TOPS Implementation Review:

USAID Niger/Burkina Faso FFP Portfolio

16-18 May 2017, Niamey, Niger

WORKSHOP REPORT The Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS) Program and Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) Network are made possible by the generous support and contribution of the American people through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

TOPS Implementation Review:

USAID Niger/Burkina Faso FFP Portfolio May 16-18, 20187

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 2. Description of Projects 3. Background and Context for Workshop 4. Participant Profiles 5. Workshop Goal & Objectives 6. Daily Sessions – processes and results 7. Lessons Learned 8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps 10. Evaluations and Assessments 11. Annexes

a. Concept Note b. Agenda E/F c. Participant List

ACRONYMS

C-EWS Community-based Early Warning System CLTS Community-led Total Sanitation COGES Comité de Gestion - Management Committee CRS Catholic Relief Services DFAP Development Food Aid Program DRM Disaster Risk Management EWS Early Warning System FASO Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes FFP Food for Peace Habbanaye small ruminant husbandry program IRW Implementation Review Workshop LAHIA Livelihoods, Agriculture and Health Interventions in Action MTE Mid-Term Evaluation PASAM-TAI Programme d’Appui à la Sécurité Alimentaire des Ménages- Tanadin Abincin Iyali - Food Security Support Program PM2A Preventing Malnutrition in Children under 2 Approach PREP Pipeline and Resource Proposal REGIS -AG Resilience and Economic Growth in the Sahel – Accelerated Growth REGIS-ER Resilience and Economic Growth in the Sahel-Enhanced Resilience RISE Resilience in the Sahel Enhanced SAREL Sahel Resilience Learning Project SAWKI SILC Savings and Internal Lending Community SLI Sequencing, Layering, and Integration SIM Système d’Information du Marché- Market Information System SIMA Système d’Information du Marché Agricole- Agriculture Market Information System TOPS Technical and Operational Performance Support USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Council VIM Victory against Malnutrition VSLC Village Savings and Loan Committee WASH Water and Sanitation and Hygiene WEA-I Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index WFP World Food Program

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)’s Food for Peace (FFP) office engaged the Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS) program to design and facilitate a three-day Implementation Review Workshop (IRW) for its Niger and Burkina Faso Development Food Aid Program (DFAP) portfolio of five projects, in Niamey Niger, May 16-18, 2017. The agenda focused on providing guidance that would be useful for implementing partners as they approach the final 18 months of programming, as well as to pin down key learning points from existing programs Conducted in French, the workshop model was a mix of short technical presentations, followed by panel discussions, then small group work to ‘dig deep’ into one of five focus areas for the DFAP implementation review. The five DFAP projects served as the context for discussion and application. Presentations provided the knowledge and evidence base for specific topics; the panel discussions highlighted project experiences within the knowledge area; and small group sessions allowed all participants to engage in addressing some of the challenges and opportunities associated with the themes. The first day concentrated on two important DFAP programming approaches – ‘depth vs. breadth’, and targeting methods. The second day focused on sustainability and exit strategies, referencing the Tufts Study commissioned by USAID “Sustaining Development: A Synthesis of Results from 4 Country Studies of Sustainability and Exit Strategies”. On the third day, participants assessed resilience approaches and gaps, and identified missed opportunities they felt might strengthen current results if there might be possibilities for inclusion. Highlights of key takeaways include:

• There are definite advantages of ‘Depth’ over ‘Breadth’ programming, such as proximity to beneficiaries, building strong relationships with government officials, and behavior change impact;

• Depth or Breadth program approaches each have advantages /disadvantages, and appear to be influenced by the targeting approach;

• While the projects bring many benefits, it also adds to women’s burden of work, both in the home and in the farm field, market, or with livestock activities;

• Examination of targeting approaches used by the DFAP programs helped to reveal gaps, and mismatches between populations and designated activities;

• Working through the four key factors for sustainability and exit strategies allowed DFAP practitioners to identify areas for collaborative opportunity with governments and civil society, as well as assumptions about sustainability that may not bear out;

• An exit strategy needs to be very specific, and • An exit strategy does have to address all activities, but not all require a

sustainability plan; • More clarity is needed on targeting at the design phase, and better monitoring

tools to reflect targeting accuracy throughout implementation; • With reference to resilience programming, targeting the ‘less poor’ might yield

good results, as they are drivers of change; • At the same time, DFAP programs must do more effective targeting to better

identify the poorest/most vulnerable; • It is clear that we should consider changing the way DFAPs engage with state

structures e.g., the per diem challenge, roads infrastructure costs, as examples; • The resilience presentation and subsequent small group work posed relevant

questions, and highlighted gaps in coverage and planning; • Some of the proposals for missed opportunities would require substantial funds.

Highlights of key programming elements for broader consideration include:

• Re-examine women’s work burdens in the context of DFAP actions and identify means to alleviate added work load;

• The youth population should be accurately profiled and then actions should be defined with the profile in mind;

• Open dialogue with governments for co-financing with regard to infrastructure development projects that can impact the successful uptake and sustainability of DFAP actions (e.g., road construction, rural energy development);

• Programs need to operationalize the concept of resilience as an enhanced dimension of development programs;

• FFP sees the value of post-project monitoring (Tufts Study recommendation) as a means to improve all aspects of DFAP programming - targeting, intervention approaches, indicator accuracy, resource matching, etc.

Other highlights and recommendations specific to the different themes can be found in the body of the document.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Both Niger and Burkina Faso have Food for Peace five-year DFAP portfolios since [2012]. In Burkina Faso, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and ACDI/VOCA implement core interventions in the areas of agriculture and natural resource management, health and nutrition, and civil society strengthening. The programs focus on improving the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations—including pregnant and lactating women and children under two—as well as improving agricultural production and productivity, and livelihoods diversification, including market linkages. Targeted food distributions, food-for-work activities, school feedings, take home rations, and trainings on nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation best practices allow households to increase their consumption of nutritious foods, enhance dietary diversity, and increase the adoption of WASH best practices. In Niger, FFP supports three integrated development food assistance programs with Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps, and Save the Children to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition and improve community resilience among rural households in the Maradi and Zinder regions. The programs target over 500,000 individuals and aim to promote positive behavior change in nutrition, health, hygiene, sanitation, and agriculture, as well as diversify livelihoods through livestock, savings and lending, and literacy activities. Complementary programs include RISE (Resilience in the Sahel Enhanced), and Sahel Resilience Learning Project (SAREL).Other co-financing and/or collaboration partners include the United Nations World Food Program (WFP).

3. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR WORKSHOP USAID FFP Team Leads in Washington DC, Dakar, and Niger held seven consultative meetings with TOPS between March and May 2017 to identify cornerstone themes, and to discuss methodologies, information sources, and potential presenters. During these discussions, USAID FFP explained the intention to host DFAP IRWs at a later stage in project timelines. Mid-term evaluations (MTE) have been conducted at this point, which documents outputs, results and progress to date. The IRW would focus more on key implementation challenges that are common across the DFAP portfolio, compare experiences, share some applied solutions, and provide evidence-based references for improvement. The projects would then apply the learning toward the final 18 months of implementation. The TOPS workshop facilitator conducted a summary overview of the five DFAP project progress reports, evaluations, guidance documents, etc. to tease out elements that could provide highlights across the programs, and identify some shared principles, successes, challenges, etc. [Some key highlights are listed here:

• The level of engagement by Village Development Committees (VDC) – responsibility, initiative, accountability – shows up consistently as a challenge;

• WASH technologies (latrines, tippy-taps, etc.) and programs (CLTS, school hygiene) have resulted in sustained change;

• Locally produced foods appear acceptable as replacements to Rations programs (PM2A);

• Agriculture value chains choices, operations, and results still need work to make models and processes consistently successful;

• Livestock programs also produced inconsistent results; • Additional focus on gender issues at an operational level is required; • RISE collaboration (late in rolling out) has borne results; • SILC and extended/associated services enjoy popularity and success.]

Ultimately, five themes emerged, which captured some project mechanisms that are fundamental in determining how and whether projects will achieve results. These include:

1) Breadth vs. Depth 2) Targeting 3) Sustainability and Exit Strategies 4) Risk Management, Resilience, and 5) Missed Opportunities.

4. PARTICIPANT PROFILE Seventeen participants came from USAID FFP/Washington DC, the Bureau for Food Security, the Global Health office, the Center for Resilience, the USAID FFP Sahel Regional Offices in Dakar, Senegal, and the FFP/BFS offices at USAID Niger and Burkina Faso. Seventeen implementing partners from Mercy Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, ACDI-VOCA represented the DFAP portfolio. Representatives from the SAREL (Sahel Resilience Learning) Project were also in attendance. They were joined by twelve government personnel who are collaborators on the projects in Niger and Burkina Faso. Alfreda Brewer, USAID Niger

Representative, opened and closed the workshop. Overall, women’s participation was below recommended levels (8 out of 46 attendees) and those women in attendance were largely from USAID (6 out of 8 women). Studies show that women need to make up 30% of a group before it makes an impact on its stated objective1. Organizers acknowledged the gap and took note for future programs of this kind.

5. WORKSHOP GOAL & OBJECTIVES The workshop was oriented toward learning and exchange rather than producing action plans or official recommendations. The goals and objectives reflect this intention. GOAL: Take time to pause and reflect on the years of implementation and see what we have learned. What's worked, what hasn't and how can we incorporate learning into the program during the remaining life of the projects. OBJECTIVES:

1) Provide a practical forum to share and learn from current program experiences; 2) Review and assess current implementation models in FFP Burkina Faso and Niger

program portfolios; 3) Compare (1) with the core operational principles, technical information, and emerging

best practices relevant to the sectors and activities in the USAID FFP program; 4) Identify the most promising and results-delivering approaches.

6. DAILY SESSIONS: PROCESSES AND RESULTS Day One: Programming Approaches – What works, in what context, and with whom? Morning Sessions 4 & 5: ‘Depth vs. Breadth’ (Concentration vs. Extended geographical reach). Ahmadou Ndiade/FFP Officer Niger, delivered a brief presentation using a visual graph that compared the five projects across number of beneficiaries, number of villages, funds, and years for implementation, as a means of framing the discussion on depth vs. breadth. The presentation also described single vs. multi-focus interventions, and how the selected approach is operationalized in the geographical setting.

1 Webinar series USAID AgLinks: Feb.2011. Sylvia Cabus, Judy Canahuati, Sharon Phillips, et.al.

Following this, five panelists addressed questions regarding the approach with which their project operates, sharing observations and lessons learned. In particular panelists addressed the motivation for choosing an approach, and a variety of reasons was cited:

− to reach the largest number of beneficiaries in a given geographical area, with a limited package of interventions;

− the implementing organization has a global target for number of beneficiaries, and this contributes to the calculation of beneficiaries at the country level;

− a key factor involves what other actions/projects operate in the catchment area, with an eye toward complementary programming;

− Choosing a single or multi-focus intervention approach was in some cases dependent on the size of the catchment area.

No straightforward formula for deciding on an approach emerged, suggesting that the choice may be dependent on a number of variables, requiring a tailored solution in each case. The advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches were more clearly articulated through a ‘Gallery Walk’, as participants added comments and responses to flip charts around the room that each featured a ‘Depth vs. Breadth’ challenge question. The table below summarizes the input from the panelists and the Gallery Walk.

Each group also studied one assigned question as it applied to their project. Group One: “Are there specific constraints associated with your approach with reference to building women’s empowerment - work load, limited participation, ability or lack of, to resolve problems specific to women” The overwhelming consensus was that while the projects bring many benefits, it also adds to women’s burden of work, both in the home and in the farm field, market, or with livestock activities. Men’s plots are more productive than women’s, as they likely have more time to devote to them. Women attempt to apply all of the health, nutrition and sanitation practices they learn, however they don’t have the time to follow through. Some participants felt that activities specifically destined for women need to be better defined. When engaging men and women in activities, there should be a means to take into account the demands on women such that women’s other obligations are mitigated. Intra-household dynamics influence women’s ability to participate (ex., husbands must be consulted in order to allow women to come to meetings). If the project-initiated model of recruiting local community members as mobilisers, health workers, etc. were to be taken up, self-selecting women post-project might not qualify

as they cannot move from village to village on a motorcycle, nor can they work at night if necessary. Finally, even if projects were to take into account some very poor households as direct beneficiaries this would only partially solve the problems of vulnerable women. Group Two: “What are the difficulties you have encountered with regard to personnel and staffing through your chosen approach?” Members spent considerable time discussing staffing and personnel challenges, which merit particular mention. Recruitment and retention of female project staff is particularly difficult, due in part to a ‘double burden’ of obligations to their families and to their employment. This applies to project staff as well as to female community volunteers such as Mother Leaders, Gardeners, Mentors, etc. There is a lack of coordination across sectors, which results in technical specialists managing their own sector in a ‘silo’ approach. There is support for multi-disciplinary or generalist field agents who are supported by technical supervisors. Extension agents often have difficulty settling in and staying at an isolated community post. They may not speak the local language. Moreover, projects place heavy demands on government extension agents, in addition to their other tasks and obligations. Group Three: “What are the difficulties that you have encountered with reference to the dissemination/propagation of project activities into non-targeted zones and population groups?” The group identified a number of challenges for the uptake of practices by those not directly receiving the intervention:

− Lack of resources and means to replicate − Insufficient government means and services to assist − The ‘critical mass’ effect is not systematic − Independent variables such as access to land, lack of water − In some cases, the type of activity, e.g., Farmer Field Schools which require technical

expertise − In some cases, the full value chain is not operational (e.g., agricultural products are

grown but no market to sell them, no improved seeds) − Lack of local expertise − Women in non-project zones who don’t have land titles have no support network (as

they do in the project zone) − Nomad populations do not benefit.

Group Four: “How has your approach facilitated the building of linkages with the government, and with the private sector?” The group identified the pros and cons of the approaches with regard to establishing linkages with the government and the private sector. Positive features include:

- Activities are sufficiently aligned with national policies - Formal agreements exist between government and project - Revisions and adjustments can be made on a trimester basis - The government regional level designated focal points by sector to monitor and

support project activities - The size of project catchment areas/zones is a reasonable size - Internal dynamics (government?) can influence project implementation - Organizational capacity is good

- Government can be flexible. The group listed some difficulties such as:

- Dependencies form (donors are a key conditional factor in government strategies for sustainability)

- Lack of independent financing for activities - Lack of personnel (government) - Community needs surpass the capacity of government to resolve them - Lack of government agents to serve as project technical support.

Group Five: “How has your approach helped or hindered the programmatic integration of sector interventions and/or strategic objectives?” In some cases, all the villages have the same menu of activities. A number of distinct factors surfaced: Helping integration Hindering Integration Concentrated (Depth)

− Better integration of different sectors − Better communication and exchange − Possibility for beneficiaries to engage in

multiple activities and diversify − A better visibility of project actions − Layering of interventions is more

successful within target groups.

− Rigidity in application; lost opportunity for neighbor communities to benefit

− Should have more flexibility, and should be more attentive to government hierarchies, e.g., responsibility/ authority between the commune and district levels.

Extended (Breadth)

− Choice of intervention is rational − Multi-focus interventions are adopted

selectively, rather than universally.

− Integration is selective − Decision-making, changes,

adjustments, require a high volume of data from all sites.

Project costs can vary greatly depending on the combination of approach vis-à-vis choice of intervention/s. There are significant differences in cost per beneficiary between the two approaches, prompting the need to really define value for money. Depth vs. Breadth Sessions 4 & 5. - Outstanding Questions/Issues/Concerns. Discussions reveal that there are valid programmatic and operational issues yet to be resolved pertaining to Depth vs. Breadth. These include cost><benefit, and value for money, among others. Overall concerns for the impact of DFAP actions on women’s existing work burden are real. Women’s time capital is one of the helping/hindering factors in the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEA-I)2. Afternoon Sessions 6 & 7- Keys to Effective Targeting.

2 USAID, IFPRI, OPHI. The WEAI is constructed using the Alkire Foster Method developed by Sabina Alkire, director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, and James Foster of George Washington University and OPHI. A method for measuring multidimensional poverty, well-being, and inequality, it measures outcomes at the individual level (person or household) against multiple criteria (domains and/or dimensions and indicators).

The reasoning for this session was based on observations from USAID FFP team members that ineffective targeting in DFAP programs skews the delivery of activities, and may alter results. David Kauck/Senior FFP Officer, DC opened the session with a short presentation that highlighted some faulty approaches to targeting, and the resultant errors leading to missed targets.

Following the presentation, a “Shift and Share’ Round-Table activity allowed the five project directors to describe their targeting approach. They prepared flip charts which addressed the following questions:

Participants visited a maximum of three projects to learn about the different targeting approaches within the five projects. In this way, content was shared in an interactive fashion, while avoiding a series of passive power-point presentations. Table hosts described the project’s targeting goals & methods in depth, weighing the consequences and the pros & cons of the targeting strategy. They considered whether the project is actually reaching the people that it originally intended to target, and any special conditions, circumstances and constraints that influenced targeting. Project-based small groups then formed to take a ‘deep dive’ into more detailed questions:

1) Which came first, selection of the target population (not the geographical zone), or the technical interventions?

2) Who does the project intend to target? 3) What targeting methods does it use? 4) Does the project employ multiple targeting methods? 5) Do targeting criteria vary across sectors or activities?

The groups worked for two hours. An illustrative example is provided here from one small group discussion. A composite of a typical household is described, and this apparently serves to inform the targeting strategy: “Seven members in the household - in some cases female-headed; the average amount of land is 0.8 hectares, harvest production is 2-3 months; livestock ownership is less than 1 [does not specify type of animal but the word ‘betail’ assumes cattle which are generally owned by men]; no means of production, no income generating activities.” The challenges faced by this household include: “Very little access to land, and this is more acute for women; no livestock [assume cattle, not goats], no social safety nets, no livelihood strategies in times of hardship- lean season.” This household has some coping mechanisms that include: “Hire out as manual labor, tree cutting/selling, migration after harvest”. As to whether the project is reaching the poorest as illustrated by this household: “They receive distributed rations, they have access to habbanaye [small ruminant husbandry program], so they benefit more or less. But the project activities do not reach the poorest. The targeting criteria do exclude a % of those most in need.” The groups then offered recommendations on targeting for future program ventures. The consolidated list includes:

1) In addition to financing activities that target the poorest, there should be activities for the less poor – in the model of ‘aspirational’ development3;

2) The project startup phase should be flexible to adjust targeting if needed; 3) Combination of different targeting strategies for different sectors; (primary target and

very poor) 4) Develop a global strategy that includes nomadic groups with their special

characteristics;

3 Targeting above the ‘poor’ and ‘poorest’ designations provoked lively discussion, with countering views. Some believe DFAPs already favor better off households. Others believe the Fernando de Soto model of capacitating those who have more means sets an example for others to aspire to growth and development.

1) Can you describe the poorest households in the places where you work? 2) What challenges do those people face? 3) What resources and capabilities do they have? 4) Is your project really reaching the poorest of the poor? 5) Are targeting criteria eliminating those most in need? 6) Do implementing partners actually have meaningful experience identifying the extreme

poor? 7) Does your project employ multiple targeting strategies? Does each technical sector of your

project target a different population? 8) If so, is this intentional or accidental? 9) Is your targeting strategy aligned with that of your implementing partners and other

cooperating agencies? 10) If there is a division of labor between your organization and your partners, is it possible that

these organizations are targeting different people? If so, is this intentional? Does it matter?

5) Use the baseline data to good effect to determine the level of vulnerability; 6) Very poor households that go on migration should be offered suitable training to keep

them in the village; 7) Develop a targeting tool that corresponds with the USAID definition of poverty; 8) Target all the poor for all USAID projects; 9) Develop income-generating activities such as the installation of small production units

that will certainly revive the local economy; 10) Develop programs that take into account the most isolated geographic areas; 11) It is wise to review the context of the poor and very poor; 12) Activities must be very flexible in order to be adequate on all levels.

Keys to Effective Targeting Sessions 6 & 7 - Outstanding Questions /Issues /Concerns. The initial presentation was very enlightening for the participants, and the points about ineffective/erroneous targeting were reinforced in the small group discussions as the participants examined the questions in the context of their projects. Recommendations reflect a need for more clarity on targeting at the design phase, and better monitoring tools to reflect targeting accuracy throughout implementation.

Day Two: Sustainability, Exit Strategies. Morning Sessions 13 & 14: Summary Presentation – “Sustaining Development – A Synthesis of Results from a 4 Country Study of Sustainability and Exit Strategies”. Marie Therese Ndiaye/FFP Program Management Specialist, Dakar, guided the participants through a summary overview of the Tufts Study commissioned by USAID. The key points included:

− Background of the Study − Exit Strategy vs. Sustainability Strategy − Key Sustainability Factors for FFP Projects − Results and Lessons Learned − Recommendations

Ms. Ndiaye enhanced the overview with some examples to illustrate salient points. One memorable observation was: “Hope is not a strategy! Elements of the sustainability plan must be explicit and detailed…” Input from the participants added depth and other dimensions to the facts in the presentation. Some highlights from their comments include:

− It is important that the assumptions of project sustainability strategies are regularly checked;

− Time should be built into the project plan for beneficiaries to begin managing the activities in an autonomous way;

− Project staff (community agents) should be trained and equipped to mentor beneficiaries in sustainability mechanisms;

− External factors such as drought affect sustainability; − The current practice of per diems to government officials should be phased out; − Problems of coordination between different organizations require a framework of

collaboration between the different organizations for post-project life; − Ensure targeted funding for youth activities, as they will be the future actors to sustain

the programs; − Do not lose sight of sustainability factors under the pressure of indicators; − This study shows that a project with a gradual impact is better than a project with a

short impact. The foundational presentation was followed by a panel discussion with participants who had volunteered to serve on the panel. The Moderator, Siaka Millogo/Senior FFP Specialist, Burkina Faso, set the stage for the discussion by reinforcing the definition of the four key factors critical to sustainability, as per the Tufts study. These are:

Four panel members addressed the operationalization of the four factors in the context of their projects. The discourse was largely descriptive, emphasizing success and assurances of sustainability. The panelists then identified challenges with regard to the four factors, which appeared to bely the previous declarations of successful sustainability mechanisms in place:

− How to extend the project into neighboring communities; − How to encourage producers to participate in and assure functionality of community

savings and loan systems; − Lack of a framework for follow-up after the withdrawal of the implementers of LAHIA

(Save the Children Niger); − How to ensure that the population has the capacity to ensure continuity; − It is necessary to reflect on how to involve the state in a sustained way, given the

frequent turnover in government personnel. Morning/Afternoon Sessions 15, 16,17,18: Small Group Work 4 Key Factors. After the panel discussion, the participants joined five small groups to study one key factor at a time through the lens of the technical sectors:

1) Agriculture, livestock, NRM (includes habbanaye) 2) Disaster Risk Management, Community-based early warning systems 3) Health and Nutrition, PM2A 4) Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (includes CLTS) 5) SILC / VSLA, (includes habbanaye)

The table below identifies some of the salient points and recommendations from each factor by sector.

CAPACITY: Ensuring a sustainable technical and managerial capacity so that service providers operate independently of the project. RESOURCES: Mechanisms in place that will enable the enduring generation of the resources needed to ensure the long-term viability of the key achievements of the project. MOTIVATION: The incentive mechanism for beneficiaries and service providers, which is not dependent on the inputs of the project. LINKAGES: Forging operational connections with government units at different levels and with other organizations that can provide resources, facilitate capacity building, and motivate key service providers and key beneficiaries. Provision of, and utilization of services while continuing the practices promoted by the project.

*Word version is in the annexes.

Key Factors for Sustainability Sessions 13-18 - Outstanding Questions, Issues, Concerns. Group members observed anecdotally that sustainability planning is best initiated early into project implementation. As they studied each factor, they found how all are very intertwined. Despite instructions to do so, the analyses did not really take into account women’s empowerment, off-farm initiatives, and migration/remittance systems. The FFP/TOPS planning discussions had emphasized the importance of these programming aspects for future development, so another investigative forum might be necessary to pursue their merits. Session 19 - Challenges for Linkages - the Perspective of Governments. Day Two Sustainability theme concluded with a panel discussion on Linkages that featured six government representatives from technical service departments in Niger and Burkina Faso. Among the four key factors, linkages appear to be the lynchpin that holds the other factors together - or not. Jeff McIntosh/FFP West Africa Team Leader, DC set the stage with some observations based on the Tufts study:

The panelists had been given questions for preparation. Panelists contributed a variety of responses, most of which were extremely optimistic and complementary to both government and implementing partners. “What key DFAP activities/interventions will require continued government commitment, resources, and technical capacity to ensure their sustainability beyond the project? “ The panelists assured that all activities will carry on post-project, making no distinction between those actions which may actually phase out, and those which are expected to constitute the foundations of development for the country. Panelists appeared to believe that since some program areas such as health services and para-veterinarian services currently operate smoothly under implementing partner oversight that this will continue after the NGO has departed. It is possible that these panelists are largely engaged in the technical aspects of the programs, without being involved directly in planning for sustainability. “Have the government actors been sufficiently involved in the planning/design of such activities during project implementation? What worked well or could have been done differently?” Again, panelists felt that government actors are fully involved in planning and design from “the beginning to the end”. One panelist cited the strong collaboration with CRS, mentioning that there is respect for policies and in “sharing the program” with the State. Specific examples included the case of farmer field schools, where the extension agents and trained villagers

1) Linkages is often a critical factor, but not always (e.g. PSP model) 2) The operationalization takes place through a transfer of activities to an

external entity (government, private sector, NGOs, etc.); 3) Linkages will take effect if the action also has assured the other three factors.

Challenges for assuring linkages are in place and operational: − Governments sometimes are weak on one of the other three factors; − Lack of start-up and sustained involvement by those meant to ‘link’; − Project objectives do not reflect government priorities, thus lack of

engagement; − Lack of joint planning during implementation, so no ‘ownership’ established.

ensure continuity, and “improvements are made according to the meetings”. Another example referenced a water and sanitation program that is sustainable now after two years of implementation - financial resources are in place, the municipal administration management system is reinforced, and wells are maintained through a community use system. A number of the panelists assigned the sustainability of activities to the population and beneficiaries e.g., food storage, moringa production, volunteers in the farmer field schools, etc. In one case, the implementing partner and the government were at odds over the engagement of a private sector veterinarian to deliver vaccination services. The private sector provider’s approach was not consistent with the government’s approach, and as such, would not be sustainable. “Will the government have sufficient capacity/resources/motivation to continue such activities? If so, explain. If not, what are the challenges and what could possibly be done to address these challenges prior to project closure?” In one example, ‘sustainability’ will be assured by lining up more donors, e.g., the government of Luxembourg to finance the water systems. The main drawback of this approach appears to be delays in funds transfer from the national treasury down to the municipal level. With reference to challenges, a preoccupation appears to be the ‘lack of national leadership’, which indicates that vertical linkages between administrative levels may not be as robust as earlier declared. Another concern is the absence of a post-project monitoring mechanism. Finally, despite reassurances that community agents and local actors will carry on, it isn’t clear where resources for training supervision, and coordination will come from. Session 19 Government Perspective on Linkages - Outstanding Questions, Issues, Concerns. The panelists were largely representative of government technical services, rather than administrative units. As such, they did not appear to have insights regarding policy, budgeting, etc. Responses did not address the means and processes to enable communities and local municipal entities to ‘link’ with decision-making and resource-granting bodies.

Day Three: Risk Management, Resilience, Turning Missed Opportunities into Realized Ones. Morning Sessions 22-24: Framing Resilience in DFAP Programs. Andre Mershon/Resilience Advisor, Center for Resilience, established the knowledge context for the rationale on how to approach resilience. Resilience is a new way of working - what is different and what is the role of Food for Peace? A key concept is that collective action equals collective impact. The presentation looked at what we already know about shocks and which resilience capabilities are important according to analyses. The presentation sought to stimulate thinking on how interventions enhance resilience in the Sahel. Mershon described the work of the RISE project (Resilience in the Sahel Enhanced), and the technique known as Sequencing, Layering, and Integration (SLI). The RISE baseline survey identified a graduated approach for communities to mitigate shocks - absorb, adapt, and transform. Some salient points on resilience include:

− All of the Sahel countries experience regular shocks that put stress on livelihood and coping strategies;

− Countries must attain a certain level of inclusive growth in order to continually

overcome shocks and stress; − DFAP funds are somewhat more flexible than other instruments.

Following the presentation, participants set up small groups to study a set of questions in the context of their work and experience.

In a departure from the previous designations, small groups were divided by hierarchy: individuals, households, village, commune, and national levels. They were instructed to answer the questions through the filter of these levels. Group One: Individual level. This group first profiled the different ‘individuals’: women, girls, men, boys, elderly people, persons with disabilities. They then rated each profile according to the seven categories above. It emerged that women rated best in 1, 2, and 4. This is qualified as access largely to health services, and secondarily access to agricultural production services. Men rated consistently better in access to markets, training, and information. Notably, men don’t seem to access health services. Between girls and boys, boys are notably absent from all of the categories. Elderly people and persons with disabilities have moderate access to 1, 2, 4, and 5. The group did not have time to address 6 and 7, and the extra questions. Through the ratings, it was very clear that boys are absent from programming. The group recommendations with reference to improving the DFAP program ability to develop resilience capacity include:

− Needs assessment (before project start-up) should take into account the different profile/characteristics of ‘individuals’;

− More focused, deliberate targeting of youth; − Better understanding and coordination between interventions through the lens of

‘individual profiles’. Group Two: Household level. Households collectively have access to (1) through water and sanitation, food storage, agricultural improvements, and livestock. They benefit from (2) through training, and (3) in the form of education, in particular literacy courses. Households enjoy the security of agriculture insurance as a means to ensure (4), while self-help mechanisms provide a measure of informal security (5). Household strategies for DRM (6) include crop insurance (warrantage), cooperatives, improves seeds, planting calendars, economic diversification, credit and savings, food storage >< food sales. Finally, households build self-reliance (7) when they participate in training, credit and savings, development of small enterprise, ‘Safe Spaces’, and EDM. Some recommendations for improving the resilience programming include:

How has your work contributed to building the resilience capacities listed below? 1) Access to infrastructure 2) Human capital 3) Access to information 4) Access to formal safety nets 5) Access to informal safety nets 6) Strategies for Disaster Risk Reduction 7) Aspiration and confidence to adapt

As you discuss, identify if you do this singularly or in collaboration with others? What would you do differently? According to your experience, what is missing here?

− Standardize latrine specifications along compliance criteria; − Promote cash transfers; − Explore other insurance mechanisms/products; − Programs for youth; − Management of crops/harvests.

Group Three: Village level. The group spent most of their time on 1 and 2. They listed their project activities and compared these with results. Progress in the development and access to infrastructures have resulted in a reduction of disease, improved hygiene, more productive agro/pastoral activities, and some relief in women’s workload. Human capital (2) is being progressively developed through animal protection and production, environmental protection, maintenance of infrastructures, reduction of malnutrition and prevention of disease, and resource mobilization. Recommendations identified more work to do:

− Develop roads; − Establish training centers; − Off-farm activities; − Youth; − Functional literacy for members of groups/cooperatives/committees; − Give more responsibility to village development committees as centers of authority.

Group Four: Commune Level+

The output of this group reflects the overall challenge for DFAP programs to understand and engage with this administrative level. They took time to identify gaps, noting the lack of infrastructure (feeder roads). Weak human capital leads to insufficient community consultation before and after the restoration of land, poor governance, and low literacy. The different municipal and communal entities do not work together in a consultative manner. A number of corresponding recommendations emerged:

− The national development policy should open up areas of production by constructing feeder roads in agricultural areas;

− Engage discussion at all levels for a clear definition of the purpose of recovered lands; − Strengthen the capacities of communal councils; − Communes should align with the State policy on literacy; − Initiate / Strengthen frameworks for dialogue between actors.

Group Five: National level.+

As with Group Four, this group appeared to spend a bulk of the time trying to better understand the roles and responsibilities, and the ‘inner’ workings of the state entities as they relate to programs like DFAPs. They identified weaknesses that reflect administrative, policy, and program gaps. These include: no delegation of executive power, no roads to open isolated areas, inadequate community consultation before and after land restoration, low levels of literacy, governance problems, low involvement of certain actors (pastors, marabouts), insufficient family planning actions, and low levels of consultation between municipal actors.

+ Detailed working notes from Groups 4 and 5 were not available. The information presented does not represent the analysis that went into the conclusions.

Recommendations do not necessarily align with the identified weaknesses and gaps. − Strengthen collaboration and synergy between SIM (Market Information System) and

SIMA (Agricultural Market Information System); − Strengthen the capitalization of the data management system; − Operationalize the early warning system and SISEA for data collection; − Strengthen the disaster risk management system; − Better alignment with the national welfare system; − DFAP funds should contribute disaster response plans; − Collaborate with the government to prioritize investments in DFAP zones (also with

other donors); − Advocate for and support decentralization to make it more operational (skills, plans ...); − Provide scholarships for studies; − Secondment of DFAP project staff to sit within partner ministries to provide technical

assistance to counterparts. Sessions 22-24 DFAP Programming for Resilience - Outstanding Questions, Issues, Concerns. The group discussions, while productive and enlightening, did not appear to distinguish resilience as an enhanced dimension of development programs. The language of risk mitigation, absorb, adapt, and transform were not part of the discussions and did not feature in recommendations. Sessions 25-29: Missed Opportunities into Realized Ones: What have we missed? The FFP planning team proposed this theme as a way to stimulate thinking and capitalize on potential, doable actions that might be built into the final 18 months of DFAP programming in Niger and Burkina Faso. A review of DFAP project reports, studies, and mid-term evaluations identified a number of such missed opportunities. This session was designed to generate more ideas and sketch the processes to develop them. Thibaut Williams/FFP Health Officer, Dakar, led a lively brainstorming session which generated a list of ideas. 32 topics emerged ranging from developing the transportation potential of the Niger River to organic agriculture, to training teams for the prevention of violence against women. The list was whittled down 13 through an adept facilitation. Participants were then instructed to each choose their top 4 from 13, and the final list was decided:

1) Strengthen the functioning of municipalities; 2) Roads infrastructure; 3) Rural energy development, and 4) Youth programming.

Next, Williams called for volunteers to serve as hosts for the panel forums that would stimulate discussion on the four topics. The volunteers were expected to be ‘champions’ for the particular topic. Over the lunch period, the 8 volunteers (2 per theme) met to sketch out the principle points and study a guide on how to manage their forum. In the afternoon, two simultaneous panel forums were conducted, followed by a second round of two panels. Participants were able to engage with their two priority themes of the four. The following section summarizes the debates.

Panel One: Strengthen the Functioning of Municipalities. Municipalities are the units of government that hold the keys to hindering or helping DFAP programs to achieve results. The government sphere and the non-governmental sphere approach development from different points of view, but with the intention to achieve the same results. NGOs look to de-centralization and lateral coordination as the means to build the foundations of development, whereas governments rely on hierarchy and directives to do the same. The sustainability of DFAP programs depends on the capacity of town planning at the commune level. DFAP actions will need to learn how to work with bureaucracies, and gain a better understanding of the mandate, policies, and motivation of government entities and officials. Opinions from some group members observed that the DFAP ethos of transparency can be considered a threat to government. Without transparency, information is at risk of being manipulated, and multiple interpretations of the same message inhibit progress. Both Niger and Burkina Faso have initiated de-centralization policies and processes; however the responsibilities delegated to the municipalities are not necessarily accompanied by the necessary resources to follow through. Laws on the regulation of water, land protection, etc., are not enforced. Non-assigned funds ‘float’ at the national level, while at the commune level the tax base is insufficient. Tax collection is a vicious circle - if services are not provided, people are less likely to pay taxes, and the quality of services deteriorate for lack of funds. What role can DFAPs play to facilitate the efficacious functioning of municipalities in the interest of sustaining its programs? Is it within the mandate of DFAP to get involved in the technical and political processes concerned with the development and use of land, planning permission, protection and use of the environment, public welfare, and the design of the community environment, including air, water, and the infrastructure, etc.? After a lively debate, the panel offered some recommendations:

− At a minimum, VDCs should participate fully and regularly in municipal council meetings and works;

− VDCs and other civil society entities should educate themselves on government policies and processes;

− Invest in human resource capacity development of civil servants; − The quality of development plans need to be greatly improved - when they are passed

to the next level they are irrelevant; − Engender accountability for actions and decisions; − Foster/advocate support among other partners (donors) that have expertise, and/or

focus on local administrative development. Panel Two: Roads Infrastructure. The discussion centered on the premise that a good road network is key to economic development and growth. Road coverage in both Niger and Burkina Faso is insufficient, and existing ‘feeder’ roads are in poor condition, and during parts of the year impassable. Lack of mobility to buy and sell products keeps prices low, and food distribution inadequate. Poor road networks also limit access to social services such as health and education. Women in particular are held back by poor road networks. While there is general agreement that roads development is necessary, the challenges are significant. All of these are DFAP development areas. How to finance, and then maintain? The solutions are linked to the discussion in Panel One. Recommendations for DFAP consideration include:

− Consider co-financing of (feeder) roads in collaboration with local municipalities;

− Include construction and/or rehabilitation of roads into FFP project designs; − Associate road networks development with the success of FFP projects.

Panel Three: Rural Energy Development Group leaders initiated thinking by pointing out that energy is a key factor in helping women alleviate their burden of work. It also has a positive impact on the environment, helping to conserve natural resources - trees, water, land. One observer commented that gas is costly for women, whereas ‘wood is free’. Other observations linked access to energy to improvements in health and education outcomes. The challenges to bringing energy (electric, renewable, fossil, etc.) are largely centered on cost. Grid-building is prohibitive given the vast areas to cover, and the low return on investment. The transport cost of diesel into remote areas is high, due to poor road infrastructure (see Panel 1). What, then, are the options? Renewable energy was top of everyone’s list - hydro, solar, biomass and wind. Some initiatives in Burkina Faso are underway, studying mini-grids and hydro-power. Financing is the cornerstone factor for all possibilities. Beyond subsidies, what are some other feasible mechanisms? Final suggestions include:

− USAID NGO partners should ask the State to subsidize solar energy costs; − USAID NGO partners should subsidize the costs of gas; − DFAP programs should promote the manufacture of solar power units by women in

rural areas; − Engage the private sector in the development of rural energy solutions; − Exonerate tax on solar power materials.

Group Four: Youth The premise of the discussions centered around the observation that DFAP targeting and project design largely overlooks adolescent girls and boys. Females in DFAP programs are profiled as mothers and/or children under five. As noted in the earlier Session 23: Resilience/Individual profiling, boys are almost completely absent from most DFAP activities. Reporting indicators do not capture their age demographic. A very animated debate brought out concerns that DFAP programs know very little about youth hopes and aspirations. Money - earning it, spending it - is a universal preoccupation as young people grow into their responsibilities and become aware of the larger world and its challenges. Are they being supported with life skills? Is formal education serving them well enough? What are the appropriate employment sectors for them? What services are available for them? Is there a place for them in the market of goods and services? How do address the rural exodus of young people? The group members were passionate about the potential for very feasible DFAP engagement with youth, and the lost opportunity if not ceased. Their recommendations include:

− Baselines and needs assessments should do a thorough profiling of youth (define the age range first, as some states use 15-35 years);

− Count youth in DFAP indicators as per USAID Youth Policy; − Develop vocational training programs; − Facilitate access to finance; − Provide youth with practical information on migration; − Sexual and reproductive health training for girls and boys - including negotiation

techniques; − The products and services available in the health centers must be adapted to young

people (youth friendly center);

− Create demand and services for new information technologies focused on youth; − Integrate youth into all community structures developed and promoted by DFAP

programs; − Incorporate modules at the level of formal education on governance and social

cohesion; − Employment options could include a role as private service providers (veterinary

auxiliary, PSP SILC); − Analysis of the labor market is important, to identify niches and challenges for youth.

Missed Opportunities Sessions 25-29: Outstanding Questions, Issues, Concerns. The series of panel discussions were likely the most popular and engaging of all the workshop activities. While the panel discussions were informal and mainly served to ignite thinking on the selected topics, the generated content and ideas might lay the groundwork for future DFAP directions. The full list of all original ideas can be found in the annexes. Session 30 - Highlights from the Workshop Sessions and Next Steps. The final session took the opportunity to work with the participants to review, summarize, and consolidate highlights and stand-out features from the three days of work. Jeff McIntosh, and Shannon Rogers/FFP Regional Director, Dakar hosted a participatory engagement. The goal and objectives were re-visited, and it was agreed that in general, these benchmarks were met. The facilitators stated that in the remaining 18 months of the DFAP projects, there are definite possibilities to make some adjustments. Some notable observations from the facilitators are listed here:

− There are definite advantages of ‘Depth’ over ‘Breadth’ programming, such as proximity to beneficiaries, building strong relationships with government officials, and behavior change impact;

− With reference to resilience programming, targeting the ‘less poor’ might yield good results, as they are drivers of change;

− It is clear that we should consider changing the way DFAPs engage with state structures e.g., the per diem challenge, roads infrastructure costs, as examples;

− The resilience presentation and subsequent small group work posed relevant questions, and highlighted gaps in coverage and planning;

− DFAP needs to consider more, and better approaches to working with youth, as well as with government counterparts;

− Some of the proposals in new ideas will require substantial funds. A “shout-out” asked the audience for their key takeaways from the three days:

− An exit strategy needs to be very specific, and − An exit strategy does have to address all activities, but not all require a sustainability

plan; − The Missed Opportunity exercise was very useful, and FFP will reflect on these ideas; − The targeting exercise was very enlightening and revealed gaps to close; − It’s good to hear that the less poor can also be involved; − The opening for planning behavior change in young people; − We need to change the approach with the government, ex., co-financing with the State

for road construction would allow follow-up by the state; − It was encouraging to see that FFP is open to studying the gaps as a good start for

learning and implementation;

− Participation of project technical teams throughout the workshop was very helpful; − FFP is interested in post project monitoring; − We’re more aware now that after the conclusion of SAWKI (Niger) the villagers will be

able to continue composting due to the fact that there are a hundred villagers trained; − The saying "development work is a national affair" fits well with the different points

developed by this Workshop. 7. LESSONS LEARNED Content Identification, Development, and Delivery

1) The final focus themes for the workshop appeared to be timely and useful for the implementing partners in the field;

2) The content of the information sessions (plenary presentations) reflected current thinking and trends that FFP/DFAP programs can exploit;

3) Nevertheless, some of the small group output lacked depth, and reflected a ‘business-as-usual’ approach;

4) Participants would have benefited from a short ’reading list’ in advance to orient and prepare them for deeper and more focused discussions on the themes.

Workshop Design and Format 1) The workshop sequence of plenary to panel to small group appeared to work well,

satisfying the participants’ general desire to have optimal time for discussion and exchange, while avoiding ‘discussion drift’ from too much generalized group work;

2) The keynote presentations were valuable learning opportunities, but the material was not always taken up in the subsequent small group work;

3) Large group facilitation requires careful attention to timing while at the same time, respecting the desire and need of participants to engage and interact; skill is needed to balance these competing realities;

4) Small group work represented a lot of time and thought, which was not always captured in the report-outs.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS Depth vs Breadth Approaches

− Re-examine women’s work burdens in the context of DFAP actions and identify means to alleviate added work load;

− Carefully look at cost><benefit and value for money when deciding which approach to use.

Targeting

− Needs assessment (before project start-up) should take into account the different profile/characteristics of ‘individuals’;

− More exact, detailed definitions of ‘poorest, poor, and less poor’ are needed to develop more accurate targeting based on need, and potential to benefit from DFAP programs:

− Better understanding and coordination between interventions through the lens of ‘individual profiles’;

− The youth population should be accurately profiled and then actions should be defined with the profile in mind;

− Balance the targeting approach with indicator definition and reporting requirements.

Sustainability and Exit Strategies − Open dialogue with governments for co-financing with regard to infrastructure

development projects that can impact the successful uptake and sustainability of DFAP actions (e.g., road construction, rural energy development);

− Programs need to operationalize the concept of resilience as an enhanced dimension of development programs;

− FFP sees the value of post-project monitoring (Tufts Study recommendation) as a means to improve all aspects of DFAP programming - targeting, intervention approaches, indicator accuracy, resource matching, etc.

DFAP programming for Resilience

− Reinforce the distinct elements of resilience as a program design element for DFAP actions.

Missed Opportunities

− Undertake some feasibility studies on the most promising/compelling ideas.

9. SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS FOR FFP Short Term (6-8 weeks)

− Process workshop report and share with participants − Solicit feedback on Recommendations − Share key resource material referenced in the workshop (e.g. Tufts Study link, RISE

Baseline Survey results, USAID poverty definitions). Medium Term (3-9 months)

− Solicit examples of how Niger and Burkina Faso DFAP partners may introduce any program adjustments based on workshop learning

− Incorporate any key learning points into any upcoming formative research and/ or evaluation exercises.

Long Term (12-18 months)

− Conduct feasibility exercises on potential programming for Missed Opportunities.

10. EVALUATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS Overall, the workshop received favorable ratings, as displayed in the table below. The workshop format was intentionally designed to favor interactive sessions and group work, with a restricted amount of presentations. It appears that most participants found this approach appealing.

Furthermore, the decision to most select panelists and group leaders “on-site” rather than in advance was purposeful, as a means to capitalize on participant engagement, and get authentic buy-in for the selected topics. Areas for improvement in the future include more directive instructions for group work, including clear guidelines for expected results. The challenge is to find the right balance of free-flowing discussion, and task-oriented group work.

Evaluation Question % # Responses How would you rate the overall workshop?

62% = good 38% = excellent

28/45= good 17/45 = excellent

How satisfied were you with the amount of presentations given?

81% = right amount 12% = not enough 7% = too many

35/43 = right amount 5/43 = not enough 3/43 = too many

How satisfied were you with the amount of group work?

73% = right amount 27% = too much

33/45 = right amount 12/45= too much

How would you rate the instructions given for sessions?

49% = good 29% = fair 22% = excellent

22/45 = good 13/45 = fair 10/45 = excellent

Did this workshop meet your expectations?

71% = yes 29% = partially

32/45 = yes 13/45 = partially

As an observation from the participant comments, future planning and content development should be more exacting in the details, definition, and expected direction for the selected themes. The participant comments are most useful and merit a full chapter here. Where there are similar comments, the most comprehensive have been quoted, along with the number of similar responses. Of particular value to the FFP team are the plans on how to use the information and ideas, particular to revise Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposals (PREP). During the workshop, there was no specific indication that the ideas, concepts, and/or directives are ‘official’ mandates to be used as standards for evaluating or applying to projects at this time. This may cause some confusion unless it is clear from FFP that these revisions will be welcome/expected. Did this workshop meet your expectations? Explain. • The topics discussed, the group work allowed me to better understand certain aspects in the programming of the projects. (23 responses) • Yes, to hear the different perspectives of DFAP approaches, and especially the importance of strengthening ties with the government. (9 responses) • Effective facilitation and participation of participants [enriching and informative] [presence of CDV partners and state] (3 responses) • Many ideas were collected to formulate the next DFAP. (2 responses) • Overall very satisfied. Good learning environment, engaged group, active discussion. Appreciated mixed facilitator approaches.

• Good overview of current preoccupations of USAID and Implementing Partners. • Very much appreciated the presence of government and village representatives - gave a good perspective on the topics. • We sought and received input on current challenges and opportunities, activities and possible innovation. • The exchanges have allowed us to better understand each other on important subjects, such as the sustainability plan, the exit strategy, the modes of intervention / benefit and challenges. • This workshop met my expectations mainly by the latitude that was given us to explore subjects in a gradual but progressive fashion. • Particularly appreciated the study on exit strategies, how to do one, and sustainability of DFAP actions. • New ideas that will allow me to improve my own work and the performance of my project. Prioritizing actions are clearer in the short term. • In the end, the group was able to understand the need to place projects in a context of collaboration with other entities to achieve their objectives. • For some themes, yes. I think we can have more information by adding more plenaries. • The discussions were very interesting but may not be too useful for specific actions to improve the programs. • Yes, but I would have wanted the themes on health to be more developed. • Yes and no, I thought the workshop brought up many important issues for me particularly targeting the youth, but in some, I found the discussions too abstract. Rather than discussing specifics of the FFP programs we discussed "ideal" activities, specifically noticed this in the sustainability discussions. What was most valuable about this workshop? • Discussion of the 4 principles of sustainability, and exit strategies. (22 responses). • Targeting was interesting and I thought there was good back and forth with participants openly talking about some of the weaknesses in targeting- e.g. missing the most poor, and youth. (9 responses) • The four ideas [opportunities missed] developed and to take into account (8 responses). • Full day dedicated to four factors of sustainability very interesting. [Seems] a good model to replicate in final year of project. That’s what we wanted to test. (6 responses) • Future opportunities, following the analysis of the impact of current actions on resilience (4 responses). • Resilience (4 responses) • Advantages / challenges of interventions, breadth vs. depth. (3 responses) • It was a very good idea to invite the reps of CDV and govt. (3 responses) • Good [balance] of session formats - [panels], small group, nice to involve participants as group leaders. (2 responses). • The discussions during the workshop as well as outside sessions. The precision of the questions posed. (2 responses).

• Discussion about emerging social trends and possible programmatic strategies that are not currently part of the project. • We need to further refine collaboration with the government/s. • What I most noticed was the recommendation to do a study five years after the closure of the project to appreciate the sustainability. • The categories dealing with the sustainability of actions; and the key expectations on the part of each entity -ONG, technical services, donors. This resulted in really unexpected reflections: e.g., lack of targeting young men. • I have seen some frustration with FFP partners and staff that they are not able to make the progress despite years of programming, and to better understand the role of FFP in development overall. What was least valuable about this workshop? • Exercise 'resilience'. Concept resilience. We’ve already worked on this; not necessarily new ideas discussed. (2 responses). • The depth and breadth of discussion didn’t provide me any clarity on pros or cons of the different approaches - I hoped it worked - I think people just really didn’t get the questions or it was the first session and they weren’t comfortable being honest. Question of ‘depth’ was very complex. The breadth vs. depth discussion I think needed more definition on what exactly we wanted. I think there was confusion. (2 responses) • Introduction by RSO was irrelevant and borderline disrespectful to our hosts -- embarrassing -- the facilitator should script the RSO intervention to give relevant information. • Discussion about possible subsidies. In spite of considerable attention on sustainability a taste for subsidies persists. • Budget issues were not addressed. • Concept of the poor, very poor, extremely poor, and the better off. • Discussions on sustainability were somewhat long. The sessions on sustainability were very interesting, but we spent too much time on it. • The preparation for group work was not clear enough; need to put a little more structure for the expected result. Maybe even create panels in advance so not to waste time discussing what to do. What new knowledge and insights did you gain during this meeting? • The four factors for sustainability, and how to apply them to current project actions and reviews. (14 responses) • An exit plan (as different from sustainability). Have a very clear and accurate exit strategy. (9 responses) • Working with governments, state services, and municipalities. Implementation of national leadership in national priorities. The need to engage government at all levels for sustainability actions and to benefit non-target populations through the project. . Information / collaboration with the government, to be more efficient, at all levels - feasible action items on strengthening municipalities, and integration of young people. (6 responses) • The biggest take away for me was on targeting - how do we really reach the most vulnerable, and improve targeting. (4 responses)

• The approaches Depth vs. Breadth. (4 responses) • The group on youth was most informative. Participants were aware of the many issues and challenges of youth programming. They were also expert on how the DFAPS were missing this group. Explore opportunities to engage young people more as service providers. (2 responses) • Diagnosis of identified deficiencies in individual, household, village, system and national levels. Gaps at the individual level. (2 responses) • Resilience – capabilities, questions to pose (2 responses) • I learned that local communities are starting to rehabilitate degraded land on their own. This is a new learning. • A lot of good specific knowledge on conceptions in the field and how FFP and its partners are working. • Theory of change must stand up to sustainability. • The inclusion of ‘less poor persons’ in projects to stimulate development, as they are ‘motors for change’. • Development of more non-agricultural (off-farm) actions. How do you plan to apply the knowledge and insights that you have gained? • Host future learning events; incorporate learning into design and future planning for the next DFAP (13 responses) • Incorporate into our next PREP, revision/enhancement of activities, and next submission for DFAP (9 responses) • Share my report and any documentation with staff and partners, including government (8 responses) • Develop exit strategies [in consultation with partners] (7 responses) • As a tool for monitoring and evaluation, including field visits (6 responses) • Apply concepts by reading the new project proposals, but also by revising the PREPs submitted by the partners (2 responses) • The workshop raised many issues -- targeting, role of youth -- that I think I will pay much more attention to during site visits. (2 responses) • This information will help us inform and refine resilience investments in the field and beyond. • Use the sustainability model [factors] to get community engagement to prioritize activities. • Integrating ideas into the current PREP adjustment of our collaborative strategy with Ministry of Health colleagues. • Retain concepts to share with my colleagues, and recommend funding options. • Many of these ideas will be relevant to the development of the new RISE program. They will help us better monitor / support our ongoing programs. How do you plan to share the knowledge and insights with your team? • Will share back with team designing future events • Incorporate into regular project coordination and planning processes

• Will [share] at the next team meeting, possibly a ‘brown bag’ session • Host a meeting/workshop • Submit a report • During field visits • PREP discussions: organize a working meeting • Debriefing with a few priority actors and notions to share to complement the team's knowledge on USAID's expectations. • A report with emphasis on recommendations for actions to take concerning activities that will not be covered by FFP. If at all, how would you improve the workshop? Advance preparation: • Workshop planning should coordinate between the [FFP] offices, the projects, and government services before coming to the workshop. • Information and communication prior to the workshop could have been improved. • Improvement of the definition of objectives and expected results from work groups. Methodologies and Time Management: • More time for exchange after the working groups report out. Some discussions did not have time to go in depth. More time for questions after presentations. Time for discussion was too short. Give more time to people to go deeper with their ideas / recommendations. • Some working group sessions were too long; we could have covered more themes, if we had shortened some sessions. • The FFP team should have provided guidance / clarification on their points of view. Content and topics: • I thought the exercise on all the elements of sustainability was too long. Also, I would have liked to hear more on global best practices from FFP staff. I'd also love to know more about what FFP projects are doing with other development actors. • Examine short, medium, and long-term budgets. • The analysis of sustainability should be conducted on specific activities and not on the area of interest such as WASH, agriculture, etc. • A better understanding of the theme Depth & Breadth. • Resilience - not clear enough! • Presentations of the experiences of the different projects. Logistics and documentation: • More conducive space for small group and coffee break but it was ok - we are used to worse than that, at least the AC was working for 3 days. Good job keeping French as the main language of the workshop. • We did not receive documentation support for the workshop; it is hoped that the final report will be shared.

• Share presentation materials; share the workshop report with the participants. • Provision of documentation on the sustainability study and other documentation. • Coffee breaks were too short. • The logistics: toilet, coffee break in the corridor, a single room for all activities, with noise inconveniences between working groups. • Needed a breakout room • A translation for those who do not know French.

11. LIST OF ANNEXES AND ARCHIVE REFERENCES Documents separately attached.

• 1. Concept Note • 2. Agenda - English • 3. Agenda French • 4. Participant List • 5. Speaker Presentations