. In some cases all women in a village were members of the village vegetable gardening group. The project was only able to find 27 groups that met most of the stipulated criteria but the total number of beneficiaries surpassed the target of 500 by far to reach a figure of 1987 women. Table 11 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE(SO) 2: Improved livelihood recovery for affected population Intermediate Result (IR) 2.1 – On farm business activities and production increased Indicator Target QTR1 QTR2 QTR 3 QTR4 TOTAL % Remarks 23 10 Number of Vegetable garden groups identified 50 0 0 27 0 27 54% Target was under achieved 11 Volume (MT) of seeds purchased under the vouchers system 0.1125MT 0 0 0.320MT 0 0.320MT 284% Target was surpassed (Some adjustments were made after a field visit by the agricultural inspector. The needs were found to be greater than what had been anticipated.) 12 Number of tools purchased under the voucher system 965 pieces (540 watering cans, 85 shovels, 85 diggers, 85 rakes, 85 wheelbarrows & 85 garden forks) 0 0 965 pieces (540 watering cans, 85 shovels, 85 diggers, 85 rakes, 85 wheelbarrows & 85 garden forks) 0 965 pieces (540 watering cans, 85 shovels, 85 diggers, 85 rakes, 85 wheelbarrows & 85 garden forks) 100% Target was achieved Table 12 Intermediate Result (IR) 2.2 – Promote nutritional skills and better management of gardens produce Indicator Target QTR1 QTR2 QTR3 QTR4 Total % Remarks 13 Number of demonstration plots established 5 0 0 0 0 0 0% Target not achieved 14 Number of participants trained (M/F) in improved garden management techniques 100 0 0 0 100 100 100% Target achieved 15 Number of field days training conducted 5 0 0 0 10 10 200% Target was surpassed (There were 2-day trainings per cooperative instead of one in order to address gaps that had been identified) 24 16 Number of health and nutrition trainings organized (i.e. exclusive breastfeeding, iron supplementation, de￾worming, diarrhea controls, vaccinations, etc.) 5 0 0 1 training in all 5 communes involving the topics of exclusive breastfeeding, iron supplementation, good hygiene practices, nutritional value of Moringa and diarrhoea control 0 5 100% Target achieved 25 4.0 Discussion of results An Overall Assessment of the Project Performance Views expressed by stakeholders were overwhelmingly positive in respect to KEAP. Most stakeholders considered that the project had been very successful and that progress towards recovery and strengthening resilience had been made. Its benefits were reported to be far reaching. The two mayors who were interviewed described it as the best project World Vision has ever implemented in the area. A non-participating vendor stated that; “--this project was very good because even though I was not participating I did benefit indirectly because my trucks were hired for delivery of commodities or tools”. A vendor supplying commodities at distribution points in Sani echoed the sentiments of the two Mayors and reaffirmed that KEAP was the best project World Vision had ever implemented in the area because it benefited everybody including the business community. Non- beneficiaries who were interviewed in Hamoud were also appreciative of the project because while they were not direct beneficiaries they still accessed some of the food because beneficiaries shared with their needy neighbors as was always the practice in most communities. A women’s cooperative that was involved in vegetable gardening in Kewella village, in Blajmil Commune ascertained that the whole village directly benefited from the project since all women in the village were members of the group. The technical experts in the Ministries of Environment and Rural Development reaffirmed what all the other stakeholders had stated. The Rural Development Inspector stated that expectations were met and there were lasting impacts made, especially, from the construction of half-moons. He considered mobilization of people around community projects to be a significant achievement and by implication to be of ultimate benefit to communities. While the period covered by the project was too short for its benefits to be fully realized, it was clear that the project had effectively responded to the urgent needs of the communities and helped them access the much needed food as well as develop some resilience to future external shocks. The design of the project was most appropriate because it was community￾centered, flexible and therefore, responsive to circumstances on the ground, gender and culturally sensitive as well as inclusive. All communities interviewed developed a sense of ownership and always referred to it as their project. They took control of important processes such as identification of the most vulnerable members of their communities. The flexibility in the design allowed the project to remain relevant through adapting to the situation on the ground. A review of the project management and implementation team composition as well as the practices pointed to the fact that a strong well-qualified and dedicated team had been put in place to run the project. According to the Base Manager in Kiffa, the success of the project was largely due to the well-qualified and experienced dedicated team that implemented the project. The monitoring and Evaluation Framework that was put in place generated a lot of valuable information and feedback mechanisms that informed implementation decisions and kept the project moving on the right track. 26 5.0 Assessment of Project Performance According to the Evaluation Criteria This section assesses the performance of the project using the recommended evaluation criteria. As shown in the discussion above, the evaluation found that all criteria were satisfied to a very large extent. In the main, stakeholders considered the project objectives to have been realized. 5.1 Relevance This project, which focuses on food security, is relevant because it addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and poorest people. It was a response to an urgent call for assistance by the Government of Mauritania, which had declared the situation a national crisis after the drought resulted in crop failure and a loss in livestock. The provision of food to the most vulnerable people in Assaba Region was the most appropriate response. According to one of the project staff members; “KEAP came at a very critical time. Without it there would have been a crisis.” KEAP related to the national policy framework and the Millennium Development Goal 1 whose aim is to reduce poverty and hunger. It fell within the development priorities of the country which regard food security as a major objective. The CBFV scheme made food available to vulnerable households whose safety nets had been drastically weakened by crop failures and loss of livestock in their communities. Some of the beneficiaries reported that the food they were able to access through CBFV enabled their children to attend school, which they would not have been able to do on empty stomachs. According to the Rural Development Inspector who was specifically involved with Market gardening and indirectly with dikes and dams, the chosen community projects addressed food insecurity in the immediate term. He ascertained that his involvement with KEAP facilitated greater coverage of his constituency in a context where experts from the Department of Rural Development were unable to adequately support rural communities in their livelihood activities because of lack of resources. It also facilitated greater integration of the project activities into the overall national program. The Environment and Sustainable Development Inspector for Kankossa, who provided technical supervision for tree planting, half-moons and fire breaks activities pointed out that the overall priority for his Department was fighting desertification. He reported that KEAP was very good in that it enabled them to introduce techniques which had been effectively used in other parts of Mauritania but not in the Assaba region. Techniques such as half￾moons fought desertification by allowing grass to grow because of the water that was harnessed. He further noted that the DRR activities which highlighted the importance of fighting bush fires were in line with his department’s national priorities. In order to stay relevant and sensitive to existing circumstances, the project implementation strategy was flexible and, therefore, made adjustments to accommodate realities on the ground. For example, the project document stipulates that 50 well established, dynamic women’s gardening cooperatives composed of ten members will be selected for participation. Realities on the ground showed that the assumption that there existed women’s groups which had membership sizes of about ten was not necessarily correct. Membership ranged very widely and the project had to build on what existed rather than prescribe. 27 Another example of the flexibility of the implementation strategy relates to seed fairs. The original plan was to hold fairs where any interested vendors would bring their seeds and display them for representatives of women’s groups to see and purchase from different vendors who supplied commodities of their choice. When WV realized that seeds were not that readily available on the market they chose to procure the seed and distribute to the intended beneficiaries to make sure they all were able to access them. With regard the gender composition of committees, the project had directed that committee membership should include at least two women. This was not strictly adhered to where it created problems because of prevailing cultural practices. However, communities found ways of complying with the requirement of women’s participation in committees. In one village which was considered conservative, women did not participate in the DRR committee because responsibilities of this committee required that members be called away to manage bush fires at any time that the emergency arose. Older women in that village voiced out their disapproval of younger women’s involvement in such activities. To avoid the problem of not complying with the project requirements, the community decided not to be in conflict with cultural practices. It thus put more women in the project committee and excluded them from the DRR committee. This resulted in the DRR committee having no women members and the Project committee having four women and one man who was made chairman. The total number of women in the two committees was four, meeting the overall minimum desired number for the two committees. The identification of the most vulnerable people by the village committees was most appropriate because they understood their circumstances better than outsider. The village committees followed set criteria which clearly targeted the most vulnerable people. According to non-beneficiaries that were interviewed, the selection of beneficiaries was transparent and any exclusion of deserving people was due to limitations imposed by numbers that could be accommodated in the project. Promoting activities that strengthened people’s resilience to external shocks was most appropriate because the country’s population is largely dependent on crop and animal production and it experiences low rainfall and faces periodic droughts. Well deepening, construction of half-moons and dykes contribute towards strengthening resilience. The non￾seasonality of some of the vegetables that were grown ensured availability of different food types throughout the year. The project’s emphasis on restoring and protecting arable land against degradation as well as harnessing water through construction and rehabilitation of half-moons, dikes and dams is most appropriate for communities that have depended on rain fed agriculture in very fragile areas that are prone to recurring mid-season droughts. The linkages that have been created with the municipal boards, decentralized technical services departments integrate them into the national development framework. With regard to DRR activities, collaboration with Municipal Boards and their mayors ensured that they were well integrated with the emergency preparedness activities that were promoted by government through the local authorities. The production of Emergency Preparedness plans at the commune level, with the input of communities and combining local knowledge systems with the formal systems gave more relevance to the activities. 28 The key indicators of the project were the average household hunger scale (HHS) and the household dietary diversity (HDDS). These were relevant since the intervention was responding to a food crisis by addressing food and nutrition insecurity challenges. Most other indicators were appropriate for measuring progress towards achievement of objectives of improving recovery and strengthening resilience. They adequately captured community members’ realities and perspectives. 5.2 Program Efficiency KEAP was a well-funded project, amounting to a total of $5 266 622 for the two phases including match funding. The match funding was used primarily for community projects while the grant supported cash transfers in the form of food vouchers and operational costs. The project was very well implemented in a cost effective manner with the bulk of the budget directly benefiting the vulnerable people and members of their communities. About 61% of the total budget for the first phase went directly to cash based food vouchers. The project had huge direct and indirect benefits to communities and 54% of the budget for KEAP II went to food voucher transfers. In addition, women’s gardening cooperatives received vouchers for tools for their gardens while communities received 965 tools which they used for the construction of the different structures. Of note is the fact that these tools remained in communities under the custodianship of village committees to be used for maintenance work after the project ended in the objective to ensure project’s maintenance. There were no indications of poor and wasteful management. Every indication was that financial management was responsible and prudent. This was borne out by the absence of any major financial problem reported during the project implementation. No stakeholder mentioned any financial irregularity. The fact that a one month no cost extension was possible without difficulty is testimony that finances were properly managed.  Support structure for KEAP project The World Vision Mauritania office provided effective support to the project. During the course of the final evaluation the Strategy and Innovation Director joined the evaluation team in the field and demonstrated an in depth knowledge of the activities in the communities. Reports on the visits to project sites by people from the WVM offices and representatives of development partners showed that the project was being closely monitored and there was a lot of information flow among the key stakeholders. The PIDA Base and ADP offices provided both material and logistical support to the project whenever there was a need. In particular, the ADP in Kankossa provided the project with office space, transport and took over most of the expenditure items that were not budgeted for. Some were unforeseen and others were due to adjustments that had to be made in order to adapt to realities on the ground. On the whole, human, financial and material resources were adequate and were used efficiently. The support from the ADP Office allowed the project to channel more resources into communities without compromising management and implementation processes. The ADP was involved in the project right from the beginning. It put in place the local project staff and helped facilitate linkages with government decentralized technical services departments. Budget processes for the food security output for example, were done collaboratively. Another area of close collaboration was in the planning of where to support 29 with fencing and wells. The ADP’s knowledge of the infra-structure in the communities was valuable in the planning of activities. The integration process with the ADP which was permanent in the communities was successful and this would ensure sustainability of benefits from the intervention. The ADP played a very active role in the redesign of KEAP moving into KEAP II. In the communes, ADP was involved in a number of processes to the extent that some beneficiaries could not make a distinction between KEAP interventions and those of the ADP. While this might be viewed as the inability of the project to fully raise awareness of beneficiaries, it can also be viewed in a positive light as successful integration of WV initiatives. Effective communication systems are crucial for the success of a collaborative project with numerous stakeholders such as is the case with KEAP. Observation in the course of the final evaluation and the available project documentation indicated that the WVM national office, the Kiffa Base, Kankossa ADP and the project office communicated regularly on project related issues. Similarly, links with municipal boards and technical services departments and communities were quite strong. Stakeholders such as vendors confirmed that WV staff visited them regularly. The Project Manager and the various coordinators, through the field staff, kept a constant flow of information between communities and the various levels of project implementation. The flow of information was greatly enhanced by forward and backward feed-back mechanisms that were in place. The sound collaborative arrangements that were established contributed to greater efficiency in implementing the project. Collaboration with WFP, particularly in the first phase, with the ADP and the PIDA Base, technical services departments, municipal boards and village committees allowed for not only the spreading of risk but also costs, which enabled the project’s financial inputs to realize greater outputs and more outcomes. Inputs from the collaborating entities were well coordinated making it possible to accomplish planned tasks despite challenges posed by the vastness of the area to be covered, inaccessibility of some sites and the fact that two communes, Tehana and Blajmil were not part of the ADP areas. An important factor contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration and coordination was the quality of the project staff. As indicated earlier, the project was supported by well￾qualified and experienced international and local staff. The organogram for the project indicates that it had appropriate human resources with about 21 full time project staff and six senior level people that were not 100% KEAP staff but were providing support to it. They brought in different skills and experiences which enriched the project. The organizational structure which had the Project Manager, the DME and Accountability Manager supported by four coordinators and eight field staff was suitable for meeting the demands of the project implementation. In addition, KEAP activities were supported by well-qualified and experienced experts from the decentralized technical services departments. The Rural Development Inspector had 28 years of experience in development work. The use of experts from the technical services departments in providing the training as well as the involvement of municipal boards and local committees in monitoring and supervising activities on the ground enhanced the capacity of the project to deliver to communities. It resulted in the capacity development of not only the communities but also the municipal boards that will help sustain the benefits. 30 The fact that the project provided communities with tools to construct dikes, half-moons, dams and clearing road paths, involving them in activities that helped them meet their strategic needs, ensured more secure livelihoods. Capacitating them with new skills and techniques meant that the project would have more long-term benefits which will cascade to succeeding generations. Because benefits were spread in terms of numbers of people, returns on this investment are very high. KEAP used resources efficiently in efforts to equip community members with skills and techniques because it brought the required training to them. Members of a women’s vegetable cooperative in Kankossa reported that before WV came, they had to go to Kiffa for training. The project staff prepared monthly implementation plans which were informed by the previous month’s activities and performance. The on-going planning process allowed for adjustments and modifications to targets in response to realities on the ground. This approach was appropriate because it allowed the project to remain relevant. 5.3 Effectiveness The interventions were designed to provide emergency food assistance to vulnerable people and enhance their food security, improve livelihoods recovery for affected people and create and rehabilitate community assets to enhance resilience of vulnerable communities. Evidence from periodic monitoring reports, surveys and feedback from beneficiaries and other stakeholders suggest that the project was able to achieve what it set out to do since the activities that were chosen were consistent with the stated overall goals and objectives. Giving food access to vulnerable households and improving their livelihood recovery while strengthening their resilience to external shocks were realistic attainable objectives that could be achieved through the chosen interventions. The implementation of market gardening activities was meant to speed up livelihoods recovery and ensure food security and improved welfare for children. Evidence from the field indicates that this objective was achieved. The project focus was on food access and vulnerability to environmental variability. It was concerned with knowledge gathering at different levels. At the level of the community, the activity level, policy action areas such as DRR were identified and thus the strong support from government decentralized technical services departments and municipal boards. The activities brought together local knowledge and formal techniques while at the level of WV staff and project stakeholders generated and gathered knowledge at learning events. Monitoring and Evaluation The project put in place a very strong monitoring and evaluation system which is evidenced by the good quality periodic reports that were produced, monitoring visit reports by World Vision and FFP staff, reports on the assessment of the implementation of recommendations by FFP, the HHS and HDDS report, the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) reports as well as the Market Based Food Security Monitoring (MBFSM) report. A visit by FFP representatives was undertaken between August 31 and September 1st to monitor the implementation of recommended corrective actions. These visits and the reports produced fostered organizational learning and enhanced planning and management. In some instances, M&E results lead to changes in the original targets and the modification of indicators and opinions. 31 The periodic project reports were timely and thorough in coverage and they have provided an essential record of activities for the purpose of this evaluation. The principal elements of M&E operated well. The system was effective because project activities were designed in detail at inception and were explicitly linked to specific indicators. Thus the project could be adequately monitored to the activity level. Monthly action plans, KEAP status and way forward reports, programme updates as well as Monthly Narrative reports were important in ensuring that the project remained focused on meeting its objectives and goals. Field monitors were present in communities and according to some of the beneficiaries they visited them at least once a month. Considering the vast area covered by the project, World Vision staff showed a high level of commitment. The project had four field monitors who were the link with communities. The Humanitarian Accountability Officer, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, DRR Coordinator and VFW Coordinator also visited project sites quite regularly since they were involved in capacity building and monitoring activities. The two mayors that were interviewed confirmed that their municipal board representatives visited project sites particularly those concerned with DRR. The project had well designed and effective M&E systems which allowed a lot of information flow using numerous feedback mechanisms such as periodic reports from the M&E team, monitoring visits by staff and partner representatives, post distribution surveys, market based food security survey, learning events and training events. Monitoring visits by M&E and staff and other visitors extended to participating vendors. Capacity building was an integral part of the monitoring and evaluation objective. Each monitoring and evaluation stage or process was an intense learning experience for all those involved. It enhanced accountability and supported sustainability through community and leadership development, creating a core of people who were committed to the initiative. Communities played an important role of monitoring the work carried out under the VFW activities. They ensured that beneficiaries carried out and completed their tasks. The setting up of complaints and feedback committees ensured that concerns of beneficiaries were taken into consideration in the process of the project implementation. These committees protected the interests of beneficiaries. In cases where they felt there were irregularities or the vendor was not abiding by the provisions of the contracts they had signed with WV, complaints and feedback committees took up the issues with project staff. For example, a committee in a village in Hamoud reported that at one point when their vendor raised the prices of some commodities the committee made a complaint to World Vision staff because they believed that the vendor was in breach of a contract. They were happy to find out that the vendor had not raised prices unilaterally but in consultation with World Vision. Sensitization meetings held at the start of the project were very critical in getting community buy-in and ensuring active involvement by community members. Learning events presented valuable opportunities for sharing experiences. They were platforms for intense learning from project activities, processes, interactions, relationships and collaboration. The major outcome of these learning events was to enrich future projects and programs. A weakness was noted in some of the indicators used. The use of linear meters as a unit for measuring progress in the construction of dams did not appear practical because it did not 32 adequately reflect the communities’ perception of benefits from constructing dams. Communities were concerned about ability to access volumes of water and not the length of the source of water. The conclusion is that the measure is not the most suitable as a basis for evaluating the project. A more appropriate indicator that captures realities and perspectives of community members would measure the dams constructed or rehabilitated in terms the quantity and capacity. There is need to simplify units of measurements to make it easier for the various stakeholders to have an appreciation of how the intervention benefits. Significant achievements Tables depicting performance of the project in reported result areas as well as photographs of the vegetable garden in Kewella and the half-moons with grass growing clearly provided visible evidence of the project’s effectiveness. It produced the expected or planned outputs within the agreed timeframe. It strengthened community resilience by equipping them with techniques and skills to better cope with future external shocks. Although they were not expecting good harvests, their new nutritional knowledge would help them utilize the limited available food more effectively. The training in vegetable production which covered composting and seed multiplication was very valuable and some members of the group reported that they were already seeing benefits from composting. Their ability to multiply seeds was reducing their dependence on external support and enabling them to sustain their livelihood activities. The project was very successful in mobilizing communities around projects that benefited all members. Sensitization meetings brought members of communities into the project at an early stage allowing them to participate in some of the planning processes. Members of the communities who were elected into committees were empowered by taking the responsibility of leading important processes such as identification of beneficiaries. One of the committee members who participated in discussions in Oudeycheieb Village in Kankossa reported that he had noted an increase in social or community support to vulnerable households. The use of cash based vouchers contributed towards strengthening local markets as was reported by one of the participating vendors; “One of the best things that the project did was not to bring vendors from Kiffa”. He felt that by using local vendors to supply the required commodities the project helped in growing their businesses. Communities identified bush fires as posing a serious threat to their livelihoods because they destroyed their crops. Therefore, one of the important responsibilities of the DRR committees was to manage the bush fires. This involved committee members being called away from their homes at any time there was a fire. Mayors and project participants confirmed that DRR committees had effectively carried out their duties. According to a representative of the Ministry of Environment, half-moons were going to have a lasting impact. In one village, an old man was reported to have confessed to never having seen grass growing at the site where half-moons were constructed in all his seventy years of living in the area. He had to go there and see it with his own eyes to believe that it was possible. The sight of grass growing in the area brought hope to members of the community. Some believed it will lead to the reduction of vulnerability and contributed towards achieving the goal of poverty reduction. 33 Gender One of significance changes that was easily observed was the visibility of women in the community leadership. While one may argue that the inclusion of women in committees was imposed on communities by the project, it is instructive to note that when women participated in committee work, their contributions were appreciated by community members. The attitudes of both men and women in communities became positive towards women’s involvement in leadership positions. Some male committee members in a village in Hamoud reported that they were happy to have women on the committees because they were more dependable than men since they were always available while men sometimes migrated to Mali to seek casual work. Another male committee member in Hamoud pointed out that women were more reliable financial managers and therefore it was important that they become part of the community leadership. The design of the project itself took cognizance of gender roles and targeted women for initiatives that directly addressed food insecurity. While most beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries reported that men were responsible for ensuring that there was food in the homes, they admitted that the responsibility often shifted to women in the event of a crisis. In villages visited in Hamoud, it was women who went to fetch wild millet to make porridge for children. They also fetched wild fruits to sell and raise money to buy other types of food. It is also the women that had responsibility for the effective utilization of available food. Providing support to women in vegetable gardening groups was responsive to their gender roles. The training they received in farm management and business planning, the preparation of seedbeds, the transplanting and monitoring ensured that they could sustain their production operations and run them as businesses. Nutrition and health messages helped improve their utilization of the available food and their appreciation of the importance of different food groups for the well-being of their children and families in general. The introduction of new types of vegetables and the promotion of the Moringa tree contributed to the dietary and nutritional status of members of participating communities. Discussions with women’s vegetable gardening cooperatives revealed that they viewed their activity as one that empowered them economically. Some of them reported that the most important contribution of vegetable gardening was cash income generation. The group that was interviewed in Blajmil highlighted the importance of their garden in dietary diversification while the Kankossa group emphasized the cash income that enabled them to invest in other economic activities such as sewing items for sale. Dietary diversity Results from the HHS and HDDS survey carried out in June 2013 showed an improvement in the diversity of their diet. The composition and number of meals per day improved during the project implementation period. While the changes in the key indicators, the HHS and HDDS did not appear to be very significant, people strongly believed that there was a lot of improvement. Beneficiaries in a village in Hamoud reported that they normally take two meals per day and children can take three if there are left overs from the previous day. This was their normal pattern in the absence of food distributions. Data from the quantitative survey undertaken during the evaluation and covering the period of project implementation shows that over 80% of beneficiary households reported that they enjoyed three or more meals per day. 34 The change between the indicators during the baseline survey and the HHS and HDDS survey was not significant because the baseline survey was undertaken during the harvesting period when different types of food were available. Most households indicated that their harvests only lasted for three to four months and this means that the timing of the survey influenced the results which seem to suggest that the intervention did not bring about significant improvements in the diet composition. However, results from the evaluation survey indicate some improvement because only 15% of beneficiaries reported to have experienced acute or severe hunger while the corresponding figure for non-beneficiaries during the same period was 31%. Considering that beneficiaries constituted some of the most vulnerable people in their communities, it is remarkable that the proportion that reported to having experienced acute and severe hunger was half that of non-beneficiaries. Adherence to standards The project adhered to external standards for quality by taking steps to ensure that the most vulnerable people received assistance. KEAP I’s focus on emergency food assistance was in recognition of the principle that the humanitarian imperative comes first. Conditional cash based food vouchers reduced vulnerability to future disasters as well contributed towards the basic needs by restoring land to productivity. DRR activities, whose main focus was on building disaster response capacity in communities, were in line with the principles of conduct. The project respected culture and custom and did not impose its own values. This was evidenced by the efforts made by the international staff to adopt some of the cultural practices and blend into the local society. The project was community centered and beneficiaries were involved in the management of the CBFV assistance through their committees. They were not passive recipients because they were consulted, sensitized and participated in discussions that influenced the delivery of the project. Based on the evidence provided above, the baseline figures as well as data collected from non-beneficiaries, we can say with certainty that this project was effective in improving access to food, livelihoods recovery and increasing household and community resilience to external shocks. However, it is believed there were some areas that could be improved. The view of the evaluation is that construction or rehabilitation of small earth dams did not make a strong impact. According to reports, only two dams were constructed. Project reports that were available to the evaluation team failed to effectively put forward the community perceptions of the value of dams. Yet all people involved in the project at community level emphasized the importance of water for livestock production and agricultural activities. While the evaluation did not come across clearly stated targets for dam construction, the expectation was that it would be given much greater priority since unavailability of water for agricultural and livestock activities was one of the major constraints faced by communities. None of the communities visited had constructed or rehabilitated dams so it was difficult to assess their impact. 5.4 Impact Main factors in the successes of the project were the enthusiastic attitude and support of stakeholders, excellent coordination and team work, good quality stakeholder involvement, good timing particularly for food distribution and the fact that the project was responding to realities on the ground and was addressing felt needs. 35 Vendors’ perspectives The objective of making food accessible by the most vulnerable through CBFV was achieved because all key stakeholders had bought in to the project and believed it was for the good of their communities. Vendors who normally would aim to maximize profits reported that profit maximization was not the most compelling factor. One of them reported that profit margins were small because they were bound by the contract and often charged prices that were lower than what obtained on the market. Furthermore, he ascertained that the volume of business brought in by vouchers was not very significant since all selected vendors were well established and relatively big. However, his main reasons were that he believed it was a good project which would benefit vulnerable communities in which he was operating. He also wanted to build relationships with World Vision for future collaboration in various areas. A non-participating vendor reported that he would be keen to participate in such a project because World Vision honored agreements. Vendors were paid on time when they submitted vouchers that had been redeemed. A participating vendor reaffirmed this when he highlighted that the agreed negotiated prices were often lower than prevailing market prices. However, he still believed he benefitted from his involvement because the system allowed him to sell large volumes at a given point in time to clients who paid in good time. It was clear that timeliness of payment was a key incentive for vendors to supply required commodities in sufficient quantities at agreed places. Vendors’ ability to deliver was a key factor in the achievement of the improved food access objective. Community awareness for response to disaster Communities, through their participation in COVACA meetings made their input into the development of DRR activities. The approach in disaster preparedness was to integrate local knowledge or practices with the formal ones the project was bringing. Communities were requested to list and explain their early warning systems. This information was integrated into the national, regional and local systems. The Hakem was a member of the Regional DRR committee while WVM was a member of the national committee at which information was shared. It was reported that the Hakem’s office had contact details of members of DRR committees who he called upon when such disasters as bush fires were reported. The existence of functional disaster preparedness committees and their continued activity after project completion indicates improved community preparedness for response. In addition putting in place Disaster Preparedness Plans in the five communes suggests that there is some awareness of the need for preparedness. The evaluation did not get a good idea of how well people understood the community evacuation or other disaster mitigation plans. While this was identified as an indicator, quarterly reports did not adequately report on it despite the fact that 155 people were trained in DRR and all communes had Disaster Preparedness Plans in place. The Post Distribution Monitoring survey, however, reported that 84% of the beneficiaries had received information on DRR from World Vision. They confirmed as well that they had developed their Disaster Preparedness Plan and EWS. In communities, all stakeholders involved demonstrated some knowledge of some of the disaster responses. This particularly came through in discussions with beneficiaries and their committees. They articulated the role of the DRR committee and its importance to their community. Bush fires were identified by many as some of the most common disasters that occurred and damaged their environment. Committee members indicated that they had been called to attend to a bush fire at one point or another. Construction of fire breaks was evidence of preparedness for response. 36 While all five communes had Disaster Preparedness Plans, there did not appear to be a connection between these plans and any similar plan at the village level where the implementation was taking place. Efforts to get a sample of a community Disaster Preparedness Plan did not yield results. One project staff member indicated that written plans were not available at village level. They were only in place at Commune level. However, committees were clear on what their responsibilities were. DRR activities were evident at the village levels but discussions with committee members indicated that most people were not aware of the existence or content of the Plans. They were not able to make the connection between their activities and the plans that were developed at the commune level. Some reported that they had not been involved in the development of those plans. The evaluation was not able to observe or find evidence of any processes that pointed to the community participation in the formulation of the plans. Meeting project objectives The project was successful in meeting all four objectives because it facilitated access to food by 4,323 households with 25,712 vulnerable people during a time of crisis. By providing them with food, the project reduced their vulnerability to external shocks. It created and rehabilitated community assets such as dams, road paths, dykes, firebreaks and half-moons to enhance resilience through VFW interventions. Restoring degraded land to productivity and improving access to water would reduce vulnerability and result in people being able to produce a wide variety of crops and vegetables improving their access to food and cash income from sales. Supporting women’s vegetable gardening groups helped improve livelihoods recovery for affected communities. Identified activities were sufficient to achieve the objectives. Some positive changes in the lives of the target group were reported and observed at the sites visited. Improved hygiene practices, washing hands before handling food were some of the commonly observed practices that had been reported. There was greater appreciation and use of such products as Moringa tree for improved nutritional and health status. Women in Kewella village were very passionate about the Moringa tree and were growing a new generation of trees following the success of the first generation. They reported that they had hoped that KEAP would help them establish another garden at a different location so that they would dedicate the existing one to Moringa trees. One of the project staff members reported that Kewella had been identified as a village with no malnutrition problem. Another staff member of WVM ascertained that the number of malnourished children was insignificant. It was interesting to observe women’s active and vocal participation in focus group discussions. In Blajmil, where men often migrated to neighbouring Mali for casual labour, women appeared to be more empowered in terms of their participation in community decision-making processes. In Hamoud, women’s high level of involvement in the project committee, where they constituted 80% of the membership, placed them in a position to influence decisions and actions. The fact that there is an indication that project committees will not disband after project completion but continue to represent communities in other ensuing interventions suggests that women will continue to play an influential role in their communities. 37 An important issue that was addressed at the vegetable garden in Kewella was that of drudgery of women’s work and time poverty. WV assisted this group by establishing a number of basins (water points) within the garden bringing the water nearer to plants and thus reducing the effort and labour time required to water the garden. This technique was gender responsive in that the water points were appropriate for use by women because they could easily reach the water and they were able to perform their work without seeking assistance from men. The Kewella group garden is a model garden with flourishing vegetable plants. There are also very diverse types of vegetables and trees grown in the garden. (see photograph below) Figure 19 Figure 20 In contrast, at another vegetable garden in Kankossa the evaluation team found only men doing the watering because women could not reach the water. The well was too deep and getting water out of it required a lot of physical labour. Men were, therefore getting more involved in the women’s gardening activities and there was a danger of them taking control. The women at this garden reported that they had hoped that this intervention would address their problem with the well. Unintended effects of project implementation The project had numerous unintended positive impacts e.g. business opportunities for non￾beneficiary vendors. The project’s distribution of food, seed and tools created a demand for transport. This benefited local transporters. One of the non-participating vendors, who was in the transport business, reported that his trucks had been hired to transport items to various points. The two beneficiary vendors ascertained that during the project implementation period they established outlets in some areas they had not been operating in. On distribution days, non￾beneficiaries and local vendors came to buy from them improving access to food by a large number of people. After the project ended they continued operating in those areas supplying commodities to local shops. These were relationships that had been started through the CBFV and had been sustained after the project ended. It was an unplanned contribution towards 38 market development which benefitted the affected communities and the vendor or who was a wholesaler. Negotiated prices were always lower than the prevailing market and this would have the effect of pushing down prices charged to non-beneficiaries. Since prices were negotiated at the beginning and could only be raised or changed when there was good justification to do so and in consultation with World Vision, this had the effect of stabilizing prices in general. In some communities, some non-beneficiaries were reported to have adopted the half-moons, capacity building of non-beneficiaries who embraced the technique of half-moons and had constructed them on their land. Although they had not participated in the training provided by the project, they were assisted by some of the beneficiaries who had been trained. Factors affecting project outcomes Poor rains during the implementation of the project affected the outcomes of the project most negatively. Half-moons, dikes and dams that were constructed or rehabilitated required rain for them to make a positive impact on people’s lives. Adequate rainfall was a very important determinant of their livelihood security. Communities were not able to adequately appreciate the benefits of such water harvesting techniques as dikes, small earth dams and half-moons due to lack of rain. Similarly, the planting of trees of economic value was affected negatively. It was equally difficult to establish any demonstration plots for training without adequate rains. According to the Rural Development Inspector, inadequate field support for experts in the technical services departments hindered the ability to provide all the required technical input for project activities. 5.5 Sustainability A very important element in project implementation that ensures sustainability of benefits after termination is the buy-in of permanent local institutions. These institutions can integrate project processes, techniques and principles into their broader programs. The technical Services departments in relevant ministries worked very closely with WVM in this project. Municipal Boards were actively involved in supervising project activities. These institutions will remain working with these communities sustaining the benefits from the KEAP. The Rural Development Inspector was optimistic about the continued support of his Ministry. He believed that there are currently serious resource constraints hindering the ministry’s support to rural communities, things were going to be changing in the foreseeable future in a way that is going to sustain benefits from KEAP. Below is his explanation of what is happening to create the impression that the ministry is addressing capacity bottlenecks to allow for greater support to rural communities. 39 A very important ingredient for sustainability is the capacity building of individuals and local institutions such as the project committees. Local people will remain applying techniques they learnt and using their nutrition, hygiene and health knowledge they gained. Their enhanced risk management skills will serve their communities well after the termination of the project. Village committees indicated that they would continue mobilizing and organizing communities around other community projects to come. The technical expert from the department of Rural Development will continue to provide support to women’s vegetable gardening groups. He will advocate for greater priority to be given to increasing access to water. He was more positive about continued engagement because the national government was paying more attention to agriculture and was reviving institutional arrangements that had been in place to support rural communities but had been abandoned because of lack of resources. Municipal boards, all of which have Disaster Preparedness Plans in place pledged to forge closer relationships with communities and further strengthen capacities of DRR committees. All representatives of the decentralized technical services departments and municipal boards were aware that sustainability of benefits of KEAP depended on the support they continued to give to communities and on their integrating building upon KEAP interventions. Mayors, on behalf of their municipal boards, expressed a keen interest in carrying the DRR activities forward. The strong collaboration with municipal boards and decentralized technical departments demonstrated that the project had successfully assured government buy-in and support. In the DRR initiatives, the project got a lot of support from the Environment Technical Department, Agricultural Inspectorate, the Mayor’s office and the National Education Inspectorate, which played a key role in awareness raising in schools. When training in DRR was being conducted, the Environment, Education and Agricultural Inspectorates facilitated and they played a huge part in sensitization. Members of women’s vegetable gardening cooperatives were asked if they had concerns about the termination of the project. The most frequently reported response was that they would be able to sustain their initiatives since they were able to multiply their seeds and to prepare composts. Similarly members of project committees felt that they would still have an important role to play by providing leadership and mobilizing as well as organizing people around community interests. These committees became the custodians of tools that were distributed for the construction of structures that would strengthen household and community resilience to external shocks. They see an important role in organizing and coordinating the maintenance of the structures that were constructed and organizing for any other activities Prospects for more effective engagement by the department of Rural Development in the next couple of years are bright. According to the Rural Development Inspector, government is in the process of reviving the post of community agents whose responsibilities had been to popularize rural development, and in particular, agricultural interventions that were supported by government. These agents were coordinated and supervised by the Rural Development Inspector. Community agents were trained at an Agricultural college which was closed down in 1989 due to budgetary constraints. Those who had been trained and recruited before the closure of the college were never replaced when they died or retired. Following a capacity assessment of the Ministry, which found glaring capacity gaps, government reopened the college which is now training these community agents. Currently Kankossa does not have any community agents in place at present but it is anticipated that recruitment will be taking place in the near future. 40 that may come to their communities. It is clear that village committees form an important part of the exit strategy and the sustainability of benefits from KEAP. One beneficiary noted that the training they got in vegetable production and business management practices was going to enable them to sustain the benefits from the project. Another one ascertained that World Vision’s departure was not going to affect their progress in a significant manner but its presence was still much appreciated because it motivated and encouraged groups. The project created institutional and human capacity to sustain benefits. The capacity development of committees combined with the linkages with municipal boards and experts from decentralized technical services departments will contribute towards the sustainability of benefits. It is, however, important to encourage committees to pass on their skills and knowledge to other members who can step in, in the event that they are not available. Responding to a Post Distribution Monitoring survey question relating to the future of the community projects and their benefits after the close-out of KEAP II, 50% said the committee would maintain the projects and 42% said the project would be maintained by the whole village. In both cases they ascertained that the project would be sustained by the community. The feedback workshop of this evaluation brought together a wide range of stakeholders representing permanent institutions in the project communities. The engagement of these stakeholders built a sense of ownership of the intervention and its benefits. 6.0 Conclusion This report has presented the main findings of the final evaluation of the KEAP that was implemented in Kankossa Moughataa region in five communes. The project was initiated to respond to the call by the Government of Mauritania to provide food assistance to vulnerable households in the Kankossa Moughataa region following a crisis caused by low rainfall which resulted in poor or no harvests and loss of livestock. The response also aimed to help communities recover from the external shocks and build resilience to better cope with future shocks. Evaluation results clearly suggest that project indeed managed to meet its objectives using available resources efficiently. The impact of capacitating these communities was felt at the local level through improved access, (that includes availability and affordability) to food, reduced vulnerability to external shocks, improved recovery, particularly for women in vegetable gardening groups, and produce markets. The construction of small earth dams, dikes and half-moons undertaken to improve the management and utilization of scarce water resources as well as restore productivity of land. Fire breaks were established to protect the environment from destruction by bush fires. The evaluation concluded that the project achieved its stated objectives. However, its felt impact was watered down by the lack of rains during the implementation period which resulted in communities not realizing the full benefits of the activities they had engaged in to build resilience to external shocks. 7.0 Recommendations Recommendations from this evaluation are divided into three categories, namely: Programming, implementation and policy Policy 41 1. While gender awareness was raised in communities through promoting their participation in committees, there was little evidence of the same awareness among the project staff, particularly those working in the field. Understandably the gender composition of the filed officers was skewed in favor of men due to cultural practices that excluded local women from working in certain positions in the project. That should not be interpreted to mean that local staff be exempted from championing gender equality. World Vision as an organization is committed to gender equality. It is imperative that its staff is gender sensitized and gets gender training to ensure that in their work they are sensitive to the circumstances of both women and men. 2. With regard the gender issue again, it might help to have both male and female gender champions in the organization and introduce incentives for gender mainstreaming. For example, some small fund could be set up to sponsor the gender champion of the quarter, half-year or year to participate at a gender conference or workshop elsewhere in the region. Programming  The project implementation period was too short for communities to realize the full benefits of recovery and resilience building activities. This type of intervention needs to cover more than one agricultural cycle to give participants a chance to apply the new techniques and skills and adapt them where necessary. It is recommended that a third phase be designed to build on KEAP I & II. This new phase needs to focus on those areas where half-moons, dikes and small earth dams were constructed and include, among other things, training in new improved agricultural techniques and practices to be applied on the new productive reclaimed land.  The project covered a very large area which made it difficult for project staff to effectively deliver on their mandates. While it was important to respond to the call by government to cover the whole Kankossa District, it would have been more strategic to separate the urgent food distribution component from the resilience one in terms of implementation. World Vision could have covered the whole of Kankossa with the unconditional distribution and then phase out the conditional one to ensure closer supervision and support to the resilience activities.  Make a clear distinction between interventions targeted at the different vulnerable groups to ensure that they take into account their special circumstances. For example, interventions that require physically exerting work may not be the most appropriate for the elderly and physically challenged.  Because targeted communities were depending on crop and livestock production for their livelihood security and they were facing a crisis because of adverse rainfall conditions, the recovery activities needed to give higher priority to access to water such as was the case with the vegetable gardening activities. A good model would be the vegetable garden in Kewella village in Blajmil where there is well powered by solar and a number of water basins throughout the garden to bring water closer to the plants and reduce the labour time required.  The village committees that were set up by the project provided a foundation for an institutional framework that would sustain the benefits of the interventions. The evaluation established a need for more capacity development of committees to enable them to provide more effective leadership to their communities. This leadership capacity development needs to take into account succession and continuity.  Incorporate annual disaster planning and preparedness at village level and ensure village committees in collaboration with municipal boards, take ownership of the processes. The link between village or community Preparedness Plans and the Commune plans should be clearly defined. They should feed into each other.  There was need for a more robust exit strategy that ensured that all stakeholders were fully aware of the way forward. Discussions with beneficiaries led to the conclusion that communities were not clear on 42 how they were going to move forward. The recommendation from this evaluation is to hold exit meetings in the participating communities with key stakeholders that are expected to contribute towards the sustainability of benefits from the project. Implementation  Most beneficiaries of seeds and tools were not clear about the organization of the fairs. While it was evident that holding fairs for seed access presented challenges because of unavailability on the market, it was clear that tools were available from numerous vendors. Beneficiaries who were interviewed indicated that they were provided with vouchers which they redeemed on the market without participating in a fair. It is important that the project should clearly outline the form which the fairs will take and provide more guidance to beneficiaries. The value of the fairs would be to empower people by giving them the decision and choice on the market.  Because the project recognized the challenge of accessing seed on the market, it should have been modified to include diversification of sources of seed and ensuring their availability at the community level. This could be through developing new market linkages, such as strengthening local agro-dealers’ capacity to supply the required seed.  It is desirable for the formulation of Community Disaster Preparedness Plans to start from the village with people being made aware that it will input into their commune level plan. It is strongly recommended that communities through their committees and should develop their own plans which should become part of the commune plans. There should be a sense of ownership of the community plan by villages that are expected to implement it. There should be greater involvement in DRR activities by the community and not only the committee. This was not evident in communities that were visited. For example, it was only committee members who were called to put out bush fires.  This evaluation re-states a recommendation coming out of a monitoring visit by FFP. It also recommends the creation of a social fund to generate money for the maintenance of community assets. 43 Appendices APPENDIX 1 Terms of Reference Final Evaluation Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (KEAP) Award Number: AID - FFP - G - 12 - 00023 World Vision Mauritania August 2013 1. Evaluation Summary Project Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program – Phase I & II (FFP/USAID) Evaluation Type Final Evaluation Purpose Project impact on population/beneficiaries Primary Methodologies Qualitative and Quantitative using household interviews and focus group discussions Anticipated Evaluation Start and End Dates From October 14, 2013 to November 22, 2013 Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date November 22, 2013 Sector focus Food Security, Health and Nutrition, Livelihood and 44 community Resilience Location Five Communes in Kankossa District (Kankossa, Blajmil, Hamoud, Sani and Tenahah), Assaba Region, Mauritania 2. Purpose The purpose of this Terms of Reference is to provide a framework for planning and conducting the Final Evaluation (FE) for World Vision Mauritania Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (Phase I and II), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Food for Peace (FFP). The Final Evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods to ascertain the impact of the program. It also will assess some factors enhancing or limiting achievements of targets. As the end point of program implementation, the FE is a useful exercise to emphasize the results achieved and lessons learned for future programming. All key stakeholders, including local government, World Vision, Food for Peace (FFP) - USAID, World Vision Inc. (WVUS) and other implementing partners, will have a highly participatory role in planning and implementation of the final evaluation as well as input into the final Evaluation report. It will be focused on population –level impacts, establishing plausible links between inputs and impacts. 3. Project Description The KEAP program (Phase I & II) in Mauritania is implemented using Title II resources aimed at improving the food insecurity situation in Kankossa District and building community resilience. KEAP I assisted 4070 households mainly through conditional and unconditional cash-based food voucher (CBFV) transfers in response to the Sahel food and nutrition crisis. The second phase (KEAP II) focused on recovery and resilience by looking at community livelihood strategies to select viable options to support long term asset creation, which will result in reduced exposure to risks and improve HH ability to improve their economic conditions and be able to adapt more effectively to shocks. WV designed KEAP II to address both chronic vulnerability as well as the on-going need to initiate and continue livelihood recovery. Furthermore, WV ensured that the most vulnerable community members continued to receive life-saving support. KEAP II aimed to assist 4323 HHs (approximately 25,938 individuals) from November 2012 to October 2013 through a combination of coordinated and complementary activities, which included food assistance to 4323 HHs for 7 months through Food Vouchers for Work (VFW).. VFW was used for activities that supported community resilience and prepared communities to manage shocks. 3.2 Project Background 45 Poor rainfall patterns during the 2010-2011 growing season in West Africa have significantly impacted crop and animal production. According to World Food Program (WFP) and Government of Mauritania (GoM) reports,i the current food crisis in Mauritania is the result of prolonged drought combined with a rise in the price of imported cereals, increased transportation costs, cyclic and chronic household (HH) debt, and depletion of livestock. In November 2011, the GoM projected a decrease of 75% in food production from the current agricultural season, especially in the most affected areas of the eastern and southern parts of the country. According to the government, 800,000 individuals are at risk, 80% of whom live in rural areas. Agricultural and pastoral incomes are seriously reduced, and there are large deficits in local production of sorghum, beans, maize, and livestock products. In December 2011 and January 2012 World Vision (WV) conducted a food security assessment in affected areas of West Africa. In the selected areas in Mauritania, WV found many villages in which farmers did not plant this season at all, or replanted but harvested only about 30% of the last year’s harvest. The consequences of this situation include urgent food needs, which are already being felt by HHs, coupled with deficits in fodder production, which is critical for the Assaba region’s pastoral communities.ii WVM intends to conduct the final evaluation of the KEAP program (Phase I & II) according to the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan and guidelines of implementation for both phases. The evaluation will be conducted by a local consultant and WVM will provide logistical support under the coordination of the Monitoring Evaluation and Accountability Department. 4. Evaluation Target Audiences The evaluation audience will be children under 5, the household members, farmer groups/associations and women cooperatives, Village Distribution Committees, the Mayor’s office, partner NGOs, DRR Committees, Auxiliaries Nutrition, and the Ministries of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment decentralized structures in the project areas. 5. Final Evaluation Objective The overall objective of this study is to undertake a Final Evaluation of the Kankossa Emergency Assistance Program (KEAP) Phase I and II to assess program achievments relative to the following program objectives:  To provide emergency food assistance to vulnerable HHs through CBFV  To improve livelihoods recovery for affected populations  To create and rehabilitate community assets to enhance resilience through voucher for work (VFW) interventions. 5.1 Key Program Evaluation Criteria The objectives outlined above will be addressed under five specific themes namely: program design, program implementation, and quality, outcome impact and sustainability of specific interventions, external and internal factors and lessons learnt and recommendations.  Program Efficiency  Did the project have adequate and the appropriate resources (human, financial and capital) for implementation  If there were any lack/problem in resources/capacity, how was this addressed?  What are the linkages between the KEAP project and other privately funded WV activities (ADPs etc.)? 46  Should more/less coordination/collaboration with counterparts/partners be sought, and, if so, at what level?  How did WV respond to external factors?  Assess the communication structure in place and its effectiveness in supporting the implementation of the program.  Assess the effectiveness of the support structure for KEAP project by the World Vision Mauritania office.  What are the limitations and potential of the project to overcome negative external forces?  Was the project cost effective?  The suitability of the staffing and organizational structure to the demands of implementation: also consider staff turnover.  What project components were missing/ redundant?  To what extent were planned overall annual targets, staff plans information systems and budgets appropriate?  What lessons were learnt?  Recommendations for future project design.  Program Effectiveness  Did the Monitoring and Evaluation system provide quality information that was appropriate and reliable in measuring the intended indicators?  How appropriate were the strategies used to accomplish the planned activities?  Are the activities and the outputs as reflected in the Project Proposal consistent with the overall goal and objectives?  Were appropriate mechanisms developed at the local level to enable affected communities to actively participate in the design, planning, implementation and monitoring of the project? Were they given the opportunity to complain whenever they had issues with the project implementation?  Which measures were taken to identify and reduce the negative effects of the project?  Are there factors that impede the achievement of the overall project goal?  The adherence to external standards for project quality particularly national and Sphere standards, the Code of Conduct of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response and People In Need.  Were the ways in which the monitoring indicators were measured, practical and did it provide quality information?  Which disaster preparedness activities have been most effective as perceived by the community?  Which conditional activities were not successful and why?  To what extent were the objectives of the project as reflected in the Proposal achieved?  Progress against indicators  What lessons were learnt?  Recommendations for future project design.  Program Relevance  Were the assumptions in the Proposal reasonable, appropriate and still valid?  Were the interventions appropriate for the context of Mauritania? 47  Is the project in line with the needs and priorities of the most vulnerable and poorest targeted? Were the targeting criteria followed?  Is the project consistent with the policy and strategic direction of the government of Mauritania?  Were the indicators appropriate in documenting the objectives/activities?  Recommendations for future project design.  Were the appropriate Government Department officials involved?  How well are the work activities integrated with the government promoted emergency preparedness or DRR activities?  Was the project implementation strategy adjusted to accommodate field realities? If yes, in what way?  What lessons were learnt?  Recommendations for the future project design  Program Impact  Did the project address resilience issues in the lives of beneficiaries and their communities?  How successful was the project in accomplishing each of the four objectives?  What positive changes are observed in the lives of the target group as a result of the implementation of the project?  Did the response reduce future vulnerabilities, particularly to acute malnutrition?  What are the unintended positive and negative impacts of the implementation of the project?  Were the activities sufficient to achieve the objectives / outputs?  What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?  What are the positive and negative effects of the project activities?  Which internal and external factors affected the program implementation and outcomes?  Is there any evidence of female empowerment due to the program?  Did the program demand more time from women?  Has the work burden of women increased because of the program?  What do the men and other household members (in-laws etc.) think about women’s participation in the program?  What gender specific issues have been addressed?  What lessons were learnt?  Recommendations for the future project design  What are the stakeholders’ opinions about the nature and quality of project implementation?  How well were DRR activities integrated with the other interventions to promote food access, availability, and utilization?  What roles did the communities and individuals have in the development of DRR activities?  How have the viewpoints of men, women, girls and boys been taken into consideration?  What evidence, if any, exists to indicate improved community preparedness for response to end recovery from disasters? 48  Program Sustainability  Was the coordination between the WV Mauritania team and other international NGOs, the UN system and government organizations effective and was the engagement with these desirable/possible?  What is the likelihood that these institutions (community, government and other stakeholders) will continue to function after the end of the project without the support of WV?  Do all the project staff/committees know the most important components of a sustainable approach?  Do all the project staff/committees use these components/approaches in their interaction with beneficiaries?  What measures should be done to sustain the project outcomes?  Are local government authorities and community stakeholders aware of the DRR activities promoted by the program and outputs?  How successful has the program been in assuring government buy-in and support?  What lessons were learnt?  Recommendations for the future project design 6. Proposed Evaluation Methodology 6.1 Principles This evaluation will be based on the learning process approach. The focus will be on maximizing learning from what has happened during the past 24 months, in order to improve on what will/may follow. The key output of the evaluation will be to produce an evaluation report... Key words to describe this process are: participation, holistic, multidisciplinary and inclusive. Individual team members and the external consultant will be expected to move comfortably between various disciplines, besides their own. The final report will reflect this by focusing on the project as an integrated whole, instead of on sectorial or specialist fields. This Scope of Work describes both the quantitative survey and qualitative review. The purpose of the quantitative survey will be to collect and analyse relevant data that will facilitate comparison of key indicators of success to determine the impact against objectives. The qualitative review will focus on gathering appropriate data that will facilitate a deeper understanding of processes and approaches, perceptions and behaviors and other factors that have contributed to the achievement and/or non-achievement of targets. Participation of a wide cross-section of key stakeholders will be an essential part of the Final Evaluation including the following:  KEAP I & II Project beneficiaries and participants  Community volunteers and field facilitators  WV Mauritania field and national office-based staff  WVUS Program and Technical Officers  West Africa Regional Office Advisors  FPMG WAR PDA/FPA  Local government entities (CSA, Ministries of Rural Development and Environment, Prefect, , mayor at commune level etc.)  NGOs which work in the same geographical area and sectors The Evaluation Team Leader will be responsible for describing in detail the level of participation of each stakeholder group in the Final Evaluation. 49 Evaluation processes will rely on proven tools and techniques such as PRA, Key Informant Interviews and case studies, where necessary. The Evaluation Team will use the following means to obtain qualitative information:  Review of existing literature; All concerned team members will receive a package of documents to be reviewed before the commencement of the evaluation. These documents will include the original KEAP I and II project proposals, the Baseline Survey report, the annual result report, quarterly reports and available secondary data.  Meetings and discussions with relevant WV Mauritania staff, ADP representatives, relevant partner NGOs and technical institutions;  Meetings with relevant USAID Mission and regional staff;  Meetings with relevant Gov officials  Observation of activities in the field; The field visits will focus on direct observation of completed project activities. During the field visits interviews and group discussions will be held with committee members, farmers, WV M staff and stakeholders.  Discussions with various WV staff and KEAP I and II beneficiaries at the community level  Review of quantitative survey results to assess impact against objectives Other reports such as the baseline will be made available to the team members, with other project documentation, so that they can study it before the final evaluation commences. 7. Evaluation Team Composition and Qualifications 7.1 Proposed Evaluation Team Composition The complexity of the project requires that team members have broad experience not only in their relevant fields but are also able to apply their expertise in a multi-disciplinary environment. The Evaluation Team will consist of some of the following roles, in addition to the Team Leader (External Consultant):  KEAP project staff (Manager and 3 facilitators)  PIDA Base Ministry Quality field based staff  Kankossa ADP Manager  Kankossa ADP Development Facilitator  Enumerators in case they are needed It is expected that skills represented by the different roles of the Evaluation Team will be provided. 7.2 Team member Qualifications The Evaluation Team will be led by an External Consultant who will report to the MRT MQ Team Leader The Evaluation Team Leader (Consultant) will be responsible for planning and organizing the evaluation and should have excellent skills in these areas. Additionally, the Team Leader should have superlative writing and interpersonal communication skills, as s/he will be responsible for preparing the final evaluation field questionnaire and report as well as supervising cultural interaction with personnel, counterparts and community members throughout the review. The Team Leader should have at least 5-7 years of rural development/food security and agriculture experience as well as at least 5 years evaluation experience with food security or 50 agriculture programs according to Disaster Risk Reduction approaches, preferably in Africa, with experience leading evaluation teams. The final report will reflect a multi-disciplinary approach by focusing on the project as an integrated whole. 7.3 Criteria for Consultant Selection Senior staff from World Vision Mauritania and WVUS, in consultation with USAID/FFP, will select the Evaluation Team Leader (Consultant). Selection of the Team Leader will be based on the following criteria: Number Description Weight 1 Work experience in developing countries, preferably Africa (at least 5 years) 15 2 Strong evaluation experience with food security and or nutrition programs (at least 5 years) 20 3 Communication/interpersonal skills, and demonstrated experience working in and leading a team 15 4 Total proposed consultancy cost 15 5 Ability to work and think beyond his/her own discipline 10 6 Proposed technical approach and methodology 15 7 French fluency 10 Total Possible 100 7.4 Specific Tasks for Evaluation Team Leader The Team Leader’s role in the success of the Final Evaluation cannot be overemphasized. Listed below are specific tasks for the Evaluation Team Leader and they are intended to concisely spell out expectations:  Team Leader: Act as team leader for the final evaluation process. Evaluation team may comprise of WV Mauritania staff, representative from WVUS, and USAID Mission in Nouakchott.  Study all project documentation: The consultant will be provided with all project documentation to facilitate his/her understanding of the KEAP project in Mauritania.  Inception Report (Evaluation Methodology): The consultant will propose and, once validated, use a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodology to ascertain the impact of the KEAP. The methodologies will be shared with both WV MRTO and WVUS.  Field work: There will be two types of fieldwork (a) quantitative fieldwork and (b) qualitative fieldwork. The exact methodology will be proposed by the Team Leader and validated to be used in the evaluation.  Data Input and Analysis is the responsibility of the Evaluation Team Leader, s/he will be responsible for inputting the data into appropriate software, analyzing and presenting findings. 51  A preliminary presentation of the project final evaluation findings will be conducted by the Consultant at the field level (PIDA Base) just after the field data collection Final Report Preparation: The Team Leader will be responsible for writing the final evaluation report. S/he will prepare the draft final evaluation report and have it reviewed by WVUS, WV WARO, FPMG WAR PDA/FPA and WV Mauritania prior to the finalization of the document. The final evaluation report will be prepared in electronic format, using micro￾soft word, and Excel or SPSS. A copy will be provided to Bianca Flokstra, Jean Gabriel Carvalho, Sidina Ould Isselmou, Jean Nyandwi, , James Bedell, Schelda Jean Baptiste, Brandy Jones, and FPMG PDA. A draft report will be prepared by the Team Leader with inputs and comments from the evaluation team and support teams. The report should address each section of the evaluation focus. The main findings of the draft report will be presented and discussed with WVM/KEAP Team staff, and Government counterparts for their comments and inputs. The content of the overall Evaluation report should include at minimum:  Executive summary (3 pages or less)  Summary of program/project objectives (3 pages or less)  Evaluation methodology  Results using the format breakdown of Indicators as shown in section 7.5 below  Discussion, including lessons learned, best practices, challenges and correlation between Qualitative and quantitative results  Conclusions and recommendations The maximum number of pages of the report should be 50 pages for the report and an additional 20 pages for annexes if needed. It should be written in English. The report shall use 12 pt font, 1 inch margins all around, and single spacing. Figures and tables must have captions and a Table of Contents must be provided. 7.5 Sector Objectives and Indicator Targets The consultant will design a participatory methodology that will allow them to measure the achievement level of the KEAP I and II program targets against the original program targets. a. KEAP I Indicators Targets Sector Objective: Household access to food improved Total $ value of food vouchers distributed % of Vouchers redeemed by HH (disaggregated by sex) Number HH sensitized on food distribution process Number HH and indirect beneficiaries registered Number of suppliers participating in the program 52 Number of HH received unconditional food vouchers Number of HH worked in VFW activities % of HH that consumed food items (items to be included) % of HH that ate a minimum of 2 meals per day Number of ToT trained Number of nutritional sessions held Number of individuals covered in nutrition messaging % of inclusion and exclusion errors Number of PSEA awareness sessions held in the project communities Number of Project awareness meetings held to discuss the purpose and objective as well the selection criteria. Number of CRMs/Help Desk/Suggestion box and feedback sessions held Number of Complaints received Number of Complaints responded to through the complaints mechanism b. KEAP II Indicators Targets Sector Objective: Early recovery initiated in targeted districts of Assaba Region in Mauritania Average HH food Diversity Score # of months of HH food sufficiency Area of land identified for protection and/or restoration 53 # of trees pruned # of person trained in FMNR # of structures constructed (half-moons, small dykes, etc.) # of acres protected # of metric tons of food purchased by beneficiaries using vouchers # of hours worked # persons (M/F) trained in DRR # of Community Disaster Preparedness Plans developed # of Community Disaster Preparedness Plans in place Assessment Report # of Businesses selected (M/F led businesses) # of inputs vouchers distributed for seeds & tools (M/F beneficiaries) # of women trained in business skills # youth (M/F) trained in business skills # of demonstration plots in place # of inputs vouchers distributed for seeds and tools (M/F beneficiaries) # of field days training & # of participants trained (M/F) # of trainings organized & topics presented (i.e. exclusive breastfeeding, iron supplementation, de-worming, diarrhoea controls, vaccinations, etc.) 8. Limitations 54 Considering the period of the evaluation, it is important to consider the following factors during the process: o The sudden change in climate and temperature can occur. o Weekends are Friday and Saturday. It is advisable to avoid working on Friday which is a Muslim prayer day. The evaluation from beginning to end should occur between 14 October 2013 and 22 November 2013. The Team Leader shall propose a timeline for the evaluation in their technical offer within the defined timeline above Task Time Frame Number of days Who is responsible Place 1. Review and study of relevant documentation on program 2. Review of survey instrument Team Leader Consultant Location Finalize questionnaire, test, and train field workers Team Leader & Members Kankossa Field data collection by enumerators and qualitative survey Team Leader/WV M Staff and Enumerators Kankossa Data input into appropriate database or statistical software, analysis Team Leader Kankossa/ Kiffa Draft Final evaluation report submission Team Leader E mail Workshop presentation and reflection on evaluation findings Team leader Kankossa/ Kiffa Feedback on Draft evaluation report Team Leader /WVUS/WVM E mail Submission of Final evaluation report Team Leader E mail 9. Expected Outputs  Terms of reference/evaluation methodology to guide the evaluation process due date October 05, 2013.  An electronic copy of hard data collected with instructions on codes used for data input due November 01, 2013.  Draft evaluation report due by November 08, 2013.  De-brief and reflection on the findings with WV and Partners before submission of the draft report to be conducted at PIDA base level by November 1  Two hard copies of final evaluation report and soft copy to be completed by November 22, 2013  Payment to consultant to be completed no later than November 27, 2013 10. Authority and Responsibility 55 As this is the final evaluation WV Mauritania MQ Team Leader will lead the process, and ensure that the consultant is supported to achieve his work. 56 Questionnaire for the final evaluation KEAP II project in Mauritania HOUSEHOLD CODE Region District Commune Respondant Which activities did you participate in? Did you participate in this activity in the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No a)Food vouchers for work b)Disaster risk reduction c)Vegetable gardening and health nutrition messaging d)Farmer managed natural regeneration Section A: Household demographics Respondent’s relationship to household head, i.e. If not household head Q1. Spouse 2. Son/daughter 3. Brother/sister 4. Father/mother 5. Uncle/aunt 6. Other 7. N/A Household Composition WHEN PERSON RESPONSIBLE (enumerator) Date Month Year Q2 Sex of respondent: 1 = Male 2 = Female 1 Q3 What is the sex of the household head: 1 = Male 2 = Female 2 Q4 What is the age of the household head (years) |__||__| 3 Q5 What is the marital status of the household head? 1=Married to one wife 2= Widowed 3=Separated 4=Divorced 5= Single 6= Married to more than one wife 4 57 How many members of your household attained the following? Code Level of education (i)Male (ii)Female (iii)Total Q10 Primary or basic Q11 Secondary Q12 High school Q13 Koranic Q14 University Q15 Never been to school Section B: Access to basic needs Q16. What type of construction materials are used for the main house? 1= tent, khaima, canvas etc. (Nomadic settlement) 2= Scrap materials 3= Sun dried bricks Q17. What type of Latrine do you use? 1= Traditional latrine 2= Standard pit latrine 3= No latrine Q18. What is your water source? Q6 What is the total number of people who have been living in your household for the past three months (including non￾family) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 0-24 months 25-59 months 5-18 years 19- 60 years > 60 years Total z 5 check total Q7 (Establish whether they are chronically ill members in the household, if yes indicate) Indicate the number of chronically ill members in the household. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) vi) 0-24 months 25-59 months 5-18 years 19-60 years > 60 years Total 6 check total Q8 (Establish whether there are any children that have suffered from malnutrition in the household , if yes indicate) Are there any children under the age of five who have suffered from malnutrition in the last twelve months? (i)0-24 months (ii)24-59 months (iii)Total . Q9 How many members of your household are pregnant or lactating 58 1=Piped water inside 2= Public communal tap 3= Protected well 4= Unprotected well 5= Direct rain water 6= Direct surface water 7= Borehole pump Q19. How long does it take you to fetch water from water source per trip? (Minutes) Q20. How many trips do you make to fetch water each day? Q21. Who usually collects water in the household? 1=Women 2=Children 3=Men 4=Women and children Indicate the number of HHs members that have suffered from the following diseases in the past 12 months? Disease Age of household member (i)0-24 months (ii)25-59 months (iii)5-18 yrs (iv)18-60 yrs (v)Over 60 yrs (vi)Total Q22.Rheumatism Q23.Malaria Q24.Diarrhoea Q25.Bronchitis Q26.Anemia Q27. What is your household source of light? 1=Electricity 2=Oil/petrol lamp 3=Candles 4=Generator 5=Heating wood 6=Solar panel 7=Other Section C: Household Assets Does your household own the following assets? Type of asset 1=Yes 2=No (i)Number Currently owned (ii)# of assets gained in the last 12 months (iii)Reasons for the increase (iv)# of assets lost in the last 12 months (v)Reasons for the decrease (vi)Who decides on the sale of the asset (1=Male, 2= Female Q28 Cattle Q29 Goats/sheep Q30 Donkey Q31 Horse Q32 Chicken Q33 Cart Q34 Hoe Q35 Wheel barrow Q36 Plough Q37 Cultivator Q38 Harrow Q39 Radio Q40 Phone Codes for Reasons for increase/decreasee: 59 1= Purchased 2= Sold 3= Gift/donated 4= Stolen 5= Deaths 6. Reproduction 7. Dowry 8. Slaughtered for own consumption 9= N/A Section D: Household income and expenditure Indicate household sources of income and estimated amounts in the table below Q50.What is the sex of the main household income provider 1=Male 2=Female Q51.What is the age of the main household income provider? 1= 5 -18 years 2= 19-60years 3= above 60years Q52.How much money did you spend on items provided below in the last twelve months? Expenditure items Amount in UM i)Food ii)Clothing iii)Health iv)Transportation v)Telephone vi)Household furniture vii)Other (i)Did the household receive cash from this source? 1= yes 2= No (ii)Estimate amount of income per month (Um$) (iii)Rank income sources based on estimated amount 1=Primary 2=Secondary Q41 Farming Q42 Livestock rearing Q43 Wild fruit harvesting Q44 Petite trading Q45 Casual labour Q46 Food aid (begging) Q47 Formal emplyoment Q48 Other (specify) Q49 Total Income 60 Section E: Agricultural Practices Crop Did you plant this crop in the last 12 months 1=Yes 2=No i)What was the size of area planted? ii)What quantity of harvest did you receive (kgs) iii)How far will this take you? Months Q53.Rice Q54.Sorghum Q55.Millet Q56.Maize Q57.Peanuts Q58.Beans Q59.Manioc Q60.Other(specify) Q61. Did you experience any food shortages over the last 12 months? 1= Yes 2=No Q62. If yes, what time of the year did you mainly experience them? 1= January-March 2= April - June 3=July –September 4= October – December 9=N/A Section F: Household food consumption Q63. What is the main source of day to day food? 1= Purchase 2= Own production 3= Barter 4= Borrowed 5= Received as gift 6= Food aid 7= Other (specify) Dietary composition i)0-24 months 1=Yes 2=No ii)25- 59 months 1=Yes 2=No iii)Pregnant women 1=Yes 2=No iv)Lactating women 1=Yes 2=No v)5- 18 years 1=Yes 2=No vi)19- 60 years 1=Yes 2=No vii)>60 1=Yes 2=No Q64.Number of meals per day Q65.Composition of meal consumed in the last 24 hours a)cereals b)Sugar/honey c)Green tea d)Legumes e)Nuts f)Meat g)Eggs h)Oils/fats 61 i)Starch(maize, potatoes) j)Fruits k)Vegetables(carrots, onions) l)Total number of different food groups consumed Q66. Does the household experience any of the following on a regular basis; 1= Severe hunger 2= Moderate hunger 3= Little or no hunger Section G: Vegetable gardens and health and nutrition messaging Q67. Are there any female groups who practice vegetable gardening in your community? 1=Yes 2=No Q68. Does anyone in your household participate in the vegetable gardening groups? 1=Yes 2=No Q69.If yes, what is the size of the land used to grow vegetables? Hectares. If no, proceed to question 88 Q70. Did you receive any cash based vouchers for purchase of seeds and tools from World Vision? 1=Yes 2=No Q71. Did a member of the household attend livelihood fairs over the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No Which seeds did you receive for the cash vouchers over the past 12 months? (Codes for supplier) 1=Vendors under World Vision 2=Other vendors 3.Imports Type of seeds and tools Received 1=Yes 2=No i)Quantity received ii)Monetary value (Um$) iii)Supplier Q72.Carrots Q73. Cabbage Q74. Eggplant Q75. Tomatoes Q76. Moringa tree Q77. Tools (a) Diggers (b)Watering cans (c) Shovels (d)Rakes (e)Wheel barrows (f) Garden forks Q78. Other (specify) 62 Q79.Indicate the types of vegetables grown and the length of time the supply lasted during the last twelve months. i)Grown 1=Yes 2=No Length time the supply lasted (months) a)Carrots b)Cabbage c)Eggplant d)Tomatoes e)Moringa trees Q80. Other than cash vouchers, what other support did you get from World Vision? Q81. Did you get support in your vegetable production from any other organisation or the government over the last 12 months besides World Vision? 1=Yes 2=No Q82.Training received by participants Did you receive this training? 1=Yes 2=No a) Post harvest management training b)Health and nutrition messaging (i)Exclusive breast feeding ii)Iron supplementary iii)Hygiene practices iv)Deworming v)Diarrhoea control vi)Vaccinations vii)Nutritional value of Moringa viii)Others Q83. Who provided the training? 1=World vision 2=ECODEV 3=MDR 4=Rural agricultural technicians 5=Other Q84.Were you satisfied with the assistance from World Vision? 1=Yes 2=No Q85.Do you think the achievements by female groups practising vegetable gardening will continue after the project is over? 1=Yes 2=No Q86. Did you receive any supervisory and technical assistance? 1=Yes 2=No Q87. If yes, from who? 1=Rural agricultural technicians 2.World Vision 3.Other 9. N/A Section H: Voucher for Work Q88i) Did your household receive any cash based vouchers for work? 1=Yes 2=No Q88ii) If yes, did your dietary diversity improve due to the food vouchers? 1=Yes 2=No 3=N/A Q89. What was the total value of vouchers received per month? (Um) 63 Q90i) How many months did you receive these vouchers? Q90ii) If there are months you did not receive vouchers indicate reasons? 1=No work performed that month 2=Vouchers were unavailable 3=Other (specify) 4=N/A Q91. Did you receive any identification cards? 1=Yes 2=No Q92. If yes, when did you receive them? 1=Before being given vouchers 2=After receiving vouchers 3=N/A Indicate in the table below the items bought using cash vouchers. i)Did you buy the following with the vouchers 1=Yes 2=No ii)Rank based on quantities bought on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the highest quantity) iii)Availability of items from World Vision vendors 1=Always available 2=Sometimes available 3=Never available Q93.Wheat Q94.Rice Q95.Beans Q96.Fish Q97.Cooking oil Q98.Other (specify) Q99. Did you receive any other food aid from elsewhere besides World Vision? 1= Yes 2=No Q100. Indicate household’s participation in the Voucher For Work activities in the table below. i)Did the household participate in any of these activities 1= Yes 2=No ii)How many months did they participate in them a)Half moon constructions b) Transplanting of Zizphus Mauritianum fruit tree seedlings in half moons c)Building dams and dykes d)Clearing alleys serving as fire breaks e) Deepening and renovation of wells Q101. How many dams or dikes were built in your community over the last 12 months? Q102. Did you receive any training on how to prune shoots from stumps? 1=Yes 2=No Q103i) Do you have any unredeemed vouchers? 64 1=Yes 2=No Q103ii) If yes, what is the reason for non redemption? 1=Accessibility of World Vision vendors 2=Availability of commodities 3=Other specify 4=N/A Q104. What is the value of these unredeemed vouchers? (Um) Q105. Were you satisfied with the services of World vision? 1=Yes 2=No Q106. If not why? ...................................................................................................................................................... ........ ...................................................................................................................................................... ......... Section I: Disaster Risk management Q107. Indicate the disasters that affected your household in the last twelve months. Did the following disasters affect your household over the past 12 months 1= Yes 2=No a)Drought b) High prices c) Livestock diseases d) Flooding Q108. Indicate the consequences of the disasters that affected your household. Was this a consequence of the disasters 1=Yes 2=No a) Destruction of crops b)Increase in illnesses c)Loss of animals d)Lack of income e)Lack of food f)Increase in deaths of children < 5 years g)Rural exodus of young active persons Q109i) Does your village have village level disaster reduction committees? 1=Yes 2=No 3=Don’t know Q109ii) Were you involved in coming up with disaster reduction plans? 1=Yes 2=No Q110. Does your household use formal or traditional Early warning systems? 1= Formal 2=Traditional 3=Both Q111. Did you receive any training on disaster reduction and early warning systems? 1= Yes 2=No Q112.Who provided this training? 1=World vision 2. Officers from the Ministry of Agriculture 3=other Q113. What is your highest priority in your recovery and increased resilience efforts? 1=Sustainable agriculture 2=Female kitchen gardens 3=Dikes 4=Community shops 5=Improved wells 6=small dams 7=Protection of pasture/farms 65 KEAP II questionnaire for non participants Which activities did you participate in? Did you participate in this activity in the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No a)Food vouchers for work b)Disaster risk reduction c)Vegetable gardening and health nutrition messaging d)Farmer managed natural regeneration Section A: Household demographics Respondent’s relationship to household head, i.e. If not household head Q1. Spouse 2. Son/daughter 3. Brother/sister 4. Father/mother 5. Uncle/aunt 6. Other 7. N/A Household Composition HOUSEHOLD CODE Region District Commune Respondant WHEN PERSON RESPONSIBLE (enumerator) Date Month Year Q2 Sex of respondent: 1 = Male 2 = Female 1 Q3 What is the sex of the household head: 1 = Male 2 = Female 2 Q4 What is the age of the household head (years) |__||__| 3 66 How many members of your household attained the following? Code Level of education (i)Male (ii)Female (iii)Total Q10 Primary or basic Q11 Secondary Q12 High school Q13 Koranic Q14 University Q15 Never been to school Section B: Access to basic needs Q16. What type of construction materials are used for the main house? 1= tent, khaima, canvas etc. (Nomadic settlement) 2= Scrap materials 3= Sun dried bricks Q17. What type of Latrine do you use? Q5 What is the marital status of the household head? 1=Married to one wife 2= Widowed 3=Separated 4=Divorced 5= Single 6= Married to more than one wife 4 Q6 What is the total number of people who have been living in your household for the past three months (including non￾family) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 0-24 months 25-59 months 5-18 years 19- 60 years > 60 years Total z 5 check total Q7 (Establish whether they are chronically ill members in the household, if yes indicate) Indicate the number of chronically ill members in the household. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) vi) 0-24 months 25-59 months 5-18 years 19-60 years > 60 years Total 6 check total Q8 (Establish whether there are any children that have suffered from malnutrition in the household , if yes indicate) Are there any children under the age of five who have suffered from malnutrition in the last twelve months? (i)0-24 months (ii)24-59 months (iii)Total . Q9 How many members of your household are pregnant or lactating 67 1= Traditional latrine 2= Standard pit latrine 3= No latrine Q18. What is your water source? 1=Piped water inside 2= Public communal tap 3= Protected well 4= Unprotected well 5= Direct rain water 6= Direct surface water 7= Borehole pump Q19. How long does it take you to fetch water from water source per trip? (Minutes) Q20. How many trips do you make to fetch water each day? Q21. Who usually collects water in the household? 1=Women 2=Children 3=Men 4=Women and children Indicate the number of HHs members that have suffered from the following diseases in the past 12 months? Disease Age of household member (i)0-24 months (ii)25-59 months (iii)5-18 yrs (iv)18-60 yrs (v)Over 60 yrs (vi)Total Q22.Rheumatism Q23.Malaria Q24.Diarrhoea Q25.Bronchitis Q26.Anemia Q27. What is your household source of light? 1=Electricity 2=Oil/petrol lamp 3=Candles 4=Generator 5=Heating wood 6=Solar panel 7=Other Section C: Household Assets Does your household own the following assets? Type of asset 1=Yes 2=No (i)Number Currently owned (ii)# of assets gained in the last 12 months (iii)Reasons for the increase (iv)# of assets lost in the last 12 months (v)Reasons for the decrease (vi)Who decides on the sale of the asset (1=Male, 2= Female Q28 Cattle Q29 Goats/sheep Q30 Donkey Q31 Horse Q32 Chicken Q33 Cart Q34 Hoe Q35 Wheel barrow Q36 Plough Q37 Cultivator Q38 Harrow Q39 Radio Q40 Phone 68 Codes for Reasons for increase/decreasee: 1= Purchased 2= Sold 3= Gift/donated 4= Stolen 5= Deaths 6. Reproduction 7. Dowry 8. Slaughtered for own consumption 9= N/A Section D: Household income and expenditure Indicate household sources of income and estimated amounts in the table below. Q50.What is the sex of the main household income provider 1=Male 2=Female Q51.What is the age of the main household income provider? 1= 5 -18 years 2= 19-60years 3= above 60years Q52.How much money did you spend on items provided below in the last twelve months? Expenditure items Amount in UM i)Food ii)Clothing iii)Health iv)Transportation v)Telephone vi)Household furniture vii)Other (i)Did the household receive cash from this source? 1= yes 2= No (ii)Estimate amount of income per month (Um$) (iii)Rank income sources based on estimated amount 1=Primary 2=Secondary Q41 Farming Q42 Livestock rearing Q43 Wild fruit harvesting Q44 Petite trading Q45 Casual labour Q46 Food aid (begging) Q47 Formal emplyoment Q48 Other (specify) Q49 Total Income 69 Section E: Agricultural Practices Crop Did you plant this crop in the last 12 months 1=Yes 2=No i)What was the size of area planted? ii)What quantity of harvest did you receive (kgs) iii)How far will this take you? Months Q53.Rice Q54.Sorghum Q55.Millet Q56.Maize Q57.Peanuts Q58.Beans Q59.Manioc Q60.Other(specify) Q61. Did you experience any food shortages over the last 12 months? 1= Yes 2=No Q62. If yes, what time of the year did you mainly experience them? 1= January-March 2= April - June 3=July –September 4= October – December 9=N/A Section F: Household food consumption Q63. What is the main source of day to day food? 1= Purchase 2= Own production 3= Barter 4= Borrowed 5= Received as gift 6= Food aid 7= Other (specify) Dietary composition i)0-24 months 1=Yes 2=No ii)25- 59 months 1=Yes 2=No iii)Pregnant women 1=Yes 2=No iv)Lactating women 1=Yes 2=No v)5- 18 years 1=Yes 2=No vi)19- 60 years 1=Yes 2=No vii)>60 1=Yes 2=No Q64.Number of meals per day Q65.Composition of meal consumed in the last 24 hours a)cereals b)Sugar/honey c)Green tea d)Legumes e)Nuts f)Meat g)Eggs h)Oils/fats 70 i)Starch(maize, potatoes) j)Fruits k)Vegetables(carrots, onions) l)Total number of different food groups consumed Q66. Does the household experience any of the following on a regular basis; 1= Severe hunger 2= Moderate hunger 3= Little or no hunger Section G: Communal impact of vegetable gardening Q67. Are you aware of female groups participating in vegetable gardening in your community? 1=Yes 2=No Q68. Which organisation are they working with? 1=World Vision 2=Government 3=Other (specify) Q69.Have you adopted any new health and hygienic practices from KEAP participants in the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No Q70. If yes, how? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………… Q71.Did your household practice vegetable gardening that is not linked to the World Vision project over the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No Q72.Indicate the types of vegetables grown and the length of time the supply lasted during the last twelve months. i)Grown 1=Yes 2=No Length time the supply lasted (months) a)Carrots b)Cabbage c)Eggplant d)Tomatoes e)Moringa trees Q73. Did you get any support from rural agricultural technicians over the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No Q74. Did you participate in any livelihood fairs in the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No Section H: Communal impact of voucher for work Q75. Are you aware of the World Vision project that gives cash vouchers for work performed? 1=Yes 2=No Q76. Have you noticed the following developments in your community over the last 12 months? 71 1= Yes 2=No a)Half moon constructions b) Transplanting of Zizphus Mauritianum fruit tree seedlings in half moons c)Building dams and dykes d)Clearing alleys serving as fire breaks e) Deepening and renovation of wells Q77. How many dams or dykes were built in your community over the last 12 months? Q78. Do you have access to these dams and dykes? 1=Yes 2=No Q79. Have you benefited from the following? i)Have you benefited? 1=Yes 2=No ii)If yes, how a)Half moon constructions b) Transplanting of Zizphus Mauritianum fruit tree seedlings in half moons c)Building dams and dykes d)Clearing alleys serving as fire breaks e) Deepening and renovation of wells Q80. Have there been any unusual price changes in commodities on the market as compared to last year? 1=Yes 2=No Q81.If yes how? 1=They increased 2=They decreased 3=N/A Q82. Did you receive food aid from any other organisation besides World Vision? 1=Yes 2=No Section I: Communal impact of disaster risk management Q83. Indicate the disasters that affected your household in the last twelve months. Did the following disasters affect your household over the past 12 months 1= Yes 2=No a)Drought b) High prices c) Livestock diseases d) Flooding Q84. Indicate the consequences of the disasters that affected your household. Was this a consequence of the disasters 1=Yes 2=No a) Destruction of crops 72 b)Increase in illnesses c)Loss of animals d)Lack of income e)Lack of food f)Increase in deaths of children < 5 years g)Rural exodus of young active persons Q85i) Does your village have village level disaster reduction committees? 1=Yes 2=No 3=Don’t know Q85ii) Were you involved in coming up with disaster reduction plans? 1=Yes 2=No Q86. Does your household use formal or traditional Early warning systems? 1= Formal 2=Traditional 3=Both Q87. Did you receive any training on disaster reduction and early warning systems? 1= Yes 2=No Q88.Who provided this training? 1=World vision 2. Officers from the Ministry of Agriculture 3=other Q89. What is your highest priority in your recovery and increased resilience efforts? 1=Sustainable agriculture 2=Female kitchen gardens 3=Dikes 4=Community shops 5=Improved wells 6=small dams 7=Protection of pasture/farms 73 DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR WOMEN’S GARDENING COOPERATIVES 1. History of the group, how it started, who initiated it, its objectives, supporting partners if any and how the group became part of the KEAP project and whether there were any requirements for entry into the project. 2. Group size, structure and organization 3. Whether the group came together solely for the purpose of establishing vegetables or it had activities planned? 4. Support provided under KEAP. Roles of different stakeholders. 5. Describe the different types of training received and indicate who conducted the training 6. Land allocation procedures, size and allocation of seed. 7. Quantities produced, consumed and marketed. Contribution towards dietary diversity. 8. Share the seed livelihood fairs experience and determine whether it has influenced your livelihood strategies. 9. Indicate whether you are going to continue with vegetable gardening and how you propose to access seed and technical support now that the KEAP project has come to an end. How will benefits from the project be sustained? 10. Perceptions of the group on the benefits from the project. Any cash income, dietary diversity or improved access to food. 11. Whether there was an increase in household income as a result of involvement in the project and what the income was used for. 12. Did project facilitate linkages with relevant key market players? 13. Challenges faced during the course of the project 14. Whether project addressed group’s pressing needs in a relevant manner, if yes, discuss factors that made it relevant. 15. Group’s expectation from the project and whether they were met. 16. Major impacts or influences of the vegetable gardening initiative on the household and the community. To which members of the household was the project most beneficial and how? 17. If a similar project has been implemented before and was more effective or less effective, what made it so? 18. Lessons learnt. What was not done that could have made the project more effective? 19. If the project was to start afresh, what areas would the group want it to address? DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR COMPLAINTS AND FEED BACK COMMITTEES 1. An account of how it came about; when, for what purpose 2. Time spent on KEAP activities, frequency of meetings --- 3. Any capacity building by project. 4. Did you observe any changes in behavior or quality of life because of the project intervention? 5. From where do you get your support? 6. Do you have to send reports to World Vision or Local leaders on your activities? 7. What challenges did you face in carrying out your responsibilities as a committee? 8. Did the project create opportunities for other activities that improve the food people in your community? Describe. 9. Can the benefits from the project be sustained? Explain how. 10. What were the lessons learnt. DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR PROJECT STAFF 1. Responsibilities in the project, including reporting lines, coordination, collaboration with other staff. Skills, competencies, experience. 2. Adequacy of project staff and resources 3. Significant over/under estimations on line items and unexpected expenditures. Causes of any discrepancies between expected and actual 74 4. Ability to adhere to schedule and major impediments. 5. Partners’ contributions. Coordination between the partners and the WV staff effective? 6. An account of any things that came up in the course of the project that had to be implemented without being budgeted for. Treatment of these items accommodation of new activities that came up in the course of the project implementation. 7. External factors that influenced the success of your project either positively or negatively. 8. Significant benefits of the project to its participants, both beneficiaries and vendors. Achievement of targets and objectives. 9. Did the project create any opportunities for the beneficiary communities to improve their food security situation? 10. In your view what was its major contribution and why? 11. What challenges did you face during the course of this project? 12. What lessons did you learn from the implementation of this project? 13. Do you think the interventions of this project are sustainable? 14. If you were to implement a similar project, what would you do differently? 15. Recommendations can you give for future similar interventions. DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR THE PROJECT COMMITTEES 1. Account of how it was set up, role in the KEAP project. 2. Time spent on KEAP activities, frequency of meetings --- 3. Any capacity building by project. 4. Did you observe any changes in behavior or quality of life because of the project intervention? 5. From where do you get your support? 6. Do you have to send reports to World Vision or Local leaders on your activities? 7. What challenges did you face in carrying out your responsibilities as a committee? 8. Did the project create opportunities for other activities that improve the food people in your community? Describe. 9. Can the benefits from the project be sustained? Explain how. 10. What were the lessons learnt. List of people in the first briefing in Noukchott No Name Position 1 Lilian Dodzo National Director 2 Sidina ould Isselmou Strategy and Innovation Director 3 Enok Diarra Finance Director 4 Simon Mane HEA Manager 5 Jean Nyandwi Kiffa Base Manager 6 Ruvimbo Mabeza-Chimedza Consultant 75 List of key informants in Kankossa No. Names Position 1 Schelda Jean Baptiste Accountability Monitoring and Evaluation Manager 2 Simon Kunyangna HEA Advisor 3 Mohamed Ould Sidi Ould Vendor (Contracted by WVM) Kankossa 4 Yislim Ould Biye Vendor (not contracted) Kankossa 5 Elve oudo Elhaoj Environment Department Inspector 6 Vicky Lokanga DRR Coordinator 7 Mayor of Hamoud 8 Mayor of Blajmil 9 Hamady Abdoul Sall Rural Development Inspector 10 Mohamed Mahamoud Mayif Vendor (contracted) Sani’ List of Participants in Focus Group Discussions No Name Position/ Location 1 Beneficiaries Audeucheieb Village, Kankossa 2 Village committee Audeucheieb Village, Kankossa 3 Complaints and Feedback committee Audeucheieb Village, Kankossa 4 Women’s vegetable cooperative Hamoud 5 Beneficiaries Hamoud 6 Non-beneficiaries Hamoud 7 Women’s vegetable group Kewella village, Blajmil 8 Non-beneficiaries (men only) Kewella village, Blajmil List of participants to the exit meeting for the final evaluation of KEAP Kiffa 9 November 2013 No Names Position 1 Schelda Jean Baptiste Accountability Monitoring and Evaluation Manager 2 Sidina O/ Isselmou Principal Advisor in charge of Strategy and Innovation Management 3 Jean Nyandwi Base manager 4 Simon Kunyangna HEA Advisor 5 Idy Kalidou Sy KEAP Accountant 6 Ba Yahya Finance Coordiantor 7 Aboubakri Mody Sow Kankossa ADP Manager 8 Houdou Oumar Diallo Assistant consultant 9 Ruvimbo Mabeza Chimedza Consultant List of people at the exit meeting in Nouakchott – November 10, 2013 No Name Position 76 1 Sidina ould Isselmou Director, Strategy - Innovation 2 Enok Diarra Director for Finance 3 Kadiata Thiam Health and Nutrition Coordinator 4 Vicky Lokanga DRR Coordinator 5 Simon Mane HEA Manager 6 Yvonne Chika P&C Director 7 Francois Tsafack MQ Director 8 Limam Sidi PR Officer 9 Brahim Sidi Baba Communications Officer SURVEY SITES FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THE KEAP Commune Distribution Points Villages Tanaha 1-Tenaha 1- Tenaha 2- Trike Savra 1- Treig Savra 3- Chkata 1- Chkhata 4-Avrare 1- Avrara 2- Nkheil Abdel wahab 5-Lebneye 1- Lebneye 2- Awoyne elbedha 6-Tamourit Lekwar 1- Tamourit Lekwar 2- Khawal Ahmed 7- Dhelea 1- Dhelea 8- Elkhalwa 1- Elkhalwa 2- Eddahkle 3-Leimbeidiye 4- Keyout 9- Oumawdache 1- OumAwdache 10- Tabal 1- Tabal 2- Tichitt Hel Kheihel 11- Zoueikhiya 1- Zoueikhiye 2- Ehel Telmoudi 12- Leffeile 1- Leffeile Blajmil 1- Arkhane Hamoud 1- Arkhane Hamoud 2- Ayzouba 1 3- Bedne 2- Ibachline 1- Ibachline 2- Atile 3- Adeile 1 1- Adeile 1 4- Oum Toueiziye 1- Oumou tweiziye 5- Tachot Khadar 1- Tachout Khader 2- Ould Khouyati 6- Chig Loueiteidatt 1- Chig Loueiteidatt 7- Awoynet Dheheb 1- Awoynet Dheheb 2- Elbagwi 8- Atteichane 1- Atteichane 2- Khoutout Bathioye 9- Seyal 1- Seyal 10- Khoutoute Ewlad Metemtesse 1- Khtout Ewlad Metemtesse 11- Haikama 1- Haikama 2- Amjeizir 3- Mkaizine Kankossa 1- Kelebele Peul 1- Kelebele Peul 2- Kelebele Maure 3- Lembeighir 2- Woringuel Eraline 1- Woringuel Eraline 2- Woringuel Matalla 3- Woringuel Rapatrie 4- Woringuel hel maloum 3- Agmamine 1 1- Agmamine 1 2- Agmamine 2 3- Oudey Naghle 4- Oulad Sidi 1- Oulade sidi 2-Talhaye 3- Dvea 77 5- Oudey Cheyheb 1- Oudey Cheyheb 2- Oumoulakcheb 3-Oudey cheheb ivoulane 6- Site Kankossa Rapatrie 1- Site Kankossa rapatrie 7- Ehel Barik 1- Ehel barik+ Ehel cheihib 2- Ehel Jeylani 3- Hoore Waydou+ hel Bougue Hamoud 1- Irgue Talaba 1- Irgue Talaba 2- Elhababiye 1 2- Asmeine 1- Asmeine 2- Avreivira 3- Elkhachba 3- Garalla paris 1- Garalla Paris 2- Garalla Alpha 4- Ziwaze 1- Ziwaze 2- Taghoueissit 5- Roumde 1- roumde + Hawara 2- Ehel Ali 6- Tlamid 1- Tlamid regroupement 7- Gowaire Baidha 1- Gowaire Baidha 2- Gowaire jougal 8- Ould Laabe 1- Ould Laabe 2- Tengal 1 9- Teguel Weze 1- Teguel Weze Ghadima 2- Teguel Weze Hel Mhy 10- Boubackche Ledresse 1- Boubakche Bahiya 2- Hel houeide 11- Vra Hel Hamed 1- Daghveg 2- Vra Hel Hamed 3- Oudey Talaba Sani 1- Gueveyre 1- Gueveire 2-Tichint Cheyne Edebaye 3-Tichint sale 2- Elmintfa 1- Elmintfa 2- Lemdeibih 3- ElAwje 3- N’Dayniye 1- N'danieye 4- Mabrouk HelCheikh 1- Mabrouk hel cheikh 2- Bourke 5- Djibeibe 1- Djeibebe 1, 2 et 3 2-Libbere Liyine 3-Lebher Gueveire 6- Bedhel Lebyadh 1- Elvowz+ Zoueirat+ Boud 2- dernoye+ Riyad 7- Mbeidi Hel arbi+ Tewvigh 1- Mbeidi Hel arbi + Tewvigh 8- Souromolly 1- Soromolly 1 et 2 2- Kheireni