Assessment of the
Food Security II
Cooperative Agreement
Prepared for
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Prepared by
Donald Brown, Consultant
Washington, D.C.
Wallace Tyner, Head
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
March 4, 2002
Contents
Acronyms .................................................................... i
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
I. Introduction ..............................................................1
II. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART ONE: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
I. Project Outputs and Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Expanding and Improving of Knowledge Base on Policy-relevant Food Security
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Timely and Effective Communicating of Project-generated Findings to Policy and
Decision Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Monitoring Procedures and Reporting on People-level Impact of Food Security
Strategies and Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. Strengthening Local Capacity for Food Security Research, Analysis and
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
II. Institutional Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
III. Project Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
IV. Management - Technical Problems / Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-ON PROJECT
I. View from the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
II. Areas of Future Demand for Follow-on Food Security Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III. A Conceptual Framework for a Future Food Security Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A. Conceptual Framework and Its Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B. Methodological Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. Regional Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
D. Procurement Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
ANNEXES
Annex A: Terms of Reference
Annex B: Questionnaire Responses
Annex C: List of Deliverables
Annex D: Examples of Data Sharing under FS II
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page i
Acronyms
ACF Agricultural Consultative Forum
AFR/SD Africa Bureau/Office of Sustainable Development
APD Agricultural Policy Development Project
CILSS Interstate Committee for the Struggle Against Drought
DFID Department of International Development (British)
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FFP Food for Peace
FS II Food Security II Cooperative Agreement
FSRP Food Security Research Project
FY Fiscal Year
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
IARC International Agricultural Research Center
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract
INSAH Institut de Sahel
MSU Michigan State University
NGO Non-governmental Organization
PACD Project Activities Completion Date
PASIDMA Projet d’Appui au Système Décentralisé du Marché Agricole
PRISAS Programme Régional de Renforcement Institutionnel en Materière de Recherche
sur la Sécurité Alimentaire au Sahel
PRMC Malian Cereal Market Restructuring Program
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
TOR Terms of Reference
USAID United States Agency for International Development
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page ii
Acknowledgments
The assessment team acknowledges the excellent support from the Michigan State team of the
Food Security II Cooperative Agreement especially Drs. Michael Weber and John Staatz. They,
with their colleagues from Michigan States University’s Department of Agricultural Economics,
provided insight and guidance on the work they are doing and its impact on African food
security.
The team would also like to thank Drs. Ralph Cummings of the USAID/Washington’s Global
Bureau and George Gardner of Africa Bureau’s Office of Sustainable Development for their
encouragement and support. With their long-term knowledge of the FS II project they provide
context and judgement of the project within the overall activities of USAID’s work in agriculture
and food security.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page iii
Executive Summary
This assessment of the Food Security II Cooperative Agreement (FS II) between the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and Michigan State University (MSU) covers the period
from the mid-term evaluation in December 1996 to December 2001. The assessment was made by a two￾person team between December 2001 and January 2002. 
Because of travel restrictions and limited funds, the assessment team had only limited access to personnel
and activities of FS II overseas. To work within these limitations, the team prepared and sent a
questionnaire via e-mail to people related to the various FS II-supported activities in the field. Of the
102 questionnaires distributed, 47 questionnaires were returned. Results of this survey, personal
interviews, review of project materials, examination of the FS II Web site, and meetings at MSU were the
primary source materials used in this assessment.
Project Outputs and Impact
1. Expanding and Improving Knowledge Base on Policy-relevant Food Security Issues
One of the most important elements in the FS II project is expansion and improvement of the knowledge
base on policy-relevant food security issues. Respondents generally had positive views of the work the FS
II has done in this regard. The strengths were seen to be the descriptive and survey work. The FS II also
expanded and improved the knowledge base on cross-country food security issues.
While the overwhelming response to FS II work to build an expanded and improved knowledge base on
food security issues was positive, there were some critical remarks principally from the academic
community. Most of these critical comments are important for consideration in design of a possible
future project.
2. Timely and Effective Communicating of Project-generated Findings to Policy and Decision
Makers
For FS II to succeed, its findings must be communicated to public, private and donor-related policy and
decision makers. The majority of the responses on this topic were positive on how well FS II was
achieving this goal. There was agreement from virtually all reviewers that the policy synthesis series has
been well done and is quite useful. In addition to noting the timeliness and effectiveness of country-level
policy briefs and policy synthesis papers, respondents valued the participatory forums and the benefits of
the project’s price information activities, specific market and price publications, and bulletins. 
Respondents also commented on the usefulness of the project’s Web site. 
3. Monitoring Procedures and Reporting on People-level Impact of Food Security Strategies
and Project Activities
FS II needs to be able to monitor and report on the people-level impact of any given food security
strategy. While response to the question on this activity was less universal, a number of examples of this
type of work were given. One example was the impact report on the devaluation of the CFA Franc.
Others commented on the role FS II had in improving survey design and management of surveys to
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page iv
improve existing or new monitoring programs. Some respondents also viewed the market price
information work as an important monitoring activity.
4. Strengthening Local Capacity for Food Security Research, Analysis and Monitoring
In general, both the respondents to our questions and this assessment team believe that the project has
been successful in capacity building. The project has provided long-term training to scores of participants
and short-term training to hundreds more. In addition, the on-the-job interaction with MSU staff has been
invaluable. Capacity building, while not perfect, has been one of the important project outputs.
Institutional Memory
The terms of reference for this assessment asked the assessment team to look at the success the FS II
project has had in establishing and maintaining African and U.S. institutional memory. The general
response to this question was positive but a bit less detailed than were responses to other questions. Many
respondents noted the collaboration between African and U.S. researchers as an important element in
development of institutional memory. Another point made several times was that senior advisors and
managers in the food security activities in Africa, both in the private and public sector, were trained under
the FS II project. Yet another point made several times is that the FS II project, through its publications,
data bases, and Web site, is a storehouse of information, not only for the project but more broadly within
Africa, on food security issues. Finally, a few of the respondents noted that institutional memory on
African food security issues has been supported by the longevity of the program. 
Project Inputs
Participants both in the field and in USAID/Washington believed that the technical teams supporting the
project are very good. They are knowledgeable, committed and respected within both the USAID and the
African community. Training at a graduate level, in short-courses and on-the-job was also well received,
although some questions were raised in particular corners. One of the most important inputs in the FS II
project has been the institutional commitment of Michigan State University to food security in Africa. 
Michigan State has made a long-term institutional commitment to the activities within FS II. 
 
Management - Technical Problems / Solutions
There were few technical or management issues raised by respondents. Those that were noted were
country-specific, Rwanda being the most prominent.
Conclusion of FS II Assessment
The second phase of the Food Security II Cooperative Agreement has been successful. FS II has met its
outputs and deliverable targets and has contributed significantly to achievement of project goals and
objectives. It is recognized and appreciated broadly in the field and within USAID/Washington. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-ON PROJECT
View from the Field
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page v
The assessment team found a strong desire from the field that any future FS II activity be entirely or
primarily directed towards Africa. The one theme expressed in many of the comments was the need to
expand long-term training and to create greater local capacity to collect and analyze data. Another
common theme was continuity of the project.
There was a split concerning establishment of the research agenda for a future project; USAID sought
more mission involvement, other respondents wanted more wide-spread involvement. Several
respondents sought to have closer integration of a future project’s research agenda with the Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). Finally, several respondents noted a need for more diversity in ideas
and thinking on food security in a future project.
A Conceptual Framework for a Future Food Security Project
The assessment team’s interviews and review of questionnaire responses produced several interesting
findings: 1) The present FS II project generally is very successful, 2) There is strong need for a follow-on
project to FS II, 3) One of the main reasons the present project is so successful is the commitment of the
staff and institution at Michigan State University and its long-term institutional memory, and 4) There are
important voices, mostly within USAID and the academic community, that seek greater diversity, both in
ideas and personnel, within any future food security project. On the basis of these findings, the
assessment team proposes a concept for a follow-on project based upon the notion of a public utility – a
producer of a public good.
Conceptual Framework and Its Implications
A proposed conceptual framework for the possible future project would configure the project as a
producer of public goods. That is, the project would provide services to a broad range of clients who
could draw upon its data, analysis, expertise, and conclusions. These clients could go beyond USAID and
host countries to include, for example, the World Bank, IFPRI, other universities, and other development
organizations. The project would also provide institutional memory for USAID on African development
issues and for the development community as a whole. 
With many of the outputs of the project seen as public goods, a broader base of organizations should have
input into the work plan. This broader participation in the work planning would benefit the project and
satisfy the expressed desires of many related to the present project. In fact, it might open the door
ultimately to financial contributions from other organizations.
One implication of this concept is that the project should make greater effort and allocate more resources
to sharing data and information. This would open access of the data to other researchers who could use it,
perhaps applying other types of analysis, and thus increasing the diversity in the project. This openness
could help prevent a perception that only one approach to development policy analysis is being used in
the project. 
Methodological Boundaries
What topics to include and breadth of coverage are important questions for a future project. Clearly, the
project’s present strength is description and analysis of functioning of markets and development of
market information systems to improve market operation. In general, our suggestion would be that the
boundaries of a follow-on project should be carefully and narrowly defined. The only exception to the
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page vi
principle of narrow focus, we believe, is that the project should be better integrated with the PRSP
process in the countries in which they are working. 
Regional Boundaries
At present, the view from the field and the opinion of the assessment team is that a future food security
project should basically focus on Africa. Expanding to other regions could stretch the competencies of
the implementing institution and it would dilute the project’s Africa concentration. 
Procurement Instrument
There is fairly unanimous agreement that a cooperative agreement would be the best procurement
instrument for any future food security project.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 1
I. Introduction
This assessment of the Food Security II Cooperative Agreement (FS II) between the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Michigan State University (MSU)
covers the period from the mid-term evaluation in December 1996 to December 2001. The
assessment looks at the more recent activities of FS II for preparation of possible USAID
follow-on activities in the food security area after the present cooperative agreement ends on 30
September 2002.
The 1996 mid-term evaluation provided a positive review of the cooperative agreement and
served as the justification for the continuation of the FS II activities to the 2002 Project
Activities Completion Date (PACD). The evaluation recommended a number of administrative
and managerial actions in the implementation of the project. The general substantive scope of
the core activities were to remain basically unchanged, with additional emphasis on local
institutions, the private sector, and NGO’s in the establishment of research agendas. Additional
research was recommended on the vertical linkages between smallholders and both factor and
output markets.
The present assessment was undertaken by a two-person team between December 2001 and
January 2002. The terms of reference (TOR) (Annex A) for the assessment calls for a review of
the progress of the project in accomplishing its goal, sub-goal and purpose, the appropriateness
and adequacy of project inputs, success in African capacity building and success in establishing
and maintaining African and U. S. institutional memory. The assessment team was also called
upon to review major management and technical issues and their solutions. Most importantly,
the assessment was asked to provide information helpful to USAID in determining whether a
follow-on project should be undertaken and what form such a project should take. Of particular
concern was the substantive scope, regional focus and procurement instrument a possible follow￾on activity should have. 
Because of travel and funding restrictions, the assessment team had only limited access to
personnel and activities of FS II overseas. To work within these limitations, the team prepared
and sent a questionnaire via e-mail to people related to the various FS II-supported activities in
the field. The list of recipients of the questionnaire included project managers, USAID / World
Bank / other donor users and observers of the project, key counterparts to project activities, and
other project collaborators and observers. Of the 102 questionnaires that were distributed, 47
questionnaires were returned. The large number of responses and the positive tone of most of
those responses are important indicators of how well the FS II project is viewed in the field.
Annex B provides details of the questionnaire, the recipients, and the responses received, sorted
by question and project activity. Results of this survey, personal interviews, review of project
materials, examination of the FS II Web site, and meetings at MSU were the primary source
materials used in this assessment.
The assessment team had an opportunity to visit the Michigan State campus in mid-December to
interview staff and faculty of the University working on the FS II program. In addition, the
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 2
MSU FS II staff prepared an extensive binder of material (Assessment/Evaluation Briefing
Book, November 28, 2001) that provided summaries and details of project activities and impact
of the project for the period of the assessment. The assessment team verified the material in the
Briefing Book with the MSU team, and this material, while not repeated, is used throughout this
assessment. The assessment team considers this Briefing Book an integral part of this
assessment documentation. The list of deliverables in Annex C is partly drawn from this
Briefing Book.
This assessment document is divided into two parts. Part one covers the assessment of the on￾going FS II project. Part two deals with comments and recommendations for a follow-on
activity in support of food security in Africa.
II. Project Description
The Food Security II Cooperative Agreement is a follow-on to the earlier 1984 -1992 USAID￾MSU Food Security in Africa Cooperative Agreement. The FS II project’s initial authorization
in Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 continues through the final obligation year FY 2001. This phase of the
project covers the second Cooperative Agreement under FS II for the period September 1, 1997
through September 30, 2002. The estimated amount of this Cooperative Agreement’s core
budget was $7,500,00. As of December 19, 2001, $ 5,800,000 has been obligated to core
budget. This includes $2,625,000 for the FS II/Core, $1,400,00 for FS II/Africa SD Policy
Analysis, $1,600,000 for FS II/INSAH-PRISAS and $175,000 for Food for Peace activities. In
addition, the project has three buy-ins including $4,812,803 from USAID/Mali for FS II
/PASIDMA and FS II/Nutrition activities, $1,896,00 from USAID/Rwanda for FS II /Rwanda
activities, and $3,400,000 from USAID/Zambia for FS II/Zambia activities. The total obligated
funds for this second phase of the FS II Cooperative Agreement is $15,908,803. In conjunction
with this work, MSU also has a separate Cooperative Agreement with USAID/Mozambique for
$5,666,956 for RPD/Mozambique and a sub-contract with Egerton University/Tegemeo Institute
for $ 443,196.
The goal, sub-goal and purpose of this second phase of the FS II Cooperative Agreement remain
the same as in the first phase. Specifically, the goal is “to increase food security in developing
countries as part of broad-based, market-orientated, sustainable economic growth.” The sub￾goal is “to ensure adoption by public and private sector decision makers (including USAID and
other donor agencies) of effective policies, programs and management process that promote food
security, based on project-generated research and analyses.” And finally, the purpose is “to
strengthen the capacity of participating countries and USAID to analyze food security issues and
to formulate policies, institutional reforms, investment plans and management processes that
promote food security.”
The operational objective of the second phase also remains the same as that of the first. It is “to
improve the capacity of participating countries and USAID missions to analyze food security
issues, to formulate policies, institutional reforms, investment plans and management processes
that promote food security, and to build capacity through on-the-job training of researchers and
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 3
analysts within host countries and through graduate degree training of selected participants at
MSU. A secondary objective is to further strengthen MSU’s capacity to develop and backstop
the proposed program of food security research.”
The research agenda, end of project status, project outputs, project inputs and project activities
and methodology were revised in the second phase of the Cooperative Agreement. Phase two
has three strategic research objectives and two cross-cutting themes. Strategic research objective
one is “How to design more cost-effective food systems and related institutions.” Research
objective two is “How to improve positive effects of macro reforms on agricultural
transformation and food system policy.” The final research objective is “How to improve access
to food by vulnerable groups”. The cross-cutting themes are the following: “How to enhance
both farm and non-farm sources of income to promote food security” and “How to address food
security concerns in the context of concern for natural resource management.”
The end of project status is reflected in the four major outputs of the project. These anticipated
outputs are the following:
1. “An expanded and improved knowledge base on policy-relevant food
security issues;
2. Timely and effective communication of project-generated findings to
decision makers (both public and private sector) in participating countries,
and to policy makers and analysts within USAID and among the broader
development community;
3. Monitoring procedures and reports to assess the people-level impact of
food security strategies and project activities;
4. Strengthened local capacities for food security policy research, analysis
and monitoring.”
As indication of the achievement of these outputs, the Cooperative Agreement specifies a list and
minimum number of specific deliverables for the project. These deliverables include country level
food security policy briefs, country level working papers, research monographs, policy syntheses,
articles in refereed journals, and cross county reports. Annex C contains a listing of these deliverables. 
Assessment of the quality of these deliverables is provided below.
During this phase two of the FS II Cooperative Agreement, the project carried out its program of
applied research and capacity development in nine areas:
• Mali Market Information (PASIDMA)
• Mali Nutritional Linkage Project
• Sahel Regional Program (INSAH)
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 4
• Mozambique Research and Policy Dialogue Project
• Rwanda Food Security Research Project (FSRP)
• Zambia food Security Research Project (FSRP)
• Agricultural Transformation Workshop 
• Kenya Agricultural Monitoring and Policy Analysis Project (Tegemeo Institute)
• Africa Bureau - Office of Sustainable Development - Cross Cutting Food System
Productivity and Household Income Topics
Additionally, MSU, through the FS-II Cooperative Agreement has also helped support the
launching of the Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa.
PART ONE: ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
I. Project Outputs and Impact
The assessment team reviewed the output of the second phase of FS II and made judgements on
the impact of that output. FS II expanded and improved the knowledge base on policy-relevant
food security issues, provided timely and effective communication of project-generated findings
to policy and decision makers, created monitoring procedures and reports to assess the people￾level impact of food security strategies and project activities, and strengthened local capacity for
food security policy research, analysis and monitoring. To achieve these outputs, FS II produced 
the deliverables seen in Annex C. 
A. Expanding and Improving of Knowledge Base on Policy-relevant Food
Security Issues
One of the most important elements in the FS II project is to expansion and improvement of the
knowledge base on policy-relevant food security issues. It is quite remarkable that respondents
related to programs in five different countries, one regional program and the Africa Bureau of
USAID have such uniformly positive views of the work the FS II has done in this second phase. 
Some work received particular high praise. An example is the study on the Impact of the
Devaluation of the CFA Franc in West Africa which one respondent notes as “very important
and… widely referred to by policymakers and donors and cited by other scholars.” The work on
cereal market reform in Mali was noted as a major support in establishing “completely
privatized cereals markets throughout the country and to more cost effective and more
transparent management of a food security stock.” The FS II work in Mali is also cited as
improving the “understanding of the structure, conduct and performance of cereals market, not
only by the government, but also by USAID/Mali and other donors.” The work in Mozambique
was described as helping “to expand thinking on food security beyond a narrow focus on farm
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 5
self-sufficiency to include issues of household income and trade.” In Zambia, the FS II
activities provided a knowledge base that “was used to influence investment and policy decisions
by the Zambian government, World Bank, other donors, private firms and business
associations.” A respondent related to the Zambian program particularly noted the value of the
FS II project in the “transfer of lessons learned from their Mozambique research. . .” Comments
from a respondent related to the Rwanda work of FS II state that the “paper on likely
profitability of fertilizer by crop and zone is a keystone for fertilizer policy.” Another notes that
“all the work I am doing on employment generation . . . is directly dependent on the MSU
surveys, leavened by their experience as provided in interviews.” 
One of the mandates of the FS II Cooperative Agreement is to look not only at knowledge bases
of individual countries but to expand and improve the knowledge base of cross-country food
security issues. FS-II has prepared several cross-country reports but the most significant activity
in this area was the workshop held in Nairobi in conjunction with the Tegemeo Institute on
“Agricultural Transformation in Africa.” The material and comments from this workshop,
primarily produced by African researchers, is now being put together in a book for wider
distribution.
While the overwhelming response to FS II work to build an expanded and improved knowledge
base on food security issues was positive, there were some critical remarks. One respondent, for
example, felt the project was “a bit ‘stuck’ on the importance of cotton to African agriculture.”
From the academic side came several comments about the depth of the FS II work. One
respondent noted that FS II “has done a good job with the first-order, descriptive ‘what’ and
‘who’ questions. But FS II has not generated any significant improvement in the understanding
of the ‘why’ questions or the ‘how’ questions about improved intervention or policies for food
security.” 
Some academic reviewers felt the professional impact has not been as large as it should have
been. According to one comment “There is little published in leading economics or development
economics or agricultural economics journals, so the broader impact of FS II on scholarship
with respect to food security, agricultural development or poverty analysis has been modest for a
program of FS II's size.” MSU responded to this critique by noting that the project had put
almost all of its “professional” output such as journal articles and contributions to books and
other professional publications on the Agricultural Economics Department annual publication
list and not directly on the FS II Web page or other Project Fact Sheets. Critics of the project’s
output may not have been aware of the extent of such publications of the project. The project
provided the assessment team a detailed list of journal articles and other professional
contributions that are included in Annex C. Of the 30 listed journal articles produced between
1997 and 2002, over half are in widely respected professional outlets for development-oriented
work. These publications include the American Journal of Agricultural Economics (AJAE),
Food Policy and World Development.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 6
Deliverables and their Quality
There are four specific deliverables related to the knowledge base output. These are the
following: 1) Country-level working papers, 2) Research monographs, 3)Articles in refereed
journals, and 4) Cross-country reports. The Cooperative Agreement calls for 15 country-level
working papers, 5 research monographs, 4 articles in refereed journals and 2 cross-country
reports. As can be seen in Annex C all of these numbers were not only met but were exceeded. 
The responses from the field on the quality of the deliverables were all positive to very positive. 
Likewise, the vast majority of the comments from USAID and academics working with the
project or otherwise associated with the project were also positive. 
USAID officials and academics associated with the project gave the following comments, which
are typical of statements from the field on overall project quality:
•“The project has achieved its objectives - it is a pleasure to be associated with it.
•“The blend of regional and country activities is good and creates a synergy that makes
the whole greater than the sum of the parts.
•“The real contribution is to build a more viable market economy, and it has succeeded at
that.
•“Policies have changed as a result of market information system work.
•“MSU[‘s] work on African agricultural markets is some of the most valuable work
available.
•“INSAH considers all the FS II activities to be important because they originated from
programs conceived by partner institutions. Therefore, there are no activities more
important.
•“I see the program as instrumental and successful in guiding policy both within the
country and across countries. It has left trained people and institutions to carry on the
work.
Outside academic reviewers told a mixed and somewhat different story, including comments
such as the following:
•“I believe FS II has downplayed analytical methods so much that their work has become
a kind of extensive journalism, where instead of one interview they do many and call it a
survey. In the end they have no way to measure impact, because they have no way to say
what would have happened if policies and project activities had been different.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 7
•“What they do, they do well: market surveys and policy papers resulting from the data
and analysis. The descriptive analysis is useful to USAID. They are weak in using the
data for analysis. They are not really in the mainstream of development economics. 
Development is more than improving the efficiency of markets.
•“For right or wrong, the research is widely perceived in the academic community as
closely wedded to a particular vision of what food policy ought to look like and therefore
insufficiently critical in examining basic assumptions. This undermines the effectiveness
of the group's findings . . . , which is truly unfortunate.”
These divergent views on the quality of the project’s output created considerable discussion
among the assessment team, the staff of the project, and USAID/Washington representatives. 
Quality is clearly multidimensional. Each project output could be judged independently as well
as viewing the entire package of outputs. Some of the project outputs such as the Policy Briefs
were universally praised. In fact, generally reveiwers were pleased with project outputs, which
we interpret as meaning they perceive the quality to be high. Output of the project is in
widespread use and is appreciation by both non-academic and academic practitioners in the food
policy and food security field. This use and appreciation speaks to output quality. Secondly, as
the project has pointed out, FS II staff and associates have produced a significant volume of
professional documents and published contributions, most of which have appeared in respected
peered-reviewed outlets. If there were substantial questions of methodology or technical
competence in this work, these would either have been pointed out by the reviewers, or the
documents would not have been accepted for publication.
The project is based upon what FS II calls a “joint product - interim report model.” According to
the project’s staff, this model is “an integrated approach including practical problem-oriented
data collection, problem diagnosis, both descriptive analysis and in-depth quantitative analysis,
multiple modes of communication (including immediate market information, policy briefs, one￾on-one and ‘under the door’ policy consulting, extension-type reports, research reports (some for
journals), and simultaneous training and education function in the form of in-service training and
informal workshops and more formal graduate course work.” These activities support the
objective of the project, which in a nutshell is the development of knowledge (data) and
analytical capability in host countries to support better food policy which will promote increased
food security in affected countries. How well the project achieves these multiple tasks
determines its quality. 
As with all activities undertaken with scarce resources, there are a number of tradeoffs that have
to be taken. For example, the shorter-term more practical results of the project have to be traded
off against the longer-term more theoretical results related to food policy and food security.
While expanding its neoclassical and quantitative capability, the Department of Agricultural
Economics at MSU is already a center of excellence in applied institutional economics. The
tradeoff between institutional and more neoclassical quantitative analysis may be the source of
some of the academic criticism of project activity. The project’s primary focus has been on
solving current 
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 8
problems of food security in less developed countries The project’s success at this effort is the
basis of most of the praise directed to the project from the field. 
The assessment team feels it is important to take note of this debate on these tradeoffs in the
design of a future project.. The FS II activity is the major source of resources supporting data
collection and analysis on basic food security issues in Africa. It is a resource that has to be
managed carefully if it is to result in the greatest good in both the short and the long term. There
is a critical need to improve and expand both theory and methodology to address the medium￾and longer-term aspect of the food security question. While it is not the fundamental focus of
this project, longer-term needs should be considered in the design of any future project of how to
enable the project operation to facilitate achievement of not only immediate project needs but
this longer term need . In Part II of this assessment we make some suggestions on how longer
term needs could be addressed.
B. Timely and Effective Communicating of Project-generated Findings to Policy
and Decision Makers
Knowledge in isolation has limited practical use. For the success of FS II, its findings must be
communicated to public, private and donor-related policy and decision makers. The majority of
the responses were positive on how well FS II was achieving this goal. One observer noted that
“this is probably the greatest strength of the FS II Cooperative Agreement.” The observer
believed the “short briefs FS II has circulated are effective and timely. I see them routinely in
government, collaborator and donor offices. They seem to be popular and influential.” In
Rwanda for example, a respondent noted that “ I have been shown several FS II publications by
the Minster of Agriculture, who has cited them as references.” In addition to timeliness and
effectiveness of country-level policy briefs and policy syntheses papers, respondents cited the
use of participatory forums on cereal policy, television program on cotton policy in Mali, and a
national food policy seminar. In Zambia several respondents remarked upon the collaborative
work FS II was doing with Agricultural Consultative Forum (ACF) and its general approach to
working with a coalition of government, private sector, donors and NGOs to get information to a
broad base of policy and decision makers. Respondents also noted the benefits of the use by the
project’s price information activities of specific publications and bulletins such as the Flash and
Quente-Quente in Mozambique and Le Reflet in Mali. Several respondents also mentioned the
usefulness of the project’s Web site. From the reading of Internet-based papers, an International
Agricultural Research Organization (IARC) sought FS II staff from MSU to come to Zimbabwe
to discuss their technology development and transfer agenda. 
A respondent related to FS II’s work in Mali commented that “one of the joys of being in Mali
was to see how the information generated not only got to donors but to policy makers in the
PRMC that made necessary decisions collectively about interventions. In spite of local shortages
and real political pressure, the data was used in rational and useful ways that helped the most
needy and preserved the market.” The respondent continued, noting that this information also
made it to top government decision makers and that “some of my best moments [in Mali] were 
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 9
long conversations with[ the] President . . . about complexities of marketing and distribution as
well as the best way to keep production increasing.”
Another example of how FS II was able to get its project-related data used for important policy
decisions was seen in comments from a respondent working in Zambia. The respondent had
“attended a donor meeting where the agenda was to consider the GOZ appeal for food relief to
protect affected communities, especially those affect by the adverse weather conditions in the
2000/2001 growing season.” At the meeting importers were also asking for subsidies to keep
prices down. The issue was further complicated because it was an election year, and there would
be significant political impact of the decision. “At that point the MSU team provided USAID
with an analytical piece laying out the available data on the various components of the food
balance sheet and the implication of the various options under consideration.” This information
was shared among the donors. The project’s “solid analysis and presentation of the deficit
situation enabled USAID as well as many other donors in arriving at a reasoned position on the
status of the deficit and its implication for their respective contributions.”
Communication of findings of multi- and cross-country research is also important for the FS II
project under the project’s Core/SD/FFP-funded activities. A respondent related to a cross￾country research effort noted the “FS II is good in providing timely project-generated results to
key stakeholders.” At the end of a cross-country workshop a “four-page policy synthesis paper
was published and widely circulated to key stakeholder.” “This paper carried the key findings of
the workshop and it incorporated collaborators from the region.”
Not all comments were this positive. A respondent related to the Zambian activity commented
that as far as the reports being timely was concerned, “the short answer is - not always” and then
notes the difficulty of doing so in a Zambian environment. A respondent related to the
Mozambique work noted that “the work could be faster, MSU may be at capacity.”
Country-level policy briefs and policy syntheses are the two deliverables mentioned in the
Cooperative Agreement for communication of finding of the work of FS II. The Cooperative
Agreement indicates that a minimum of 30 country-level policy briefs and 15 policy syntheses
be prepared by the project. The project exceeded this requirement (see Annex C). In addition to
the required deliverables, the FS II project also used workshops and conferences.
Policy Syntheses
There was agreement from virtually all reviewers (USAID, academic, other organization, or host
country national) that the policy synthesis series has been well done and is quite useful. The
project has produced more than two dozen of the syntheses since 1997. The syntheses provide a
short (usually four pages) summary of the key points or major findings of more in-depth research
or analysis. They are transmitted to government officials, USAID, and are available on the FS
II’s Web site. The quality of this deliverable has been high.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 10
Conferences and Workshops
Several national and international conferences and workshops have been held to disseminate
project results. These workshops and conferences have been a prime forum for disseminating
and discussing cross-country work. We received generally positive comments on these
conferences. The African respondents were more likely than others to mention them in a
positive light. No doubt, they have provided an opportunity for African scholars to exchange
ideas and research results.
C. Monitoring Procedures and Reporting on People-level Impact of Food
Security Strategies and Project Activities
Food Security ultimately has to be judged on its impact on individuals. Individuals experience 
the direct consequences of having or not having enough food and being able or unable to utilize
this food to support their health and well being. It is important to be able to monitor and report
on the people-level impact of any given food security strategy. Thus, monitoring and reporting
is an important output for FS II. There were fewer responses to this question than for the
questionnaire was more spotty than for the previous two questions. Some respondents were
unaware of such monitoring or did not answer the question. For some of these respondents, the
problem may be lack of familiarity with the terminology used in the question. 
One report was noted by several respondents. This was the impact report on the devaluation of
the CFA Franc. One respondent commented, “this analysis, in particular, was insightful in
identifying the impacts of the devaluation on several different segments of the population.” 
Many comments on the monitoring and reporting questions mentioned the role FS II had in
improving survey design and management of surveys to improve existing or new monitoring
programs. The Income Proxy Methodology was mentioned several times; for example, “the
system has reduced the need for expensive repeats of income surveys.” Another respondent
noted that the “the FS II project has helped to expand ministry monitoring activities beyond
narrow indicators of aggregate output toward more meaningful indicators of impact such as
household income.”
The market price information work was also viewed as an important monitoring activity by some
respondents. As one respondent said, “ the daily and monthly market price information is an
excellent way to monitor the impact on the food security strategies and project activities.” But it
was also noted that “measuring impact at country level is a challenging but yet important step to
go through.” The reports one respondent has seen “do not quite look at impact in the sense of a
longitudinal study that isolates the causal pathway of a program or policy but this standard for
impact assessment is hard to achieve for policy analysis.” Nevertheless, FS II “has gone farther
in this regard than any previous work, providing an excellent basis [on] which to move the
agenda further, and deeper.” The general view of the respondents seems summed up by the
comment: “The MSU surveys are all we have. They do it well, use local people, and plug the
output into the policy process.”
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 11
D. Strengthening Local Capacity for Food Security Research, Analysis and
Monitoring
One could divide capacity building into at least two parts. First, there is capacity building
through the long-term training of individuals. MSU has done a lot of that under its food security
projects. For example, at present 15 of the 75 graduate students in agricultural economics at
MSU come from countries in which the Food Security project operates. As one reviewer
indicated, “In my experience you can’t do anything in the FS II countries without bumping into
people who have worked on FS II projects. For sheer quantity of activity, it is unsurpassed.” A
couple of reviewers expressed concerns about the quality of the training or the productivity of
graduates, but most seemed to be quite pleased with the impact of the long-term training
activities.
A second level of capacity building is in-country training through short courses or on-the-job
training. We received several comments such as the following:
•“It has been the bulwark in the Mali environment for strengthening local capacities for
food security and nutrition. FS II has been able to get the attention and commitment of
the Minister of Health on these matters, which attests to FS II’s worth. It has worked
effectively with the Ministry of Health’s multi-sectoral coordination unit in nutrition and
food security to strengthen its capacity.
•“The FS II project has trained a number of analysts in the Ministry of Agriculture to a
level where they can conduct quality research and analysis on their own. These analysts
are having an impact in the ministry.
•“Surely they have strengthened local capacity in food security issues: for example the
agricultural transformation workshop was for the Africans. Among 50 participants, 45
were Africans. Papers were presented by Africans. These papers were reviewed several
times and in so doing the capacity was strengthened.”
There was some concern expressed regarding the approach to capacity building used in many
countries. Often the local MSU staff are not a part of the government structure. Thus, there are
sustainability questions once the MSU support is withdrawn. However, given the very low level
of government economics and statistics units in many countries, there may be no viable
alternative to opening a separate operation. Also, some concern was expressed that the high
level of support provided by those selected as MSU partners may, in fact, inhibit development of
other capable nationals. In other words, some felt the support and training base should be
broader or more competitive. It should be noted, however, that FS II is a project with specific
objectives and limited training-related resources. The “joint-product and interim-report” model
used in project implementation focuses resources, including training resources, on the task of
each country’s activities. This is selective, but also prudent management of project resources. 
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 12
In general, both the respondents to our questions and this assessment team believe that the
project has been successful in capacity building. The project has provided long-term training to
scores of participants and short-term training to hundreds more. In addition, the on-the-job
interaction with MSU staff has been invaluable. While not perfect, we believe that capacity
building has been one of the important project outputs.
II. Institutional Memory
The terms of reference for this assessment asked the assessment team to look at success the FS II
project has had in establishing and maintaining African and U.S. institutional memory. A
question to this effect was added to the questionnaire. Responses to the question was generally
positive but a bit less detailed than responses to other questions. Many respondents mentioned
the collaboration between African and U.S. researchers as an important element in development
of institutional memory. Noted a respondent from Zambia,“ there has been a lot of sharing and
institutionalizing of research findings. For example, Zambians have visited project activities in
Mali and Mozambique. Staff from Mozambique have visited Zambia. MSU professors have
frequently been fielded to Zambia and local staff have been to Lansing (MSU) to discuss various
issues related to the project. This intensity in collaboration means that lessons learned by the
project in various countries have been institutionalized by the project collaborators in beneficiary
countries.” Another point made several times was the fact that senior advisors and managers in
the food security activities in Africa both in the private and public sector were trained under the
FS II project. Yet another point made several times is that the FS II project, through its
publications, data bases, and Web site, is a storehouse of information on food security issues not
only for the project but more broadly within Africa. A respondent in Rwanda said “FS II
established and maintained African and U.S. institutional memory by keeping agricultural data
bases in both Rwanda/MINAGRI and in an American university (MSU) and by sending the
research reports from the FSRP to the Library of Congress.” Finally, a few of the respondents
noted that institutional memory on African food security issues has been supported by the
longevity of the program. This important point was most compellingly described in this
comment: “One of the signal victories in Africa was our ability to hold on to the FS II program
against the ravages of ‘re-engineering.’ There were those that would have thrown out years of
data and the capacity to analyze its contemporary relevance for food policy and make it possible
for Africa’s poor to eat better. It is vital that these programs be continued. Our long-term
investment has produced real results.” It should be noted that AFR/SD and Global Bureau
funding has been a key resource for supporting MSU’s on-campus capacity to maintain this
institutional memory.
III. Project Inputs
The major inputs in the FS II project are technical assistance, training and a difficult to define
but in this case critically important factor, institutional commitment. The view both in the field
and in USAID/Washington is quite positive that the technical teams supporting the project are
very good. They are knowledgeable, committed and respected within both the USAID and the
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 13
African community. Training at a graduate level, in short-courses and on-the-job was also well
received, although some questions were raised in particular corners (See Section I D). 
One of the most important inputs in the FS II project has been the institutional commitment of
Michigan State University to food security in Africa Michigan State has made a long-term
institutional commitment to the activities in FS II. Within the by-laws of the institution defining
what constitutes scholarship recognized by the university are not only the traditional elements of
research, extension and teaching, but also international work. Recently, the university has
established mechanisms to provide three year contracts to long-term, non-tenured staff people to
provide them greater job security within the faculty structure. This change was a direct result of
the need to support staff in the FS II project. In the field, this institutional commitment is seen in
the extra effort the FS II staff makes to maximize impact and seek out synergism of the work
they are doing. Their support for the Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa is but one example of
this.
 
IV. Management - Technical Problems / Solutions
It is remarkable that so few technical or management problems have been identified for a
program in so many different countries and working in so many areas that could be political and
technical land mines. Some issues, however, have been raised. Most are country-specific,
Rwanda being the most prominent. The problems in Rwanda dealt with difficulties of the
program in working with the space and staff placement restrictions placed on the project by the
Minster of Agriculture. This issue is still being worked on by the FS II staff.
Placement and relationship questions also were a concern in the Mozambique program, but these
now appear to have been resolved.. Because FS II work is so closely linked to policy, the
program can be viewed with suspicion in some countries where the relationship of the project to
the Ministries of Agriculture or Finance or Planning sometimes difficult. As a respondent in
Mozambique observed, the change of the situation in that country was “perhaps due to a new
‘openness’ at the ministry, perhaps due to finally establishing an adequate level of trust with the
ministry, and perhaps due to concerted efforts by the project to do better with integration. Most
likely due to all three.”
Other concerns noted were finding local senior staff, more integration of local staff in work plan
development and USAID contracting procedures. A few respondents noted problems not with
the project but with USAID’s support of the project. The most direct statement was this: “the
most significant problem was the direct challenge to FS II from AID ideologues who wanted to
try something new and different. The other issue was the lack of funds for long-term graduate
education that would keep sufficient high-level capacity in policy analysis that we have built, in
continuing supply in these countries.”
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 14
V. Conclusion
The second phase of the Food Security II Cooperative Agreement has been a successful project
funded by USAID to deal with the food security problem in Africa. FS II has met its outputs and
deliverable targets and has contributed significantly to achievement of project goals and
objectives. It is recognized and appreciated broadly in the field and within USAID/Washington.
PART TWO: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-ON PROJECT
Of the programs being funded at present by USAID, the Food Security II Cooperative
Agreement is one of the most successful and best appreciated programs, both in the field and in
USAID/Washington. Interviews by the assessment team and responses to the questionnaire have
generally supported continuation of the work now being undertaken by FS II. While there is
strong desire for continuing the food security effort, there is divergence of views on what exact
focus future effort should have and how it should be configured. In this part of the paper we will
look at some of the views that have been expressed about a possible future program. We will
also look at potential demand for the services of a future food security program as these services
appear in draft strategies for future intervention by USAID in African agriculture and rural
development. We will then propose a concept for a possible future food security project that will
take into account many of the respondent views, including some of the concerns about the
present program. 
I. View from the Field
In conversations with people related to the FS II project both in Washington and in the field, the
assessment team found a strong desire that any future FS II activity be entirely or primarily
directed towards Africa. As might be expected, in responding to the question of possible future
activities for a follow-on project, questionnaire respondents focused primarily on continuation of
activities within their own sphere of operation. The one theme seen throughout many of the
comments was need to expand long-term training and to create greater local capacity to collect
and to analyze data. Another common theme was continuity. As one respondent put it,
“…continue to support the work. Stay with it for the long term. AID is too anxious to start
project[s] and then to prematurely stop funding them for some new agenda that someone wants
to initiate.” Another wrote, “…more of the same, is basically what I would ask for, at least for
another 5 years.”
 There was a split concerning establishment of the research agenda for a future project. 
Respondents primarily from USAID sought more mission involvement in establishing the
research agendas, whereas respondents from local institutions and other donors felt that the host
government, private sector and NGO community should have more input. A common response
was that a future project will need to have closer integration of the project’s research agenda
with the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) now being developed in a number of African
countries.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 15
Involvement of the private sector, including NGOs, in any future project was also mentioned
several times. Inclusion of data collection and analysis of marketing and trade, particularly
regional trade, was part of the concerns related to food security. Expansion of the ability of the
private sector to lobby for appropriate policy changes in support of food security was one of the
more intriguing ideas presented.
 Finally, several respondents noted that there is a need for more diversity in ideas and thinking in
a future food security project. As one respondent observed, while the present FS II staff is doing
“excellent work in many ways. . . . there needs to be some diversity of personnel and other
university involvement. I think the group tends to be a little inbred now, and more diverse ideas
might be useful for USAID purposes. There needs to be more quantitative work done and
involvement of excellent people from other first rate institutions.”
II. Areas of Future Demand for Follow-on Food Security Project
It is clear that there is substantial demand, both in the field and from USAID/Washington, for
continuation in a follow-on project of work now being undertaken by FS II. To get a broader
view of potential demand for services in a follow-on project, the assessment team reviewed
drafts of two major strategy documents now being prepared for USAID and U.S. involvement in
agriculture in Africa. These draft documents are A Strategic Framework and Action Plan for the
Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa and USAID Agriculture Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa –
An Operational Plan. As mentioned, both documents are presently in draft form and a final
version of each document will not be available for several months. Nevertheless, these drafts
provide a glimpse of present thinking on where the agency is going in terms of future activities
in agriculture in Africa. 
Both documents list a wide range of activities in the agricultural and political areas. Some of
these are not appropriate for a future food security project, but a number of others would be
usefully served by such a project. Both documents seek substantial increases in funding for
agriculture-related support for Africa. With such increase in funding will come a corresponding
increase in need for technical assistance. This assistance will be needed to work with African
counterparts to manage and utilize these funds. Knowledge and technical expertise such as that
found in the present FS II project could be an important source of this technical assistance.
The draft Partnership to Cut Hunger in Africa document lays out eight principles, of which at
least three are relevant to a future food security project. Among these is increased local
institutional capacity, which has been one of the basic objectives of FS II. Another principle is
working with local African institutions and strategies such as the PRSP. This principle is also
directly relevant to FS II work and could be part of a future follow-on project. Finally, the
strategy document seeks as a principle to put a focus on trade and markets, a likely focus of a
future project.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 16
On the action side of their strategy, the Partnership document stresses need for increased human
capital development, policy reform, creation of local institutions with domestic financial and
political support, and linkage of food aid and longer-term development strategies. All of these
activities have been successfully undertaken in the FS II project and would likely be elements of
any follow-on activity.
In the USAID Agricultural Initiative document, stress is also put on agricultural trade and
markets. Action areas include human and institutional capacity development (particularly in
areas related to policy), integration of vulnerable groups into the development process and 
emphasis on a food systems approach in project implementation. These are all areas amenable to
the approach and resources available within a follow-on food security project.
 At the present time, USAID has two instruments for responding to missions’ needs for technical
and other support in the area of food security and policy questions. One is the FS II Cooperative
Agreement. The other is the Agricultural Policy Development (APD) Indefinite Quantity
Contract (IQC) managed by Abt Associates, Inc. There is a natural division of labor between
these two contracting instruments. Specific short-term policy analysis work is best suited to
APD, while longer term institutional-based activities in data collection and policy analysis fit the
FS II framework. There are also other indefinite quantity contracts such as RAISE that can be
used for agricultural policy. It seems beneficial that this same choice of options for support of
food security and policy analysis issues be available to missions in the future.
III. A Conceptual Framework for a Future Food Security Project
 After its interviews and review of questionnaire responses, the assessment team found that it
was facing several interesting findings. These findings were the following:
1. The present FS II project generally is very successful.
2. There is strong need for a follow-on project to FS II.
3. One of the main reasons the present project is so successful is the commitment of
the staff and institution at Michigan State University and its long-term
institutional memory.
4. There are important voices, mostly within USAID and the academic community,
that seek greater diversity, both in ideas and personnel, within any future food
security project.
How can these somewhat divergent ideas be put together? The assessment team proposes a
follow-on project based upon the notion of a public utility – a producer of a public good.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 17
A. Conceptual Framework and Its Implications
Assume the follow-on project for Food Security II to be a large, non-competitive project. How
could one justify such an undertaking, particularly given the need expressed for greater diversity
in ideas and people? One possible conceptual framework is that of the project as a sort of
producer of public goods. That is, the project would provide services to a broad range of clients
who could draw upon its data, analysis, expertise, and conclusions. These clients could go
beyond USAID and host countries. The client base also could include, for example, the World
Bank, IFPRI, other universities, and other development organizations. The project would also
provide institutional memory for USAID on African development issues and for the
development community as a whole.
Unlike a public utility, a project developed within this conceptual framework would not
necessarily experience increasing returns to scale (like an electric power company), although
there could certainly be some of that as it launched market information systems in different
countries or policy work on similar topics. An institution under this concept would not
necessarily incur up-front costs in every situation or country, as might be the case if other
organizations were undertaking the activities.
If one views many of the outputs of the project as public goods, what does that view imply about
the structure of possible follow-on activity? One thing possibly indicated is that a broader base
of organizations should have input into the work plan. Under the current project, the core funded
work plan is determined jointly by MSU and USAID/Washington. Country buy-ins are
determined between MSU and country missions. Some in USAID argue that this arrangement is
as it should be, because USAID is paying the bill. If other organizations want to have input into
the work plan, they should contribute financially. Others in USAID, however, see the merits of
inviting a broader group to participate in some way in the priority-setting process. More
concretely, perhaps the annual work planning activity could be done in two parts, the first part
being open to a broader set of the development community, and the second part being reserved
for the institution implementing the project and USAID. Whatever form it might take, we
believe that broader participation in the work planning would benefit the project and satisfy the
expressed desires of many related to the present project. While this additional participation in
development of the work plan might mean additional expense, both in staff time and logistics,
such an approach might, in fact, open the door ultimately to financial contributions from other
organizations.
If the public good model is used, what other implications would that have for a future project? 
One implication might be that the project should make greater effort and allocate more resources
to share data and information. The project Web site is impressive, but a more powerful search
engine or sorting mechanism would be very useful. One should be able to get all articles, policy
syntheses, data sets, etc. related to certain key words, e.g., fertilizer, or perhaps combinations of
key words, e.g., fertilizer and Mali. 
Data sets are another area where more effort could be expended to make data available to others. 
When this possibility was raised by the assessment team with MSU, they argued that it is much
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 18
more difficult to document a data set to make it usable by others than to keep it usable by those
intimately involved in the work. We do not dispute this difficulty. On the other hand, if the
outputs of this project are like public goods and financed through non-competitive public funds,
one could argue that the extra effort and expenditure are essential. Also, making the data
available to other researchers could result in other types of analysis being done, increasing the
diversity in the project. This openness would also prevent a perception that only one approach to
development policy analysis is being used in the project. 
The FS II project is already doing a lot of sharing of information. Annex D is a list provided by
project staff of examples, by country, of data sharing under FS II. The FS II staff has also
correctly noted the difficulty in both perception and legalities of data sharing. Developing
countries are sensitive about data collected in their countries. Too many outside individuals and
organizations have gone into a country and collected data, taken it home and analyzed it from
their own particular problem or methods perspective, and made the data and results of the
analysis relatively inaccessible to local users. Through much effort, the FS II project and staff
have assuaged over-sensitivity in most of the countries where it has worked. Any future design
for data sharing in a follow-on project needs to take into account potentially sensitive host
country perceptions. It is unlikely that significant data sharing will occur without full
collaboration and agreement of the host country. 
B. Methodological Boundaries
What topics to include and breadth of coverage are important questions for a future project. 
Clearly, the project’s present strength is description and analysis of functioning of markets and
development of market information systems to improve market operation. Should its focus be
broadened to cover issues like HIV/AIDS, international trade, investment (FDI and local),
technology issues, and others? Recently the project has moved more into poverty and nutrition
issues, as these have advanced to front stage on the international development agenda. Were
these moves appropriate?
There is no clear and unequivocal answer to these questions. Part of the reason for academic
criticism is that the current scope does not encompass the full set of development issues in
Africa. That criticism argues for expanding the scope. But clearly, the further any institution
responsible for a follow-on project moves beyond their core competence, the more diluted its
expertise and activities will be. In general, our suggestion would be that the boundaries of a
follow-on project should be carefully and narrowly defined. The central focus of the present
project is on marketing and markets including trade with additional work in technology, inputs,
and land/income and agricultural/nutrition/health linkages. This is already a fairly diverse
agenda. A possible follow-on project should build upon the work now being undertaken by FS
II, but care should be taken that these activities be logically linked to each other under the food
security umbrella. The only exception to the principle of narrow focus, we believe, is that the
project should be better integrated with the PRSP process in the countries in which they are
working. The project data and analysis have much to offer the PRSPs, but very little project
input has been used to date. This is not necessarily the fault of the project. When the PRSP
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 19
process was first scoped, agriculture was not a big part of the agenda. However, more recently,
the importance of agriculture has become more widely recognized, and the project should have
easier access into the PRSP process in its host countries.
C. Regional Boundaries
Project work to date has been exclusively in African countries and on African cross-cutting
issues. Some at USAID have urged expanding the coverage to other regions. The argument for
expansion is that there must be lessons learned in the Africa experience that would be applicable
to other countries and regions. The geographical orientation of the FS II project was questioned
in the mid-term evaluation. At that time the view was that Africa was to be an important client
for FS II services, but that the services should be offered world-wide under the auspices of the
Global Bureau. At present, the view from the field and the opinion of the assessment team is
that a future food security project should basically focus on Africa. Expanding to other regions
would require competencies that do not necessarily exist at any one institution, and it would
dilute the Africa concentration of the institution managing the project. 
There are two minor exceptions to this overall recommendation. First, the future project’s
results, data, and analyses should be available to researchers, analysts, and USAID officials in
other regions. This availability would occur if the public good approach mentioned above is
followed. Second, there may be instances in which the best implementation of some proposed
policy or institutional change for one of the project’s countries is occurring in a country outside
the region. In that case, the project should not hesitate to take African officials to the country
with the policy mechanism in place to see first hand how it operates. They could then judge for
themselves the extent to which it might fit or be adapted to their institutional, social, cultural,
and economic environment.
From an administrative standpoint, the project should continue to have links through the Global
Bureau to the wider developing world, both to provide information from the African experience
and to gain from the experience of non-African countries. This linking would mean that the
basic management configuration (between the Global Bureau and AFR/SD) of the present
program could remain more or less the same for any future food security project, with the
understanding that the project operations have an African focus.
D. Procurement Instrument
The current procurement instrument is a cooperative agreement. Mission agricultural officers
were very positive on this instrument. In fact, at times they seemed to be saying that they used
the project as much because of the flexibility and ease of the instrument as because of MSU.
Expense did not appear to be the driving force, but rather ease of contracting. Mission officers
felt that contracts offices were over-burdened, and having a simple and easy instrument available
was a tremendous plus. There is fairly unanimous agreement that a cooperative agreement would
be the best procurement instrument for any future food security project.
FS II Cooperative Agreement Assessment Page 20
Some USAID missions indicated a desire to establish a direct cooperative agreement with the
project institution rather than going through USAID/Washington. This sort of arrangement is
already being used by the mission in Mozambique, and it should be a viable option for other
missions who have important levels of activity with the project.