December 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the Peace Corps. It was prepared independently by Gérard C. Zoundji & Espérance Zossou Final Evaluation of the West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) Program FINAL EVALUATION OF THE WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP (WAFSP) PROGRAM FEED THE FUTURE (FTF) AND PEACE CORPS/ USAID GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY AGREEMENT December 7, 2018 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1. PROGRAM BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 9 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...............................................................................13 2.1 Evaluation Purpose ............................................................................................................................................13 2.2 Evaluation Questions.........................................................................................................................................13 3. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................14 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................18 4.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................................................18 4.1.1 Summary of WAFSP Results(Fiscal Year 2012 to 2017) .......................................................................18 4.1.2 Relevance, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of Program Activities and Implementation Approaches.........20 4.1.3 Sustainability and Impact of Established Mechanisms and Activities......................................................26 4.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................32 4.3 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................33 ANNEXES....................................................................................................................................................................34 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .................................................................................................................34 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations........................................................................................................39 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments..................................................................................................................41 Annex IV: Sources of Information...........................................................................................................................47 Annex V: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest ...................................................................................................49 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM GRANT-FUNDED INTERVENTIONS ...........................................................................11 TABLE 2. NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN FGDS CONDUCTED IN COMMUNITIES IN BENIN AND THE GAMBIA .....................14 TABLE 3. SELECTED COMMUNITIES FOR THE FIELD WORK IN BENIN AND THE GAMBIA ......................................................15 TABLE 4. KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE WAFSP AND TOTAL BENEFICIARIES REACHED IN ALL WAFSP COUNTRIES .....................18 TABLE 5. YEARLY PERCENTAGE OF WAFSP INDICATORS ACHIEVEMENT FROM FY12 TO FY17 ..........................................19 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF THE BENEFICIARIES ON ACHIEVEMENT OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES............23 FIGURE 2. OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF BENEFICIARIES ON THE PROGRAM OUTCOMES ACHIEVEMENT ....................24 FIGURE 3. IMPACT OF WAFSP INITIATIVE ON BENEFICIARIES’ LIVELIHOODS IN BENIN AND THE GAMBIA USING THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH ..................................................................................................................29 FIGURE 4. OVERALL IMPACT OF WAFSP INITIATIVE ON BENEFICIARIES’ LIVELIHOODS IN BENIN AND THE GAMBIA .............30 ACRONYMS CAADP : Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBOs : Community-Based Organizations DCTs : Data Collection Tools ECOWAS : Economic Community of West African States FTF : Feed The Future FGD : Focus Group Discussion FSPOC : Food Security Point of Contact FY : Fiscal Year GFSS : Global Food Security Strategy OPATS : Office of Programming and Training Support PC : Peace Corps PCGO : Peace Corps Grants Online PCV : Peace Corps Volunteer SLA : Sustainable Livelihood Approach SWOT : Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats MoFA : Ministry of Food and Agriculture MSME : Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises USAID : United States Agency for International Development USAID/WA : United States Agency for International Development/ West Africa Mission VRF : Volunteer Reporting Form WAFSP : West Africa Food Security Partnership 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The overarching purpose of this final evaluation is twofold: • To make an overall and independent assessment of the performance of the WAFSP, paying particular attention to the results of the program against its objectives; • To formulate a set of key lessons and recommendations in order to improve future actions. The evaluation questions as described in the Scope of Work are: • Determine the results of the program; • Determine the effectiveness and relevance of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches; • Examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities, and • Confirm key lessons learned and best practices for replication as identified by a recent process evaluation. The evaluation will be useful to the following key stakeholders: • USAID/West Africa; • USAID; • Peace Corps. PROGRAM BACKGROUND The food security situation has worsened in sub-Saharan Africa and remains a great challenge (FAO et al. 2017). Achieving food and nutrition security requires sustained commitment and efforts to promote adequate availability of and access to nutritious food. This achievement may reside in advances in implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), with a Regional Agricultural Policy such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Zero Hunger Initiative, or the Environmental Policy, Water Resource Policy, and Regional Investment Plan through several regional and national program and programs. The West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) program is, therefore, one of those regional approaches to fight against hunger in the region. The WAFSP is a regional partnership program between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps (PC) under Feed the Future (FTF) and has continued under the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) to support implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). FTF is a United States Government (USG) initiative to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger. The WAFSP was established to support synergistic food security programming between four West African FTF Focus countries (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Senegal) and seven non-FTF Focus countries with PC programs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, The Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Togo). The WAFSP interventions in these eleven countries in West and Central Africa have common food insecurity issues in both urban and rural areas. These countries also share 6 similar socio-economic, political, and environmental conditions that make them vulnerable and provide a conduit for the contagious across-border impact of food insecurity among these countries. The goal of the WAFSP program is to address food insecurity in West and Central Africa by enabling Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) to build grassroots capacity with stakeholders in the communities where they serve. This is expected to be accomplished through various interventions based on community needs, including improved natural resource management, agroforestry, improved agricultural production, gardening, small animal husbandry, nutrition education, economic development programs, food processing, and conservation, income generating activities, and climate change adaptation. It is noteworthy that the practical implementation of the WAFSP covered eleven countries as mentioned above. However, the outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa has affected implementation in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Political instability associated with national security issues also had a negative impact on implementation in Mali and Burkina-Faso. EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation questions as described in the Scope of Work are: • Determine the results of the program; • Determine the effectiveness and relevance of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches; • Examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities, and confirm key lessons learned and best practices for replication as identified by a recent process evaluation. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework was used to assess the contribution that the WAFSP program activities made to sustaining livelihoods. This evaluation adopted both quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry to facilitate both technical and socio-economic analysis. Literature reviews, focus-group discussions, key informant interviews, and semi-structured in-depth interviews were used to collect data on the program (i) outcomes, (ii) impact; and (iii) lessons learned to recommend its future direction. The evaluation process focused on five main points: coherence/appropriateness; effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the program. The evaluation team used a participatory approach to make the evaluation a learning process by actively engaging the stakeholders in the evaluation process and creating spaces where respondents are able to learn from their work, and share their views, perspectives, and ideas openly. The rationale is that “significant and lasting change in people's lives must take account of their values, priorities, and judgments; programs cannot be deemed to have been a 'success' or 'failure' if the perceptions of those whom the intervention aims to benefit diverge seriously from those of the program staff or an external evaluator." (Roche, 1999: 28). Two countries, Benin and The Gambia, were selected as case studies in which to conduct the field work due to time, budget, and the practical considerations related to the availability of PC staff to facilitate the field work. It is clear that some observations are founded on relatively limited information and knowledge and may only present a limited view on some issues. Within its limitations, the evaluation process and 7 resulting report provide findings of the results achieved and recommendations for the future. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS From Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 to FY 2017, a total of 42,091 beneficiaries were reached through the WAFSP key objective 1 (Increase availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children). Through the WAFSP key objective 2 (Increase accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes), a total of 3,066 beneficiaries were reached from FY12 to FY17. A total of 34,186 beneficiaries were reached from FY12 to FY17 within the WAFSP key objective 3 (Improve utilization of available foodstuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children). A total of 79,343 beneficiaries were reached by the WAFSP on a total of 88,521target; given an overall percentage of indicators achievement of 89.63%. Most of the community members participated in program implementation and got benefits from program activities. But it was noted in some communities that some grassroots people were not involved in the program’s needs assessment and initial phase. Most community members who were involved in the program’s needs assessment and initiation were leaders of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) or key actors in the community and therefore were close to the PCVs. The WAFSP program operates through the existing PC organizational structure. That may contribute positively to the program’s efficiency. The WAFSP Coordinator, based in Cotonou, Benin and supported by PC staff in Benin served as the principal liaison officer between participating posts, PC/Washington and USAID West Africa Mission (USAID/WA). The coordinator developed annual work plans and shared with PC/Washington and USAID/WA for endorsement of annual program activities and budgets. Quarterly monitoring reports and results of annual program reports were shared with all key stakeholders. This strengthened the efficiency of the program and showed synergy in coordination during program implementation. Overall, the program has been successful in meeting its immediate outcomes. There were three expected outcomes: (i) Increased availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children; (ii) Increased accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes; and (iii) Improved utilization of available foodstuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children. Below are some opinions made by PC staff interviewed during the evaluation: There is a moderate likelihood that the achievements and benefits of the WAFSP initiative will continue to accrue to beneficiaries beyond the end of the program making sustainability questionable. The self￾contribution of beneficiaries to small grants funding is a laudable initiative and should contribute to the sustainability of the program. But, without the necessary institutional support, context-specific approach with participatory and inclusive involvement of grassroots people, extension workers and representatives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), program actions sustainability would not be possible. This is because, by design, such food security initiatives are only immediate, short-term stop-gap measures. Funding local communities without the inclusive involvement of grassroots people create a dependency syndrome in beneficiaries. Based on FGDs at the community level, some beneficiaries were not informed about their self-contribution to program implementation and are looking for more financial support from the program. The WAFSP is in line with general government policy in each country, but the MoFA representatives at the municipal level are not aware of this program. 8 It is early to assess the program’s contribution to food and nutrition security at the regional and country level. One reason is that too many indicators were selected by the program, making it difficult to assess the impact at the national and regional level. A second reason is that the program focused activities in few communities in a country, making it difficult to extrapolate the impact on the whole country and the whole region. However, the evaluation team noted that community members had favorable impressions of PCVs and acknowledged their immense contribution to community development. 9 1. PROGRAM BACKGROUND The food security situation has worsened in sub-Saharan Africa and remains a great challenge (FAO et al. 2017). Achieving food and nutrition security requires sustained commitment and efforts to promote adequate availability of and access to nutritious food. Accomplishing this challenging achievement may reside in advances in the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) with the Regional Agricultural Policy such as Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Zero Hunger Initiative, Environmental Policy, Water Resource Policy, and Regional Investment Plan through several regional and national programs. The West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) program is, therefore, one of those regional approaches to fight against hunger in the region. The WAFSP is a regional partnership program between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Peace Corps (PC) under Feed the Future (FTF) and has continued under the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) to support implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). FTF is a United States Government (USG) initiative to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger. The WAFSP supports synergistic food security programming between four West African FTF Focus countries (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Senegal) and seven non-FTF Focus countries with PC programs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Togo). The WAFSP interventions in these eleven countries in West and Central Africa have common food insecurity issues in both urban and rural areas. These countries also share similar socio-economic, political, environmental conditions that make them vulnerable and provide a conduit for the contagious cross-border impact of food insecurity among these countries. The goal of the WAFSP program is to address food insecurity in West and Central Africa by enabling Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) to build grassroots capacity with stakeholders in the communities where they serve. This is expected to be accomplished through various interventions based on community needs, including improved natural resource management, agroforestry, improved agricultural production, gardening, small animal husbandry, nutrition education, economic development programs, food processing, and conservation, income generating activities, and climate change adaptation. The WAFSP aims to: 1. Increase availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children 2. Increase accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes 3. Improve utilization of available foodstuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children The WAFSP was established in September 2011, and USAID/West Africa has provided a total of $3.8 million for the program over a six-year period. This was followed by a considerable number of internal discussions among partners. The first meeting was held in December 2011, and the Program Coordinator started activity implementation in January 2012. The WAFSP program builds community capacity at the grassroots level to strategically respond to food security vulnerabilities such as food shortages and price increases. The program draws upon the unique positioning of PCVs, who live and work directly with individuals and households for two years in hard-to-reach areas. The program is supported by: • Knowledge sharing among and within posts 10 • A robust and rigorous M&E system (training, data collection, data quality assessment and scheduled reporting periods). The program’s interventions are varied and depend mostly on the locality or community involved. However, all interventions are directed towards improving the food security situation of the community. Table 1below shows some examples of program grant-funded interventions. 11 Table 1. Description of program grant-funded interventions Countries Project title Name of grant recipient Project Place Achievement Start date End date Benin Athieme food security enhancement project Association for the Protection of the Environment and its Localities (ASPEL, local NGO) 1st May 2016 31 Dec 2016 Athieme With the support of WAFSP funds, ASPEL was able to install a solar￾powered irrigation system that improved water distribution and usage, increasing farm production, income, and improving the overall operational effectiveness and efficiency. Mialeboni women’s rabbit breeding and entrepreneurship training Mialeboni Association (local NGO) 15 Jan 2018 24 Feb 2018 Dogbo The 20 women, members of Mialebouni NGO, were trained on new techniques related to rabbit raising (habitat, feeding, and reproduction, health care) and basic business skills such as marketing. These women have received from the project some rabbits that they have started raising using the new techniques learned. Adjido Community Center Fence Project Tout Va Bien 12 Dec 2016 30 Jan 2017 Bohicon Through the tech exchange taught by Peace Corps Master Farmer Ghislain Zinzou of ASPEL based in Athieme, the women’s group engaged in a basic overview of general gardening best practices. Additionally, a durable space to create sustainable gardening opportunities has been successfully created, and the women have already begun utilizing the space. Semevo Pineapple Drying Cooperative AgroEcologique Semevo 1st Sep 2015 29 Feb 2016 Houegbo This project was implemented through the installation of a pineapple drying unit and the training of the cooperative in the processes of fruit drying. Transformation center Farm Kanli/local NGO La vie des éducateurs et éducatrices 8 Febr 2016 31 May 2016 Azowlisse The creation of a processing center for Farm Kanli serves as a necessary and relevant tool both for the farm itself and for the community at large. The center allows the farm to processraw products into shelf-stable goods, available for purchase year-round to residents in and around the farm. The Gambia Improved technologies or management practices and short-term training on agriculture and food security Geniya Master Farm - - west Coast Region With WAFSP support, community members were trained and applied improved technologies or management practices. Fencing the Future- protecting a community garden for years to come SareButi community 31 August 2016 1st May 2017 Central River Region WAFSP provided funds to buy materials for a 250-meter long chain￾link fence along with garden tools to supplement work in the garden. The men of the village, led by Akshay’s main counterpart Haruna Baldeh, organized a work session three days a week in to set up the chain link fence, while the women provided lunch and refreshments. 12 Countries Project title Name of grant recipient Project Place Achievement Start date End date Agricultural and agroforestry training in the communities Master Farm Tumana - - Upper River Region With the support of the WAFSP, this project provided a training ground that is used to teach and support students, individuals, and communities to establish and manage personal tree nurseries and woodlots. Basic Cycle School Garden and Tree Nursery Kerr Amadou community 20 March 2017 24 July 2017 Central River Region This project contributes to increasing food security by establishing a sustainable school garden and a tree nursery. The school’s Garden Committee and PCV use the garden and tree nursery to educate the community’s youth on the adverse environmental effects of deforestation. Community-Based Endangered Tree Species Revival Upper Nuimi Center for Reforestation Committee 6 Dec 2015 15 Sept 2016 North Bank Region This project contributes to increasing the capacity of community stakeholders for management of endangered trees 13 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS 2.1 Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the final evaluation is to evaluate the performance of the WAFSP in targeted populations and to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the program. It is expected to draw specific conclusions and formulate recommendations that will benefit the design of future interventions. The evaluation will be immediately useful to the following WAFSP key stakeholders: • Peace Corps; • USAID/West Africa; • USAID. The evaluation has been contracted at the end of the WAFSP program to provide PC and USAID an independent assessment of how well the program achieved the expected results and draw lessons for improvement of future interventions. An evaluation of this nature provides a snapshot of a moving target. Some issues discussed during the evaluation process may have already been taken into account by the WAFSP program management team. The evaluation expert adopted a participatory approach to making the evaluation a learning process by actively engaging the stakeholders in the process and creating opportunities for the respondents to learn from their work and share their views, perspectives, and ideas openly. The rationale is that “significant and lasting change in peoples’ lives must take account of their values, priorities, and judgments; programs cannot be deemed to have been a 'success' or 'failure' if the perceptions of those whom the intervention aims to benefit diverge seriously from those of the program staff or an external evaluator." (Roche, 1999: 28). Some observations are founded on relatively limited information and knowledge and may present a limited view on some issues. With its limitations, the evaluation process and resulting report provide findings of the results achieved and recommendations for the future. 2.2 Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions as described in the Scope of Work1are to: • Determine the results of the program; • Determine the effectiveness and relevance of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches; • Examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities, and • Confirm key lessons learned and best practices for replication as identified by a recent process evaluation. 1 See Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work 14 3. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a mixed methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative data methods. These were: FGDs, key informant interviews, semi-structured in-depth-interviews, and direct/participant observation. FGD, key informant interviews, and direct/participant observation: Ten FGDs (five in Benin and five in The Gambia), key informant interviews, and direct/participant observation were conducted with the WAFSP beneficiaries in Benin and The Gambia. Considering the constraints of time, budget, and availability of PC staff to facilitate the field work, two countries, Benin and The Gambia, were selected as a case study. In each country, five communities were selected according to their level of involvement in the program and their willingness to participate in the field work. In each community, data collection from the beneficiaries started with a two-hour FGD with the WAFSP beneficiaries to get an idea of their perception of the advantages and benefits of the program at the community level and to understand various social dimensions influencing the program. The number of participants in the community FGD varied from 10 to 40 and is summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2. Number of Participants in FGDs Conducted in Communities in Benin and The Gambia Country Community / Village District/ Municipality Number of FGD Number of participants BENIN Awakou Athiémé, Mono 1 15 Dogbo Dogbo, Mono 1 20 Adjido Bohicon, Zou 1 15 HouegboToffo Houegbo, Central-Southern region 1 10 Tode Azowlisse 1 10 The Gambia Geniya, Foni Kansale, west Coast Region 1 27 SareButi Central River Region 1 40 Tinkinjo Upper River Region 1 30 Kerr Amadou Basic Cycle School/ Central River Region 2 35 Bakalarr / Upper Nuimi North Bank Region 1 25 Based on in-depth insights from this qualitative phase, a structured questionnaire was individually and randomly addressed to a fifth of the number of FGD participants for key informant interviews. According to the number of participants attending the FGD in each community, 2 to 8 key informants were randomly selected. A total of 14 and 29 key informants were individually interviewed respectively in Benin and The Gambia. In a community of The Gambia (Kerr Amadou Basic Cycle School in the Central River Region), the key 15 informant interview was not appropriate because the program was related to a ‘Basic Cycle School Garden and Tree Nursery.’ In this specific case, two FGDs were conducted separately with the two main categories of actors namely (i) pupils and (ii) parents of pupils. In each selected community, direct/participant observation was used after the FGD to analyze how the beneficiaries applied the learning from the training in practice; and photography was used to illustrate. Table 3 summarizes the selected communities in the two countries, the type of grant they benefited from and the number of key informants interviewed. During the FGD and key informant interviews with program beneficiaries, the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) was used to assess the capital assets of participants. The SLA is people-centered and designed to be participatory with an emphasis on sustainability. This general analytical framework shows how, in different contexts, sustainable livelihoods are achieved by accessing a range of livelihood resources: financial, social, human, natural and physical capitals (Scoones, 1998). In each community, FGD were used for an overall description of the five types of capital. During the interviews, participants were asked individually (during key informant interviews) and in the group (during the second round of FGD) to rank capital stocks recorded in the baseline year before the program and in the impact year (2018). A recall method exercise was used, and respondents were asked to try to remember their past capital assets to estimate capital stocks in the baseline year. The respondents rated the capital stocks identified for the baseline year and the impact year on a 0–5 scale. A radar chart was then drawn to visualize the five capitals with value 0 (no stock) at the center of the diagram and the value 5 at the other extreme of the axes, corresponding to a full asset stock. During the capital stocks rating, participants of FGD were asked to reach consensus before the radar chart was drawn. Table 3. Selected communities for the field work in Benin and The Gambia Country Community / Village District/ Municipality Grant denomination Key actor Number key informants BENIN Awakou Athiémé, Mono Athiémé Food Security Enhancement Project NGO “ASPEL” 3 Dogbo Dogbo, Mono Mialeboni Women's Rabbit Breeding and Entrepreneurship Training NGO “Mialeboni” 4 Adjido Bohicon, Zou Adjido Community Center Fence Project NGO “Tout va bien” 3 Houegbo Toffo Houegbo, Central￾Southern region Semevo Pineapple Drying Farm FAES & Cooperative Agro Ecologique Semevo 2 Tode Azowlisse Construction of five concrete fish raising tanks; Transformation Center; chicken coop Kanlifarmwith NGO “La vie des éducateurs et éducatrices” 2 16 Country Community / Village District/ Municipality Grant denomination Key actor Number key informants The Gambia Geniya, FoniKansale, west Coast Region Improved technologies or management practices and short￾term training on agriculture and food security Geniya Master Farm 7 Central River Region Fencing the Future￾protecting a community garden for years to come SareButi community 8 Tinkinjo Upper River Region Agricultural and agroforestry training in the communities Master Farm Tumana 8 Kerr Amadou Basic Cycle School/ Central River Region Basic Cycle School Garden and Tree Nursery Kerr Amadou community - Bakalarr / Upper Nuimi North Bank Region Community-Based Endangered Tree Species Revival Bakalarr, Upper Nuimi, North Bank Region 6 Semi-structured in-depth-interviews Two different forms of semi-structured in-depth-interviews were addressed to the PC/Benin and The Gambia staff (current and former) and PCVs. The PC staff involved in the fieldwork suggested the PCVs and PC staff to interview, based on their current or past involvement in the WAFSP. A total of six PCVs and seven PC staff were interviewed in Benin and The Gambia. Data sources Primary data were collected through FGD, key informant interviews and semi-structured in-depth￾interviews with selected WAFSP beneficiaries, PC staff, and PCVs involved in the WAFSP program. Secondary data were collected through document reviews. Data analysis Data from the SLA were analyzed using mean, table and graphs with the capital rating values to make changes visible over time. Data from the structured interviews were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Risks and Limitations The evaluation team experienced some limitations in the implementation of the evaluation, mainly due to the following issues: 17 1. The number of countries visited for the case studies was limited to two out of the eleven beneficiary countries; 2. The program supports synergistic food security programming between four West African FTF (former) Focus countries (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Senegal) and seven non-FTF Focus countries with PC programs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, The Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Togo). But the two selected countries for the case study were both non-FTF Focus countries. 3. There was limited time available for country visits relative to the program size and the number of stakeholders; 4. The communities visited for the case studies were selected by the PC staff who were involved in the implementation of the program. This may have some bias on the evaluation; 5. There was no baseline data available for comparison for the impact survey. The recall approach was used, and this may negatively affect the quality of data collected; 6. Volunteers submit Data Collection Tools (DCTs), which are used to verify the accuracy of data reported in Peace Corps Grants Online (PCGO) and the Volunteer Reporting Form (VRF).This is a kind of self-reported data that reflect their opinions of themselves, their work, and the people with whom they work; 7. The timing of village visits was decided based on the convenience of travel plans; 8. There was a language bias that negatively affects the quality of data collected in The Gambia because the consultants had to use translators for local languages. This was not the case in Benin where the consultants understood the local languages in the country; 9. There is often some subjectivity in data collection during a program evaluation because it is always possible that interviewees distort their responses because they want to say things to please the interviewer. To avoid this bias as much as possible, it was explained to interviewees that the main goal of the evaluation is to learn how to improve the program; 10. Due to the lack of baseline survey and control data during the assessment, it would be very difficultto assess the impact of the program with a high degree of rigor. 18 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Findings 4.1.1 Summary of WAFSP Results (Fiscal Year 2012 to 2017) From FY12 to FY17, a total of 42,091 beneficiaries were reached through WAFSP key objective 1(Increase availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children). Through WAFSP key objective 2 (Increase accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes), a total of 3,066 beneficiaries were reached from FY12 to FY17. A total of 34,186 beneficiaries were reached from FY12 to FY17 within the WAFSP key objective 3 (Improve utilization of available foodstuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children). A total of 79,343 beneficiaries were reached under WAFSP out of a total target of 88,521. Indicator achievement overall is 89.63%. More detail across indicators and years are given in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4. Key objectives of the WAFSP and total beneficiaries reached in all WAFSP countries WAFSP key objective Indicator code2 Indicator title Total target Total achieved 1. Increase availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children 4.5.2-5 Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 12,809 10,405 EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance 750 1,620 4.5.2-7 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (FY12-FY16) 26,526 26,655 EG.3.2-1 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (FY17) 1,500 3,411 2. Increase accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes 4.5.2-11 Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance (FY12-FY16) 2,255 1,144 EG.3.2-4 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers’ organizations, water users’ associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related 250 251 2 The coding system changed after 2016. Thus, the 4.5-X refer to the period 2012-2016, while the E.G, H.L., and CUSTOM refers to 2017. 19 WAFSP key objective Indicator code2 Indicator title Total target Total achieved organizational development assistance (FY17) 4.5.2-30 Number of MSMEs receiving USG assistance to access bank loans 153 13 4.5.2-37 Number of MSMEs receiving business development services from USG assisted sources 1,400 1,520 CUSTOM Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving business development services from USG assisted sources 60 124 4.5.2-43 Number of firms (excluding farms) or Civil Society Organizations engaged in agricultural and food-security￾related manufacturing and services now operating more profitably (at or above cost) because of USG assistance 172 14 3. Improve utilization of available food stuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children 3.1.9-1 Number of people trained in child health and nutrition through USG-supported health area programs 15,052 13,698 HL.9-4 Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs 1,200 1,287 Custom indicator Number of people trained in maternal health and nutrition through USG-supported health area programs 8,264 6,850 3.1.9-15 Number of children under 5 reached by USG-supported nutrition programs 16,130 10,919 HL.9-1 Number of children under 5 (0-59 months) reached by USG-supported nutrition programs 2,000 1,432 Source: WAFSP annual reports FY12-FY17 Table 5. Yearly percentage of WAFSP indicators achievement from FY12 to FY17 Key Objective Indicator code3 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Objective 1 4.5.2-5 90.00% 89.00% 79.00% 83.00% 71.00% EG.3.2-17 216.00% 4.5.2-7 71.00% 89.00% 98.00% 149.00% 84.00% EG.3.2-1 227.00% Objective 2 4.5.2-11 14.00% 59.00% 33.00% 83.00% 103.00% EG.3.2-4 100.00% 4.5.2-30 0.00% 21.00% 3.00% 4.5.2-37 33.00% 45.00% 55.00% 228.00% 135.00% CUSTOM 207.00% 4.5.2-43 13.00% 6.00% 7.00% 3.1.9-1 149.00% 59.00% 62.00% 141.00% 72.00% HL.9-4 107.00% 3 The coding system changed after 2016. Thus, the 4.5-X refer to the period 2012-2016, while the E.G, H.L., and CUSTOM refers to 2017. 20 Key Objective Indicator code3 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Objective 3 Custom indicator 291.00% 36.00% 40.00% 153.00% 59.00% 3.1.9-15 1.00% 75.00% 118.00% 64.00% 83.00% HL9-1 72.00% Source: WAFSP annual reports FY12-FY17 4.1.2 Relevance, Efficiency, and Effectiveness of Program Activities and Implementation Approaches Relevance The WAFSP program is highly relevant to the sectoral government policies and strategies. West Africa had a population of 349 million from 1990-92 of which 45 million people were undernourished (World Bank, 2015). Regional approaches are developed to fight against hunger in the region, and the WAFSP initiative is one of them. Each government of the beneficiary countries formulated their own Sustainable Development Program, with the objective of encouraging food self-sufficiency, quality improvement, and food safety and nutrition quality. The WAFSP is in line with general government policy in each country because most of the key informants (93%) surveyed mentioned food security as one of their major concerns. During the FGD, food security, climate change, and access to market were the key issues beneficiaries faced before the program began. The WAFSP initiative was consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements and needs. But it was noted in some communities a moderate involvement/participation of grassroots people in the small grant programs initial phase, prior to their implementation at the community level. About 23% of the interviewed beneficiaries were really involved in the initial phase of the program, prior to its implementation. Most of the community members who were involved in the community need diagnosis and program initial phase were leaders of CBOs or key actors in the community. It is important to note that community leaders or opinion leaders are not always in harmony with the people in the community and needs and requirements can be divergent. It is recommended that for future interventions, PCVs expand the community-based participatory diagnosis to all stakeholders including grassroots people. In summary, the outcome of the WAFSP initiative is consistent with the beneficiary (see the quotes above) and country needs and global priorities, as well as partner and donor policies. Quote 1: “I am very happy and thankful to Peace Corps Volunteer and NGO Mialeboni for showing the “road’ of success to women in this village. I received training and started with only 3 rabbits breeding. But currently, I have more than 45 rabbits ready to sell. Before the project support, I relied mainly on my husband to feed my children. But now, with rabbit raising, I’m not so more depend to him”. A project beneficiary from Benin, Quote 2: Before the project support, we (my husband and me) have serious difficulties to pay school fees for our children and take care of them. But since I have started producing vegetables, I became a good mother and wife, and pay without worry school fees. I was also unable to afford meals for my family prior to beginning the vegetable production. I would like to say BIG THANKS to US people for this project. (A project beneficiary from The Gambia) 21 Efficiency The WAFSP program operates through the existing PC organizational structure. This contributes positively to the program’s efficiency. The WAFSP Coordinator, based in Cotonou and supported by PC staff in Benin, serves as the main liaison officer between participating posts, PC/Washington, and the USAID West Africa Mission. The Coordinator developed annual work plans and shared with PC/ Washington and USAID for endorsement of annual program activities and budgets. Quarterly monitoring reports and results of annual program reports were shared with all key stakeholders. This strengthens the efficiency of the program and showed synergy in coordination during program implementation. With the support of a PCV Leader (PCVL) for food security, a Food Security Point of Contact (FSPOC) designated among relevant PC staff, coordinates WAFSP activities at participating posts. The field survey showed that there were consultations with the leaders of the program, the staff, and beneficiaries (100% of the surveyed people). At the commencement of the program, a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan including indicators was developed using the outcomes outlined in the program document. Various program monitoring tools were utilized during the implementation period. Program M&E consisted of routine activity reports and quarterly program reports. The most notable aspect of the program’s M&E system was the annual participatory partner reviews with all the posts. The M&E system focused mainly on monitoring operational matters and numerical analysis, from which quantitative program implementation data can be extracted for reporting purposes. It was not developed as a results-based system through which to measure outcome and impact; support periodic in-depth internal reviews with key stakeholders; or review program planning and policy dialogue. As a result, the program had no strong exit strategy in place that would assist in consolidating achievements. As noted by a previous evaluation in March 2018, the M&E plan and system could also be improved by conducting mid-term reviews to evaluate the progress of implementation and results to date; thereby allowing for changes to the program mid-term. This would likely improve the allocation of resources; and therefore, the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. However, it is important to note that program M&E routine annual activity plans, quarterly and annual reports, and the data quality assessment (DQA) conducted by USAID contributed to effectiveness of the program. Consequently, although the program started up with a robust and rigorous M&E system developed through USAID and the PC/Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS), the evaluation team is of the opinion that the program’s efficiency and effectiveness could have been better if there had been a more effective M&E plan and system in place from the outset (see Table 6. Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the WAFSP initiative). The literature, based on the program implementation reports and interviews with PC staff, PCVs, and beneficiaries, showed that resources and inputs for program implementation were generally provided on time. The program partners have developed capacities (both human and social capital) that strengthen WAFSP interventions. The PC staff, partners and PCVs have developed knowledge and technical skills that improved the productivity and business development and management capabilities of the beneficiaries. A community of practice (CoP) was established and is still operational, creating a stable knowledge and skill￾sharing forum for PC staff to support PCVs and their counterparts. Without external funding, the CoP could be maintained by PC for staff to continue sharing best-fit solutions in the region. The WAFSP has supported farmers with materials and other resources, including appropriate infrastructure in their fields 22 and gardening tools. This has considerably changed the availability of these materials in the intervention communities and has, in turn, strengthened the capacities of the beneficiaries to better maintain some of this major infrastructural development for long-term sustainability of their programs. The governments’ commitment to the program in terms of institutional and logistic support is adequate, as all concerned countries have provided permanent assistance to the program. However, this could be improved as noted in the opinion of a PC staff: “Sometimes working with the government departments with the setups there slows down the pace of how Peace Corps works.” An analysis of program implementation at the community level shows a higher commitment from community leaders than the grassroots people. This was also perceived by some PCVs and PC staff interviewed. For improved sustainability of the program, it is recommended thatcommunity leaders and the grassroots people at the community level be involved with program implementation. Effectiveness Effectiveness is a multi-faceted concept that measures the extent to which planned activities achieve their purpose, or whether this can be expected to happen based on the results. Effectiveness also assesses the physical progress to date, the real differences made in practice by the activities funded, and how much the intended beneficiaries really benefited from the earmarked products or rendered services. The effectiveness analysis was based on the logframe of the program and the level of appreciation/satisfaction of the program staff and beneficiaries in relation to achievement of program objectives. Overall, the program has been successful in meeting its immediate outcomes. There were three expected outcomes: (i) Increased availability of healthy foods, especially for women and children; (ii) Increased accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes; and (iii) Improved utilization of available foodstuffs to improve the nutritional status of women and children. The opinions of some PC staff interviewed are quoted below: “In general, it can be concluded that resources were efficiently utilized as evidenced by the attainment of outputs and achievement of outcomes. As can be seen under the findings many results have been achieved by strategically and efficiently utilizing moderate resources both in terms of finance, time, materials and human resources. However, the limited number of Master Farmers supported could have been increased to enhance accessibility to agricultural extension services that in turn will increase the reach to large constituencies of beneficiaries”. “Through training in nutrition education and cooking demonstrations conducted as indicated above with the Orange Fleshed Sweet potato and other leafy vegetables such as moringa most participants were women and children. Some women were present with their suckling babies and pregnant women. Foods for lactating mothers and weaning foods rich in especially vitamin A were prepared and consumed”. “The program activities increased the availability of healthy and diverse food in the communities. The most notable outcomes include but are not limited to contribute to increasing the availability of fresh vegetable that enhanced the nutrition of the beneficiaries, especially women and children. And the improvement in health outcomes of women and children reduces the household spending on health and those savings are used for other commitments such as supporting education and local safety nets”. 23 “Community with the program’s achievements have healthy and diverse foods and were skilled (better conservation, improved cooking methods for specific food) to consume them appropriately in quality, quantity and timely.” Based on the program implementation reports, the overall percentage of indicator achievement was 89.63%. The following figure shows the beneficiaries’ level of satisfaction with the level of achievement of each of the program’s expected outcomes. It was asked to the key informants surveyed in Benin and in The Gambia to rank on a scale from 0 to 5 how their involvement in the program (i) increased the availability of healthy and diverse foods; (ii) increased their incomes; and (iii) improved their nutritional status. Figure 1. Individual level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries on achievement of program outcomes Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 The level of satisfaction of the key informants surveyed with the achievement of the program’s outcomes is higher in The Gambia compared to Benin. During the field survey, the consultants noted a greater involvement of local communities at the sites visited in The Gambia compared to those visited in Benin. This could be explained by the focus on participatory development and diffusion of innovation at the community level using the Master Farmer approach in The Gambia. Through this approach, the communities of the WAFSP intervention areas across the country have benefited from establishment and rehabilitation of community and school vegetable gardens with adequate water supply, beekeeping, agroforestry, and chicken coop programs. Further, the program funding supported agronomic training on best fit local solutions that contributed to increased production and productivity. The most stellar examples included many impactful programs such as the Master Farmers, SareButi community garden, Kerr Amadou School garden and many other programs that are in operation. It is important to note that many of these communities were not traditional vegetable growing and/or beekeeping communities, but with the support of WAFSP, new gardens were established and are in use. As a result of WAFSP support, the communities now have immediate access to fresh vegetables for women and children that contribute to their health, and income generated from beekeeping provides extra income for purchasing food for 0 1 2 3 4 5 Increased the availability of healthy and diverse foods Increased incomes Improved nutritional status THE GAMBIA BENIN 24 families. Additionally, with the provision of the secured production environment and training of beneficiaries on small business development, strategic segmentation of their production practices and marketing around the year provided better market prices for the farmers. The Master Farmer programs have benefited most from interventions and in turn, contributed to increasing the household incomes of the farmers. It’s worth noting that the women from non-traditional vegetable growing communities have additional incomes for their households to support education, health, and other social, financial needs of their families. It was also observed that increased and diverse income sources also contributed to improving the status of women in their households and in turn contributed to balance of power relationships among husbands and wives because women are now net contributors to household financial basket compared to the period before the WAFSP’s interventions to support vegetable production. This approach is exciting and could be improved for use in all countries if the WAFSP initiative is to continue. The only requirement for such an approach is the need for social cohesion at the communitylevel. Despite the differencesobservedbetween the two countries regarding beneficiaries perception of the achievement of the program’s outcomes, the overall satisfaction of the beneficiaries in both Benin and The Gambiawas observed to behigh as shown by the figure below. Figure 2. Overall level of satisfaction of beneficiaries on the program outcomes achievement Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 The Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Treats (SWOT) analysis of the WAFSP initiative, based on the interviews of the surveyed PC staff, PCVs and beneficiaries is summarized in Table 6. 0 1 2 3 4 5 AWAKOU DOGBO ADJIDO HOEGBO TODE GENIYA SARE BUTI TINKINJO KERR AMADOU BASIC CYCLE SCHOOL BAKALARR BENIN THE GAMBIA Overall satisfaction level 25 Table 6. Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the WAFSP initiative Strengths Weakness • Availability of training resources (technical staff, M&E staff) • Community of practice • Competent staff to train PCVs & counterparts • Willing and committed counterparts and beneficiaries • Regional approach to address the problem of food insecurity in West and Central Africa • Demonstration centers for diffusion of technologies at scale • Focus on Gender approach • Self-contribution from beneficiaries • Mid-term reviews (internal & external) • Lack of regional and national level baseline quantitative data for key indicators • Cross-sectoral initiative at all the posts involved in WAFSP, there is room for more cross-sectoral collaboration and for more involvement of commonly under￾represented sectors • Sustainability of some small programs due to the low quality of materials used due to low budget • Lack of monitoring from PC when PCV leaves, and there was no replacement • Technical exchanges to Master Farmers and/or demonstration sites are not possible due to funds. • Step down training is limited due to lack of resources and funds. Opportunities Threats • Availability of local Communities of Practice to work with on the program • Strategic locations of PCVs in the intervention areas • WAFSP objectives were in alignment with the national and/or regional agriculture and natural resources policies and programs. ECOWAS initiative to improve food security in the sub-region • Willing and committed political support to improve rural livelihoods through agricultural development • National policy on Food Security. • Enhance understanding between PC and communities due to benefits from small grants • Pocket of political instability and outreach of Ebola in 2014 in the region has threatened the closure and temporary suspension of a few country operations, and this has impacted program performance • Problems related to insufficient rainfall affects some crops that PCVs and counterparts are working on. • Short life of PCVs. Some PCVs start programs that need long-termfollow up and monitoring which is not possible due to the 2- or 3-years’ service of the PCV. This also affects the communities. • Mismanagement from communities for sustainable impact • Proximity to other bigprograms in the same community Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 Given the outcomes of this program, which were achieved with limited financial resources and within a 26 limited timeframe, the evaluation team believes the strategic management decisions were effective in focusing available resources and efforts at the local level, where significant results were achieved. The fact that the PCV lives in the community and works directly with individuals and households for two years has strengthened the climate of trust and the commitment of beneficiaries to adequately address food insecurity. Based on discussions with government institutions at the community level, the consultants concluded that the program is viewed as an effective initiative to address food security issues in the beneficiary communities. All stakeholders approved of the institutional arrangements in place and viewed it as the most efficient and effective system with which to strengthen community-level food security. The factors contributing to this success include the high integration of PCV into communities (PCVs dress and feed themselves as local people and speak their local language); strengthening communities’ capacities at the grassroots level, the communities of practice focused on knowledge sharing among and within posts; technical expertise and support from PC and USAID staff. 4.1.3 Sustainability and Impact of Established Mechanisms and Activities Sustainability There is a moderate likelihood that at least some of the benefits of the WAFSP initiative will continue to accrue to beneficiaries beyond the end of the program, making sustainability questionable. The self￾contribution of beneficiaries to small grants funding is a laudable initiative and should contribute to the sustainability of the program. But without the necessary institutional support and context-specific approach with participatory and involvement of grassroots people, program sustainability will not be possible. The involvement of grassroots people at community level is important to avoid a dependency syndrome in beneficiaries. There are reports in some areas, based on FGDs at the community level that some beneficiaries were not informed about their self-contribution to program implementation at the community level and are looking for more financial support from the program. Despite the efforts made to support institutional capacity, collaboration, and cooperation among stakeholders (particularly with regard to data collection and processing, for which there is a high commitment), the prospects for sustaining the WAFSP program are low. However, there are no signs of sustained institutional uptake of program activities (see Table 6. Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the WAFSP initiative). Additionally, the national and community-level policies to support and maintain these activities are still lacking. Most beneficiaries are heavily dependent on the program and donors and do not seem prepared to expand or manage these initiatives, at least in part, by themselves. The follow-up system of the program is not able to track whether the knowledge and skills acquired from the training have been adopted and transferred to the other members. Impact It may be too early to assess the program’s contribution to food and nutrition security at the regional and country level. One reason is that too many indicators were selected by the program, making it difficult to assess national and regional-level impact. A second reason is that the program focused activities in few communities in a country, making it difficult to extrapolate the impact to the whole country and the whole 27 region. The last reason relates to the extent to which the utilization of food security data at all levels cannot be precisely measured in the absence of a baseline study. Additionally, the case study of the evaluation was limited to two countries, making it difficult to extrapolate the impact assessed at the community level in the two countries to the whole program. To assess the impact of the WAFSP initiative at the community level, we used the sustainable livelihood approach (SLA), which is a participatory evaluation tool that helps beneficiaries assess the effect of a program on their livelihood using their own indicators. The SLA has proven valuable, reliable and complementary to other methods for impact assessment. SLA brings together the capabilities, assets, and activities needed by individuals to meet their basic needs and achieve their well-being. This framework focuses on five capitals: social, financial, physical, natural and human. These components are summarized in the following table: Table7. Main components of the five capitals essential for sustainable livelihoods where WAFSP initiative could have a direct impact Capital Components Economic/Financial Cash, credit/debt, incomes, foods, goods and needs, financial resources for ceremonies and clothing, children schooling, the rate of saving Human Skills, knowledge, ability to labor, good health, nutrition, happiness, responsibility Natural Soil, water, air, genetic resources, land, hydrological resources, climate and weather, wood/forest, land Physical Farm, animals, equipment/machinery, roads, electricity, water, communication equipment, hospital, and public services Social Networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations, association, intra-group cohesion, inter-group cohesion, information exchange, institutional linkage and support, commitment, Solidarity Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 The majority of the key informants surveyed were young people (a mean of 39 years in Benin and 41 in The Gambia). Most of them were women, 64% in Benin and 72% in The Gambia, showing that the program targeted more women than men at the community level as shown in the annual program reports. The education level was low in the communities: 57% of sampled beneficiaries in Benin and 87% in The Gambia were illiterate. All the surveyed women were also active in small trade which is classified as women’s business in West Africa. The average monthly household income was 58,000 FCFA (about 104 dollars US) in Benin and 4,773 Dalasi (about 100 dollars US) in The Gambia; and was used to feed eight and sixteen individuals on average in Benin and in The Gambia, respectively. The following diagrams show changes in individual and group evaluation of capital stocks recorded between the baseline (2011) and the impact year (2018) for the two sample populations in Benin and in The Gambia. 28 29 FC = Financial Capital; HC = Human Capital; NC = Natural Capital; PC = Physical Capita; and SC = Social Capital; SLA = Sustainable Livelihoods approach Figure 3. Impact of WAFSP initiative on beneficiaries’ livelihoods in Benin and The Gambia using the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 WAFSP beneficiaries in both Benin and The Gambia perceived an important improvement in their financial, human, and social capitals during the individual and group surveys. Regarding the natural and physical capitals, WAFSP beneficiaries in Benin perceived changes in these capital assets, but to a lesser extent than those in The Gambia. These results confirm again the importance of the Master Farmer approach mainly used in The Gambia to support small grants at the community level. The goal of the Master Farmer 30 Program is to demonstrate how farmers can use appropriate, improved agricultural and agroforestry technologies to better support their families through increased access to grains and vegetables and increased income from sales of cultivated produce. The following diagrams show the overall impact of WAFSP initiative on beneficiaries’ livelihoods FC = Financial Capital; HC = Human Capital; NC = Naturel Capital; PC = Physical Capita; and SC = Social Capital; SLA = Sustainable Livelihoods approach Figure 4. Overall Impact of WAFSP initiative on beneficiaries’ livelihoods in Benin and The Gambia Source: Data collected in Benin and The Gambia from August to September 2018 There is no significant difference between individual and group assessment other than natural capital which was perceived to have been more impacted at an individual level compared to the group level. The positive impact of the program on natural capital at the individual level could be attributed to the capacity￾strengthening component of the program, which focuses on training and demonstration on (i) 31 Agroforestry, (ii) Integrated Pest Management, (iii) Producing/using multi-nutrient blocks; and (iv)composting. The capital with the most perceived change are social, financial, and human capitals. Table 8 summarizes the perceived benefits or advantages beneficiaries gained from the program in all the visited sites. This was obtained from an analysis of the FGD responses. Table 8. Summary of perceived benefits / advantages from WAFSP program Country Visited communities Benefits / Advantages from the program BENIN Awakou Increased yield and incomes; Capacities strengthened, Extended garden area; Availability of vegetable; Increased nutritional status Dogbo Capacity building on rabbit breeding; Increased incomes; Diversity of foods to improve family nutrition status; Saving money Adjido Access to microfinance to expand activities; Solidarity and social support from each other; Exchange of knowledge and experiences; Capacity building HouegboToffo Adding value to agricultural production through processing; capacity building; Increased incomes; Extension of the market for exportation; Community access to quality fruits; Strengthening youth capacities in entrepreneurship Tode Community access to vegetables, fruits, and fishes; Building /Strengthen youth capacities in integrated agriculture; Strengthening social cohesion; Increased incomes. The GAMBIA Geniya, Foni Kansale, Household access to fruits and vegetables; Access to quality water; Supported children education with income from gardening; Improved nutritional status; Improved health at the household level. SareButi Capacity building; Household access to vegetables; Improved nutritional and health status; Improved incomes; Strengthened social cohesion; Diversity of vegetables in the foods. Tinkinjo Household access to vegetables in dry/rain season (year-round); Increased incomes to support family; Strengthened social cohesion; Building/Strengthening capacities in gardening; Increased nutrition and health status in the whole community. Kerr Amadou Basic Cycle School/ Community access to vegetable all year-round; Increased nutrition and health status of students, teachers, and parents; Facilitated students’ access to school materials with the incomes from the surplus of vegetable production; Built/Strengthened students and teachers’ capacities in integrated agriculture. Bakalarr / Upper Nuimi Built/Strengthened capacities in gardening and tree planting; Increased incomes; Improved environment; Improved food security; Improved social cohesion; Access to a diversity of vegetables and fruits; Improved national and health status in the community and surrounding areas. These benefits from the program did not only concern the direct beneficiary communities but also 32 extended to surrounding communities. As evidence, the key informants surveyed have each reached out to an average of 21 people in Benin and 38 people in The Gambia. By extrapolating4 these results, secondary beneficiaries of the WAFSP initiative from FY12 to FY 17 could be estimated at 2,340,618 people in West Africa. Additionally, the household of each beneficiary is among the secondary beneficiaries, with an average size of 12 people per direct beneficiary. Through the fieldwork, the evaluation team noted that community members had favorable impressions of PCVs and acknowledged their immense contribution to community development. 4.2 Conclusions From the findings of the evaluation, the following conclusions can be drawn: Program results: WAFSP reached a total of 79,343 beneficiaries out of a target of 88,521, given an overall indicator achievement of 89.63%. Overall, the program has been successful in meeting its immediate goals of increased availability of healthy foods for women and children; increased accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes, and improved utilization of available foodstuffs to improve the nutritional status of women and children. Participants were generally satisfied with the training and other results of the program. Effectiveness and relevance of program activities: The program is highly relevant to the sectoral government policies and strategies. Most of the surveyed key informants (93%) mentioned food security as one of their major concerns. Few of the interviewed beneficiaries (23%) affirmed their involvement in the initial stage and most of them were leaders of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) or key actors in the community and close to the PCV. In general, the outcome of the WAFSP initiative is consistent with the beneficiary and country needs and global priorities, as well as partner and donor policies. The WAFSP program operates through the existing PC organizational structure. Sustainability of mechanisms and activities: There is a moderate likelihood that the WAFSP initiative will continue to benefit indirect beneficiaries beyond the end of the program, making sustainability questionable. The self-contribution of beneficiaries to small grants funding is a laudable initiative and should contribute to the sustainability of the program. However, without the necessary institutional support and context-specific approach with participatory and involvement of grassroots people, the sustainability of the program will not be possible. Key lessons learned and best practices for replication: Local knowledge should be harnessed to solve farmers’ problems. Invest in local beneficiaries’ capacity. Invest in M&E and increase opportunity for technical exchanges for PCVs, staff and community members. Make more funding available for training and PCV field support. 4 This extrapolation was done by using the average of 29.5 and the total of 79,345 beneficiaries. 33 4.3 Recommendations The following are a summary of the recommendations: Program results: The WAFSP initiative should seek alternatives to working through community leaders, who may not always represent a broad constituency. For example: 1. PC and partners (USAID) should strengthen the capacities of the PCVs in the participatory diagnostic analysis to ensure that the community vulnerability and needs are context-specific for the program design and implementation. 2. Involve agricultural extension workers (MoFA representative at the municipality level) in future program design and implementation. 3. PC and partners (USAID) should strengthen the capacities of the beneficiaries, PCVs and staff to conduct M&E for effective activity implementation. Effectiveness and relevance of program activities: Overall, the program has been successful and the participants were generally satisfied with the program. There may be some small room for improvement, e.g., by: 1. Increasing opportunity for technical exchanges for PCVs, staff and community members, including more funding for training and PCV field support and more relevant training for staff in training and management. Sustainability of mechanisms and activities: Include the necessary institutional support to ensure the involvement of grassroots people and enhance the sustainability of the program. For example: 1. Invest in the capacity of local beneficiaries to understand their roles and responsibilities in the program design and implementation. This will empower the beneficiaries to actively participate in the program activities including M&E to ensure high-quality data collection for effective decision￾making during program implementation to improve the efficiency of program resource utilization and post-program intervention to enhance the sustainability of the program and its results. 34 ANNEXES Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work Scope of Work for the Final Evaluation of the West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) Program 1. Introduction The West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) is a regional partnership between USAID and the Peace Corps (PC) under Feed the Future (FTF) and has continued under the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS). This partnership supports synergistic food security programming between four West African FTF Focus countries (Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Senegal) and seven non-FTF Focus countries with Peace Corps (PC) programs (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Gambia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Togo). The goal of WAFSP is to address food insecurity in West Africa by enabling Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) to build grassroots capacity with stakeholders in the communities where they serve. This is accomplished through various interventions based on community needs, including improved natural resource management, agroforestry, improved agricultural production, gardening, small animal husbandry, nutrition education, economic development programs, food processing and conservation, income generating activities, and climate change adaptation. WAFSP aims to: 1. Increase availability of healthy and diverse foods, especially for women and children 2. Increase accessibility of healthy foods by decreasing poverty and increasing incomes 3. Improve utilization of available food stuffs to improve nutritional status of women and children The monitoring and evaluation system has been designed to align with USAID’s M&E requirements, taking into account and integrating it into the Peace Corps reporting system and feasibilities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) seeks to supplement an existing cooperative agreement with KNUST; under the West Africa Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) project; to support a final evaluation of the West Africa Food Security Partnership program in West Africa. The purpose of the final evaluation is to evaluate the performance of WAFSP in targeted populations and to assess relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the program. The final evaluation will assess how well the program achieved intended results and draw lessons for improvement of future interventions. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), with support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and in partnership with the University of Rhode Island have been responsible for evaluations of programs in the US Government’s West Africa Regional Economic Growth (REG) portfolio from 2014 to 2018. This portfolio includes programs in agriculture, trade, environment, and energy in 21 countries. 2. Evaluation objectives The purpose of the final evaluation is to evaluate the performance of WAFSP in targeted populations and to assess relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the program. The final evaluation will assess how well the program achieved these results and draw lessons for improvement of future interventions. More specifically, the evaluation will: 1. Determine the results of the program. 35 2. Determine the effectiveness and relevance of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches. 3. Examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities. 4. Confirm key lessons learned and best practices for replication as identified by a recent process evaluation. 3. Evaluation Methodology The final evaluation will require a mixed methods approach, which will include a qualitative evaluation to employ a variety of qualitative primary data collection methods and tools including semi-structured in￾depth-interviews, group discussions, key informant interviews, and direct observation to assess relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the program. Results from the quantitative survey will be used to identify specific issues to be addressed through the qualitative study. ASSESS will require the following documents from PC: a. WAFSP Request for Applications/Program Documents; b. The Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan together with the Program’s Theory of Change; c. Updated M&E data (results) of all indicators; d. Complete sets of reports – Annual, Semi-Annual, Quarterly reports; e. Reports of special studies; f. Any other relevant document; Review of literature. The consultant will review program documents provided by USAID and the Peace Corps. This should include the recent process evaluation and other relevant studies. Semi-structured in-depth-interviews. Will be conducted with PCVs and other key actors identified by USAID and the Peace Corps, including extensionists, value chain actors and program beneficiaries. Topics will include the history of the program, results, and suggestions for future programs, or for the sustainability of this one. The interviewees will be asked to describe their engagement with the program, e.g. what was successful about it, and how future programs could be improved. Group discussions. Or focal group discussions (FGD) will be held with community groups, e.g. groups of farmers or other beneficiaries. If time and logistics permit, separate FGDs may be held with women, to ensure that their perspectives are taken on board. The groups will be asked to discuss their participation in the program, and the outcomes. Questions may include: What did your community do with the program? How were community members chosen to participate? How has the program made a difference in your lives? Has the program allowed you to sell more or to have more food to feed your family? (If so, please tell us more about that). What will happen to (the work you have started with the program) after the program ends? Key informant interviews. There is some overlap between this method and the semi-structured in￾depth interview. Most key informant interviews are semi-structured. The consultant will confer with USAID and the Peace Corps, especially with PCVs in the field, to ensure that relevant actors are included. Depending on the nature of the program, key informants may include community leaders (including women), buyers or processors or other value chain actors, extensionists or other information brokers. 36 Direct observation. In the field, the consultant will pay attention to details that confirm the information gathered from the other methods. For example, if a group describes an agricultural or livestock initiative, the consultant will ask to visit it, to see if the effort is still continuing, if it seems to be run efficiently and if it is likely to be sustained after the end of the program. 4. Study Size The evaluation consultant will visit, collect data and conduct interviews in Benin and Gambia. The expert will be supported by both ASSESS and PC. Depending on each country’s conditions, the expert will be required to travel in-country for data collection exercises. 5. Staffing Plan This evaluation will directly be implemented by ASSESS with support from KNUST, URI and USDA. ASSESS will collaborate with Peace Corps to support the activities of the expert. The ASSESS Activity Manager-Evaluation Specialist (Nana Fredua-Agyeman, nagyeman@assess-wa.org), under the direction of the ASSESS Chief of Party (Justice Odoi, jodoi@assess-wa.org) will serve as the focal point for ASSESS. ASSESS focal point together with ASSESS partner, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), and PC will handle logistical support in terms of arranging travels, arranging and facilitating meetings, and managing payments. The support will be both administrative and technical. The following ASSESS staff will provide support during the evaluation: Position and responsibilities Name Budget Analyst Joseph Azuntaaba M&E Specialist Barbara Arthur Administrative and Operations Officer Regina Nana Araba Danquah The following schedule provides the role of ASSESS and PC towards the implementation of this activity. ASSESS Peace Corps Travel 1. Book air tickets and provide expert with travel insurance; 2. Make arrangements for accommodation in all destinations; 3. Provide expert with travel advance to cover Meals and Incidental Expenses for the entire duration of the travel; 4. Make provision for intra-city transportation for expert (taxis) 1. Provide expert with transportation to destinations that are outside the city where the expert will be accommodated; 2. Provide expert with working space Designing of the Evaluation 1. Liaise with the expert to decide on the appropriate methods to address each objective; 2. Make recommendations for the improvement of the methodology; 3. Provide the experts with the necessary program documents; 1. Peace Corps will review the methodology and provide their comments; 2. Send all program relevant documents to ASSESS for onward submission to the expert; Report Development and Review 37 ASSESS Peace Corps 1. Provide the expert with USAID guidelines regarding report development. This will also include a template; 2. Review the report and ensure it adequately addresses the objectives of the evaluation; 3. Submit the report to Peace Corps for review and comments or approval; 1. Peace Corps will review the report for comments or approval; Communication 1. Serve as a liaison between the expert and Peace Corps. 1. Peace Corps will route all communications to the expert via ASSESS except in situations where direct communication will be more effective and not pose any challenge to the management of this buy-in. Additionally, due to the restrictiveness of the budget proposed by the PC, the implementation of this buy￾in is subject to the following conditions: 1. Evaluation fieldwork will take place only in Benin and Gambia; 2. Peace Corps will arrange remote interviews with stakeholders in Gambia if the need be; 3. WAFSP/ Peace Corps should have a lot of existing data in their M&E system to restrict data collection to program staff and a few primary beneficiaries. Hence, long travels to remote program sites will not be required; 4. ASSESS will contract an expert who is bilingual and be capable of presenting the document in English, while conducting interviews in French. 5. WAFSP/Peace Corps will provide the following support to the expert in-country: ground transport, office space, interpretation services (this might be needed since communities are likely to speak their local language), arranging meetings with stakeholders and community mobilization; 6. Peace Corps will not require ASSESS to translate the evaluation report into French. 7. ASSESS support will be strictly remote and no ASSESS staff will travel with the expert. ASSESS staff usually travel with experts for fieldwork to provide on ground support and quality control. But due to the budget limitations ASSESS staff will not be able to travel with the expert. 6. Profile of Expert The proposed expert for this evaluation, Gerard C. Zoundji, holds a PhD in Economics and Rural Sociology from the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Abomey-Calavi (Benin). He has postgraduate certificate in Building Resilience to Climate Change from the United Nations University, Institute for Sustainability and Peace of Tokyo (Japan) and a Master’s degree in Development Management from VHL/Wageningen University (Netherlands). He has worked as a Research Assistant both with the Organization for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture (OBEPAP) (2008-2011) and Africa Rice (February to December, 2007). Currently, Dr Zoundji works at the Cooperation and Economic Affairs Assistant at the Embassy of Japan in Benin as the Coordinator for “Grant Assistance for Grassroots Human Security Projects (GGP)” and also as the Embassy Representative. Dr Zoundji has several publications to his credit. He is Beninois and speak both English and French. 38 7. Schedule The following table provides the schedule of activities under this evaluation Delivery Task Timeline Response SOW Response SOW with budget and expert profile Ongoing Contract Contracting of expert Ongoing Methodology (Inception Report) 1. Consultant submits detailed description of methodology for addressing the evaluation question; 2. This should include all survey instruments to be used in the assessment By August 27, 2018 1. ASSESS and PC review the methodology and survey tools (quantitative and qualitative tools) and provide response to expert 2. Consultant addresses all necessary comments; August 30, 2018 Field Work Field Work – Gambia 1. Data collection from stakeholders (program implementers, beneficiaries, etc.); 2. Data cleaning and quality control; September 1-8, 2018 Field Work – Benin: 1. Data collection from stakeholders (program implementers, beneficiaries, etc.); 2. Data cleaning and quality control; September 10-15, 2018 Draft Report 1. Data analyses 2. Development of draft report September 9-20, 2018 1. ASSESS review draft report 2. ASSESS submit draft report to PC; September 25, 2018 1. PC review draft report 2. PC submit to ASSESS for the expert September 30, 2018 Final Report 1. Expert addresses comments 2. Expert submits Final Report to ASSESS October 4, 2018 1. ASSESS reviews the report and ensure that all comments have been adequately addressed; 2. ASSESS submit Final Report to PC October 9, 2018 Presentation to PC 1. Expert prepares for a presentation 2. Expert makes a presentation of the final report to PC To be determined by PC 39 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations Evaluation Approach The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) framework (DFID, 2000) was used to assess the contribution that program activities made to sustaining livelihoods. In this assessment, livelihood strategies were defined as those activities undertaken by households and the communities to provide a means of living and ensure household food security. If an experimental or quasi-experimental impact evaluation, provide detailed information on the methods used to randomize or to define treatment and control groups through other means, and how data was collected from both groups at baseline, midline and/or end line. Figure: The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach Model (SLA) The SLA framework places households at the centre of a web of inter-related influences that affect how these households create a livelihood for themselves. Closest to the household at the centre of the framework are the five livelihood assets that they have access to and use i.e. human, financial, physical, social and natural assets. The end-of-program evaluation identified indicators for each of these assets and compared these with the baseline indicators to assess for any significant changes. The extent of their access to these assets is strongly influenced by their vulnerability context. Access is also influenced by the prevailing social, institutional and political environment, which affects the ways in which these households combine and use their assets to achieve their livelihood strategies. Data collection and analysis The evaluation adopted both quantitative and qualitative methods of enquiry to facilitate both technical and socio-economic analysis and was carried out in different but integrated phases. Literature reviews, focus￾groups discussions, key informant interviews and semi-structured in-depth interviews were used to collect data on the program (i) outcomes, (ii) impact; and (iii) lessons learnt to recommend its future direction. The evaluation process focused on five main points: coherence/appropriateness; effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the program. 40 The data collection was followed by data entry, cleaning and analysis of survey questionnaires. The Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) was used for quantitative data analysis. Qualitative data from interviews was analysed by In Vivo and Excel. Data collected from the questionnaires was then triangulated with other data from the qualitative methods to help in producing the final report. The evaluator used a participatory approach to make the evaluation a learning process by actively engaging the stakeholders in the evaluation process and by creating spaces where respondents are able to learn from their work, share their views, perspectives, and ideas openly. The rationality is that “significant and lasting change in people's lives must take account of their values, priorities, and judgements; programs cannot be deemed to have been a 'success' or 'failure' if the perceptions of those who the intervention aims to benefit diverge seriously from those of the program staff or an external evaluator." (Roche, 1999: 28). Methodological Challenges Encountered methodological challenges included four main points: (i) While the PC staff and PCVs facilitated greater reach during the evaluation field work due to their knowledge of the areas and beneficiaries, this could have introduced a level of bias in collected data. However, it should also be noted that the evaluation ensures objectivity while the suspected bias is insignificant. (ii)The number of countries visited for case study was limited to two non-FTF Focus countries compared eleven beneficiary countries (four West African FTF Focus countries and seven non-FTF Focus countries). Additionally, there was limited time available for country visits relative to the program size and number of stakeholders. (iii) The evaluator had used translators for local languages in Gambia. This language bias was attenuated by the quality of data collected in Benin because the evaluator understood the local languages in this country. (iv) There was no baseline data available to support the impact survey; making it difficult to accurately assess the impact of the program. 41 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments (1) Key Question for Peace Corps staff involved in the WAFSP Program Staff Name: Date: …..../…..../ 2018 Key result area Indicator Response and comments Program consistency Do the PCVs achievements facilitate the availability of healthy and diverse foods in the community? Specify the case for women and children if relevant. Do PCVs achievements increase beneficiaries’ incomes? Do PCVs achievements improve community nutritional status? Specify the case for women and children if relevant. Do PCVs and collaborators have the appropriate human and social capitals and materials (tools) to carry out the activities? Program efficiency Do you think that the project could otherwise use the human, material (tools), and financial resources to have more interesting outcomes? Explain Relevant suggestions for future interventions Main actions for more impact in the future SWOT Analysis of the WAFSP Program Strengths (related to the Program) Weakness (related to the Program) Opportunities (related to the environment of the Program) Threats (related to the environment of the Program) (2) FGD: Assessment of Outcome Changes in the communities Country: Community Name: FGD group (M/W/Y): Date: …/…. / 2018 Key result area Indicator Benchmark (Before WAFSP) Result (With WAFSP) Explanation /Comments Adoption of appropriate technologies What are the main technologies/ innovations/ training that have been introduced with WFSP in the community? How many community members are using these technologies / innovations/ training above? What are the areas the technologies/ innovations / trainings were applied? 42 and innovations with WAFSP What is the advantage of the technologies/ innovations / training compared to the past experiences? How accessible is the technology/ innovation/training to potential users/ beneficiaries? Please explain What are the factors hindering adoption of the technology/ innovation? What factors have enabled adoption of the technology/ innovation? Will you continue to use the technology/ innovation? If not explain why Information, knowledge sharing and learning facilitated What changes in activities/ practices have been implemented since they received the technologies / innovations? What challenges have been observed in implementing the knowledge acquired from training/ technologies / innovations Has the knowledge spilled over to other villages? Explain how and to what extent? What channels are used for information sharing among community members and with other villages? Partnerships and businesses enhanced Have relations between different categories of the community members been strengthened since establishment of the WAFSP? Please explain Has policy support/ advocacy capacity of local authorities changed after implementation? Explain? Has access to markets for WAFSP beneficiaries changed after the project implementation? Please explain. Has access to agricultural information improved after the project implementation? Explain how? Has access to inputs (e.g. fertilizer, seeds) increased after the project implementation? Explain how? Has access to credit improved after the project implementation? Explain how? Project relevance (for local authorities and NGO and What are your real needs? Among the real needs listed above, which are those that have been satisfied by WAFSP? What is the level of satisfaction of each need (score out of 10)? 43 beneficiaries representatives) What is the quantity of final product after processing of 120 Kg bag of paddy using the GEM? Project consistency (for local authorities, NGO and beneficiaries representatives) What are the PCVs achievements that facilitate the availability of healthy and diverse foods in the community? Specify the case for women and children if relevant. What are the PCVs achievements that increase beneficiaries’ incomes? What are the PCVs achievements that improve community nutritional status? Specify the case for women and children if relevant. - Do PCVs and collaborators have the appropriate human and social capitals and materials (tools) to carry out the activities with you? Project efficiency (for local authorities, NGO, beneficiaries’ representatives and PCVs) Do you think that PCVs / PC and USAID and collaborators could otherwise use the human, material (tools), and financial resources to have more interesting outcomes? Explain SWOT analysis SWOT analysis of the project Relevant suggestions for future interventions Main actions for more impact in the future (3) Questionnaire for WAFSP direct beneficiaries PART ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION NO QUESTIONS RESPONSES/MODALITY 1.1 No 1.2 Date of the interview (D/M/Y) 1.3 Country 1.4 Department, Commune/ Municipality 1.5 Village 1.6 Name of the interviewee 1.7 Telephone number (optional) 1.8 Are you a member of a group/association? 1= Yes 2= No 1.9 If yes, please specify the group/ association 1.10 Are you a member of the leadership team of the association/group? 1= Yes 2= No 44 PART TWO: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DATA No QUESTIONS RESPONSES/MODALITY 2.1. Gender of the interviewee 1= Male 2=Female 2.2. Age (years) 2.3. Marital status 1= Single 3=Divorcee 2= married 4= Widow/ Widower 2.4 Number of persons in the household 2.5 Level of education 1= None 2= Alphabetization 3= Primary 4= Secondary First cycle 5= Secondary Second cycle 6= Superior (College/ University) 7=Koranic school 2.6 Religion 1= Christian 2= Muslim 3= Animist 4= Atheist 5= Others (specify) 2.7 What is your main activity/ occupation? 1=Agriculture; 2= Processor 4=Livestock farming 6=Trade 7=Others (specify) 2.8 Professional experience (years) 2.9 Estimated income per month / year PART 3: TECHNOLOGY / INNOVATION ADOPTION AND KEY INTERMERDIATE CHANGES/OUTCOMES QUESTIONS RESPONSES/MODALITY 3.1 What are the technologies introduced in your community and you are one of the direct beneficiaries? 3.3 When you were first exposed to the technologies/ innovations? (Year for each technology/ innovation) 3.4 Have these technologies / innovations induced changes in your previous (old) practices? 1= Yes 2= No 3.5 If yes, list/cite the changes that have occurred? 3.6 On a scale from 1 to 5 how has using the project innovation improved the availability of healthy and diverse foods? 3.7 On a scale from 1 to 5 how has using the project innovation increased your income? 3.8 On a scale from 1 to 5 how has using the project innovation increased your household nutritional status? 3.9 How accessible is the innovation of the project to you? 1=Not available 2=Partially available 3=Always available 3.10 What is your annual rice revenue/income before the project? 45 3.11 What is your annual rice revenue/income within the project? FCFA/ Dalasi: 3.12 On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the project? 3.13 Will you continue to use the project innovation / technology even if the project ends? 1= Yes 2=No 3.14 Why? 3.15 What elements/items of the project would you like to be improve? 3.16 Have you trained/ informed other members of your community on the project innovation/technology? 1= Yes 2=No 3.17 If yes, how many people/persons have you trained / informed? Number of men trained Number of women trained 3.18 Are the persons you trained/ informed using the methods/ practices / technology? 1=Yes 2=No 3.19 If no, why not? 3.20 Have your relations with different categories of actors in your activity area been strengthened since you were exposed to the project (with which actors?) 3.21 How much credit did you have access to (per year) before the project? 3.22 How much credit do you have access to (per year) after the project? FCFA/ Dalasi: 3.23 How much were your savings per season before the project? FCFA/ Dalasi: 3.24 How much are your savings per season after the project? FCFA/ Dalasi: 3.25 Have you accumulated assets since joining the project? If yes, which ones? 1=Access to land 2=House building 3=Bicycle 4=Motorbike 5=Car 6=Others (specify) 3.26 How was the health situation in the household before the project? 1=Very Bad 2=Bad 3=Average 4= Good 5= Very Good 3.27 How is the health situation in the household after the project? 1=Very Bad 2=Bad 3=Average 4= Good 5= Very Good 3.28 How was the food security situation in the household before joining the project? 1=Very insecure 2=Insecure 3=Average 4=Secure 5=Very Secure 3.29 How is the food security situation in the household after the project? 1=Very insecure 2=Insecure 3=Average 4=Secure 5=Very Secure 3.30 Which type of school were your school-age children going to before the project? 1= Not going to school 2=Public 3= Private 4=Other (specify) 3.31 Which type of school are your school-age children going to after the project? 1= Not going to school 2=Public 3= Private 4=Other (specify) 3.32 What are the capital entities where the project you benefited from could have a direct impact Natural capital: soil, water, air, genetic resources, land, hydrological cycle, etc. Economic/financial capital: cash, credit/debt, savings, production equipment and technologies, etc. 46 Human capital: skills, knowledge, ability to labor, good health, nutrition, education level, etc. Physical capital: farm animals, equipment/machinery, roads, electricity, hospitals), etc. Social capital: networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations, association, etc. 3.33 Evaluate capital stocks on a scale of 0-5 Before project After project Natural capital Financial capital Human capital Physical capital Social capital 3.34 Free listing of all advantages / interests / benefits from the project? 3.35 What else could this project do to improve the impact according to you 3.36 Any success stories with the project? 47 Annex IV: Sources of Information The Evaluator consulted a range of relevant persons mainly in connection with the field phase in Benin and the Gambia. The following list of sites visited and people interviewed is organized according to the Peace Corps Office country Sites visited, and number of people interviewed Country Site visited Key actors People interviewed BENIN Peace Corps Office PC staff 4 key informants PCVs 1 key informants Awakou, Athiémé, Mono NGO “ASPEL” 3 key informants and community FGD Dogbo, Mono NGO “Mialeboni” 4 key informants and community FGD Adjido, Bohicon, Zou NGO “Tout va bien” 3 key informants and community FGD Houegbo-Toffo, Central￾Southern region Farm FAES & Cooperative AgroEcologique 2 key informants and community FDG Tode, Azowlisse Kanlifarmwith NGO “La vie des éducateurs et éducatrices” 2 key informants and community FGD The Gambia Peace Corps Office PC staff 3 key informants PCVs 5 key informants Geniya, FoniKansale, west Coast Region Geniya Master Farm 7 key informants and community FGD , Central River Region community 8 key informants and community FGD Tinkinjo, Upper River Region Master Farm Tumana 8 key informants and community FGD Kerr Amadou Basic Cycle School, Central River Region Kerr Amadou Community leader community FGD Bakalarr / Upper Nuimi, North Bank Region Bakalarr, Upper Nuimi, North Bank Region 6 key informants and community FGD The main source of documents was from the program management. However, a lack of clarity of “official documents” and other documents was observed. After the desk phase the consultant was made aware of other relevant documents. In the following a list of WAFSP documents used is presented. Some documents were only used for brief reference. 48 List of WAFSP documents reviewed 1. USAID and Peace Corps (2012). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps 2. Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2012 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2011 - SEPTEMBER 2012. 3. USAID and Peace Corps (2013). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2013 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2012 - SEPTEMBER 2013. 4. USAID and Peace Corps (2014). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2014 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2013 - SEPTEMBER 2014. 5. USAID and Peace Corps (2015). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2015 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2014 - SEPTEMBER 2015. 6. USAID and Peace Corps (2016). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2016 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2015 - SEPTEMBER 2016. 7. USAID and Peace Corps (2017). WEST AFRICA FOOD SECURITY PARTNERSHIP. USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security. Participating Agency Program Agreement. FY 2017 ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2016 - SEPTEMBER 2017. 8. Niedermaier, D., Matchoudo, S., Jadama, A., Diuof A., and Cohen-Mitchell, J. West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) Research. MARCH 2018. PEACE CORPS PUBLICATION under review. List documents used for brief reference 1. DFID (2000). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Londres, UK: Department for International Development. 2. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2017). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017.Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome, FAO. 3. Roche, C. (1999). Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change. Oxfam GB with Novib 4. Scoones, I. (1998), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: a framework for analysis, IDS Working Paper No 72, Brighton: IDS. 49 Annex V: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest Name Gérard C. Zoundji Title Consultant Organization Independent Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) ASSESSCA-FY18-B001 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) West Africa Food Security Partnership (WAFSP) Program, implemented by Peace Corps I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 7 December 2018