Response to Mid-Term Evaluation Swaziland Agricultural Development Programme

(SADP)

Julien de Meyer, Agricultural Research Officer (OEKR)

Based on the research for an M. Sc thesis by Shen Yueming

Outline

1. Background

2. What are SADP issues and challenges? What actions have been taken?

3. Results from a stakeholders survey

4. Lessons learnt

• The 14 Million Euro Swaziland Agriculture Development Programme (SADP) is funded by the EU and FAO

• Implementation period of 5 years: Jan. 2009 (signature) – Dec. 2013 (Effectively, activities on the ground only started when the full team was mobilized in October 2009)

• Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) in June 2011.

• MTE noted issues in the design and implementation of SADP and made 16 recommendations for improvement.

Background

What are SADP issues and challenges?

What actions have been taken?

General Design

Management & Operation

Delivery

EU-funding

FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government PS—PSC

Marketing Research & Service Production

Other ministries, NGOs and

stake- holders

MOA

FAOR Mozambique – budget holding

TAT

CTA

MOA – implementing PS—PTC

Technical advisors Focal Points

Heads of Dept.

NPD MOA

Issues – General Design

1. Rapid design: Resulted in issues of buy-in & and lack of shared vision between MOA and SADP

2. Ambitious: Large program with very diverse activities – Policy, Institutions strengthening, Individual capacities and infrastructure.

3. Wrong assumptions: Nationally executed project overestimated institutional capacity and execution capability in MOA

4. Institutional arrangement: Lack of clear definition of leadership, responsibilities and lines of reporting and communication (lead to Management issues)

Issues – Management & Operation

• Tri-partite leadership

• SADP compete with priorities in daily work of MOA staff

• Focal points report to Heads of Departments not involved in SADP

• Misunderstanding of FAO advisory roles and performance issues.

• Institutional issues exacerbated by practical shortcomings:

- Leadership issues

- Inadequate team building

- Lack of experience in FAO operation procedures

- Technical support service need underestimated

- Capacity constraints within MOA

FAOR Mozambique – budget holding

TAT

CTA

MOA – implementing PS—PTC

Technical advisors Focal Points

Heads of

Dept.

NPD MOA

Issues - Delivery

• Significantly delayed, just over 30% of SADP funds have been spent and capital intensive activities (Dams, Investment Fund) are in final planning stage

• Low delivery rate is a consequence of inception delay and worsened by management and operation issues.

• Difficult to accelerate delivery due to original design issues – governance, focus and coherence

• The MTE indicated a tray of pending areas which needed urgent catching-up and advised criteria for prioritization

• Quality of service providers

Actions - General Design

• Prioritisation: 2011-2013 Operational Plan & 2011-2012 Fast Track Plan and development of Procurement Plan

• Optimise Institutional Set-up : The SADP institutional arrangement rationalized, new institutional set up designed and approved by the Steering Committee – Development of a National Implementation Team (NIT)

– Position of NPD redefined and creation of a "two-legged system"

– Establishment of an Operations Officer (P3) position

– HODs roles in SADP redefined

– Redefine and simplify indicators for program activities

• No full redesign: All elements of redesign implemented

EU-funding

FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government

PS—PSC

FAOR Zimbabwe (SFS) –

budget holding

TAT

CTA

NIT

Technical advisors Focal Points

Marketing Research & Service Production

Oth

er m

inis

trie

s,

NG

Os

and

sta

ke-

ho

lder

s

Heads of Dept.

NPD

MOA – implementing PS—PTC

Operation Officer

FAO

Tec

hn

ical

Tas

k Fo

rce

Actions - Management & Operation

• SADP support and leadership structure: Change of leadership and role of advisers redefined and enhanced

• Operations: Standard Operating Procedures, Specific training on FAO operations, delegation of authority to the CTA and Operations and Budgeting monitoring system adopted

• FAO technical backstopping: Frequent missions with reporting and recommendations provided in country at the end of each mission, regular meeting of the Task force

• Programme staff Performance: Revised ToRs for most positions, allowance provided for field activities, Team building and brainstorming workshops

• Change Perception: Communication and Visibility Plan developed and implemented; changing negative perception about the project

Actions - Delivery

• Prioritizing process finalized with 35 priority outputs for SADP rationalized according to three categories: (i) Service delivery\institution, (ii) Nutrition, production and marketing and (iii) Infrastructure

• Accelerated progress on pending activities not limited on those highlighted in MTE and in the movie, the CTA will present further on this issue:

– Partners contracted;

– Demonstration plots, Food and Nutrition Gardens;

– Policies and Strategies developed in Research, Extension and Farmers Organization;

– Infrastructure work

Stakeholders perceptions

Results from surveys show stakeholders generally think the actions are good, but not yet good enough In general, most people feel SADP somewhat back onto the right track.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

On right track?

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all

• Acknowledged noticeable improvements in certain areas, including:

- Technical backstopping by FAO (66% very/extremely well );

- Coordination/collaboration between FAO’s TAT and MOA’s NIT;

- Working efficiency within the SADP team;

EU-funding

FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government PS—PSC

FAOR Mozambique – budget holding

TAT

CTA

NIT

Technical advisors Focal Points

Marketing Research & Service Production

Other

ministries, NGOs and stakeholders

Heads of

Dept.

ASP

MOA – implementing PS—PTC

Operation Officer

Lengthy administrative

processes

Operation support

Teamwork Teambuilding

Quality of local supplies Capacity

Motivation and Commitment

Shared Vision

Efficiency of implementation

Current challenges and areas for future improvement

What did we learn?

• Corrective actions are most efficient if they are part of a self-motivated

learning process, not only as a response to an evaluation.

• Simple organizational structure and concrete implementation pathways

are better than over engineered design and complex organizational

setups.

• Correctional actions are short-term in nature , but they need to

contribute to develop capacity for a Comprehensive Agricultural

Development Program in Swaziland as set up in CAADP pillar IV.

Lessons from the programme…

• Allow enough time and funding for the design process to ensure common understanding

• Include flexibility in implementation

• When policy reform is planned then proven commitment by government prior to inception is essential

• Strike the right balance between capacity development and delivery

• Build a program with logical linkage across different components – avoid wish list of mini projects.

• Simple institutional arrangement respecting existing hierarchy

• Key position filled by people with institutional experience

• Priorities...

Thank you!