FINAL EXTERNAL EVALUATION “PROJECT TO ENSURE AND RESTORE FOOD SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS OF VULNERABLE DISPLACED PEOPLE AND HOST COMMUNES IN THE REGION OF DIFFA” FINAL EVALUATION REPORT November 2016 84 YANTALA 84 YN 174 Tél. : (+227) 90 85 59 59 / (+227) 97 15 07 07 Email: atlas.bcg@yahoo.com BP: 13631, Niamey (Niger) Dr Issaka Idrissa Mossi Consultant P a g e | 2 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa CONTENT ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES AND IMAGES ...................................................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................... 6 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 I. PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 11 1.1. A SECURITY EMERGENCY AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF POVERTY ............................................................ 11 1.2. SYNOPSIS OF PROJECT ............................................................................................................................. 12 1.2.1. Formulation and financing ............................................................................................................. 12 1.2.2. Intervention areas and target groups ........................................................................................... 12 1.2.3. Objectives of the project and operational areas ........................................................................ 12 II. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF THE ASSESSMENT MISSION .................................................... 13 1.2.4. Nature, objectives and scope of the assessment ...................................................................... 13 1.2.5. Assessment methodology ............................................................................................................. 14 1.2.6. Structure of the report .................................................................................................................... 16 III. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE ................................................................ 16 3.1. RECONSTITUTION OF THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROJECT ......................................................... 16 3.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1. Coherence between the conception of the project and the targeted problem ....................... 21 3.2.2. Coherence of the project with the national, regional, and local priorities/strategies............. 23 3.2.3. Coherence of the project with AAH intervention principles ...................................................... 24 3.2.4. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 26 3.3. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 27 3.3.1. Geographical and household targeting ....................................................................................... 27 3.3.2. Baseline study ................................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.3. Monitoring contingencies ............................................................................................................... 29 3.3.4. Accountability, progress and assessment .................................................................................. 29 3.3.5. Effectiveness of the operational areas ........................................................................................ 30 3.4. EFFICIENCY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 48 3.4.1. Key findings ..................................................................................................................................... 48 3.4.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 49 3.5. RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................. 49 3.5.1. Technical capacities of strengthened households ..................................................................... 50 3.5.2. Socio-economic, and environmental advantages to consolidate ............................................ 50 3.5.3. Negative collateral effects ............................................................................................................. 51 3.5.4. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 51 3.6. SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................................................... 52 3.6.1. Sustainability of the project achievements .................................................................................. 52 3.6.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 54 IV. SOME GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNT .................................................................... 55 V. TABLE SUMMARISING THE RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 56 P a g e | 3 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................................... 59 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED .................................................................................................................................... 60 TDR OF THE ASSESSMENT MISSION ........................................................................................................... 62 P a g e | 4 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAH Action Against Hunger ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development APBE Action for Wellbeing VA Veterinary Assistants OCDE Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development HCU Humanitarian Coordination Unit DFL District Farming Leader CFW Cash For Work ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross CLC Communal Land Commission COOPI: Italian NGO (Cooperazione Internazionale) DDA Departmental Director for Agriculture IRC International Rescue Committee OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OFDA Office of United States Foreign Disaster Assistance IOM International Organisation for Migration WFP World Food Programme SRL Social Replenishment of Livestock FSSL Food Security and Sustainable Livelihood SCF Save the Children Fund SAT Support-Advice Technician UCT Unconditional Cash Transfers OUNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development PIA PDM HEA TOR SSI FDS FCS CDP PIA Project Intervention Area Post-Distribution Monitoring Household Economy Approach Terms of Reference Survival Strategy Index Food Diversity Score Food Consumption Score Commune Development Plans Project Intervention Area P a g e | 5 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa LIST OF TABLES AND IMAGES FIGURE 1: DIAGRAM OF THE EVALUATIVE APPROACH ................................................................................................ 15 TABLE 1: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS BY OPERATIONAL AREA AND BY COMMUNE ................ 28 TABLE 3: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF LIVESTOCK BREEDING OPERATIONAL AREA .......................................................................... 32 TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF SRL BENEFICIARIES AND ADDITIONAL ANIMAL FEED BY GENDER BY VILLAGE, COMMUNE AND DEPARTMENT ..... 33 TABLE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF THE SRL BENEFICIARIES AND ADDITIONAL ANIMAL FEED BY GENDER BY COMMUNE .................................... 33 TABLE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITTING FROM MARKET-GARDENING SUPPORT OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ........................ 39 TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS BY STATUS ............................................................................................. 39 TABLE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARIES BY GENDER ............................................................................................................ 39 TABLE 9: FACTUAL STOCK TAKING OF PROGRESS MADE DURING EXECUTION OF OPERATIONAL AREA FOR SUPPORT TO FARMING ............. 40 TABLE 10: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARIES OF CASH TRANSFER OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 44 TABLE 11: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARIES OF CASH TRANSFERS BY GENDER .............................................................................. 45 TABLE 12: ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND ACTIVITY TYPE BY SITE ........................................................................................... 45 TABLE13: STATUS OF EXECUTION OF CFW ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 45 TABLE 14: STATUS OF FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION AS OF 30 JUNE 2016 .................................................................................... 48 P a g e | 6 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On completion of the mission for assessing the Food Security and Sustainable Livelihood (FSSL) project in the region of Diffa, we wish to express our sincere thanks to all those who have participated either directly or indirectly in preparing this report. Our most sincere thanks also to the Humanitarian Coordination Unit (HCU) of Diffa, and in particular, to the Head of the Unit Mr. Issa Elhadj Alah Tanko, who agreed to give us all the information we needed despite of his very busy agenda due to the current humanitarian crisis situation in the region of Diffa. We would also like to thank the decentralised services of the State, namely the farming, breeding, and environmental services of the regions of Diffa, Maïné Soroa, and Chétimari. Our appreciation also extends to Mr.Tahirou Moussa (General Secretary of the commune of Maïné Soroa), to Mr. Koukouma Gasso and Mr. Djibrilla Mallam Kalla, respectively Mayor of Maïné Soroa and Mayor of Chétimari for their support and collaboration throughout the assessment of the mission in their respective communes. Special thanks to the refugees, those displaced, and the host households who we have met in the villages and at different sites. Despite the grave emergency humanitarian situation that is being so harsh on them, they have welcomed us with dignity and collaborated with the assessment mission. We would like to convey our sympathy and encouragement. We would also like to send them our hope that his ordeal they are going through comes to an end as quickly as possible. We extend our thanks also to the NGO Karkara unit in Diffa, in particular Mr. Ali Saley, Head of the FSSL project and their Supervisor, Mr. Tidjani Bindoumi. The latter accompanied us throughout the entire mission, serving as our translator to/from Kanouri – Hausa – French, together with his local knowledge, we have completed together a memorable mission. We would like to express our gratitude to Moussa Dan Banoufa, Head of the AAH Base at Diffa and all the team, in particular Daouda Boukari and Bachir Maïboudjé, for their warm reception in the field, their open collaboration and all the logistics support that they gave us throughout the assessment mission. We would especially like to thank the drivers who patiently and professionally accompanied us. Lastly, we would also to like to sincerely thank the Representatives of the Action Against Hunger mission in Niger, in particular Ms. Marie Christine CORMIER, Assistant Director of the Mission, Amadou Seyni Saley, FSSL Technician, and Moctar Habou, in charge of surveillance and assessment. The logistics support, the advice, and all the information shared with us, have been indispensable to the successful completion of the mission. Dr Issaka Idrissa Mossi Consultant-Assessor. P a g e | 7 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa OVERVIEW I. CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT AND THE ASSESSMENT Since the state of emergency was declared in the States of Eastern Nigeria (Adamawa, Borno and Yobé) in May 2013, Niger has faced an unprecedented humanitarian challenge in the region of Diffa. In this context, the main humanitarian challenges in the region include food insecurity, malnutrition, limited access to basic social services (water, sanitation, hygiene, health, education, etc.), and the need for protection against security threats towards their people. Faced with all these challenges, the Nigerian Government and humanitarian contributors were mobilised to give emergency assistance to the communes affected. A joint assessment of the needs of the communes affected by the crisis was conducted in February, 2015, under the control of the Local Authorities of Diffa, and several International Agencies and Organisations. Based on the needs identified, the Nigerian Government launched a humanitarian plan in March 2015 for Diffa. The aim of this plan is to provide appropriate solutions adapted and effective, to the crisis situation currently affecting the region. In addition, it must enable all the humanitarian contributors (National and International) to combine their efforts, from a development, synergy and complementary perspective within a framework that facilitates better coordination. In line with the dynamics started by the Nigerian Government and their partners, AAH has prepared a response project to “Assure and restore food security and sustainable livelihoods of vulnerable displaced people and host communes in the region of Diffa.” This project is being carried out with funding from the Office of United States Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA-USAID), for a budget of 1,222,000 USD, for a period of 12 months (25 August 2015 – 24 August 2016). It is being carried out under the leadership and responsibility of AAH in Niger, in technical partnership with the Nigerian Association for the Revitalising of Local Initiatives (NGO KARKARA). The project intervenes in three (3) communes in the region of Diffa (Diffa, Chétimari, and Maïné Soroa), with the main objective of “improving the food security and the living conditions of the host communes and displaced Nigerians affected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa”. In this context, the project has targeted 2,800 households with a total of 19,600 people: very poor, displaced, refugees, host families, repatriated, and residents. To achieve its objective, the project is organised into three (3) operational areas: (i) support market gardening activities; (ii) Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL); (iii) cash transfers. In accordance with the provisions contained in the document of the project and at the end of the current cycle of implementation, an external end-of-project assessment has been commissioned by the AAH in Niger. This assessment falls under a process of accountability and transparency of activities undertaken by AAH, vis-à-vis the different parties involved (ODFA – USAID, commune beneficiaries of the project, local authorities, regional and national, other partners of the project, etc.). II. METHODOLOGY The methodology uses assessment questions based on criteria recommended by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE), included in the terms of reference (TOR) of this mission, namely: i) the relevance for the project; ii) the effectiveness of the implementation; iii) the efficiency of the implementation; iv) the effects of the interventions of the project; iv) the practicality (sustainability) of the achievements recorded resulting from the implementation of the project. In order to put into operation this criteria, the assessment, combines in a complimentary way, three (3) main data and information sources: (i) existing documentation; (ii) the evaluation of data and information collected from personal interviews; (iii) the results from assessment feedback sessions. III. REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROJECT The analytical review of the implementation of the project has allowed for a systematic review of the management of the implementation and performance recorded throughout this phase. P a g e | 8 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.1. Relevance The analysis performed has identified: (i) the coherence between the conception parameters of the project and the targeted problem; (ii) the coherence of the project and the national, regional, and local priorities/strategies; (iii) the coherence of the project and the AAH principles for implementing their interventions. 3.2. Efficiency The target: the decisions of the beneficiaries are based in the main on poverty and vulnerability of the households and their situation in the light of this crisis situation affecting them. Then on more specific criteria depending on the nature of the activities and the profile types of the beneficiaries, have been established by consensus between the members of the target committee. Baseline study: the assessment mission notes that the baseline study of the project was carried out in the last two weeks of December 2015, being approximately 4 months after the project started. The USAID/OFDA project proposal manual stipulates that if there is no study available at the time of the project proposal, it must be made available 90 days after the start of the project (for projects lasting at least 6 months). This delay is due to the rather slow start to the project. Monitoring contingencies: contextual monitoring is covered, in compliance with the Cooperation Agreement, by the situation reports that KARKARA are required to produce from time to time depending on the evolution of the situation, and if requested by AAH. These reports detail the context, the humanitarian needs, the security situation, etc. Yet this contingency monitoring must be integrated in the monitoring process and assessment of the project to assure the different risks identified in the project document and by default affecting not only the course of the project but also its effective and expected results. Progress and assessment: progress and assessment are activities that need to be in place right from the start of a project but it would seem they have been implemented rather late into the project: the project officially began in August 2015 and the progress and assessment activities were put into place in April – May 2016, that is, 8 or 9 months after the start of the project. The person responsible for the same took up office in the project in June 2016 when the Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) surveys were being performed (2 months before the end of the project). It is important to note that progress and assessment function are important technical and managerial functions that contribute to the accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement of the processes, learning curve, and capitalise on experience and good practices. These principles are also extremely important because they give AAH and KARKARA visibility into their respective management systems. They are also very important principles for the direct beneficiaries of the project and the partners who are providing technical or financial support during implementation. Effectiveness of operational areas: the implementation of the project was assured through three main complimentary operational areas: i) support market gardening activities; ii) Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL); iii) cash transfers. These areas contribute to the sustainable rehabilitation of the capacity to produce food for the households affected by the crisis and the conservation of these assets and, by default, improving their livelihoods giving the majority of host or displaced households affected by the conflict access to the bare essentials. The assessment on the extent to which the technique used for “SRL” has been fulfilled has revealed that all planned activities have been carried out 100%, with the exception of the distribution of the livestock food to 500 beneficiaries owning goats (99.50% coverage) and the provision of livestock food to host households owning their own livestock (90,50% coverage). It should be noted that all activities planned within the operational area, “support market gardening activities” have been executed as planned in the project and on time. The “Cash Transfer” operational area is conducted through Cash-For-Work (CFW) and Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT). As planned, the activities in this operational area have reached 1,400 households, a total of 9,800 people, over a period of three (3) months. These households are broken P a g e | 9 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa down as follows: 1,260 households (8,820 people) for CFW activities, with a gender disparity in favour of men (69.52%) against 30.48% women. A total of 140 households (980 people) have benefited from UCTs, as predicted. At this level, gender disparity in favour of men is less (51.42%) against women (42.58%). A total of 13 villages have benefitted from CFW activities and 22 villages from UCTs. The two components of this operational area (CFW and UCT) have injected a total amount of 136,170,500 CFA francs into the economy of the villages representing 99.75% of the total forecast of 136,500,000 CFA francs as of 30 June 2016. However this percentage rate would rise to 100% at the end of the intervention, because the work days lost due to absences occurring during the implementation will have been made up. The analysis of the assessment of the operational areas execution has shown aspects that have influence the effectivity of the implementation. Some recommendations have been made. 3.3. Efficiency The project has recorded a good financial performance, even if the start-up phase suffered some difficulties causing some delay. In terms of budgetary implementation, the situation as of 30 June 2016 of the estimated expenditure when compared to the same shows an implementation performance rate of 83.79%. That is, a total of 1,023,880 USD expenditure out of the budgetary prevision of 1,222,000 USD. However, it should be noted this execution level, performed in June 2016 has been significantly exceeded. Given the level of the execution of the activities, the mission believes that they will come near to 100% at the end of the cycle. 3.4. Results and impacts The evaluation of the results and impacts requires us to go back in time and carry out a more thorough study. However, in the case of this assessment, the mission is based mainly on the perceptions of the different parties and above all those beneficiaries who have benefitted directly from the interventions of the project and the technical services who have provided their support during implementation. To this end, the assessment of the results and impacts (a priori) is to be performed on the level of the capacity of the beneficiary households and affected people (acquired knowledge, skills, and practices with respect to livestock breeding and market gardening) from a socio-economic-environmental perspective. The support, advice, and training carried out by the project in the key domains such as techniques on breeding small ruminants, farming production, alternative control mechanisms against pests threatening market garden crops (biological control sourced from local products), work to recover the land, have enabled the direct beneficiaries of the project to acquire indispensable knowledge and practices that allow them to improve the breeding of small ruminants, goats in particular, market gardening production, optimising the oases aquifers located in the Project Intervention Area (PIA). With respect to the use of the biological controls against crop pests based on local products, there is still progress to be made. These techniques are gradually being integrated into the practices. From the analysis of the interviews that the assessment mission held with the different parties involved, it should be noted that the actions of the project have succeeded in making the required changes. The local, regional, and departmental authorities, and the beneficiaries are unanimous in their confirmation that the actions undertaken are in the process of producing the expected results. The mission has identified some examples of these changes. 3.5. Sustainability What sustainability means in practice is the continuation of the activities of the project when the support given by the resources of the project come to an end. The analysis carried out has facilitated the P a g e | 10 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa assessment mission by evaluating the result through: (i) the relevance of the project; (ii) the degree of appropriateness of the benefits in the project by the different participants and mainly by the beneficiary communes; (ii) the integration of monitoring and mentoring at the level of the local management organisations and in the day-to-day activities of the technical structures of a State’s authority mission. IV. SOME GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNT Good practices and lessons learnt include the following: - The search for the complementarity with other participants managing emergency situations - The integration of the host communes, within the strategic and operational scheme of the assistance provided - The integration of humanitarian activities for recovery and development activities - The use of the Household Economy Approach (HEA) for geographical and household targeting - Partnership development for monitoring activities - Measures to strengthen the technical capacities for training target groups - Money transfers P a g e | 11 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa I. PROJECT CONTEXT 1.1. A security emergency against the backdrop of poverty Since a state of emergency was declared in the North-eastern States of Nigeria (Adamawa, Borno and Yobé) in May 2013, Nigeria has faced some unprecedented humanitarian challenges in the region of Diffa. The security situation in this region has deteriorated considerably since 6 February 2015 following constantly recurring violent attacks, by the armed terrorist groups of Boko-Haram on both sides of the border with Nigeria. These attacks, followed by multiple abuses and violations of human rights, have provoked mass population movements to Niger and from Nigeria (more than 290,000). Those repatriated are Nigerian nationals long-established in the North-eastern regions of Nigeria and the refugees coming from the same areas, are installing themselves in Niger on several makeshift sites1 or seek spontaneous refuge in host communes who are already faced with difficult living conditions. The majority of these people having fled from insecurity now find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position aggravating further the disadvantage of these host communes, already affected by a pre-existing vulnerability, where they have to face chronic challenges related to their livelihoods. We note that the majority of the commune of Diffa live on less than 1.25 USD per day and they have no access to drinking water, the health care services are difficult to access, even for the host commune. The region has one of the highest acute malnutrition rates and the lowest school attendance rates in the country. It also faces critical food insecurity every year (source). In this context, any external shock puts the families and systems into crisis. The main humanitarian challenges in the region include food insecurity, limited access to basic social services (water, sanitation, hygiene, health, education,…), and the need for protection against security threats towards their people. Faced with all these challenges, the Nigerian Government and humanitarian contributors were mobilised to give emergency assistance to the communes affected. However, in this rapidly-changing context, humanitarian aid remains subject to permanent instability considering the frequency of population movements (spontaneous installation/reinstallation). A joint assessment of the needs of the communes affected by the crisis was performed in February, 2015, under the control of the Local Authorities of Diffa, an several international agencies and organisations (OCHA, OUNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, ICRC, IOM, ACTED, IRC, CARE, APBE, COOPI CRS, AAH, Save the Children, etc.).The aim of this assessment was to get to know the needs better so that the humanitarian participants in the region could get a better idea, defining and targeting their respective interventions and putting into place a coordination mechanism for their actions. Based on the needs identified, the Nigerian Government launched a humanitarian plan in March 2015 for Diffa. The aim of this plan is to provide appropriate solutions adapted and efficient, to the crisis situation currently affecting the region. In addition, it must enable all the humanitarian 1 More than 135 sites have been recorded and continue to change along the RN1 road P a g e | 12 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa contributors (National and International) to combine their efforts, from a development, synergy and complementary perspective within a framework that facilitates better coordination 1.2. Synopsis of Project 1.2.1. Formulation and financing In line with the dynamics started by the Nigerian Government and their partners, AAH has prepared a response project to “Assure and restore food security and sustainable livelihoods of vulnerable displaced people and host communes in the region of Diffa.” This project is being carried out with funding from the Office of United States Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA￾USAID), for a budget of 1,222,000 USD, for a period of 12 months (25 August 2015 – 24 August 2016). It is being carried out under the leadership and responsibility of AAH in Niger, in technical partnership with the Nigerian Association for the Revitalising of Local Initiatives (NGO KARKARA). 1.2.2. Intervention areas and target groups In coordination with the regional and local authorities as well as with other humanitarian participants intervening in the region of Diffa, AAH has identified the parties in the North and West of the commune of Diff, the belt in the middle of the commune of Chétimari as well as the Northern part of the commune of Maïné-Soroa as the main intervention areas for activities presented under this project. As result, these intervention areas are made up of three (3) communes in the region of Diffa: commune of Diffa (6 villages), commune of Chétimari (6 villages) and the commune of Maïné Soroa (12 villages), 24 villages in total. These communes are considered to be more or less stable with respect to other affected communes. Overall, the project has targeted 2,800 households totalling 19,600 people, including: very poor communes, refugees, host families, repatriated people, and residents. 1.2.3. Objectives of the project and operational areas i.) Main Objective The main objective of the project is to “improve the food security and the living conditions of the host communes and displaced Nigerians affected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa” 2 . ii.) Specific Objective More specifically, the project aims to “respond to the immediate needs of the host communes and displaced people affected by the activities of Boko Haram in the border area between Niger and Nigeria”. iii.) Expected results In line with that set forth in the Project Document, the following results have been assigned to this phase of the project: 2 Project Document, Page 9 P a g e | 13 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa a) Maintain the capacity for producing food, as well as the most vulnerable assets of the households hosting displaced people. b) Improve livelihoods and access to the bare necessities of the majority of the host households and displaced people affected by the conflict iv.) Operational areas To achieve the results below, AAH has opted for a strategic approach integrating the immediate (emergency) needs of the affected communes and also their medium-term rehabilitation (recovery) needs. To this end, working in a complimentary way with the other participants intervening in the field, the activities of the project are organised into three (3) operational areas working together to strengthen and protect the livelihoods of the vulnerable communes: a) support market gardening from the point of view of strengthening the food security of the households. This operational area is, in turn, organised into operational strategies that include: the supply of vegetable garden seeds and farming tools; training on farming production techniques. b) the Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL) for the acquisition and strengthening of the assets of the vulnerable households. This operational area includes: the replenishment of livestock, the provisioning of animal feed (fodder and forage), and the recovery of livestock levels, vaccination, training in animal husbandry techniques and the monitoring of distributed animals (goats) by a private vet. c) cash transfer conducted through Cash-For-Work (CFW) and unconditional cash transfers, The latter is an initiative that enables beneficiaries to buy the bare necessities of their choice, while keeping their dignity and strengthening the socio-economic framework. The aim of the strategies of these operational areas is to prevent any additional degradation of the food and nutritional situation of the most vulnerable and take the pressure off the host communes and minimise the use of negative self-preservation mechanisms. II. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF THE ASSESSMENT MISSION 1.2.4. Nature, objectives and scope of the assessment In accordance with the provisions contained in the document of the project and at the end of the current cycle of implementation, an external end-of-project assessment has been commissioned by the AAH in Niger. This assessment falls under a process of accountability and transparency of activities undertaken by AAH, vis-à-vis the different parties involved (ODFA – USAID, commune beneficiaries of the project, local authorities, regional and national, other partners of the project, etc.). There are two complimentary objectives: i) Carry out an analysis of the performance of the project based on criteria defined in the Terms of Reference; ii) Identify from the same some guidelines for future AAH interventions in Diffa. P a g e | 14 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 1.2.5. Assessment methodology The methodology uses assessment questions based on criteria recommended by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE), included in the terms of reference of this mission, namely: i) the need for the project; ii) the effectiveness of the implementation; iii) the efficiency of the implementation; iv) the results of the interventions of the project; iv) the practicality (sustainability) of the achievements recorded resulting from the implementation of the project. In order to put into operation this criteria, the assessment, combines in a complimentary way, three (3) main data and information sources: i) existing documentation context-rich on project intervention as well as periodic progress reports on the project (of the technical plan and financial control). The evaluation of this documentation has helped to define better the subject of the interviews with those involved in the interventions of the project in the target communes. ii) the evaluation of the data and information collected from personal interviews, in a semi￾structured initiative, with diverse parties involved in the project (Mission AAH Niger, base of the AAH interventions in the region of Diffa, AAH Project Leaders and the NGO KARKARA, Coordination of the humanitarian action in Diffa, Office of the World Food Programme (WFP)in Diffa, international NGO partners in Diffa, Regional Chamber for Agriculture of Diffa, departmental and communal technical services, municipal authorities, project beneficiaries, traditional authorities, etc.)3 ; iii) The results from assessment feedback session, organised in both Diffa and Niamey. The evaluation process was started at the end of July 2106. It includes the following main phases: i) Preparatory phase consisting in the analysis of the TOR and the establishment of a common understanding between the Consultant and the AAH mission in Niger. More importantly, it was an opportunity to clarify any doubts and discuss any additional expectations. This preparatory phase also served to establish the methodology, organisational, and logistical framework of the mission and the starting point for the collection of any documents available for this project. ii) Document review phase, collection and evaluation of data and information in the field. This phase led to the collection of the data and information required for formulating the type of evaluation questions/answers to be used. iii) Synthesis and analysis phase of the data and information collected. This phase consisted in organising a Sharing Session of the analysis and preliminary conclusions of the evaluation mission with the implementation leaders of the project at the level of Diffa (AAH Base and NGO KARKARA). iv) Preparation of the provisional report of the assessment mission, including the substantiated observations and recommendations deemed relevant, recorded after the Sharing Session of the analysis and preliminary conclusions of the assessment mission. v) Organisation of a session to present the provisional report to the AAH mission in Niger and the NGO KARKARA. 3 List of people interviewed in annex information of this report P a g e | 15 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Final Report Observations Presentation of Provisional Report Provisional Report Sharing of analysis and preliminary conclusions Analyse data: synthesis report/ memorandum Collect primary data Develop tools to collect primary data Review documents Methodology, organisational, and logistical framework of the mission – start of the process vi) Preparation of the final assessment report, including any relevant observations and recommendations, recorded during the session presenting the provisional report. The assessment process followed detailed in the diagram below: Figure 1: Diagram of the evaluative approach P a g e | 16 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 1.2.6. Structure of the report The report presenting the results derived from the assessment is organised into five (5) main points: i) Context of the project ii) Objectives and method of the assessment mission iii) Factual assessment of the implementation iv) Analytical review of project performance v) Recommendations III. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE The analytical review of the implementation of the project led to a systematic examination of the management of the implementation and the performance recorded during this cycle. As previously mentioned, the analytical review of the project performance is based on criteria recommended by the Economic Cooperation and Development Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE). These criteria have been incorporated into the Terms of Reference o this mission and include: i) the relevance of the project; ii) the effectiveness of the implementation; iii) the efficiency of the implementation; iv) the effects of the intentions of the project; v) the practicality (sustainability) of the achievements recorded resulting from the implementation of the project. However, to carry out such a review, the mission had to reconstruct the logical framework of the project. 3.1. Reconstitution of the logical framework of the project In principle it is the logical framework that provides all the essential details of the conceptual scope of the intervention planned of the Project. The reconstruction of the logical framework has been performed using the Project Document as its point of reference. P a g e | 17 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Table 1: Logical framework of the Project RESULTS CHAIN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SOURCES /VERIFICATION MEANS ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS IMPACT Food security is guaranteed and the livelihoods of the communes effected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa are protected i. At least 80% of the households with an Survival Strategy Index (SSI) has been reduced at the end of the project ii. At least 80% of the beneficiaries have improved their average Food Diversity Score (FDS) at the end of the project iii. At least 80% of the beneficiaries have an acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS) Baseline/endline/PDM OUTCOME The coverage of the immediate and basic needs of the people affected by the humanitarian crisis in the communes of Diffa, Maïné - Soroa and Chétimari has improved i. Number of beneficiaries (men/women) who can satisfy their basic feed needs thanks to the unconditional and conditional cash transfers and number of months Baseline/endline, /PDM PRODUCT 1 The food production capacity and the assets of the majority of the most vulnerable households hosting displaced people is being maintained i. Increase in the number of food self-sufficiency months thanks to the distribution of seeds by household ii. Number of project work carried out thanks to the CFW in the villages hosting the displaced, repatriated, and refugees iii. Quantity of tool kits distributed at the CFW sites before beginning activities PRODUCT 2 The livelihoods and access to the bare necessities by the majority of the host households and displaced people affected by the conflict has improved i) Amount of cash transfers per household (CFW and UCT) ii) Number of vulnerable households (by type) who actually benefitted from cash transfer (CFW and UCT) P a g e | 18 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa RESULTS CHAIN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SOURCES /VERIFICATION MEANS ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS 1 RELATED ACTIVITIES 1.1. Replenishment of livestock of affected households - Acquire the goats to be distributed - Identify, vaccinate, and dewormed the goats before distribution  Vaccination  Deworming  Identification of the animals - Identify and select the beneficiaries - Organise and implement cattle markets - Distribute the goats to the vulnerable households - Pay the vouchers - Provide vitamin and mineral supplements for distributed animals i. 3 reproductive aged-goats by household for a total of 500 households amounting to 1,500 goats being distributed ii. 5 vaccines administered to the distributed goats (Ovipestivac, Pastovac, Carbovac, Boluni Sole, Intravit) iii. All the goats acquired have been identified before distributing (tagged) iv. All the goats distributed have received vitamins and mineral supplements - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services - Monitoring reports by private vet - Regular rainfall - Availability of local small livestock - Humanitarian access to communes is safe - A lot of goats are used in the villages for reproduction 1.2. Provision of animal feed i. Number of animal feed sacks distributed to each of the 500 goat beneficiaries in two phases (a total of 4 sacks of wheat bran, 2 sacks of cattle cake per beneficiary) ii. Number of animal feed sacks distributed to each one of the 200 households having their own animals (a total of 4 wheat bran sacks, and 2 sacks of cattle cake per beneficiary) - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services - Monitoring reports by private vet - Animal feed available at local market - Humanitarian access to communes is safe 1.3. Training on livestock breeding techniques - Recycle/train the staff destined to the project - Train the beneficiaries - Monitor the training given i. Number of experienced trainers (Karkara) ii. Number of trained beneficiaries - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services - Monitoring reports by private vet - Humanitarian access to communes is safe j P a g e | 19 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa RESULTS CHAIN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SOURCES /VERIFICATION MEANS ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS j 1.4. Monitor distributed goats for a period of 6 months - Work with the health care agents during the vaccination, deworming, and monitoring of the health of the livestock distributed (before distribution); - Assure the purchase of identification tags and subsequent tagging - Visit the beneficiaries regularly to give them livestock advice - Systematically attend to all goats that need care - Monitor the progress of the animals - Record the birth rate and mortality i. Agreement to be signed with Vet ii. 4 monitoring missions performed by Vet - Agreement signed with Vet - Monitoring reports of private Vet - Humanitarian access to communes is safe 1.5. Provisioning of vegetables seeds and farming tools - Evaluate the seed availability and identify the suppliers (seed quality control) - Identify and select the beneficiaries and distribute the seed vouchers - Distribute the seeds and farming tools - Assure monitoring and technical support including post-distribution i. Number of vulnerable households who have received the seed kit: cabbage (3/10g), lettuce (3/10g), onion (2/25g), potato (1/25kg), pepper (3/10g), corn P3 Kollo P3 (2kg), sweet potato cuttings (2kg) ii. Number of vulnerable households who have received farming tool kits; daba (African hoe) (1); watering can (1); rack (1); hoe (1) - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services (departmental agricultural services) - Humanitarian access to communes is safe 1.6. Training on crop production techniques - Prepare training and recycling guides for project staff - Define Educational Action Plan for beneficiaries - Identify the training site, mobilise beneficiaries and hold training sessions i. Number of groups of representatives of the trained beneficiaries ii. Number of extension agents responsible for distributing the seeds and providing farming support that have been recycled iii. The number and type of identified pests iv. Treated surfaces v. Bio techniques – pesticides studied - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services (departmental agricultural services) - Humanitarian access to communes is safe P a g e | 20 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa RESULTS CHAIN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SOURCES /VERIFICATION MEANS ASSUMPTIONS/ RISKS P2 RELATED ACTIVITIES 2.1. Implementation of a Cash-For￾Work programme for beneficiaries - Raise awareness and communicate the project to all participants - Identify and select communes - Identify and selection beneficiaries - Identify activities - Provide tools and materials - Implement activities - Lend money - Monitor activities i. Number of people employed on CFW activities, by gender (1,260 households, a total of 9,800 individuals, 50% women) ii. Total average amount in USD of a person’s income thanks to CFW activities CFW (32.500 CFA francs/person/month, during 3 months) iii. Total amount of transfers through the CFW activities (136500 000 CFA francs) - Project activity reports Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services (departmental environmental services) - The security situation is not degraded in the targeted area - Humanitarian access to communes is safe 2.2. Implementation of an unconditional transfer programme i. Number of people affected by unconditional cash transfers by gender - Project activity reports - Monitoring activity reports by Technical Services (departmental environmental services) - The security situation is not degraded in the targeted area - Humanitarian access to communes is safe P a g e | 21 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.2. Relevance of the Project The review of the relevance of the project is mainly based on the examination of the following aspects: i) the coherence between the conception of the project and the targeted problem; ii) the coherence of the project and the national, regional, and local priorities/strategies; iii) the coherence of the project and the AAH principles for implementing their interventions. 3.2.1. Coherence between the conception of the project and the targeted problem Conceived within the context of the emergency interventions following the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa, the project is not only known for being a humanitarian emergency project (cash transfers) but also being a post-project in terms of crisis prevention, attending the effect of the crisis and rehabilitation (recovery) on the living conditions of the people in the communes concerned. However, in this area, the border between them continues to be extremely tenuous. With all this in mind, the analysis of the relevance of the project takes into account the following considerations: i.) The analysis of the intervention objectives and strategies of the project reveals a targeting centred on the underlying causes of recurrent vulnerability of the households to food insecurity particularly in the rural areas in this region of Niger. The main concern is to contribute to improving, in a sustainable way, to the food security and the living conditions of the host communes and displaced Nigerians affected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa, through the following objectives: i) maintain the capacity for producing food, as well as the most vulnerable assets of the households hosting displaced persons; ii) improve livelihoods and access to the bare necessities of the majority of the host households and displaced affected by the conflict. The attainment of these two main operational objectives, should led to contributing towards an optimal coverage of the immediate an basic needs of the people affected by the humanitarian crisis in the communes of Diffa, Maïné Soroa and Chétimari. To achieve these objectives, the strategies orientated towards the following operational areas have been implemented for the project: i) the Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL) for 700 vulnerable households; ii) support for market gardening for 700 vulnerable households; iii) cash transfers (Cash-For-Work and Unconditional Cash) for 1,400 households. The FSSL Project for Diffa is a combination of humanitarian emergency interventions and development/rehabilitation (recovery) interventions. In fact, through cash transfers, the project has been able to provide support to the immediate needs of the different target groups affected by the humanitarian crisis that is rife in the region. With respect to SRL and support to market gardening operational areas, the interventions of the project have contributed to the medium-to-long term strategy aiming to prevent food and nutritional vulnerability situations, mitigating its effects and rehabilitating the living conditions of the affected communes. Above all, they have strengthened/developed community resilience against shocks provoked by crisis situations. In its approach, the FSSL Project for Diffa is a vehicle for responding to, on the one hand, the emergency situation paramount in the P a g e | 22 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa intervention area, and on the other, to the underlying causes of the recurrent vulnerability of the communes to food and nutritional insecurity and takes into account the needs of the region at that moment in time. This project effectively combines the management of humanitarian emergencies with the general development processes for rehabilitation (recovery) activities. To this end, in light of the foregoing, the FSSL Project for Diffa is an emergency/rehabilitation project. ii.) The AAH – KARKARA FSSL project was conceived in April 2015, practically at the same time when the security situation in this region had considerably deteriorated. It was then revised in June 2015 due to the prolongation of the conflict in the Nigerian territory (attack on Bosso and Diffa). The project actually began in August 2015. The conception of the project, which has placed emphasis on a preventative approach, mitigating the effects of the crisis and rehabilitation of the living conditions of the affected communes, is an appropriate option since it complements the emergency options led by the Government of Niger and their partners, in particular the World Food Programme (WFP), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (OUNHCR), and other International and National NGOs. iii.) The analysis of the main data and information collected from target groups in the intervention areas of the project, clearly demonstrates that the variety of solutions proposed within the scope of these interventions, contribute to the securing of the living conditions of the affected people: refugees, repatriated, displaced, internally displaced (IDPs), and host communes who were already in a chronic vulnerable situation faced with the food and nutritional demands. iv.) Furthermore, the assessment mission has noted that with the exception of the resident population, the majority of the repatriated are planning to install themselves permanently in the host villages which are, after all, their villages/areas of origin and where they still have some family. With respect to the internally displaced, while opinion remains divided, all of them have lost their livelihoods and their productive capacity has been considerably weakened. The interventions of the Project are seen as an opportunity to replenish lost assets, restore production capacity and strengthen resilience, in the medium-to-long term, of the communes affected by the crisis. v.) If the operational area “cash transfer” falls within humanitarian emergency response, the other two operational areas, “SRL” and “support market gardening”, are of a different type and for another genre. The processes involved in the framework of these operational areas are medium-to-long term resulting in an apparent mismatch between the time frame of these interventions (12 months: very short term) and with the intervention approach in terms of rehabilitation and development: development approaches based on long processes of ownership, participation, and responsibility of the communities. The options of the project, in these two operational areas, are strategic options that must be supported and strengthened over a long period in order to assure the sustainability of the achievements that are in a context subject to multiple demands, both natural and man￾made. P a g e | 23 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa vi.) Post-project strategies are not clearly defined in the conceptual logic of the project. So that the impact and sustainability of their achievements become a performance vehicle they should be integrated into the logical structure of the interventions of the FSSL Project for Diffa. 3.2.2. Coherence of the project with the national, regional, and local priorities/strategies The review of the guidelines and objectives of the State, expressed in the Statement of General Policy by the Prime Minister, facilitates sustainable relationships between the objectives and strategies of the Project, even if this takes place on a local scale. There are clear relationships with regards to issues such as fighting poverty, improving the resilience of the vulnerable groups against crisis or catastrophic situations, food and nutritional security in households, in particular, the poorest, the management of natural resources, the strengthening of capacity at the level of the commune, etc. All these preoccupations underlie the framework of the interventions of the AAH/KARKARA FSSL project and are the reference point for the strategic approach for development in Niger. Moreover, with respect to the strategy of the project, involved in providing solutions to the immediate and basic needs of the host communes and displaced people affected by the activities of Boko Haram in the border region between Niger and Nigeria, the interventions of the project are part of a more global process within the framework of the implementation of the Humanitarian Plan for the Region of Diffa, initiated by the Government in March 2015. The implementation plan involves the participation of the partners from Niger made up of several international development and humanitarian participants: OCHA, OUNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, ICRC, IOM, ACTED, IRC, CARE, APBE, COOPI CRS, AAH, Save the Children, etc. and several national and regional contributors. From this perspective, the strategies implemented in the scope of the project, clearly participate in the reduction of the immediate and long-term effects of the current humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa, and is already having an impact on the extreme vulnerability situation of the communes. The analysis of the main data and information collected from target groups of the project clearly demonstrate that the variety of proposed solutions, contribute to improving the living conditions of the people and, in particular, participates in creating the conditions for the food security and protection of the livelihoods of the communes affected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa, Maïné - Soroa and Chétimari. It should also be noted the coherence of the project with the national action plan for the survival, and the protection, and the development of the children in Niger. This plan aims to, amongst others: a) reduce infant-child mortality; b) reduce malnutrition in children; c) give access to healthy water and a clean environment to all families Lastly, at the local level, the relationships are also clearly established in the Commune Development Plans (CDP), that base their approach on strategic pillars: protection, preservation of the environment, and sustainable management of natural resources, the recovery of agro-pastoral production sectors, the rehabilitation of the productive base, guarantee food security of an ever￾increasing population, assure access to base social services to all, promote the recovery of the local economy. P a g e | 24 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.2.3. Coherence of the project with AAH intervention principles 3.2.3.1. Coherence with AAH intervention situations The project implemented in the region of Diffa is entirely consistent with AAH intervention situations. In fact, the security situation imposed by the terrorist sect Boko Haram, in the region of Diffa, is without doubt an unprecedented serious threat on the food security of the communes who are living there together with the endemic poverty and extreme vulnerability of the communes. In fact, more than one hundred humanitarian and development organisations (national and international) are currently intervening in working together with the Government of Niger and local communities, to address the effects of this serious crisis with diverse strategies (prevention, emergency relief, recovery, and even development). The situation that prevails in the entire region of Diffa and in particular in the intervention areas of the project has caused a social breakdown of the communities and has driven the communes into an extremely multi-faceted vulnerable situation (physical safety, food and nutritional security including water, hygiene and sanitation conditions, shelter, etc.). Moreover, the intervention of the project helps to reduce the risk of survival of the communes by intervening with strategies that are structured towards recovering the autonomy and dignity of the people affected by the crisis. These interventions of the project also reduce the risk of radicalisation of certain young people today victims of the Boko Haram sect and who are absolutely destitute. During the group interview that the assessment mission held in the village of Baréwas, a youth declared that “the intervention of the project and that of other organisations, gives us hope and support us in our decision not to have followed Boko Haram, who are harassing us all the time.” 3.2.3.2. Coherence with AAH intervention principles Within the scope of project implementation, the NGO KARKARA, as Technical Project Leader, is committed to respecting a certain number of principles contained in the Collaboration Agreement that it signed with the AAH organisation. These principles are applicable in the implementation of all the projects and programs introduced to the international plan, in the intervention regions. The evaluation of the relevance of the project, with regards to these principles, is based on the conception of the project and also on the facts and perceptions of the parties involved in the project who the mission have met in the intervention areas. i.) Independence The assessment mission has not noted any propensity by KARKARA and AAH that dismember governmental policy or instruments in their actions. The rules, procedures, and the strategic interventions respond to the strategic and operational intervention interventions that underpin their missions and their values to the national and international plan. However, strategies such as those contained in the Project Document are consistent with the strategies on a national scale with regards to food and nutritional security as well as the emergency plan for the region of Diffa. This strategic pillar is considered rather as being the sign of their relevance with regards to the basic needs of the poor and vulnerable communes in the intervention area of the project. P a g e | 25 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa ii.) Neutrality and non-discrimination The mission notes that the implementation of the project has respected these principles. In fact, the interventions have been performed without taking in account religious beliefs, political bias, nationality, race, nor ethnicity of the beneficiaries. In fact, the actions of the project are conceived and executed on the basis of food and nutritional insecurity and poverty only. Moreover, the afflicted villages and communes are located in the areas affected by safety and humanitarian crisis rife in the region of Diffa. The application of these principles have been stressed successfully by all parties involved in the project who the assessment mission have met in the field. When developed, the strategies carried out place emphasis on the equal participation of men/women in all the operational areas of the project. However, during implementation the mission has noted a degree of prevalence towards households run by men compared with those run by women. Lastly, it needs to be mentioned that the choice of target villages and households has been performed in a participative way, involving all the parties involved in the project, especially with the very poor, displaced, refugees, host families, repatriated, and residents. In addition to these groups, direct targets of the project, relevant State services and local, customary authorities have been involved. iii.) Free access to the victims The assessment mission has noted that the coordination arrangements of the intervention partners on a regional level have created a map of the areas affected by the crisis. Furthermore, the geographic targeting exercise and that of the beneficiary households has been performed in a participative way. Using this targeting as a basis, AAH and KARKARA have had free access to all the different beneficiary groups of the project. AAH has supervised the implementation and the accountability vis-à-vis USAID/OFDA beneficiaries and regional/local authorities. Technical teams involved in the implementation of the project have performed strengthening actions as part of a strategy that involves duplicating the training given on different levels thus assuring the effectiveness of this action. iv.) Professionalism and transparency Even though the interactions that the assessment mission have had with the implementation teams (KARKARA and AAH) have been limited to the key activity leaders and in view of the quality work sessions that we have had with them, the mission can surmise that their level of professionalism is quite satisfactory. In addition, to promote professionalism during the implementation of the project, a Memorandum of Understanding and a Cooperation Agreement were signed with the technical services on all levels (regional, departmental, and local). In specific domains, private service provision agreements were entered into (in the case of the private Vet). Likewise, the participation of the project team in several collaborative and decision-making environments at regional level, within the scope of the management of the ongoing crisis, has been considered satisfactory by the regional authorities (regional committee for management crisis situations, humanitarian coordination unit, technical work groups – water, sanitation, hygiene and food security) as well as P a g e | 26 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa by the municipal authorities in the intervention areas of the project. Accordingly, the target groups expressed their satisfaction with the schedules that have been respected. From the meeting the assessment mission had with the Humanitarian Coordination Unit at Diffa, it would seem that the KARKARA and AAH have carried out the implementation of the project according to the expectations of the regional and local authorities. These expectations centred on the collaboration and transparency plan established for the implementation of the work agenda: respect humanitarian principles, respect State principles established for emergency intervention in areas affected by the crisis, inform and communicate the content and procedure of the interventions to local authorities within the commune and, by default, the local community, participation of the local authorities throughout the entire cycle of the implementation of the project, local authorities considered as partners, reports on activities undertaken by the Government, participation in the Regional Crisis Committee, sector work groups, etc. It should be noted that the two project teams are extremely familiar with the intervention area of the project, and in particular the NGO KARKARA has extensive experience in delivering projects in the region of Diffa. Responsibilities are accounted for through a reporting and communication system on all levels of the implementation, by all the parties involved in the project, including State services. Lastly, the weak points that undermine somewhat the foregoing strong points, are to be found in the following: the difficult start due to the problems of putting into place the two implementation teams of the project, misunderstanding in the execution of the budget lines despite them being separate (one for AAH and another for KARKARA) and annexed to the collaboration agreement between the two partners, insufficient control over AAH/OFDA management procedures and certain management processes4 . 3.2.4. Recommendations In conclusion, it should be noted that the Project was conceived and funded with the aim of contributing to a solution to the humanitarian emergency situation prevailing in the region of Diffa, victim of the war imposed on them by the terrorist group, Boko Haram, active in the whole area. However, the content and approach of the implementation have been orientated more towards prevention activities, alleviation of the mitigating circumstances, and recovery of the living conditions of the households affected by the situation they find themselves in. Despite this deviation, the relevance of the operational and strategic operations of the Project is quite clear. Moreover, this conclusion is unanimous, shared by the different parties involved in the project (the beneficiaries in particular) who the assessment mission have met in Diffa, in the intervention communes of the Project. In fact, providing immediate solutions to such a serious situation prevailing in Diffa that puts human life at risk, is an eminently humanitarian-type operation and urgent. It is perfectly normal that, during the development of a crisis, that emphasis is placed on interventions of this type (distribution of food, shelter, water, etc.). However, it is also true that targeting activities on prevention of the crisis, alleviation of the mitigating circumstances, and recovery of the living conditions of the households could be construed as humanitarian 4 The report will revisit this question in the next chapter covering effectiveness of the implementation of the project P a g e | 27 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa interventions in Niger in general, and, in particular, in this part of the country. And this, due to the general nature and very high level of vulnerability of the households, especially in the rural areas. Or the increasing vulnerability of the majority of the already-weak households are perfect conditions for such humanitarian crisis happening again. It is therefore important to note that, in this Project, AAH and their partners have taken action to reduce the vulnerability of the communes faced with food insecurity and the degradation of their livelihoods. This in particular in the intervention communes of the project where the border, between “normal” poverty and crisis outbreaks are difficult to differentiate. In the context of the foregoing conclusions, the assessment mission makes the following recommendations: i.) Owing to the fine line between the emergency situations and development of the intervention area of the Project together with the relevance of the interventions undertaken within the scope of the cycle of the Project that provide solutions to the structural causes of the vulnerability of the households facing food security shocks, degradation of their livelihoods, and their limited capacity to access the bare essentials, supporting the process started by AAH and their partners in Diffa, it is considered necessary to consolidate and ensure the sustainability of their achievements. This support could be developed with another phase lasting at least 2 years. ii.) Lastly, to assure the better integration of women in the framework of the project and in its content, there is a need to orientate the income-generating activities towards women affected by the crisis. This strategy could be implemented by organising these women with the backing of a micro-funding partner. 3.3. Effectiveness of the implementation 3.3.1. Geographical and household targeting In order to determine the Project Intervention Area (PIA) and the target beneficiaries of the project, geographical targeting (end of October 2015) and household beneficiary targeting (26 November – 2 December 2016) has been carried out respectively, according to the HEA (Household Economy Approach). These two targeting operations have been conducted in a participatory manner. The first targeting exercise involved: communities, municipal councillors, State technical services, and development partners. The second targeting exercise to identify beneficiary households, was carried out by the communities themselves, under the supervision of the implementation team of the project (AAH and KARKARA) and in collaboration with the State technical services Agents, in particular those from agriculture, community development, the environment, and livestock breeding. Following this process, 24 villages (12 in the commune of Maïné – Soroa, 6 in the commune of Chétimari, 6 in the commune of Diffa) have been definitively selected and geo-referenced for project interventions. These 24 villages were chosen on the basis of the criteria established with the other parties involved in the project:(i) the results of the agro-pastoral campaign of 2014 and the forecast for 2015;(ii) the existence of displaced people, taking into account the number of women and children;(iii) the existence of other participants and needs covered by other aid providers; (iv) the suitability of the proposed activities and the livelihood of the commune. P a g e | 28 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa The selection of the beneficiaries is mainly based on the poverty and vulnerability of the households and their status with respect to this crisis situation that is affecting them. Thereafter, there are more specific criteria, depending on the nature of the activities and the profile types of the beneficiaries, having been established by consensus between the members of the targeting committee. These specific criteria include: - SRL and animal feed operational areas: strongly-dependent vulnerable households, households with children, pregnant/breast-feeding women or elderly or disabled people suffering from malnutrition. - Support market gardening operational area: very poor household with access to irrigable land. - Cash transfer operational area: • CFW: very poor household having one valid person for participating in the work • Unconditional transfers: very poor households managed by pregnant or breast-feeding women, disabled person or unsupported elderly person The targeting method (HEA) used, is adapted to the context of the intervention of the project. The targeting of the households was participative and this is a reliable condition. However, it would appear that due to the nature of the SRL activities, it would have been wise to add as criteria: livestock breeding as the pillar to the economic activity of the household. This would strengthen the effect/impact on the household and the sustainability of the humanitarian aid given. The table below details the distribution of beneficiary household by operational area and by commune. Communes Market Gardening Livestock Breeding Cash-For-Work Unconditional Cash Animal Feed Diffa 53 172 309 40 30 Chétimari 53 174 114 34 170 Maïné-Soroa 594 154 837 66 0 Total 700 500 1 260 140 200 Table 2: Distribution of the beneficiary households by operational area and by commune In total, the project has targeted 2,800 households with a total of 19,600 people directly involved based on an average of 7 people per household, conventionally admitted by the government and the partners intervening in the region of Diffa. Note that the version of the Project Document made reference to 23,100 individuals or 23,800 people. 3.3.2. Baseline study The assessment mission has noted that the baseline study of the project was carried out in the last two weeks of December 2015, that is, approximately 4 months after the start of the project. However, the USAID/OFDA5 manual on the project proposals, stipulates that in the case where this study is not available at the proposal phase of the project, it should be available 90 days after the start of the project (project duration normally lasts at least 6 months). This delay is without any doubt due to the difficult start of the project: the problems of putting into place the two implementation teams of the project (KARKARA and AAH), a misunderstanding of the text of the agreement between the two partners, despite several preparatory meetings, insufficient knowledge 5 USAID/OFDA, Guidelines for proposals, page 28 P a g e | 29 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa of KARKARA on USAID/OFDA guidelines with regards to funding and project execution, communication breakdown between the two partners, intervention areas of the different partners intervening in Diffa, inappropriate in the areas affected by the crisis (one village one partner), area allocation, fortunately and in a timely manner, by the Humanitarian Coordination Unit (HCU/Diffa), adjustment and coordination with the other partners (WFP, Save the Children, IRC, …) in certain intervention villages of the project, the relocation limitations due to the state of emergency declared in the area of Diffa, etc. 3.3.3. Monitoring contingencies It has come to the attention of the mission the existence of a risk analysis produced before the start of the project. Furthermore, every morning there is a security meeting held between 8H and 9H. These meetings are forums for exchanging information on the latest developments of the security conditions in the area and for receiving directives for relocation. In addition, the AAH base in Diffa is coordinated with the other humanitarian partners intervening in the area, for security issues in particular. This contextual monitoring is supported, in compliance with that set forth in the Cooperation Agreement, by reports on the situation that KARKARA is required to produce as a result of the evolution of the situation and/or as required by AAH. These reports detail the context, the humanitarian needs, the security situation, etc. However, this contingency monitoring should be integrated in the monitoring and assessment of the project to assure the management of the different risks identified in the Project Document not only on how they are going to affect the progress of the project but also the effectivity and the results that it is expected to achieve. 3.3.4. Accountability, progress and assessment With regards to the objectives fixed in the conceptual framework of the project, there is an obligation to have a clear and impartial system of accountability that records performance on a periodic basis. It is the responsibility of the Project Management to provide performance results and analytical progress reports, that are precise, impartial and credible, that can be used in decision-making processes. With this in mind, both AAH and KARKARA as well as the implementation partners (private vet, State services) are producing on a regular basis technical and financial progress reports. However, for the most part, these reports are descriptive, not very analytic and directed more towards activities executed than on results achieved. The information they provide on the changes produced or induced by the conditions and the quality of life of the target groups of the project is insufficient. It is the time-frame (one year) of the project that predisposes the monitoring of the project, mainly of its activities. Moreover, the surveys are planned to report on the evolution of certain result indictors of the three (3) operational areas of the project. However, at the time of presenting the assessment, these surveys had not been performed. Furthermore, the monitoring and assessment function assures the analytical character of the reports and their results-oriented focus, have not been implemented properly and very late. Lastly, the outcome (results/impacts), to a greater extent, will only be visible in the medium-to-long term. However, accountability implies the existence of a management framework and results￾oriented responsibility. P a g e | 30 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Finally, progress and assessment are activities that need to be in place right from the start of a project, especially in the instrumental plan, but it would seem they have been implemented rather late into the project: the project officially began in August 2015 and the progress and assessment activities were put into place in April – May 2016, that is, 8 or 9 months after the start of the project. The person responsible for the same took up office in the project in June 2016 when the Post￾Distribution Monitoring (PDM) surveys were being performed (2 months before the end of the project). It should be noted that progress and assessment function are important technical and managerial functions that contribute to the accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement of the processes, learning curve, and capitalise on experience and good practices. These principles are also extremely important because they give AAH and KARKARA visibility into their respective management systems. They are also very important principles for the direct beneficiaries of the project and the partners who are providing technical or financial support during implementation. 3.3.5. Effectiveness of the operational areas Effectiveness of operational areas: the implementation of the project was assured through three main complimentary operational areas: i) support market gardening activities; ii) Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL); iii) cash transfers. These areas contribute to the sustainable rehabilitation of the capacity to produce food for the households affected by the crisis and the conservation of these assets and, by default, improving their livelihoods giving the majority of host households or displaced people affected by the conflict access to the bare essentials. 3.3.5.1. Support livestock breeding The role and importance of livestock breeding in securing the living conditions of the households in rural areas are essential in the PIA. Moreover, in the region of Diffa, nearly 95% of the population depend on activities linked to livestock. The Project, through its operational area supporting livestock breeding, whose aim is to recapitalise the assets of the beneficiary households, is dedicated to on-time replenishment of livestock in communes affected by the crisis and plan them into the post-crisis period when there is more assurance and stability. This area has been put into operation through the following strategies: i) the Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL) of the households affected by the crisis in the project intervention areas; ii) the provision of animal feed; iii) training on animal production techniques and iv) the monitoring of distributed livestock (goats) for a period of 6 months. We have presented a summary of the implementation of the activities and indicators (factual stocktaking of the progress made) within the scope of the implementation of the operational area, then we analysed the results to extract the strong and weak points that determine the effectiveness of the implementation of this operational area. P a g e | 31 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 1) Completion levels of activities and indicators LIVESTOCK BREEDING SUPPORT OPERATIONAL AREA ACTIVITIES PLANNED COMPLETED COMPLETION LEVEL Replenishment of livestock in affected households 1. Purchase goats to distribute - 3 goats per household for 500 target households, 1,500 goats in total to purchase - 1500 purchased goats according to market procurement procedures set by AAH 100% complete 2. Identify, vaccinate, and deworm the goats before distribution - All the purchased goats must be vaccinated before distribution (5 vaccines: Ovipestivac, Pastovac, Carbovac, Boluni Sole, Intravit) and dewormed - All purchased goats must be tagged for identification before distribution - All the goats purchased have been previously vaccinated and dewormed by the services of a private Vet contracted for this purpose. - All the goats purchased have been tagged for identification before distribution. This facilitates the tracking of the same 100% complete 3. Identify and select the beneficiaries - 500 beneficiary households, a total of 3,500 being 7 people (on average) per household - 500 very vulnerable households have been identified by commune and by village, in accordance with the Commune Authorities of the project intervention areas - 100% complete 4. Organise and implement cattle markets - Uncompleted activity Cattle markets have not been organised because of the adverse security situation which have prevented them being held. 5. Distribute the goats to vulnerable villages - 1,500 goats have been distributed, 3 per household, amounting to total of 500 target households out of which 250 were women and 250 were men - 1500 goats purchased, vaccinated, dewormed, and distributed according to plan by commune, village, and target household. - 500 target households out of which 228 were women and 272 were men 100% complete However, it should be noted that there is a predominance of households run by men. Gender equality has not been achieved as planned. 6. Pay vouchers Payment method planned for the cattle markets. However, these markets have not been organised, due to the prohibition of any gathering because of the insecure situation. 7. Supply vitamin and mineral supplements to distributed goats - All the goats purchased must receive vitamin and mineral supplements - All the goats purchased have been given vitamin and mineral supplements before distribution 100% complete P a g e | 32 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Provision of animal feed i) Supply animal feed (fodder and forage) to 500 beneficiary households - 4 sacks of wheat bran (50 kg sacks) totalling 200 kg, and 2 sacks of cattle cake (50 kg sacks) totalling 100 kg per beneficiary. That is a total of 100 tonnes of wheat bran (2,000 sacks) and 50 tonnes of cattle cake (100 sacks) - The 499 households that have received goats, have benefitted from 4 sacks of wheat bran, a total of 99.95 tonnes have been distributed (1,999 sacks) - The 499 households that have received goats, have benefitted from 2 sacks of cattle cake (50 kg sacks), a total of 49.90 tonnes have been distributed (998 sacks) 2 sacks of cattle cake, 100 kg in total have gone missing: completion level 99.60% 1 sack of wheat bran, 50 kg in total has gone missing: completion level 99.50% ii) Supply animal feed to 200 extra households having their own livestock - 2 sacks of wheat bran (50 kg sacks) totalling 100 kg, and 1 sack of cattle cake ( 50 kg sack) for the 200 extra households having their own livestock: a total of 20 tonnes of wheat bran (400 sacks) and 10 tonnes of cattle cake (200 sacks) - 19.25 tonnes of wheat bran have been distributed, equivalent to 385 sacks - 9-05 tonnes of cattle cake have been distributed, equivalent to 181 sacks 15 sacks of wheat bran have gone missing, 0.75 tonnes in total: completion level 96.25% 19 sacks of cattle cake have gone missing, 0.95 tonnes in total: level of completion 90.50% Training in livestock breeding techniques 1. Organise a workshop for training the trainers - Technical Support Team – Council of Agents of the Project FSSL/Karkara, Head of Project FSSL/AAH, Assistant Head of Project FSSL/AAH and Service Agents for Livestock Breeding from three intervention communes Number of Training Agents trained (13) - Six (06) Council Support Agents of the Project FSSL/Karkara - Two (02) departmental Managers - Five (05) Commune and livestock breeding Agents 100% complete. 2. Train beneficiaries - Beneficiaries benefitting from the SRL in the three (3) project intervention communes - 3 workshops organised, one in each project intervention commune - 72 beneficiaries trained, around 24 beneficiaries per commune 100% complete. Monitoring of goats distributed for a period of 6 months 1. Sign a Memorandum of Understanding for monitoring the goats with a private Vet 2. Sign Cooperation Agreement with Technical Services 3. Perform monitoring actions 4. Treat goats that require attention identified in monitoring process 5. Monitor and report on the evolution of the goats - Agreement for provision of services with private Vet - Cooperation with Regional Technical Services (department and commune) - Four (4) monitoring missions by private Vet - Systematic treatment of goats as a result of the monitoring exercise - Surveillance of the evolution of the goats for the systematic recording of the zoo￾technical actions that have taken place. - Service provision agreement signed with private Vet - Cooperation Agreement signed with Technical Services - Four (4) planned interventions have taken place on time. - During the four (4) surveillance mission carried out by the Vet, all the distributed goats have been treated for any diagnosed pathologies - Monitoring of zoo-technique indicators (overall death rate, death rate including goats gone missing, growth rate, keep pathologies under observation, etc.) - Monitoring activities by Technical Services (department and commune) 100% complete. Table 3: Implementation Plan of Livestock Breeding Operational Area P a g e | 33 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa With respect to the SRL and additional animal feed, the distribution of the beneficiary households in the Project Intervention Areas is as follows: Department Commune Village SRL and Animal Feed Extra Animal Feed H F Total SRL M W Total Diffa Chétimari Abbakouraki 7 8 15 0 0 0 Barewas 11 17 28 42 7 49 Chétima Sidiri 23 12 35 0 0 0 Chétimari 28 12 40 15 3 18 Gagamari 37 3 40 98 5 103 Kourou Saleri 10 6 16 0 0 0 Total Commune Chétimari 116 58 174 155 15 170 Diffa Digargo (Djagouro) 15 5 20 15 0 15 Diffa (Festival) 12 23 35 0 0 0 Ibrayandi 17 8 25 0 0 0 Kangouri Ngoui 14 16 30 0 0 0 Maloundi 20 10 30 1 14 15 Mataou Koura 23 9 32 0 0 0 Total Commune Diffa 101 71 172 16 14 30 Maïné-Soroa Maïné￾Soroa Chéri 1 22 23 0 0 0 Dorsorom 1 3 4 0 0 0 Faya Issa 6 6 12 0 0 0 Kamou Tatawa/Walodi Kidji 4 8 12 0 0 0 Kayetawa 12 4 16 0 0 0 Kiria I 2 5 7 0 0 0 Kiria II 0 12 12 0 0 0 Maïné-Soroa 7 13 20 0 0 0 N'Guel Lamido 1 12 13 0 0 0 Saléri 5 5 10 0 0 0 Tchagamari I 4 7 11 0 0 0 Tchagamari II 12 2 14 0 0 0 Total Commune Mainé-Soroa 55 99 154 0 0 0 Total Project Intervention Area (PIA) 272 228 500 171 29 200 Table 4: distribution of SRL beneficiaries and additional animal feed by gender by village, commune and department The following situation has been noted from the Gender report: Communes Social Replenishment of Livestock Additional Animal Feed Beneficiaries SRL Summary Beneficiaries Summary H F Total % H % F H F Total % H % F Diffa 101 71 172 58,72% 41,28% 16 14 30 53,33% 46,67% Chétimari 116 58 174 66,67% 33,33% 155 15 170 91,18% 8,82% Maïné Soroa 55 99 154 35,71% 64,29% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 272 228 500 54,40% 45,60% 171 29 200 85,50% 14,50% Table 5: Distribution of the SRL beneficiaries and additional animal feed by gender by commune 2) Analysis of the recorded results With regards to technical execution, the assessment mission has confirmed that all known activities have been carried out as planned on time with a completion level of 100% with the exception of the distribution of animal feed to 500 goat beneficiaries (99.50% completion rate) and the provision of animal feed to host households having their own livestock (90.50% completion rate). A number of issues have arisen from the analysis of the factual assessment of this operational area, namely: i.) Social Replenishment of Livestock (SRL) P a g e | 34 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa - The social activities for replenishing livestock have involved 24 target villages in three (3) communes of the Project Intervention Area (PIA). This targeting has been carried out using a participative approach involving the potential target groups (local communities, refugees, repatriated, and internally displaced people), town Mayors and Councillors, decentralised Technical Services of the State at the Regional level, department and commune, the development partners and the Project Team (AAH0/KARKARA). - The targeting of SRL and animal feed beneficiaries was based, in the main, on the poverty and vulnerability of the households. However, for this specific operational area, bearing in mind the foregoing criteria, the targeting should pay closer attention to the households who are affected by the current crisis than development in the region and, in particular, in the Project Intervention Areas (PIA) having livestock as the main activity. This enables better optimisation of the effectiveness of the project in terms of result/impact and sustainability. - In line with the objectives of the project, 500 vulnerable households have been involved with the distribution of goats (3 goats per household). Even if the choice of the caprine species (goat) has been considered a wise option for its numerous qualities, identified by livestock breeding technical services, (highly adaptable, resistant, short reproduction cycle, …), the fact is that the absence of a progenitor billy (he) goat in the lot of goats distributed is a handicap for reproduction. The proposal to distribute only she-goats was based on the hypothesis that there are billy (he) goats in the target villages. Furthermore, it has been identified as essential that the distributed goats are kept inside the house “for fear of being stolen when no one is looking”6 . Despite this, the NGO Karkara has experience in the same type of activity with another partner (Christian Aid) where the distributed lot included a billy (he) goat. Other experiences on the same theme, were a success (State, Care International, etc.). - The poor reproduction observed has been accentuated by the not very optimal conditions; purchase, confinement, and distribution of the goats. Several goats purchased are not of reproductive age. Transporting conditions and confinement (not enough food for 2-3 days) were very stressful for the animals. In some cases, the animals were kept in the house of the suppliers and freed for distribution in a poor state, without being put in pre-entry quarantine, still necessary, etc. In addition, it would seem that this activity, in its execution is understood to be more of a fattening-up operation rather than an operation orientated towards reproduction and multiplication, ensuring the replenishment of the livestock of the beneficiary households and all the other effects on the food and nutritional security and on the level of the beneficiary household`s income. - The participation of the beneficiaries when choosing the goats and the money to be spent was not performed as expected through the organisation of cattle markets and the use of vouchers as a means of payment. In fact, the security situation has prohibited all kinds of gatherings that, together with not being able to move around freely, mean that this activity has not been able to be completed. The direct purchase of the goats to distribute by AAH services on behalf of the project has been a workaround solution. Moreover, it has also been a rather administrative and financial solution, respecting without any doubt the administrative and financial procedures (AAH International and OFDA) for purchasing 6 Cf. monitoring report of the private Vet and confirmed by the interviews that the assessment mission have had with the beneficiaries P a g e | 35 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa goods and services. Certain technical phases linked to the procurement and distribution process of the goats within the scope of the SRL have not been strictly followed (definition of the technical selection criteria, selection of goat itself, placing in quarantine, etc.). - The aim for equality between men and women has not been achieved in SRL activities where the male beneficiaries (54.40%) are more than the female beneficiaries (45.60%). The gap between men and women is even wider in the distribution activities of additional animal feed for livestock where more than (8) beneficiaries (85.50%) out of ten (10) are men. - Even though the participation of the technical services has been an important and necessary strategy to assure the quality of the implementation of the project in general, in the SRL operational area in particular, the assessment mission has identified that the intervention of these services only started at the distribution phase of the purchased goats with the Regional Directorate for livestock breeding being involved in the identification of reliable suppliers. It could be considered that had the technical services and the vet been involved earlier, in the definition of the purchase criteria of the goats, their selection, and for putting them into quarantine prior to distribution, the shortfalls previously mentioned could have been identified and corrected. The involvement of the technical services or at least that of a Vet7 in the different pre-distribution phases would be conclusive of reducing the significant risks linked to this phase of the process. In fact, it should be noted that the transporting conditions and confinement of the goats before their distribution were not optimal. These conditions stressed the goats and, by default, increased the mortality rate and placed an extra burden on sanitary and start-up maintenance. The process should have involved, in addition to the administrative phase, the definition of the selection criteria for the animals, the selection of the animals themselves, placing them in quarantine (one or two weeks), treatment, vaccination, deworming, the distribution of the animals, the training of the beneficiaries and monitoring, and giving advice. - Despite the efforts made within the scope of the implementation of the project (provision of animal feed, vaccination, deworming, treating any infections identified during the monitoring activities, giving advice to beneficiaries, etc.), the global evolution of the number of goats is negative (-6,53%). This situation is as a consequence of the low birth rate (1.73%) a total of 26 have been born while 124 have died or disappeared representing 8.27% which is just above the permissible alert threshold which is 5%. With respect to the explanatory factors, it should be noted as previously mentioned: the absence of billy (he) goats in the lots distributed and that some of the goats are not of reproductive age. To these factors it should be added the high losses recorded at the beginning: 38 died and 67 abortions were recorded in the first weeks after the distribution, as well as goats being sold, stolen or misplaced, deaths (natural), and epizootic disease variola caprina (goat pox) which has swept the commune of Diffa. The recommendations of the private Vet for controlling this disease have not been effective (case of Diffa/Maloumdi) where the mortality rate is high at 38.46% out of the total mortality recorded). We note that the vaccine against virola capina is not included in the lot of 7 THE AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICE N°004/FSSL-AAH - Spain-KK /2015 for the Social Replenishment Livestock monitoring activities of the project FSSL AAH - Spain-Karkara in the communes of Diffa, Maïné-Soroa and Chétimari, did not involve the participation of the private vet in the pre-distribution activities of the SRL P a g e | 36 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa vaccines administered to the goats despite it being a disease prevalent in the region of Diffa. - In order to prove that the distributed goat has died, the tagged ear is enough to report this fact. However, this method has proved to be been insufficient. - Despite the foregoing weak points, it has been found that on most sites, the majority of the goats are in gestation, which means that the critical calving period is next month. However, post-project monitoring is not included in the schedule of the Vet. - Furthermore, even though maybe it is a little early to assess the impact of these activities, it could be expected that, in the long term, in the project intervention communes, that the real impact is more likely to be the strengthening of the households faced with food and nutritional shocks, seeing the repercussion on other activities in their local social and economic life: income-generating activities involving products deriving from livestock breeding, qualitative improvement in household nutrition, in particular for infants aged 5 years old and under, elderly people, pregnant women, and all this, thanks to the availability of dairy products, contribution to the settling-in of the repatriates, strengthened capacities for the displaced, and the refugees for maintaining their livelihoods, and return to a good base, once the security conditions have stabilised. ii.) Provision of animal feed (fodder and forage) - The provision of animal feed (4 sacks of 50 kg of wheat bran totalling 200 kg per household and 2 sacks of cattle cake of 50 kg totalling 100 kg per beneficiary), has been a highly-appreciated strategy by the households and the commune leaders in the PIA. This option has also been appreciated in the region of Diffa where, at the beginning of the project, an animal feed deficit was recorded in comparison to their needs. - Therefore, a total of 100 tonnes of wheat bran (2,000 sacks) and 50 tonnes of cattle cake (1,000 sacks) should have been distributed as part of this activity. Likewise, additional animal feed for households having their own livestock was distributed amongst 12 villages from the department of Diffa and Chétimari who have benefited. It has been planned that a total of 200 households were to receive two (2) sacks of wheat bran (50 kg sacks) totalling 100 kg, and 1 sack of 50 kg of cattle cake for each additional household. Altogether that makes 20 tonnes of wheat bran (400 sacks) and 10 tonnes of cattle cake (200 sacks). However, in some cases, the delivery of this animal feed was done directly from the supplier (by the driver of the supplier) to the beneficiary households, with no Agents of the project being present on receipt nor a system for certifying that this service had been completed. Over all, it has been identified that 16 sacks of wheat bran (50kg each) amounting to 0.80 tonnes and 21 sacks of cattle cake (50 kg each) amounting to 1.05 tonnes have gone missing. To be precise: during the distribution of animal feed after the distribution of goats one (1) sack of wheat bran amounting to 50 kg and two (2) sacks of cattle cake amounting to 100 Kg have gone missing, and during the distribution of additional cattle feed to households having their own livestock, 15 sacks of wheat bran and 19 sacks of cattle cake have gone missing. - Out of the 500 households targeted for SRL and animal feed, 318 ménages (63.60%) are residents including host households. The rest are refugees. The extension of SRL distribution to the refugees, who by nature, are going to return their own villages in Nigeria once the security conditions stabilise, comes from the principle of equality and impartiality P a g e | 37 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa of humanitarian aid undertaken in the scope of the project. This precaution has avoided the exclusion of refugees and the lack of equality amongst people who are hit by the same crisis situation prevailing in the region of Diffa and beyond. Moreover, it has served to preserve the social bond, a very important factor when faced with contingency situations in the area. This approach is strongly appreciated by target communes of the project and by the regular and municipal authorities of the PIA. iii.) Technical training on livestock breeding techniques - Apart from the training of the trainers that has put into place a team with strengthening capacities to guarantee the training of the beneficiaries, 72 beneficiaries (around 24 per commune) have been randomly selected from 500 households representing 14% of the goat beneficiaries supported by the project within the scope of the SRL operational area. These 72 beneficiaries have been trained in livestock breeding of small ruminants. The approach chosen for duplicating the training received, advocates the sharing of acquired knowledge with other beneficiaries or other people living in the village. It is a support strategy considered necessary for target populations, to assist them having services close by to better ensure the health and productivity of the animals, and in turn, beyond that of the distributed animals. However, the assessment mission would question the approach for forming the group of 72. This grouping was based on random selection and is not an ideal base for sustainable training of beneficiaries since no objectives were set for the beneficiaries to complete once trained. iv.) Monitoring of distributed goats - The implementation of the project in general and this operational area in particular, has been based on the technical project management of the NGO Karkara in partnership with regional, departmental, and local technical services responsible for livestock breeding. In addition, a private Vet has been commissioned to assure the regular screening of the distributed goats and to give advice to the beneficiaries. Our findings have revealed some confusion in the roles and responsibilities assigned to the technical services and the private Vet. In fact, the arrangement between the two (2) partners was not clarified in this point nor do they have the same roles and responsibility areas. This situation has caused frustration on both sides. An approach that could have allowed the roles and responsibilities of these activity leaders to have a complimentary arrangement would have been to include the Vet in the monitoring activities thus controlling the distributed goats and subsequent responsibility for curing any ailments that were detected, recording zoo￾technical events (calving, abortion, death, etc.), and giving advice to the beneficiaries on how to care for their animals. With regards to the services provided, the mandate consisted in the private Vet providing standard, technical services and following the clauses in the contract binding to the project. A clear allocation of roles and responsibilities as well as a coordination mechanism between these activity leaders was necessary to organise more efficiently the guidance received by the beneficiaries, the monitoring of the distributed goats, and the technical advice when implementing the project (NGO Karkara/AAH). - The contracting of a private Vet assured the regular screening of the distributed goats (4 training sessions organised in six months). The monitoring periods provided the opportunity to take responsibility for caring for the goats and giving advice to the beneficiaries. A follow-up strategy has not been implemented. Moreover, post-project P a g e | 38 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa monitoring actions have not been clarified sufficiently with the technical services and the private Vet. The 72 beneficiaries have been trained on different livestock breeding techniques without assuring the transfer of acquired skills. 3) Recommendations The support component of this implementation from the perspective of allowing the communes victims of the crisis prevailing in the prevention intervention area to recover their autonomy and livelihoods and their human right to live a life in dignity and respect. The indicators in the table detailing the achievements of the project show a completion rate of 100% of the majority of the activities and operational area activities with the exception of those activities involved in provisioning animal feed where the inadequate management has caused losses in the distributed quantities. The assessment mission wish to put on the record the satisfaction expressed by the beneficiaries and the municipal authorities on the operational choice and techniques used in the livestock breeding operational area. With regards to the foregoing findings, the assessment mission would like to make the following recommendations: i.) Strengthen the management of the animal feed and its distribution and develop a delivery system that certifies the completed services. ii.) Other aspects characterising the implementation that need to be improved: • Targeting must focus on direct beneficiaries in particular the households affected by the crisis situation with livestock being their main activity or essential to their household income; • Delimit, in a clear way, the objectives of the SRL operational area of all the parties involved in the project (beneficiaries, technical services, etc.); • Systemize the process of SRL activities integrating all generally accepted phases and ensure that the technical services and any other certified experts participate in all phases. • Develop a system through which the beneficiaries of SRL activities can report the proof￾of-death of the goats received in order to minimise the risk of fictitious death. iii.) Develop and integrate mechanisms and operational plan of action for post-project monitoring. These components are indeed critical to the support and sustainability of the achievements recorded for the project. iv.) Promote with the decentralised technical State services and optionally with the private Vet some Veterinary Assistant who would make up, in the long term, a real critical mass of human resources to hand, trained, and equipped to support the people in the PIA to replenish and care for their livestock. These VA could be used in the operational plan of the post-project monitoring activity. 3.3.5.2. Operational area supporting market garden activities 1) Completion level of the activities and indicators The operational area supporting the market garden activities is organised into the following strategies: (i) the supply of vegetable garden seeds and farming tools; (ii) training on farming production techniques. The objectives of this activity include: P a g e | 39 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa − make available to very poor households affected by the Boko Haram crisis in the PIA inputs and farming tools to strengthen their food security; − promote nutritional security through food diversification through improving the production of vegetables; − improve the farming technical knowledge of the beneficiary households through training sessions adapted to their situation (oases aquifers); − encourage techniques for identifying pests and preparing bio pesticides using local plants. Department Commune Village Market-garden Beneficiary Men Women Total Diffa Chétimari Abbakouraki 0 0 0 Barewas 0 0 0 Chétima Sidiri 53 0 53 Chétimari 0 0 0 Gagamari 0 0 0 Kourou Saleri 0 0 0 Total Commune Chétimari 53 0 53 Diffa Digargo (Djagouro) 0 Diffa (Festival) 44 9 53 Ibrayandi 0 0 0 Kangouri Ngoui 0 0 0 Maloundi 0 0 0 Mataou Koura 0 0 0 Total Commune Diffa 44 9 53 Maïné-Soroa Maïné-Soroa Chéri 78 55 133 Dorsorom 23 0 23 Faya Issa 43 9 52 Kamou Tatawa/Walodi Kidji 58 12 70 Kayetawa 89 13 102 Kiria I 40 0 40 Kiria II 34 10 44 Mainé-Soroa 0 0 0 N'Guel Lamido 47 0 47 Saléri 26 1 27 Tchagamari I 28 3 31 Tchagamari II 22 3 25 Total Commune Mainé-Soroa 488 106 594 Total PIA 585 115 700 Table 6: Distribution of households benefitting from market-gardening support operational activities The distribution of beneficiary households by status is as follows: HOUSEHOLD REFUGEE REPATRIATED DISPLACED HOST HOUSEHOLDS RESIDENT TOTAL Amt % Amt % Amt % Amt % Amt % 110 15.71% 68 9.71% 5 0.71% 113 16.14% 404 57.71% 700 Table 7: Distribution of beneficiary households by status The number of men and women participating in the plan is as follows: COMMUNES BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS Men Women Total % Men % Women Diffa 44 9 53 6.29% 1.29% Chétimari 53 0 53 7.57% 0.00% Maïné Soroa 488 106 594 69.71% 15.14% Total 585 115 700 83.57% 16.43% Table 8: Distribution of beneficiaries by gender A summary of the implementation of the activities and indicators (factual stocktaking of the progress made) within the operational area for supporting market gardening is as follows: P a g e | 40 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Table 9: Factual stock taking of progress made during execution of operational area for support to farming SUPPORT FOR MARKET GARDENING OPERATIONAL AREA ACTIVITES PLANNED COMPLETED COMPLETION LEVEL Provisioning of vegetable garden seeds and farming tools - Evaluate the seed availability and identify the suppliers (seed quality control) - Identify and select the beneficiaries and distribute the seed vouchers - Distribute the seeds and farming tools i.) 700 households, out of which 350 are men and 350 are women ii.) 700 poor households who have received the seed kit: (cabbage (3/10g), lettuce (3/10g), onion (2/25g), potato (1/25kg), pepper (3/10g), corn P3 Kollo P3 (2kg), sweet potato cuttings (2kg) iii.) 700 poor households who have received farming tool kits: daba (African hoe) (1); watering can (1) ; rake (1) ; hoe (1) i.) 700 households out of which 585 are men and 115 are women have been selected ii.) 700 target households have received the seed kit as planned iii.) 700 target households have received the farming kit as planned - 100% of the activities planned have been completed. However, the predominance of beneficiary men (83.67%) over women (16.42%) has been recorded Training on crop production techniques - Prepare training and recycling guides for project staff - Define Educational Action Plan for beneficiaries - Identify the training site, mobilise beneficiaries - Hold training sessions i.) Trainers within the scope of support for market gardening including: 2 Project Leaders, 1 Supervisor; 6 Support-Advice Technicians (SAT) from the project FSSL/Karkara, 5 District Farming Leaders (DFL) ; 2 Departmental Directors for Agriculture (DDA) of the communes of Maïné Soroa, Chétimari - Diffa ii.) Number of beneficiaries of the farming activities (men/women) who have received training on improving farming practices i.) 16 trainers have been trained as planned: 2 Project Leaders, 1 Supervisor, 6 SAT; 2 DDA, and 5 DFL from the communes of Maïné Soroa, Diffa and Chétimari have been trained on market gardening techniques and practices. ii.) 100 beneficiaries/700 coming from 13 market-garden villages, have been trained: 11 women (11%) and 89 men (89%) over 5 centres (Chéri, Faya Issa, Tchagamari 1, N’Guel Lamido and Festival) in three sessions (Farming techniques and management of market-garden pests; Techniques for producing nursery plants and replanting in the fields; Harvesting techniques, conservation, and vegetable management) - The training of the trainers has been completed in its entirety with the collaboration of the Regional Directorate for Agriculture and Protection of Vegetables of Diffa. - The training of the beneficiaries has also been completed. However, it should be noted the higher number of men (89%) than women (11%) - The sampling of the beneficiary farmers has been performed in a random way from an exhaustive list of beneficiaries from each village. Monitoring activities - Assure monitoring and technical support, including post-distribution surveillance i.) Number and type of identified pests ii.) Treated surfaces iii.) Bio techniques – pesticides studied i.) Five (05) bio-pesticide techniques learnt by farmers in training: Bio pesticides prepared with pepper, oil, papaya leaves, Neem tree leaves/grains, dry tobacco ii.) Six (06) pests identified: 2 types of nocturnal caterpillars (hélicoverpa armigera and Plutella xylostella), mites, aphids, les thrips, and crickets. iii.) 14,400 m² has been treated with bio pesticide - Bio pesticides prepared with pepper, papaya leaves and leaves from the Neem tree have been prepared and applied by the farmers after receiving training. P a g e | 41 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 2) Analysis of the recorded results With regards to the foregoing completed activities, the assessment mission note that all established activities have been executed as planned. However, the following aspects have influenced the effectiveness of the implementation of this operational area. i.) Provisioning of vegetable garden seeds and farming tools - Owing to the life-threatening conditions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to access certain areas with high market-gardening potential (along the Komadougou), meaning that the project has been forced to concentrate its activities in the operational area of Maïné Soroa. Furthermore, the site of Chétima Sidri (Chétimari) and that of Diffa Festival (Diffa) have been abandoned due to military operations in these areas. The general view is that everything seems to indicate that the security conditions are not going to change very substantially over the next 2 years, at the very least. - The 700 very poor households (totalling 4,900 people), direct beneficiaries of this operational area, are selected from household targeting performed in November 2015. This selection is distributed over 13 villages of the PIA. The predominance of men (83.67%) over women (16.43%) should be noted. This balance is also reflected in the social distribution of activities in the communes of the PIA. This social distribution predetermines that market-gardening activates are performed by men because they own the land. However, the assessment mission has noted a strong expression of the need for women to be more integrated in the strategies concerning market-gardening support. This is all the more pertinent as there is a marked trend towards change, driven by the chronic vulnerability of the households who are in the project intervention area and beyond. In addition, several women have found themselves in the situation where they have to provide for their families on their own (in the case of widows and separated women). - The choice of seeds distributed corresponds to crop types adapted to the farming conditions in the PIA, notably in the oases aquifers. The acquisition of these seeds has been done in compliance with the established procurement procedures: call for tender from certified, known seed suppliers. This procedure resulted in the selection of Ferme Semencière Ainoma (FSA) based on the qualities of their seeds on which germination tests were carried out by ICRISAT (seed laboratory) with successful conclusive results. However, it should be noted that there was a delay in the distribution (December) of these seeds with respect to the cultivating season (October - September) for certain types of crops (lettuce, cabbage, tomato) and even July for other long-cycle crops (pepper, potato, onion). Corn for sowing was distributed earlier. In some cases (N’guel Lamido for example), it could not be sown due to inadequate storage conditions being exposed to attacks, or because the seed was used for consumption instead. Likewise, the distribution of the potato was not on time presenting a risk that it will be used not as planned. - The sweet potato cuttings, bought from Guidimouni (400 km from Diffa), have been transported in difficult (non–optimal) conditions. As a result, the transplanted cuttings were, in part, already wilting before distribution. This is likely to have a negative impact on expected performance. This situation is further aggregated by the delay noted at P a g e | 42 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa certain sites (case of Chéri), in the transplanting activity because the plots of land were not even ready when the plants were distributed. - On certain sites of Maïné Soroa, the farmers are using motor-driven pumps for irrigation. However, sourcing petrol has been difficult due to the prevailing crisis. This means that irrigation has been insufficient and has mitigated the use of bio pesticides and has had an impact on the phenological progression of the crops. To overcome this situation, a study on alternatives should perhaps be carried out where well-drilling could be an appropriate extracting method for improving access to water. - More than a quarter of beneficiaries (26.13%) are refugees, displaced and repatriated people. Even though for many (amongst the repatriated) they have returned to land belonging to their families, the fact remains that, in the main, they have benefited from the solidarity of the residents who have put at their disposition acres of land as a loan. In general, there is nothing in place to formalise these “land loans” nor is it planned to do so to avoid possible conflict situations in the future. For this purpose, the Communal Land Commission (CLC), have formalisation instruments (loan certificate, amongst others) that could be established. These land commissions are based on customary organisational modes, and backed by traditional chiefs. ii.) Training in farming production techniques - The objectives of the training given is to strengthen the capacities of the beneficiaries in different topic areas one of which being alternative ways of fighting against market gardening pests (biological pesticides based on local products). This training was held after the seeds had been distributed. To be precise, the training sessions were organised between April and June, 2016 since the distribution of the seeds took place in December, 2015. As a consequence, the farmers were not sufficiently prepared to control the pests threatening the crops on different sites recorded during the subsequent campaign. Even though this situation has affected the current crops, it could be considered that the capacities that the farmers have acquired serve for future campaigns. - The objective of critical mass of beneficiaries with the knowledge to plan market gardening is a strategically recognised option. However, the assessment mission has a few reserves about the approach used, based on random sampling, to group 100 beneficiaries to receive training, whose task, thereafter, will be to transfer these acquired skills to other beneficiaries. It is true that the random method used protects against any critical apprehensions from the beneficiaries. However, it has created a major issue: the beneficiaries cannot be selected in an objective manner, according to well-defined criteria and participants who have the right skills to be able to transmit the knowledge they acquire to other beneficiaries or at the very least, set up discussion forums with others. A reasoned approach would have been, without any doubt, more appropriate. 3) Recommendations i.) Continue providing support to garden market activities to consolidate the benefits above all in improving the timing of distribution operations of seeds making them more P a g e | 43 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa consistent with the sowing periods of the different crops. The former would optimise the yield and, in turn, the end-of-campaign results. ii.) Find appropriate solutions with the help of the different parties involved in the project, especially the beneficiaries, for enclosing the sites to protect them from roaming, domestic animals and monkeys, in particular in the oases aquifers as well as improving access to water for irrigation purposes. iii.) Continue the training and management of beneficiaries with the objective of creating an irrevocable real critical mass with the skills to manage market garden developments. iv.) The partnership with technical services is a strategy to assure the viability in the long term of the activities performed within the scope of the project and also for assuring the viability of the contribution made by AAH to the reduction of the vulnerability state of the households in the project intervention area. It is considered appropriate that this partnership be continued in a more structured framework involving agreements. 3.3.5.3. Cash transfer activities 1) Completion level of the activities and indicators This operational area of the Project is conducted through Cash-For-Work (CFW) transactions and Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT). This initiative is setup in such a way that it enables beneficiaries (people affected by the crisis) have access to short-term income so that they can buy the bare necessities of their choice, allowing them to keep their dignity and strengthening the local, social-economic structure. This aim of this activity is to recover, in part, the purchasing power of the communes affected by the Boko Haram conflict and prevent recourse to negative ways of getting what they need (begging, stealing, and other illegal trafficking, etc.). It is for this reason that these operational areas has been unanimously approved by the different target groups that the assessment mission has come into contact with. This feeling of gratitude is even greater when the principles of equality were applied. In fact, the most vulnerable households (elderly people, people living with a disabled person, pregnant women, etc.), were benefited from UCT transactions since only those with the physical capacity to do so are involved in CFW activities. The cash transfers performed have allowed beneficiary households cover their basic needs (health, clothing, shelter, improvement on daily food, etc.). Certain households have even acquired small ruminants with the aim of reproducing them. As planned, the activities in this operational area have reached 1,400 households, a total of 9,800 people, over a period of three (3) months. These households are broken down as follows: 1,260 households (8,820 people) for CFW activities, with a gender disparity in favour of men (69.52%) against 30.48% women. A total of 140 households (980 people) have benefited from UCTs, as predicted. At this level, gender disparity in favour of men is less (51.42%) against women (42.58%). A total of 13 villages have benefitted from CFW activities and 22 village from UCTs. The two components of this operational area (CFW and UCT) have injected a total amount of 136,170,500 CFA francs into the economy of the villages representing 99.75% of the total forecast of 136,500,000 CFA francs as of 30 June 2016. However this percentage rate would rise to 100% at the end of the invention, because the work days lost due to absences occurring during the implementation will have been made up. P a g e | 44 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa For payments, an agreement was signed with a micro-finance institution in the area (N’Gada). After paying the beneficiaries every 12 days, this payment period has passed to once a month which is more sustainable with respect to work load and management. Departments Communes Villages CFW Beneficiaries Unconditional Cash Beneficiaries H F Total H F Total Diffa Chétimari Abbakouraki 0 0 0 3 1 4 Barewas 0 0 0 3 4 7 Chétima Sidiri 0 0 0 6 2 8 Chétimari 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gagamari 43 4 47 5 4 9 Kourou Saleri 61 6 67 2 4 6 Total Commune Chétimari 104 10 114 19 15 34 Diffa Digargo (Djagouro) 54 0 54 3 3 6 Diffa (Festival) 82 67 149 7 1 8 Ibrayandi 0 0 0 2 2 4 Kangouri Ngoui 69 3 72 6 2 8 Maloundi 31 3 34 5 2 7 Mataou Koura 0 0 0 1 6 7 Total Commune Diffa 236 73 309 24 16 40 Maïné-Soroa Maïné-Soroa Chéri 363 164 527 2 8 10 Dorsorom 0 0 0 2 2 4 Faya Issa 19 3 22 2 3 5 Kamou Tatawa/Walodi Kidji 0 0 0 0 Kayetawa 0 0 0 4 0 4 Kiria I 36 24 60 2 3 5 Kiria II 0 0 0 1 4 5 Mainé-Soroa 23 51 74 3 4 7 N'Guel Lamido 28 29 57 2 3 5 Saléri 37 9 46 5 3 8 Tchagamari I 30 21 51 4 2 6 Tchagamari II 0 0 0 2 5 7 Total Commune Mainé-Soroa 536 301 837 29 37 66 Total Region 876 384 1260 53 53 140 Table 10: distribution of beneficiaries of cash transfer operational activities The number of men and women participating in the plan is as follows: Communes CFW Beneficiaries Men Women Total % Men % Women Diffa 236 73 309 18,73% 5,79% Chétimari 104 10 114 8,25% 0,79% Maïné Soroa 536 301 837 42,54% 23,89% Total 876 384 1260 69,52% 30,48% Communes Unconditional Cash Transfers Men Women Total % Men % Women Diffa 24 16 40 17,14% 11,43% Chétimari 19 15 34 13,57% 10,71% Maïné Soroa 29 37 66 20,71% 26,43% Total 72 68 140 51,43% 48,57% P a g e | 45 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Table 11: Distribution of beneficiaries of cash transfers by gender The CFW activities started in January 2016, in the presence of technical services for the environment, Karkara/AAH teams and target beneficiaries, the CFW have been implemented in 13 sites. The idea is to give temporary employment to the host communes who normally have to depend on economic and professional opportunities in Nigeria, as well as to the displaced, refugees and repatriated people. This temporary work should provide an income to the target groups of around 32,500 CFA francs for a month’s work over three months, amounting to 97,500 CFA francs per beneficiary household representing a total amount of 122,850,000 CFA francs for the 1,260 beneficiary households all together. Within the framework of the CFW component, the activities are, in the main, organised around three (3) types, deployed depending on the environmental problem, diagnosed in a participative manner with the parties involved, in particular the technical services for the environment, farming, and land development, municipal authorities, etc. The villages and the intervention sites are also identified on a participative basis. Communes Villages Diagnosed environmental problem Planned Activity Diffa Festival Squalor level (waste concentration) Sanitise Maloumdi Digargo Degradation of pasture areas/farming plots Demi-lune Kangouri Chétimari Gagamari Unhealthy level (waste concentration) Sanitise Kourou saléri Degradation of pasture areas/farming plots Demi-lune Maïné-Soroa Chéri Silting of infrastructures and natural resources threat Stabilise dunes Faya Issa Kiria I N’guel Lamido Tchagamari I Saléri Katchella Abdouri Unhealthy level (waste concentration) Sanitise Table 12: Environmental problems and activity type by site The planned activities have been executed following a detailed operational plan, in cooperation with the technical services for the environment and shared with the authorities from the departments, communes, chiefs, and target communities. With respect to these activities, the results recorded are the following: COMMUNES VILLAGES ACTIVITES SURFACE AREAS (Ha) % EXECUTION PLANNED COMPLETED Diffa Festival Sanitise ND ND ND Maloumdi Sanitise ND ND ND Digargo Demi-lune 25.88 25.88 100% Kangouri Demi-lune 34.5 34.5 100% Chétimari Gagamari Sanitise ND Kourou saléri Demi-lune 32 32 100% Maïné-Soroa Chéri Stabilise dunes 296.44 296.44 100% Faya Issa Stabilise dunes 12.38 12.38 100% Kiria I Stabilise dunes 33.75 33.75 100% Katchella Abdouri Sanitise ND ND ND N’guel Lamido Stabilise dunes 32.06 32.06 100% Tchagamari I Stabilise dunes 28.69 28.69 100% Saléri Stabilise dunes 25.88 25.88 100 Table13: Status of execution of CFW activities P a g e | 46 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa The factual stocktaking of the progress made shows and completion rate of 100% on all sites. Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) activities have injected 13,650,000 CFA francs into the economy of the villages identified for having 140 extremely vulnerable households because of their physical invalidity (physical handicap, elderly or sick people, pregnant women, etc.). This transfer has reached 22 identified villages and targeted households. 2) Analysis of recorded results With regards to the forgoing completed activities, the assessment mission note that all planned activities have been executed as planned. However, some observations need to be mentioned, as follows. i.) At the level of the CFW activities The CFW activities were developed from the perspective of giving an income to the target groups of the project. This is consistent with the humanitarian emergency situation prevailing in the PIA and the entire region of Diffa. In this respect, these activities have achieved their objectives. However, the strategies associated to this perspective needed a different kind of help, one that entered into the realm of development (conservation activities and recovery of land, hygienic and sanitation conditions). This option is strategically well thought out from the point of view of environmental issues having an impact on food and nutritional security and the living conditions of the households. Moreover, it is a good use of technical services for carrying out, supervising, and strengthening the technical capacities within the scope of this activity. However, the fact that this activity has focussed almost entirely on providing an income the development of the foregoing related activities has presented some weaknesses in the same, namely: - The water harvesting technique known as demi-lunes (an earth embankment in the shape of a semi-circle) used to recover degraded, barren, and crusted-soil for farming activities, grazing, or forestry needs to have the soil inside enriched with an organic compost to prepare it for growing crops (farming demi-lunes), and for planting trees and or sowing grass (silvopasture demi-lunes). This is not the case on the project intervention sites. - To assure the effectiveness of the construction and obtain long-term expected results, the earth embankments or bunds need to be rebuilt every year. Silvo-pasture demi-lunes have to be maintained every year and it is recommended that the embankments are made higher to avoid overland flow. These post-project measures, taking into account that they are at intervals of 12 months, are not included or arranged with the technical services for the environment, beneficiary communes, and municipal authorities. As a consequence, the sustainability and the positive advantages in the long-term, related to this work are not guaranteed. - The project intervention sites are, in the main, silvo-pasture sites. They must be, therefore, protected against roaming animals during the first few years until the vegetation has grown. This means that the beneficiary commune needs to be well organised with the involvement/participation of the technical services and local authorities. This protection has not been contemplated nor negotiated. P a g e | 47 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa - The sanitation activities are initiatives to improve the lifestyle of the communes and have a positive impact on health conditions with respect to the prevalence of certain infectious disease with high levels of morbidity and mortality in particular in pregnant women, infants less than 5 years old, the elderly, etc. These activities also support the communes, to the extent that they serve to identify their sovereign missions. In this respect, the post-project plan is not sufficiently integrated into the logical structure of the project intervention. In fact, how are they going to avoid the mounds of household rubbish coming back after they have been taken away? What is the strategy for the communes to continue the work started? What roles should the beneficiary communes play in these activities? - The stabilising of dunes is done using a system of square wind breaks. The enclosures protect against wind erosion and reduces the soil being blown towards fields, habitats, or other infrastructures. Getting vegetation to grow takes about three years and adds matter and organic debris to the soil resulting in a more robust structure. It is therefore of utmost importance that a protected dune is monitored for a number of years by a well-organised commune. This surveillance activity has not been taken into account. - As a result of these weaknesses, one runs the risk of not optimising the expected results of the work completed: as the saying goes, “to kill two birds with one stone”. ii.) At the level of the Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) activities The UCT activities are what have really reached the most vulnerable people of the targeted groups of the project. They have fulfilled their objectives as planned on time as well as allowing the beneficiaries to make ends meet and strengthen their resilience within an emergency humanitarian situation. These activities have been performed alongside complementary activities of other partners intervening in the project intervention areas including free distribution of food supplies, shelter, water, hygiene and sanitation, health care, etc. 3) Recommendations i.) In view of the type of activities developed within the scope of CFW, consideration should be given to the taking control of the consolidation of the benefits by the development of the partnership and contribution of good organisation at the level of the commune together with the involvement of the technical services for the environment and communes in question. ii.) In addition, consideration should be given to complimentary activities necessary for those works constructed, to assure that the desired environmental effect and farming/pasture plans are brought to fruition. This should be planned medium-to-long term, improving the security conditions and maintaining the productive capital of the rural households in the prevention intervention areas of the project. iii.) In the case that there is another cycle, consideration should be given to integrating, right from the start of the project, ownership strategies and ensuring the sustainability of the benefits, working together with the communities, communes, and the regional, departmental, and local technical services. P a g e | 48 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.4. Efficiency of the implementation 3.4.1. Key findings Efficiency measures the way in which the resources of the project have been converted into results through their activities. Any potential shortfalls are analysed and the strong points highlighted so that the mission can form an opinion on the possible sustainability of the intervention in the following section. The project has recorded good financial performance, even if the start-up phase encountered a few problems that caused a delay (misunderstanding between AAH and the partner with respect to the implementation of the budget headings in English, quite difficult despatch of project teams and its execution phases despite several preparatory meetings, change of head coordinator at KARKARA, some breakdown in communication,…). As a consequence, in terms of budget implementation, the situation as of 30 June 2016 of estimated expenses in relation to the initial budget is detailed in the following table: Operational Activity Areas Estimated in USD Implemented in USD Implementation Rate SRL and animal feed 154 000 146 000 94,81% Market gardening support 64 000 56 000 87,50% Cash transfers 246 000 170 000 69,11% HR/Logistics/Support 758 000 651 880 86,00% Total 1 222 000 1 023 880 83,79% Table 14: Status of financial implementation as of 30 June 2016 However, it should be noted that the financial execution level of 83.79% as of June 2016 was quite some time ago. Judging the way in which the implementation of the activities are progressing, the Mission estimates that the project will be 100% complete at the end of the cycle since all the budgetary estimates for the forecasted cash transfers have been completely executed. Despite of the problems on start-up relating to necessary, mutual adjustments between AAH (project control) and NGO KARKARA (technical control) and due to a difference in interpretation of the partnership agreement, namely on issues involving resource hiring procedures and the use of logistics, the coordination structures of the project by both AAH and KARKARA, were finally put into place. The operability between these two teams has progressed according to the terms set forth in the partner agreement. However, it should be noted that there were some communication breakdown that has been taken care of by holding weekly meetings between the two field teams. These meetings have been forums to resolve problems, monitor progress of the project and share information. Any adjustments or the planning of the operational timeframe have taken place in the same way. The financial management of the project has been carried out using different tools made available at different execution levels, in particular on the level of the NGO KARKARA, facilitating periodic progress reports (weekly and monthly) provided for under the partner agreement and a quarterly consolidation and mid-term reports. The control mechanism for justifying expenses, call for funds, and disbursement has not recognised any significant difficulties of the type that would make an impact on the progress and performance of the P a g e | 49 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa project. The problems highlighted relate to the shortfall of not controlling the spending of the implementation partner. The procurement procedures have been carried out in compliance with the global management system set by AAH. However, the assessment mission has noted some shortfalls described in the sections on the effectiveness of the SRL and additional animal feed operational area (acquisition of livestock to be distributed and management of the distribution of the animal feed) and livestock breeding support (acquisition of seeds and tags). Lastly, concerning the vehicles used for the implementation of the project, it should be noted that the rules for use are attached to the partnership agreement. These rules take into account the security situation that prevails in the region of Diffa and the measures that have been put into place to manage the security in the area. 3.4.2. Recommendations i) The budget is an important instrument for executing the project. It must be included in all lines. In addition, the Mission would recommend that it is prepared in a language that both partners understand, for the majority of the national execution partners, this is French. 3.5. Results and impacts of the Project The results and impacts refer to the changes (expected or not) produced or caused by the target groups and on their life style, as a consequence of the interventions of the project. To what extent has the project contributed to improving the food and nutritional security of the households affected by the Boko Haram crisis? To what degree have their livelihoods been maintained and protected? How far have the immediate and basic needs been covered of these people affected by the humanitarian crisis in the communes of Diffa, Maïné - Soroa and Chétimari, have they been improved? Has the project caused any unexpected, adverse effects? So many important questions to which this assessment cannot give any clear answers based on the facts available and bearing in mind that this project has a very short cycle (12 months). The time after that is purely theoretical. The factual events of the project have shown a delay in the start-up of the project; one or two months making the necessary adjustments to the preparatory arrangements, preliminary consultations, installation activities, etc. Certain activities should have been done at the Project Identification Stage, in particular the preliminary consultations, pre-start up arrangements, and so forth. As a direct consequence, the assessment of the results and impacts required the timeframe to be recalculated and a more in depth study. However, for the purposes of this assessment, the Mission is based, in the main, on the perceptions of the different parties involved and, above all, those who have benefitted directly from project interventions and from the technical services who have provided implementation support. To this end, the assessment of the results and impacts (a priori) is to be performed on the level of the capacity of the beneficiary households and affected people (acquired knowledge, skills, and practices with respect to livestock breeding and market gardening) from a socio-economic￾environmental perspective. P a g e | 50 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.5.1. Technical capacities of strengthened households The support, advice, and training carried out by the project in the key domains such as techniques on breeding small ruminants, farming production, alternative control mechanisms against pests threatening market garden crops (biological control sourced from local products), work to recover the land, have enabled the direct beneficiaries of the project to acquire indispensable knowledge and practices that allow them to improve the breeding of small ruminants, goats in particular, market gardening production, optimising the oases aquifers located in the Project Intervention Area (PIA). In the words of a beneficiary, “the advice that we have been given and the training received from the sessions organised by the project, as well as the exchanges we have regularly amongst ourselves, makes us able to say that future production will be improved for sure and it has helped us cover our food and non-food requirements”. With respect to the use of biological controls against crop pests based on local products, there is still progress to be made. The techniques are gradually being integrated into the practices. In addition, the strategy of duplicating the mentoring and training activities on techniques acquired by the beneficiaries contributes to strengthening the understanding of the issues involved and the mastering of said techniques that are within the reach of the majority of the communes. 3.5.2. Socio-economic, and environmental advantages to consolidate From the analysis of the interviews that the assessment mission have held with the different parties involved, it should be noted that the actions of the project have succeed in making the required changes. The local, regional and departmental authorities, and the beneficiaries are unanimous in their confirmation that the actions undertaken are in the process of producing the expected results. The mission has revealed some examples of these changes, namely: - The activities of the project have strengthened the solidarity link between the refugees, displaced and repatriated people, and host communes. During our group meetings in Maïné Soroa, a participant shared his view in this respect: “without the activities of this project, and despite their willingness and patience, the solidarity the resident communes have shown to us may have dwindled out and disappeared altogether”. Therefore, the project has indirectly contributed to strengthening the bond of social responsibility at the heart of the beneficiary communities. - The interventions of the project have served, in the main, to breaking a taboo with regards to hygiene and sanitation that are not considered as being “noble activities”. This perception is changing. This, of course, in the long term, will have positive effects on the health (malaria, cholera, diarrhoea-related illnesses, respiratory infections, etc.) of the people and on their living conditions that should be cleaner. Their animation in this respect, having just started, must be sustained at all costs by the local groups and base community organisations. - From CFW and UCTs, some beneficiaries have recovered their lost income and improved their living conditions: purchase of goats and other small ruminants, farming tools, development of income-generating activities, improved living conditions, amongst others). The Mission has noted in this respect the excellent contribution the project has made in terms of improving the independence of the target groups, reducing their vulnerability and food and nutritional insecurity. Overall, these interventions have had a positive impact on the living conditions of the households targeted by the project and they have supported the economy in the intervention villages and beyond, in the entire region of Diffa. These P a g e | 51 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa initiatives have been extremely well received, within a situation with no economic prospects, imposed by the Boko Haram crisis that is draining the regional economy. The 136,500,000 CFA francs injected into their economy has been a real boost to an otherwise extremely lethargic economic state. - Despite the poor harvests recorded last year, the project activities have made the beneficiary communes more resilient by improving the coverage of to meet their food needs. - An upward trend has been recognised in the natural regeneration in certain areas such as glacis (plane landform, with little slope) as is the case in Digargo and the building of demi– lunes (water-harvesting embankments). However, this trend could go down if vegetation is not grown on them. For example, grazing demi-lunes have a useful life of three years. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the event of another cycle of this project, planting vegetation on these maintained spaces be included. If incorporated into the next cycle, this would strengthen and improve the vegetation cover and restructure the soil, a process that has already been started. A useful and complimentary strategy would be to also include reforestation operations. - Several youths within the scope of this Assessment Mission have confessed that the project interventions have helped them to settle down and stop them becoming destitute forcing them to adopt undesirable means. Moreover, people living with disabled individuals and elderly people, have managed to keep their dignity in their struggle to provide for priorities that cannot be reduced. 3.5.3. Negative collateral effects The Assessment Mission has not identified any negative changes caused by the interventions of the project. However, the practice of land loans of residents to refugees, displaced and repatriated people, should be monitored. A mechanism needs to be put into place to formalise the arrangement to avoid possible conflict in the future. 3.5.4. Recommendations With the view of strengthening the positive momentum started by the project to which it has contributed, the Assessment Mission would like to make the following recommendations: i) The response activities performed by the FSSL project for Diffa, within a humanitarian emergency situation, will have a medium-to-long term effect on the security conditions of the vulnerable households and the reconstruction of their livelihoods. In the short term, which is the timeframe of the execution of the project itself (12 months), a momentum that is going to produce the desired changes but has scarcely begun. This momentum must be sustained, supported and supervised so that it consolidates and produces in the longer term the results and impact desired. The Assessment Mission would also like to recommend to AAH and OFDA and possible partnership extension, to develop and implement a second cycle of at least (3) years, based on more in-depth analysis of the needs of the target groups in the PIA. This approach would enable them to define a coherent and more complete strategy for response activities clearly orientated towards the medium-to-long term. This recommendation is all the more relevant since the majority of the repatriated and displaced individuals, and even the refugees have expressed P a g e | 52 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa their intention to stay permanently in the host communes, and this number is increasing every day. ii) On a more detailed level, the Mission would recommend continuing with the strategy of duplicating the mentoring and training activities on techniques acquired by the beneficiaries in order to strengthen their understanding of the issues involved and the mastering of said and any related techniques. iii) The CFW strategy that has focused its activities on the conservation and recovery of the land goes beyond the primary objective of giving the target communes. Instead, these activities have identified the possibility of regenerating the vegetation covering different land forms for agro-silvo-pastoral systems. Plus, these initiatives are in line with the environmental problem in the PIA of the project. To this end, they must continue with these activities and consolidate them in a more organised way with the support of the community. This would improve the potential of the agro-silvo-pastoral land. This said, the construction of these land forms must be strengthened with a strategy for planting or sowing the vegetation (and/or forest). In fact, the silvo-pastoral demi-lunes, the availability of the seeds, the herbaceous and tree seedlings is essential. For operations that stabilise the dunes, the effects last but they need to be cared for with a strict maintenance program over a certain period of time (at least 3 years), this means that the community needs to be well-organised. In addition, within the scope of this strategy, the participation of base community organisations, local groups, and technical services must be achieved through agreements that clearly define the contribution, roles, and responsibilities of the same. 3.6. Sustainability 3.6.1. Sustainability of the project achievements Sustainability means the continuation of the activities of the project when the support given by the resources of the project come to an end. With this in mind, sustainability could be measured on the probability that the communes of Diffa, Chétimari, and Maïné Soroa together with the beneficiaries are going to maintain the benefits generated by project when ended. The term “benefits” can be thought of as physical work (for example, working on the conservation and recovery of the soil, distributing livestock, market garden activities) and capacity-strengthening activities (training and giving support-advice to the different target groups, use of distributed income, etc.) From this perspective, the sustainability of the achievements of the project depends on: i) the relevance of the project; ii) the level of ownership of the work of the project by the different parties involved and, primarily, the commune beneficiaries; ii) the integration of monitoring and control actions at the level of local management structures and ongoing activities of the technical structures of the State for which it is a sovereign function. i.) Relevance The foregoing analysis has shown that the project is entirely relevant in nearly all its strategic components. Remember that we have analysed the coherence of the project to ascertain its relevance, namely: (i) the coherence with regards to the needs of the community target groups; (ii) the coherence of the strategic priorities of the project and those at national, regional, and P a g e | 53 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa local level; (iii) coherence between the targeted problem (organisational) and the response (organisational) provided by the project. This three-point coherence approach has been irrefutably conclusive. However, the relevance of the project, as designed and implemented, still shows an inadequacy/incoherency between the timeframe of the project, the type of problem, and the response provided. ii.) Ownership of the work of the project The ownership of the work of the project by the different parties involved and primarily by the beneficiary communes has shown commitment throughout the implementation of the project. The first phase of the process involved the participation/mobilisation of the activity leaders to identify the needs (diagnostic phase) and the implementation of these actions was a success. With regards to the implementation of the different operational areas of the project, the ownership of the benefits involves responsibility and control of the strategic and operational processes of the project by the participants, in particular, the target communes. It would seem that, on all the implementation sites of the project, the management of the benefits was rather individual. Community management was just mentioned. The technical support agreed for the project and given to the beneficiaries with special emphasis on livestock breeding and market gardening, has effectively strengthened their production capacity and left them with sustainable benefits. iii.) Monitoring and control One of the lessons learnt from the experience of implementing a project, whether in the development phase or managing crisis situations, is the critical and important role of the monitoring and control functions to ensure the sustainability of the benefits/effects of the project. This is a lesson learnt by AAH, who gave preference, throughout this cycle, to an implementation based on the partnership with a local NGO (KARKARA), private providers, and State organisations (decentralised management of the livestock breeding, agriculture, and environmental services). The lack of staff and logistical resources of the technical organisations of the State curtailed their intervention capacity on a regular basis. Despite this, the involvement of State technical services in a monitoring and control scenario is an indisputable option due to their local knowledge and the technical quality of the duly appointed competent authority by the Government and the decentralised local authorities. In addition to these important comparative benefits, they assure the transparency and integration of the work performed in national, regional, and local development plans, thereby ensuring the convergence and integration of the efforts towards the common objectives. KARKARA, as the local NGO, and the private suppliers are, however, only involved for the length of their respective agreements. Lastly, the monitoring and control functions by base-community organisations have not yet been developed in this one-year implementation cycle. These functions are derived from ownership and from control of the operational and strategic processes put into place. These initiatives should be developed in if there is another cycle of the project. P a g e | 54 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa 3.6.2. Recommendations i.) To guarantee the sustainability of the achievements, it is essential that AAH continues their technical and financial partnership mobilisation efforts to assure better project coherence with respect to the timeframes, the type of problem being addressed, and the initiated solutions. ii.) Initiate a delegation process to the communes for managing the benefits of the project. This delegation is closely linked to the responsibility and the control of the strategic and operational processes of the project: monitoring of sites that have been developed by CFW operations, implementation of an operational surveillance of animals in the vicinity of the target communes of the project, community work facilitating access to water for irrigation purposes, etc. iii.) Continue and strengthen the partnership with State technical organisations for the monitoring of work and control of commune beneficiaries of the Project. P a g e | 55 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa IV. SOME GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNT The results of the interviews carried out and the analysis performed throughout this Assessment Mission have identified some good practices and lessons learnt that should be capitalised on. i) Look for complementarity with other emergency management participants: in an area characterised by a humanitarian emergency relating to an insecurity crisis, normal emergency operations consist of distributing food for free and taking care of the health of the affected communes, that are even more effective if complimentary strategies such as cash transfers and recovery programs are associated to them. ii) Integration of the host communes in the strategic and operational framework of the aid being given: this strategy is likely to reassure all the parties involved, maintaining and strengthening the feeling of belonging to a community, developed when living a situation of such humanitarian shock. iii) Integration of the humanitarian activities with development and recovery initiatives: The FSSL project for Diffa has developed an option linking humanitarian activities with strategies for sustaining livelihoods and strengthening the resistance of vulnerable communes through cash transfer (CFW and UCT) initiatives. This strategic option as a consequence of the good results when taking into account the local values (solidarity, fulfilling commitments, respecting customs, sharing, etc.), the complementarity with other interventions of other partners, alignment of strategies developed within the institutional scope of the management of the crisis, the development of the partnership with State technical services (regional and communal), and the participation of the communes and communities (target groups) to the definition of the strategic and operational decisions. iv) Use the HEA approach when performing location and household targeting with the participation of all the parties included in the project, especially with the direct target groups, community authorities, commune chiefs, and State technical services. This approach has built up the confidence of the partners and improved the image and reputation of AAH on all levels (the Government, HCU, technical services, community authorities, commune chiefs, target groups). v) Development of partnership for monitoring purposes: a partnership with State services who have extensive local knowledge and proven experience in project intervention areas, private suppliers, to reinforce the monitoring process and improve the quality of the interventions and sustainability of the benefits. However, they should be involved right from the start of the process. vi) Reinforcement measures of technical capacities through training target groups, in areas relating to livestock breeding, market gardening, and the construction of recovery and soil conservation work. Either way the training of target groups is one of the strategies that assures the sustainability of the benefits of the project. The skills acquired by the beneficiaries after the implementation cycle of the project now being used should capitalised on. vii) Cash transfers: the beneficiaries of this operational area have seized this opportunity to improve their source of income in order to strengthen their capacity and resistance to shocks. For example, many of them have bought small rudiments with the money they have received from the project for small animal breeding or other income-generating activities. P a g e | 56 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa V. TABLE SUMMARISING THE RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT DIMENSION RECOMMENDATIONS SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM RELEVANCE i.) Owing to the fine line between the emergency situations and development of the intervention area of the Project together with the relevance of the interventions undertaken within the scope of the cycle of the Project that provide solutions to the structural causes of the vulnerability of the households facing food security shocks, degradation of their livelihoods, and their limited capacity to access the bare essentials, supporting the process started by AAH and their partners in Diffa, it is considered necessary to consolidate and ensure the sustainability of their achievements. This support could be developed with another phase lasting at least 2 years. ii.) Lastly, to assure the better integration of women in the framework of the project and in its content, there is a need to orientate the income-generating activities towards women affected by the crisis. This strategy could be implemented by organising these women with the backing of a micro-funding partner. EFFECTIVENESS SRL activity i.) Strengthen the management of the animal feed and its distribution and develop a delivery system that certifies the completed services. ii.) Other aspects characterising the implementation that need to be improved: • Targeting must focus on direct beneficiaries in particular the households affected by the crisis situation with livestock being their main activity or essential to their household income; • Delimit, in a clear way, the objectives of the SRL operational area of all the parties involved in the project (beneficiaries, technical services, etc.); • Systemize the process of SRL activities integrating all generally accepted phases and ensure that the technical services and any other certified experts participate in all phases. • Develop a system through which the beneficiaries of SRL activities can report the proof-of-death of the goats received in order to minimise the risk of fictitious death. iii.) Develop and integrate mechanisms and operational plan of action for post-project monitoring. These components are indeed critical to the support and sustainability of the achievements recorded for the project. iv.) Promote with the decentralised technical State services and optionally with the private Vet some Veterinary Assistant who would make up, in the long term, a real critical mass of human resources to hand, trained, and equipped to support the people in the PIA to replenish and care for their livestock. These VA could be used in the operational plan of the post-project monitoring activity. P a g e | 57 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Support market gardening i) Continue providing support to garden market activities to consolidate the benefits above all in improving the timing of distribution operations of seeds making them more consistent with the sowing periods of the different crops. The former would optimise the yield and, in turn, the end-of-campaign results. ii) Find appropriate solutions with the help of the different parties involved in the project, especially the beneficiaries, for enclosing the sites to protect them from roaming, domestic animals and monkeys, in particular in the oases aquifers as well as improving access to water for irrigation purposes. iii) Continue the training and management of beneficiaries with the objective of creating an irrevocable real critical mass with the skills to manage market garden developments. iv) The partnership with technical services is a strategy to assure the viability in the long term of the activities performed within the scope of the project and also for assuring the viability of the contribution made by AAH to the reduction of the vulnerability state of the households in the project intervention area. It is considered appropriate that this partnership be continued in a more structured framework involving agreements. Cash Transfer i.) In view of the type of activities developed within the scope of CFW, consideration should be given to the taking control of the consolidation of the benefits by the development of the partnership and contribution of good organisation at the level of the commune together with the involvement of the technical services for the environment and communes in question. ii.) In addition, consideration should be given to complimentary activities necessary for those works constructed, to assure that the desired environmental effect and farming/pasture plans are brought to fruition. This should be planned medium-to-long term, improving the security conditions and maintaining the productive capital of the rural households in the prevention intervention areas of the project. iii.) In the case that there is another cycle, consideration should be given to integrating, right from the start of the project, ownership strategies and ensuring the sustainability of the benefits, working together with the communities, communes, and the regional, departmental, and local technical services. EFFICIENCY i) The budget is an important instrument for executing the project. It must be included in all lines. In addition, the Mission would recommend that it is prepared in a language that both partners understand, for the majority of the national execution partners, this is French. ii) This momentum must be sustained, supported and supervised so that it consolidates and produces in the longer term the results and impact desired. P a g e | 58 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa RESULTS AND IMPACTS i) The Assessment Mission would also like to recommend to AAH and OFDA and possible partnership extension, to develop and implement a second cycle of at least (3) years, based on more in-depth analysis of the needs of the target groups in the PIA. This approach would enable them to define a coherent and more complete strategy for response activities clearly orientated towards the medium-to-long term. ii) Continue with the strategy of duplicating the mentoring and training activities on techniques acquired by the beneficiaries in order to strengthen their understanding of the issues involved and the mastering of said and any related techniques. iii) The CFW strategy that has focused its activities on the conservation and recovery of the land goes beyond the primary objective of giving the target communes. Instead, these activities have identified the possibility of regenerating the vegetation covering different land forms for agro-silvo-pastoral systems. Plus, these initiatives are in line with the environmental problem in the PIA of the project. To this end, they must continue with these activities and consolidate them in a more organised way with the support of the community. This would improve the potential of the agro-silvo-pastoral land. This said, the construction of these land forms must be strengthened with a strategy for planting or sowing the vegetation (and/or forest). In fact, the silvo-pastoral demi-lunes, the availability of the seeds, the herbaceous and tree seedlings is essential. For operations that stabilise the dunes, the effects last but they need to be cared for with a strict maintenance program over a certain period of time (at least 3 years), this means that the community needs to be well-organised. In addition, within the scope of this strategy, the participation of base community organisations, local groups, and technical services must be achieved through agreements that clearly define the contribution, roles, and responsibilities of the same. iv) To guarantee the sustainability of the achievements, it is essential that AAH continues their technical and financial partnership mobilisation efforts to assure better project coherence with respect to the timeframes, the type of problem being addressed, and the initiated solutions. SUSTAINABILITY i) Initiate a delegation process to the communes for managing the benefits of the project. This delegation is closely linked to the responsibility and the control of the strategic and operational processes of the project: monitoring of sites that have been developed by CFW operations, implementation of an operational surveillance of animals in the vicinity of the target communes of the project, community work facilitating access to water for irrigation purposes, etc. ii) Continue and strengthen the partnership with State technical organisations for the monitoring of work and control of commune beneficiaries of the Project. P a g e | 59 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa ANNEX 1. TDR of the Mission 2. List of People Interviewed P a g e | 60 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa PEOPLE INTERVIEWED NAME AND LAST NAME ORGANISATION FUNCTION CONTACT Niamey Marie Christine Cormier AAH Mission in Niger Assistant Country Manager Tel. : 88719641 Email : mcormier@ne.acfspain.org Amadou Seyni Saley AAH Mission in Niger FSSL Technical Manager Tel. : 99494424 Email : samadou@n ne.acfspain.org Moctar Habou AAH Mission in Niger Monitoring and Evaluation Manager Tel : 96898510 /90696960 Email : Diffa Moussa Dan Banoufa AAH Base –Spain Diffa Base Manager Tel. : 92189315 / 88719640 Email : mbanoufa@ ne.acfspain.org Daouda Boukari AAH Base Diffa / FSSL Project Project Manager Tel. : 89815548 / 96583794 Email : dboukari@ ne.acfspain.org Bachir Maïboudjé AAH Base Diffa / FSSL Project Supervisor Tel. :99977869 Email : Ali Saley NGO KARKARA Diffa / FSSL Project Project Manager Tel. : 97275111 / 92274111 Email : Tidjani Bindoumi NGO KARKARA Diffa / FSSL Project Supervisor Tel. : 96076823 / 90998317 Email : tidjanibindoumi@gmail.com Issa Elhadj Alah Tanko Humanitarian Action Unit Diffa Office Manager Tel : 90469914 /97569914 Email : alahissa@yahoo.fr Manzo Maman Moussa Departmental Directorate for the Environment Director Tel. : 98345440 Email : manzoboussadi@yahoo.fr Boureïma Halidou Maïga Regional Directorate for Livestock Breeding Regional Director Tel. : 96406895 Email : 90444408 Hamza Alio Djibrilla Private Vet Dr Vet Tel : 96985533 Email : aliohamza@yahoo.fr Maïné Soroa Dr Katiella Maï Dodo Regional Directorate for Livestock Breeding Director Tel : 96272600 Email : kmaidodo@yahoo.fr Chérif Ari Regional Directorate for Livestock Breeding Assistant Director Tel. : 96487940 Email : cherifari1976@gmail.com Koukouma Gasso Town Council - Mayor Chairman of the Council (Mayor) Tel : 90252523 /96269308 Email : gassokoukouma@yahoo.fr Tahirou Moussa Mayor General Secretary Tel.: 96282698 /90354843 Email : tahiroumoussa92@yahoo.fr Chaïbou Gréma Ari Departmental Directorate for Architecture Head of Agricultural Statistical Service Tel. : 96487423 / 90284470 Email : arichaibou@gmail.com Chétimari Djibrilla Mallam Kalla Mayor Mayor Tel : 96269307 / 90322039 P a g e | 61 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa In addition to these individual interviews, the Mission conducted some group interviews with the beneficiaries Communes Villages Diffa Maloumdi Festival Digargo Maïné Soroa Maïné Soroa N’guel lamido Kamou tatawa Chétimari Chétimari Gagamari Barewas Diffa (Maloundi, Festival); Mainé Soroa (N’guel lamido, Maïné Soroa); Chétimari (Chétimari, Baréwas, Gagamari) and some visits to sites of the project (stabilising dunes at N’Guel lamido and market gardening). P a g e | 62 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa TDR OF THE ASSESSMENT MISSION TERM OF REFERENCE For the external assessment of the completion of the Project “to Assure and restore food security and sustainable livelihoods of vulnerable displaced people and host communes in the region of Diffa” Project funded by OFDA - USAID P a g e | 63 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa PROJECT DETAILS Project Title To Assure and restore food security and sustainable livelihoods of vulnerable displaced people and host communes in the region of Diffa Contract Number (internal to AAH) NEB2AC Location Communes of Diffa, Chétimari and Maïné-Soroa; Districts of Diffa and Maïné-Soroa, Region Diffa Sector FSSL Partners (if any) NGO Karkara Duration 12 months Start Date 25 August 2015 End Date 24 August 2016 Sponsor OFDA – USAID Project Language French – English Project Budget 1 222 000 USD HQ AAH –Spain (in charge) AAH –Spain AAH Mission-Spain (in charge) AAH Mission in Niger Assessment Type End-of-project external assessment Assessment Period P a g e | 64 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa CONTEXT OF THE PROJET Map of the area of the project The project “to Assure and restore food security and sustainable livelihoods of vulnerable displaced people and host communes in the region of Diffa”, sponsored by OFDA – USAID intervenes in the region of Diffa and in particular in the communes of Diffa and Chétimari in the department of Diffa and the commune of Mainé Soroa in the department of the same name. Overview of the Project AAH –Spain has been intervening in Niger since 1997 providing multi-sectorial support (water, hygiene, sanitation, FSSL, etc.) to the most vulnerable communes. In Diffa, AAH started intervening in 2015 after the attacks of Boko Haram in the region. The region of Diffa is particularly affected since it is an area that is already suffering from chronic food and nutritional insecurity with limited access to water as well as sanitation and hygiene installations. The arrival of an estimated 150,000 refugees and repatriated people fleeing Nigeria after Boko Haram attacks in the North of the country since 2013 has aggravated the pressure on the absorption capacity of the already overloaded host communes of Diffa. In this context and with regards to OFDA – USAID funding, AAH received financing for implementing an FSSL project in close collaboration with the local NGO, Karkara. The objective of this project was to respond to the immediate and basic needs of the host communes and displaced people affected by the activities of Boko Haram on the border between Niger and Nigeria. Objective of the project, target beneficiaries and organisation of management Objectives  Global Objective: respond to the immediate and basic needs of the host communes and displaced people affected by the activities of Boko Haram on the border between Niger and Nigeria.  Specific Objective: improve the food security and living conditions of the host communes and displaced Nigerians affected by the humanitarian crisis in the region of Diffa P a g e | 65 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa Results  Result 1: maintain the capacity of food production, as well as the assets of the most vulnerable host households to displaced individuals.  Result 2: improve the livelihoods and access to bare essentials of the majority of the host households and displaced individuals affected by the conflict. The beneficiaries of the project are the very poor, displaced people, refugees, host families, repatriated people, and residents of the 3 project intervention communes. This project fully integrates with the context, food and nutritional insecurity characteristics, as well as the program scope and strategy defined at the National level in Niger. In addition, the project takes into account the planning processes and management in the area (bearing in mind the institutional framework in line with the deconcentrating and decentralising strategy). Its implementation is coordinated with other intervening parties (WFP, Save the Children, IRC, etc.) and other projects in progress. The implementation of the activities in the field has been assured by the NGO Karkara under the supervision of AAH. At AAH level, the Niger mission falls under the responsibility of HQ in Madrid, where a multidisciplinary team assures support to the local team in charge of the implementation of the project. Current status of the project Two months away from the end of the project, the activities have been implemented as planned. All activities scheduled to date have been completed despite some delay during the first few months of the project. The AAH team, with their partner Karkara, are about to finish the activities and in particular the final survey which facilitates a more detailed assessment of the results and objectives obtained from the project. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT Justification of Assessment This end-of-project assessment has adopted a transparent approach that is accountable for the beneficiaries, partners and sponsors with the aim of having a clear idea of the results obtained from the project. This approach is orientated towards responding to the short and medium (recovery) needs. This is why it is important to AAH to assess the results of the project so that they can capitalise on the experience gained from this project so as to improve on the effectiveness and relevance of the response to the emergency situation in Diffa. Objective(s) of the Assessment i) Measure the overall effectiveness of the project for improving the food and nutritional security in the context of the emergency situation in Diffa, ii) Perform a global measurement that ascertains the extent the project has contributed to improving the diet and strengthening of the livelihoods of the beneficiary households Target users of the Assessment The direct users of the assessment are the FSSL technical advisors at HQ and in the field, the operations and quality departments of the Niger mission in Madrid; the implementation partner and the financial partner. Indirect users of the assessment are AAH International Network, sponsors, the government, local authorities, ministers, ONU Agencies, and Clusters, NGO and NGO consortiums, as well as the humanitarian platform leaders (such as ALNAP). Use of the Assessment The recommendations of the assessment should serve to improve and redefine the AAH approach in the next interventions in Diffa, bearing in mind any constraints and factors inherently limiting in the region. In addition, the study should also create knowledge on the concept (relevance), quality of the procedure (effectiveness, appropriateness) and the quality of the implementation (effectiveness, appropriateness of the results and sustainability) of the project. It should also identify any innovations in the approach and methods and learn from the experience and recommendations for the next interventions. Scope of Assessment The assessment must take into account the objectives, results, and indicators mentioned in the Project Document. It should examine the standards and the quality of the benefits and services produced by this project, according to the point of view of the indirect and direct beneficiaries, community leaders, members of community activity management committee members, local authorities, governmental technical departments, and AAH management, other operators in the field, execution, support, control, management, monitoring-assessment agents and other human resources. P a g e | 66 Final Evaluation Report– FSSL for Diffa The assessment should clearly identify the strong and weak points of the project, of the partner in place, and also the lessons learnt so as to make some specific recommendations. MANAGEMENT TERMS AND WORK PLAN Procedure for submitting and validating assessment report The assessor submits the project report only to AAH Niger The external assessment consultants at the AAH HQ of Niger perform quality assurance and decide if the report is ready to be shared The AAH mission in Niger distribute a copy to the main intervening parties so that they can comment on the factual content and provide clarifications The AAH in Niger makes a synopsis of the documents and sends them to the assessor on the date agreed between the two parties involved and the former, when the comments from the participating parties are received The assessor sends the final report to the AAH mission in Niger who then sends it officially to the participating parties, and then to the AAH HQ Profile of the Assessor The assessor must have the following profile: University degree, and, at the very least, a Master in Agronomy, rural development, project management Experience in the area of FSSL (development/humanitarian context) Proven experience in the assessment of long-term projects Relevant experience in coordination conception, implementation, monitoring, and assessment of projects Experience in the region of the partner country or in similar countries: West or Central Africa. Experience in Niger would be a plus Knowledge of participative research methods Analysis capacity and aptitude to prepare clear and concise summary information Able to communicate within the organisation and conduct workshops Impartiality with respect to the parties involved Excellent command of France both written and spoken. Understanding of the demands of the sponsors Capacity to manage time and resources and work with aggressive delivery times Independence from contracted parties Available for the entire duration of the assessment BUDGET The Consultant is responsible for their own private personal medical insurance for the entire duration of the assessment The Consultant must have their own equipment for performing the assessment (computer, clothing, camera, telephone, etc.) The Consultant and staff contracted for the assessment must respect at all times the security rules inforce by the AAH staff, signing a waiver to this effect. The assessment team will be briefed on any specific security issues prior to starting the assessment. AAH is not held responsible for the safety of the assessor and any other staff contracted by the same, who remain entirely responsible for their own safety. Payment The Consultant will be paid on the basis of the amount agreed in their contract with AAH in Niger. No other expenses shall be paid to the Assessor outside that agreed in the offer. The payment of their services is divided in three: first instalment at start of service provision, a second instalment when the provisional report is submitted, and a third after validation of the final assessment report. A payment schedule with the rate/percentage is included in the contract. Tax will be paid according to the tax regime in force in the Republic of Niger.