COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final Report on the implementation of the Food Facility
Date: 2013-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural production, developing countries, food aid, fund (EU), hunger, price of agricultural produce

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.4.2013  
SWD(2013) 107 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Final Report on the implementation of the Food Facility 

{COM(194) final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Table des matières 

1. 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 3 

2. 
 ALLOCATIONS PER COUNTRY AND IMPLEMENTATION MODE ..................................... 4 
2.1  State of play: Financing decisions, initial programming and final outlook ....................................4 
2.2  Detailed allocations per country and per implementing channel ......................................................6 

3. 
 FOOD FACILITY MAIN INPUTS AND BENEFICIARIES.................................................... 16 
Inputs distributed by implementing partner........................................................................................... 16 
3.1 
3.2  Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................. 19 

4. 
 PARTNERSHIP WITH INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL   ORGANISATIONS ................. 20 
4.1  State of play of the contracts at 31 December 2012 ............................................................................. 20 
4.2  Main lessons learned from the projects implemented by International Organisations ........ 22 
4.3  Success stories: Zambia, Mozambique, Cambodia, Cuba, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone............ 25 

5. 
 CALL FOR PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTATION MODE ...................................................... 29 
5.1  Distribution per EU FF objective................................................................................................................... 29 
5.2  Lessons learned from the Food Facility ..................................................................................................... 29 
5.3  Success stories : Mali, Kenya, Bangladesh, Lao LDR, Tanzania, Nepal, and Ethiopia .............. 30 
5.4  Learning from NGOs - EU FF case study in Ethiopia............................................................................. 34 

6. 
 BUDGET SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION MODE............................................................ 36 
6.1  State of play Budget Support allocations................................................................................................... 36 
6.2  Lessons learned.................................................................................................................................................... 36 
6.3  Examples of EUFF Budget Support interventions ................................................................................. 37 

7. 
 RESULTS-BASED GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT ....................................................... 38 
7.1  Performance of EU Food Facility projects monitored.......................................................................... 38 
7.2  EU FF projects ROM scores per region ....................................................................................................... 43 
7.3  EU FF projects ROM scores per implementing channel ...................................................................... 44 
7.4  Main ROM recommendations and lessons learned ............................................................................... 46 

8. 
 FOOD FACILITY STUDIES ............................................................................................ 47 
8.1 
Institutional response by the UN system to the global food price crisis and the EU Food 
Facility – November 2009 ........................................................................................................................................... 47 
8.2  Supply Response from the Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries to Food Price 
Increases –  July 2010.................................................................................................................................................... 50 
8.3  Safety Net Interventions financed under the Food Facility – August 2010 ................................ 52 
8.4  Food Facility Beneficiary assessment  –  December 2010.................................................................. 54 

 FOOD FACILITY FINAL EVALUATION........................................................................... 60 
9. 
9.1  Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................ 60 
9.1.1 Purpose of the evaluation .....................................................................................................................................60 
9.1.2 Background of the evaluation.............................................................................................................................60 
9.1.3 Methodology of the evaluation ...........................................................................................................................61 
9.1.4 Main Findings related to the EU FF as an instrument .............................................................................62 

1 

 
 
 
 
9.1.5 Main Findings related to interventions financed under the EU FF....................................................65 
9.1.6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................67 
9.1.7 Lessons learned..........................................................................................................................................................68 

10. 

 EU FOOD FACILITY VISIBILITY LINKS......................................................................... 70 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

The  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  accompanying  the  Food  Facility  Final  Report  is  a 
technical document which aims to present the implementation of the EU Food Facility, 
its  outcomes,  and  the  lessons  learned,  building  notably  on  the  findings  of  the  Results-
Oriented  Monitoring  (ROM)  reports,  the  implementing  partners  Final  Reports,  the  Studies 
requested  throughout  the  implementation  of  the  Food  Facility,  the  Surveys  filled  by  49  EU 
Delegations and the Food Facility Final Evaluation exercise.  

From 2009 to 2011, the Food Facility aimed to respond to the effects of the 2007-2008 food 
crisis  through  232  interventions  implemented  in  49  countries  worst  hit  by  high  food  prices. 
The scope of the SWD covers the whole range of interventions implemented to achieve 
the  three  objectives  of  the  Food  Facility  which  are  (i)  to  encourage  a  positive  supply 
response  from  the  agricultural  sector,  (ii)  to  respond  rapidly  and  directly  to  mitigate  the 
negative  effects  of  volatile  food  prices  on  local  populations,  and  (iii)  to  strengthen  the 
productive  capacities  and  the  governance  of  the  agricultural  sector  to  enhance  the 
sustainability of interventions. 

In order to implement effectively such a significant number of interventions over a three-year 
period, a blend of implementing partners has been used including partner countries, Regional, 
International, and Non-Governmental Organisations and Member States agencies allowing the 
programmes  to  achieve  their  objectives  swiftly  and  paving  the  way  for  long-term  food 
security  and  rural  development  programmes.  The  SWD  details  the  Food  Facility 
the  distinctive 
implementation,  outcomes  and 
characteristics of each implementing partner and objective achieved. 

learned  according 

lessons 

to 

In this connection, the Food Facility contributed to support agricultural development and food 
security  with  a  focus  on  triggering  a  medium  term  agricultural  supply  response  from 
smallholders.  The  Food  Facility  improved  vulnerable  households’  access  to  agricultural 
inputs  (seed,  fertilizer,  small  equipment  etc.),  which  contributed  to  intensify  and  diversify 
smallholder production and to increase crop areas where land was available. 

A  particular  emphasise  has  been  placed  on  smallholders’  capacity  building,  in  particular 
through  farmers’  organisations  and  on  the  construction  of  local  infrastructures  and 
facilities including irrigation, water harvesting and conservation, rural roads, markets, storage 
facilities  etc.  This  contributed  to  improve  smallholders’  agricultural  development,  reduce 
post-harvest losses and boost a greater integration in the local and national markets. 

In addition, the Food Facility improved the food security situation and the nutritional status of 
the most vulnerable people. Nutrition programmes mostly targeted women and children 
through  safety  nets  interventions  and/or  improved  food  production  with  projects 
encouraging for example crop and livestock diversification, contributing to a greater diversity 
of food availability.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
While programmes were completed recently, the SDW presents a number of success stories 
to  grasp  a  view  of  the  short-term  impact  of  Food  Facility  interventions  on  boosting 
agricultural productivity and on taking the initial steps needed to prevent, as far as possible, 
further food insecurity situations.  

2. 

 ALLOCATIONS PER COUNTRY AND IMPLEMENTATION MODE  

2.1 

State of play: Financing decisions, initial programming and final outlook 

Date 

Financing Decision 

Allocation in million EUR 

30/03/2009 

29/04/2009 

09/12/2009 

09/12/2009 

22/12/2009 

22/04/2010 

01/06/2011 

TOTAL 

C (2009) 2184 

C (2009) 3068 

C (2009) 9932 

C (2009) 9883 

C (2009) 10249 

C (2010) 2449 

C (2011) 3732 

313,9 

393,8 

104,5 

17,4 

    7,75 

145,3 

- 

982,65 

Country 

Initial Country 
Allocation 

Final Country 
Allocation 

Afghanistan 
Bangladesh 
Benin 
Bolivia 
Burkina Faso 
Burma-Myanmar 
Burundi 

24,301,279 
52,245,061 
15,716,463 
9,550,000 
25,199,393 
23,400,000 
14,257,778 

24,200,000
50,000,000
12,900,000
9,550,000
23,700,000
24,400,000
13,400,000

4 

Difference 
(amount 
changed) 

101,279
2,245,061
2,816,463
0
1,499,393
1,000,000
857,778

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cambodia 
Central African Republic 
Comoros 
Cuba 
DR Congo 
Eritrea 
Ethiopia 
Gambia 
Ghana 
Guatemala 
Guinea Bissau 
Guinea Conakry 
Haiti 
Honduras 
Jamaica 
Kenya 
Kyrgyz Republic 
Lao PDR 
Lesotho 
Liberia 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Mali 
Mauritania 
Mozambique 
Nepal 
Nicaragua 
Niger 
OPT Palestine 
Pakistan 
Philippines 
Rwanda 
Sao Tomé e Principe 
Senegal 
Sierra Leone 
Somalia 
Sri Lanka 
Tajikistan 
Tanzania 
Togo 
Yemen 
Zambia 
Zimbabwe 
TOTAL CHANGES 

17,891,273 
9,672,829 
0 
11,700,000 
39,685,789 
13,565,916 
41,879,712 
5,300,000 
20,708,863 
15,878,781 
8,090,682 
9.591.035 
19,649,974 
9,900,000 
5,802,649 
31,293,179 
6,700,000 
10,845,860 
5,408,030 
15,148,556 
12,425,639 
18,464,077 
24,749,926 
7,482,801 
22,205,774 
22,995,639 
7,585,986 
19,549,944 
39,700,000 
49,261,229 
31,352,114 
15,600,000 
1,700,063 
18,163,541 
18,654,294 
13,975,933 
5,127,252 
15,170,000 
31,589,770 
14,288,303 
20,143,789 
22,058,953 
17,112,596 

691,273
327,171
3,600,000
0
914,211
765,916
3,520,288
200,000
191,137
878,781
309,318
3,908,965
150,026
0
97,351
93,179
300,000
45,860
591,970
1,498,556
9,374,361
564,077
400,074
117,199
994,226
304,361
435,986
349,944
0
738,771
547,886
0
399,937
3,663,541
395,706
424,067
72,748
330,000
810,230
588,303
1,156,211
5,758,953
1,712,596
55,743,154

17,200,000
10,000,000
3,600,000
11,700,000
40,600,000
12,800,000
45,400,000
5,500,000
20,900,000
15,000,000
8,400,000
13,500,000
19,800,000
9,900,000
5,900,000
31,200,000
7,000,000
10,800,000
6,000,000
13,650,000
21,800,000
17,900,000
25,150,000
7,600,000
23,200,000
23,300,000
7,150,000
19,200,000
39,700,000
50,000,000
31,900,000
15,600,000
2,100,000
14,500,000
19,050,000
14,400,000
5,200,000
15,500,000
32,400,000
13,700,000
21,300,000
16,300,000
15,400,000

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

Detailed allocations per country and per implementing channel  

IO: International Organization 

CfP: Call for Proposals 

BS: Budge Support 

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

14,000,000

Afghanistan

24,200,000

CfP

global allocation

10,200,000

24,301,279

BS

0

IO

CfP

FAO
Mercy Corps Scotland
Actionaid LBG

Stichting Care Nederland
GIZ

Clovek V Tisni OPS

Christian Aid LBG

13,254,455
1,999,827
2,129,900

1,947,026
2,000,000

1,751,787

1,218,284
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WFP
UNDP
FAO

20,000,000
7,500,000
7,500,000

Bangladesh

50,000,000

CfP

global allocation

15,000,000

52,245,061

BS

0

IO

CfP

WFP
UNDP
FAO
BRAC
Netz Partnerschaft für 
Entwicklung 
Gerechtigkeit EV

Practical Action LBG

Concern Universal LBG

Care Österreich

21,987,297
7,500,000
7,414,800
5,000,000

2,088,000

2,524,752

3,498,732

2,231,480
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB

6,800,000

IO

Benin

12,900,000

CfP

global allocation

6,100,000

15,716,463

CfP

BS

0

WB
Associazione Comunita 
Impegno Servizio 
Volontariato
Association Centre 
International de 
Developpement et de 
Recherche
GIZ
Projektgroep voor 
Technische 
Ontwikkelnigssamerwer
king VZW
Groupe Developpement 
Association

6,500,000

1,090,712

1,042,316
2,399,584

1,269,724

3,414,127
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Bolivia

9,550,000

IO
CfP
BS

WFP

GoB

1,800,000
0
7,750,000

9,550,000

IO

BS

WFP

GoB

1,800,000

7,750,000

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

18,700,000

IO

FAO

18,064,052

Burkina Faso

23,700,000

CfP

global allocation

5,000,000

25,199,393

CfP

BS

0

Centre Régional pour 
l'Eau potable et 
l'assainissement à faible 
cout - CREPA

Christian Aid LBG

Agriculteurs Français et 
Developpement 
International Association

Associazione Comunita 
Impegno Servizio 
Volontariato

Association SOS Sahel 
Intl. France

1,890,133

1,490,444

1,032,033

1,152,231

1,570,500
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Burma-
Myanmar

24,400,000
24,400,000

UNOPS
UNOPS

IO

CfP
BS

10,000,000
14,400,000
0
0

23,400,000

UNOPS
UNOPS

IO

CfP
BS

10,000,000
13,400,000
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

IFAD
FAO

4,500,000
5,500,000

Burundi

13,400,000

CfP

global allocation

3,400,000

14,257,778

BS

0

IFAD
FAO
CTB

Stichting Care Nederland

Fondazione AVSI

IO

CfP

BS

4,500,000
5,406,045
2,303,163

1,048,570

1,000,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

11,200,000

IO

Cambodia

17,200,000

CfP

global allocation

6,000,000

17,891,273

CfP

BS

0

BS

FAO
Stichting Zoa
International
GIZ
d'Echanges 

10,971,927
1,250,000
1,711,951
2,000,000
1,957,395
0

Country

Central 
African 
Republic

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

10,000,000

IO
CfP
BS

FAO

10,000,000

0
0

9,672,829

FAO

IO
CfP
BS

9,672,829
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Comoros

3,600,000

GoC

BS
IO
CfP

3,600,000
0
0

0

BS
IO
CfP

GoC

0
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Cuba

11,700,000

UNDP

IO
CfP
BS

11,700,000
0
0

11,700,000

UNDP

IO
CfP
BS

11,700,000
0
0

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO 

FAO

10,000,000

IO

FAO

DR Congo

40,600,000

CfP

global allocation

4,600,000

39,685,789

CfP

BS

26,000,000

BS

Agrisud International 
Action Against Hunger 
USA

COOPI - Cooperazione 
Internazionale 
Fondazione

9,444,912

1,214,278

1,349,000

1,677,599
26,000,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
UNDP

3,400,000
5,000,000

Eritrea

12,800,000

CfP

global allocation

4,400,000

13,565,916

IO

CfP

FAO
UNDP
Istituto Sindicale di 
Cooperazione allo 
Svilippo- Marche ONLUS - 
ISCOS

OXFAM GB LBG

VITA (RTI) LBG
VITA (RTI) LBG
Sichting OXFAM NOVIB

BS

0

BS

3,221,245
5,000,000

1,106,415

1,068,455

822,688
780,000
1,567,113
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB

20,000,000

IO

WB
WB

Ethiopia

45,400,000

CfP

global allocation

13,000,000

41,879,712

CfP

BS

GoE

12,400,000

BS

Caritas International 
ASBL
VITA (RTI) LBG
Christian Aid LBG
Associazione 
Internazionale volontari 
laici

Self Help Africa (UK) LBG

Relief Society of Tigray
International 
Development 
Entreprises (UK) LBG

Deutsches Rotes Kreuz 
EV
OXFAM GB LBG
Trocaire

Care Österreich
Folkekirkens Nodhjaelp 
Fond
Comitato Internazionale 
per lo Sviluppo dei 
Popoli Associazione
GoE

19,140,000
2,970,000

1,000,203
1,091,463
1,358,493

1,190,865

1,317,428

1,266,660

1,551,664

1,190,179
1,984,598
2,246,331

2,263,965

1,350,000

1,957,863
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Gambia

5,500,000

IO
CfP
BS

WB
global allocation

5,500,000
0
0

5,300,000

WB

IO
CfP
BS

5,300,000
0
0

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

0

Ghana

20,900,000

CfP

global allocation

5,900,000

20,708,863

BS

GoG

15,000,000

IO

CfP

BS

Adventist Development 
and Relief Agency UK Inc. 
Plan Ireland Charitable 
Assistance LTD
Care International UK 
LBG
GoG

0

1,181,013

2,249,914

2,277,936
15,000,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
WFP

4,650,000
6,350,000

IO

FAO
WFP

Guatemala

15,000,000

CfP

global allocation

4,000,000

15,878,781

CfP

BS

0

BS

Mercy Corps Scotland
Istituto per la 
Cooperazione 
Universitaria ONLUS 
Associazione
OIKOS- Coopeaçao e 
Desenvovimento 
Associaçao
Fundacion para el 
Desarrollo Integral de 
Programas Socio-
Economicos

4,491,696
6,350,000

1,000,000

1,161,367

1,525,718

1,350,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
WB

3,000,000
3,000,000

Guinea Bissau

8,400,000

CfP

global allocation

2,400,000

8,090,682

BS

0

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
WB
Associazione 
Internazionale volontari 
laici
Instituto Marques de 
Valle Flor Fundaçao

2,847,250
2,870,000

1,120,951

1,252,481
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

0

IO

Guinea 
Conakry

13,500,000

CfP

global allocation

13,500,000

9,591,035

CfP

BS

0

BS

Associazione Comunita 
Impegno Servizio 
Volontariato
Plan Ireland Charitable 
Assistance LTD

Comité Catholique 
contre la Faim et pour le 
Développement 
Associacion

Trias VZW

Groupe de Recherche et 
d'Echanges 
Technologiques

0

1,152,000

1,620,000

3,812,166

1,795,649

1,211,220
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Haiti

19,800,000

IO
CfP
BS

FAO
global allocation
GoH

10,000,000
4,000,000
5,800,000

19,649,974

IO
CfP
BS

FAO
AFD
GoH

9,488,446
4,361,528
5,800,000

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Honduras

9,900,000

IO

CfP
BS

WB

9,900,000

9,900,000

0
0

FAO
WFP

IO

CfP
BS

5,400,000
4,500,000
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Jamaica

5,900,000

FAO

IO
CfP
BS

5,900,000
0
0

5,802,649

IO
CfP
BS

5,802,649
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB
FAO

20,000,000
4,000,000

IO

WB
FAO

Kenya

31,200,000

CfP

global allocation

7,200,000

31,293,179

CfP

BS

0

BS

Solidarités International 
Association

Terra Nuova Centro per il 
Volontariato ONLUS 
Associazione

Food and Agricultural 
Research Management 
LTD -Africa LBG

The Save the Children 
Fund LBG

19,140,000
3,943,964

1,121,138

1,350,000

1,168,981

4,569,096
0

Country

Kyrgyz 
Republic

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

7,000,000

WB

IO
CfP
BS

7,000,000
0
0

6,700,000

WB

IO
CfP
BS

6,700,000
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB

5,000,000

IO

Lao PDR

10,800,000

CfP

global allocation

5,800,000

10,845,860

CfP

BS

0

BS

WB
Helvetas Swiss 
Intercooperation 
Association
GIZ
Deutsche 
Welthungerhilfe EV

Health LTD

4,800,000

2,113,312
2,000,000

953,721

978,827
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

4,000,000

IO

Lesotho

6,000,000

CfP

global allocation

2,000,000

5,408,030

CfP

BS

0

BS

FAO
World Vision 
International 
Corporation

World Vision 
International 
Corporation

Deutsches Rotes Kreuz 
EV

3,946,647

445,831

444,032

571,520
0

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Liberia

13,650,000

15,148,556

IO

UNDP

10,900,000

CfP

BS

global allocation

2,750,000

0

FAO
WFP
UNICEF
UNDP
OXFAM GB LBG
GIZ

IO

CfP

BS

4,776,723
3,580,405
2,005,260
1,493,139
1,293,029
2,000,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Madagascar

21,800,000

IO
CfP
BS

IFAD
global allocation
GoM

12,500,000
3,000,000
6,300,000

12,425,639

IFAD

IO
CfP
BS

12,425,639
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

0

Malawi

17,900,000

CfP

global allocation

2,000,000

18,464,077

BS

GoM

15,900,000

IO

CfP

BS

Development Aid from 
People to People
Care Deutschland-
Luxemburg EV
GoM

0

1,564,077

1,000,000
15,900,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB
UNICEF

15,300,000
6,800,000

Mali

25,150,000

CfP

global allocation

3,050,000

24,749,926

BS

0

IO

CfP

BS

WB
UNICEF

Afrique Verte 
Association

OXFAM GB LBG

Association Veterinaires 
sans Frontières - Centre 
international de 
Coopération pour le 
Développement agricole 
FSF CICDA

14,640,000
6,223,740

1,106,076

1,698,060

1,082,050
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

0

IO

Mauritania

7,600,000

CfP

global allocation

7,600,000

7,482,801

CfP

BS

0

BS

Groupe de Recherche et 
de Réalisation pour le 
Développement rural 
dans le Tiers Monde
GIZ
Fundacion Accion Contra 
el Hambre
Croix Rouge Française 
Association

0

2,614,914
2,418,374

1,079,550

1,369,963
0

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
IFAD

7,500,000
6,000,000

Mozambique

23,200,000

CfP

global allocation

4,500,000

22,205,774

BS

GoM

5,200,000

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
IFAD
Helvetas Swiss 
Intercooperation 
Association
Save the Children 
Federation Inc. 
Corporation
CESVI Foundation ONLUS 
Associazione
GoM

7,243,224
4,757,850

1,365,661

2,464,497

1,174,542
5,200,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
WFP

8,280,000
9,020,000

Nepal

23,300,000

CfP

global allocation

6,000,000

22,995,639

BS

0

FAO
WFP
Redd Barna Forening
OXFAM GB LBG
Practical Action LBG
Folkekirkens Nodhjaelp 
Fond

IO

CfP

BS

8,065,281
9,007,992
1,461,319
1,447,365
1,950,720

1,062,962
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

3,000,000

IO

Nicaragua

7,150,000

CfP

global allocation

4,150,000

7,585,986

CfP

BS

0

BS

FAO
Fundacion Intermon 
Oxfam

Stichting Plan Nederland
Care Deutschland-
Luxemburg EV
Fundacion Accion Contra 
el Hambre

2,957,565

1,180,484

1,361,073

1,084,718

1,002,146
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

FAO
UNICEF

3,000,000
3,000,000

IO

Niger

19,200,000

19,528,848

CFP

global allocation

3,200,000

BS

GoN

10,000,000

FAO
UNICEF
FAO
UNICEF
UNFPA
CTB
Afrique Verte 
Association

IO

CfP

BS

2,970,441
3,000,000
2,973,164
5,000,000
2,000,000
2,024,521

1,560,722
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

OPT Palestine

39,700,000

UNRWA
UNRWA

IO

CfP
BS

18,100,000
21,600,000
0
0

39,700,000

UNRWA
UNRWA

IO

CfP
BS

18,100,000
21,600,000
0
0

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
WFP

26,000,000
14,000,000

Pakistan

50,000,000

CfP

global allocation

10,000,000

49,261,229

BS

0

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
WFP
The Aga Khan Rural 
Support Programme 
Limited
OXFAM GB LBG
Actionaid LBG
Concern Worldwide
Stichting Oxfam Novib

Plan International UK LBG

24,702,082
13,964,055

1,475,835
2,061,160
1,220,038
1,325,609
2,550,000

1,962,450
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO
WFP
IFAD

4,200,000
6,400,000
10,000,000

IO

FAO
WFP
IFAD

Philippines

31,900,000

31,352,114

CfP

global allocation

11,300,000

CfP

Southeast Asian Regional 
Center for Graduate 
Study and Research in 
Agriculture Corporation

Stichting Care Nederland
GIZ

4,200,000
6,391,766
9,998,783

3,093,997

1,174,350
2,606,959

BS

0

BS

Stichting Agriterra 

1,269,053

Plan International UK LBG

2,617,206
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Rwanda

15,600,000

IO
CfP
BS

GoR

0
0
15,600,000

15,600,000

IO
CfP
BS

GoR

0
0
15,600,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Sao Tomé e 
Principe

2,100,000

IO

CfP

BS

global allocation

0

2,100,000

0

1,700,063

IO

CfP

BS

Instituto Marques de 
Valle Flor Fundaçao
Associazione Alisei

0

700,063
1,000,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WFP

10,900,000

IO

Senegal

14,500,000

CfP

global allocation

3,600,000

18,163,541

CfP

BS

0

BS

WFP
Groupe de Recherches et 
d'Echanges 
Technologiques
World Vision 
Deutschland EV
AFD

10,896,377

1,511,457

2,205,707
3,550,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Sierra Leone

19,050,000

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
WFP

10,800,000
5,400,000

global allocation

2,850,000

18,654,294

0

13 

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
WFP
Concern Worldwide

Stichting Care Nederland

10,263,748
5,400,000
1,632,572

1,357,974
0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Somalia

14,400,000

FAO
AU-IBAR

IO

CfP
BS

10,400,000
4,000,000
0
0

13,975,933

FAO
AU-IBAR

IO

CfP
BS

9,975,933
4,000,000
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Sri Lanka

5,200,000

FAO

IO
CfP
BS

5,200,000
0
0

5,127,252

FAO

IO
CfP
BS

5,127,252
0
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Tajikistan

15,500,000

WB

IO
CfP
BS

7,750,000
0
7,750,000

15,170,000

WB

IO
CfP
BS

7,420,000

7,750,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

0

IO

Tanzania

32,400,000

CfP

global allocation

12,400,000

31,589,770

CfP

BS

GoT

20,000,000

BS

Concern Worldwide
Agricultural Council of 
Tanzania LTD
OXFAM GB LBG
Comitato Europeo per la 
Formazione e 
l'Agricoltura ONLUS 
Associazione
Association Centre 
International de 
Developpement et de 
Recherche
Istituto Oikos ONLUS 
Associazione
Mtandao Wa Vikundi Vya 
Wakulima Tanzania 
(MVIWATA) Trust
Food and Agricultural 
Research Management 
LTD -Africa LBG
GoT

0
1,973,568

1,523,487
1,000,000

1,124,946

1,052,650

1,500,000

2,394,756

1,020,363
20,000,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

2,500,000

IO

Togo

13,700,000

CfP

global allocation

3,000,000

14,288,303

CfP

BS

GoT

8,200,000

BS

FAO
Cruz Roja Española 
Fundacion
Association Veterinaires 
sans Frontières - Centre 
international de 
Coopération pour le 
Développement agricole 
FSF CICDA
Croix Rouge Française 
Association
GoT

2,498,823

1,142,120

1,107,173

1,340,187
8,200,000

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

WB

18,300,000

Yemen

21,300,000

CfP

global allocation

3,000,000

20,143,789

BS

0

14 

IO

CfP

BS

WB
Triangle Génération 
Humanitaire Association
Croix Rouge Française 
Association

17,500,000

1,203,789

1,440,000
0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

IO

FAO

7,500,000

Zambia

16,300,000

22,058,953

CfP

global allocation

3,000,000

BS

GoZ

5,800,000

IO

CfP

BS

FAO
FAO
FAO

Zambia National Farmers 
Union Registered Society
Self Help Africa (UK) LBG
Centro Laici Italiani per le 
Missioni Associazione

Plan International UK LBG

7,472,052
3,578,904
5,800,000

2,049,444
1,085,164

1,073,389

1,000,000
0

Country

Initial Country 
Allocation

Implementation 
Channel

Implementation 
Partner

Amount

Final Country 
allocation

Implementation 
channel

Implementation Partner

Amount

Zimbabwe

15,400,000

IO

CfP

BS

FAO

15,400,000

17,112,596

0

0

IO

CfP

BS

FAO

17,112,596

0

0

15 

 
 
 
 
 
3. 

 FOOD FACILITY MAIN INPUTS AND BENEFICIARIES 

3.1 

Inputs distributed by implementing partner 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2 

Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries  

Total number of beneficiaries1 

Implementing Partner 

Direct Beneficiaries 

UNICEF 

FAO 

NGOs / Member States Agencies 

WFP 

WB 

UNDP 

UNRWA 

TOTAL 

CfP

UNRW
A

UNDP

UNICEF

WB

WFP

FAO

23,274,085

18,291,970

10,748,991

4,426,134

1,181,135

714,095

396,006

Indirect Beneficiaries 
9,541,224

34,185,440

28,020,397

10,212,455

8,558,342

3,185,877

0

59,032,416

93,703,735

Direct Beneficiaries

Indirect Beneficiaries

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

1 Estimation from the data of 147 reports out of 198 projects implemented by International Organisations, Non State Actors, 
and Member States Agencies.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4. 

 PARTNERSHIP  WITH 
ORGANISATIONS  

INTERNATIONAL 

AND 

REGIONAL   

4.1 

State of play of the contracts at 31 December 2012 

IO/RO 

AU-IBAR 
AU-IBAR 
AU-IBAR TOTAL 
COMESA 
COMESA TOTAL 
IFAD 
IFAD 
IFAD 
IFAD 
IFAD TOTAL 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO 
FAO TOTAL 
UNDP 
UNDP 
UNDP 
UNDP 
UNDP TOTAL 
UNFPA 
UNFPA TOTAL 
UNICEF 
UNICEF 
UNICEF 
UNICEF TOTAL 
UNOPS 
UNOPS 
UNOPS TOTAL 
UNRWA 
UNRWA 
UNRWA TOTAL 
WB 

Contracts 
AU-IBAR Regional 
AU-IBAR Somalia 

COMESA - Regional 

IFAD I* 
IFAD-ECOWAS Reg. 
IFAD II Madagascar 
IFAD II Mozambique 

FAO I* 
FAO I Burkina Faso 
FAO I Eritrea 
FAO Honduras 
FAO Philippines 
FAO IV* 
FAO IV Zambia 2 
FAO IV Zambia 3 
FAO II* 

UNDP I* 
UNDP Liberia 
UNDP IV Bangladesh 
UNDP IV Eritrea 

UNFPA Niger 

UNICEF I* 
UNICEF IV Niger 
UNICEF II Niger 

UNOPS I*  
UNOPS IV* 

UNRWA I 
UNRWA II 

WB I* 

20 

Amount contracted 

20,000,000
4,000,000
24,000,000
20,000,000
20,000,000
14,498,783
20,000,000
12,425,639
4,757,850
51,682,272
109,975,439
18,064,052
3,221,246
5,400,000
4,200,000
13,200,000
3,578,904
5,800,000
74,554,532
237,994,173
11,700,000
1,493,139
7,500,000
5,000,000
25,693,139
2,000,000
2,000,000
8,229,000
5,000,000
3,000,000
16,229,000
10,000,000
13,400,000
23,400,000
18,100,000
21,600,000
39,700,000
63,800,000

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WB I* 
WB II* 

WFP I* 
WFP Honduras 
WFP Liberia 
WFP II* 

WB 
WB 
WB TOTAL 
WFP 
WFP 
WFP  
WFP 
WFP TOTAL 

TOTAL IO 
* Multi country contract. 

10,850,000
37,150,000
111,800,000
41,351,352
4,500,000
3,580,405
34,446,135
83,877,892

636,376,476

A large part of the Food Facility has been implemented by International Organisations.  

21 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
4.2  Main lessons learned from the projects implemented by International Organisations 

•  Focusing  assistance  on  marginalised  farmers  with  high  production  increases  the  food 
security  situation  of  the  poorest  and  most  vulnerable  communities.  Input  Trade  Fairs 
(ITFs)  are  a  proven  mechanism  to  increase  farmers’  access  to  inputs.  ITFs  are  rapidly 
becoming  the  preferred  method  of  agricultural  input  distribution  in  many  areas 
where the EUFF project was implemented and beyond. By establishing a system of seed 
distribution  targeted  especially  towards  the  most  vulnerable  populations,  ITFs  offered  a 
sustainable  supply  of  quality  inputs  at  the  producer  level  through  economically 
viable local mechanisms. It was also found that the timely provision of quality inputs is 
the best way of promoting the adoption of new technologies (e.g., new seed varieties or 
fertilizers).  

•  The  performance  of  the  FF  projects  showed  that  boosting  agricultural  production  not 
only requires access to quality inputs  but also the application of proven methods of 
crop  production.  Input  distribution  interventions  were  found  to  have  a  much  greater 
impact  when  combined  with  training  to  establish  appropriate  use  of  inputs.  Extension 
methodologies, such as Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and rural promoters, provide effective 
channels for appropriate advice through on-farm demonstrations on sustainable production 
intensification,  good  agriculture  practices  (GAP),  conservation  agriculture  (CA),  soil 
fertility  management,  small-scale 
irrigation  and  crop  diversification.  Moreover, 
strengthening producers both in the public and private sector resulted in increased 
food  availability.  Here,  establishing  new  producers  and  enabling  existing  producers  to 
enhance their production capacity proved effective and efficient. 

•  Although the distribution of tools and machinery to improve and facilitate agricultural 
production  was  appropriate,  in  some  cases,  some  of  the  machinery,  even  if  used 
properly, did not generate enough additional value to justify cost. This could be addressed 
by allowing farmers and prospective agricultural contractors a choice in the selection 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of  tractors  and  equipment.  This  would  take  into  account  their  experience  with 
equipment,  their  ability  to  pay  for  more  expensive  tractors  and  their  brand  preferences. 
Also, the relatively small size of some farms in communal areas made it uneconomical for 
such  farmers  to  own  even  a  small  tractor  or  related  machinery.  Here,  the  provision  of 
commercial privately operated agricultural contracting services or machinery pool groups 
offer a valuable solution. 

•  Within the framework of a large intervention such as the EUFF, it is essential to account 
for  the  effect  of  procuring  large  quantities  of  seeds  on  the  local  seed  market  as  a 
sudden increase in institutional procurements can place stress on available suppliers. In 
some cases, farmers, seed producers, and other organisations had difficulties ensuring the 
timely  procurement  of  the  required  quantities  of  quality  seed.  This  led  to  delays  in 
distribution and hampered production. By the time some beneficiary farmers received the 
quality seed, they had already used their own seed. Some seeds received from the project 
were either exchanged with other farmers and/or were inappropriately cultivated in some 
areas.  It  is  thus  important  to  consider  market  capacities  and  market  linkages  in  the 
pre-implementation stage of future projects of a similar scale. 

•  Taking into account country-specific crop calendars in the design and implementation of 
the EUFF projects was of crucial importance for the success of the interventions, notably 
for  the  distribution  of  agricultural  inputs.  The  timely  planning  of  input  procurement 
and  supply  helped  farmers  to  start  up  the  cropping  season  as  per  their  own 
requirements.  In  the  same  vein,  synchronised  procurement  and  input  distribution 
ensured  proper  utilisation  in  the  farmers’  fields.  In  some  cases,  the  project  would  have 
finished  before  the  harvest  and  required  an  extension  to  achieve  measurable  outcomes. 
Here, the flexibility and willingness of the EU to provide extensions in time and funding 
for the inclusion of additional crop cycles in some project countries was paramount for the 
resulting success of these projects.  

For  future  programmes  of  a  similar  scope,  additional  funds  and  time  for  the 
formulation  phase  would  allow  for  the  seasonality  of  cropping  cycles  in  target 
countries already at the design stage of the programme. This would make certain that 
the requirements of seasonal crop calendars and bureaucratic processes were met through 
the adequate and timely delivery of inputs to maximise output for harvesting, avoiding the 
need for funding extensions at the implementation stage. 

•  The achievements of the EUFF projects showed that local seed production systems are 
best  supported  through  a  holistic  approach,  which  involves  all  actors  of  the  value 
chain,  including  producers,  processors  and  traders,  and  supports  the  country-
specific  institutional  and  policy  context.  In  some  cases,  however,  it  was  found  best  to 
undertake  the  production  of  basic  or  foundation  seed  as  a  private  sector  activity  since 
some state institutions had insufficient capacity to manage such a programme. In order to 
affect a medium-term sustainable outcome, a systems-based approach was chosen, which 
started with improved access to inputs for increased production of surpluses for the market 
within the existing agricultural systems. Accordingly, the focus of seed multiplication and 
development  of  the  seed  industry  was  placed  on  increasing  input  availability,  boosting 
productivity and improving distribution of outputs by improving market linkages. 

•  FF 

interventions  have  shown 

that  undertaking  rehabilitation  works  on  rural 
infrastructures, such as irrigation channels, storage and market facilities and roads, and 
produces  positive  short-  and  long-term  impacts  on  agricultural  production  and 
income-earning opportunities.  

23 

 
 
 
For  maximum  sustainability,  it  was  found  best  to  focus  on  larger  infrastructure,  for 
instance  larger  canals,  which  people  cannot  rehabilitate  manually.  Productivity  of  crops 
was  most  efficiently  increased  through  investments  in  and  improvements  of  small 
irrigation  schemes.  Post-harvest  losses  were  reduced  most  effectively  through  the 
introduction  of  appropriate  drying  and  storage  facilities.  Income-earning  opportunities 
were best generated through creation of as well as improved access to markets, in addition 
to the production of surpluses and the improved quality of grains. 

•  The implementation of this component further showed that rehabilitation of infrastructure 
through local private companies encouraged these companies to undertake similar works 
when  they  became  necessary  at  a  later  date,  creating  a  multiplier  effect  in  the  local 
economy.  However,  some  rehabilitation  and  construction  required  more  time  to  be 
completed, supervised and inspected than had been planned.  

In  addition,  the  sustainability  of  operation  and  management  of  these  renovated  or 
constructed facilities also required more time than the FF project period, in particular with 
regards to work on these issues with governmental counterparts. Here, the establishment 
of  and  training  of  farmer  user  groups  was  a  way  to  ensure  that  the  maintenance  and 
operation of the schemes function effectively after project closure. The best approach to 
rehabilitation  and  mechanisation  of  rural  infrastructure  was  found  to  be  systemic, 
with  agricultural  production  and  commercialisation,  small-scale  irrigation,  feeder 
roads and microfinance developed in parallel. 

•  FF projects have shown that training and capacity building are vital at all stages and 
levels of the interventions. Capacity building played a key role in affecting the appropriate 
and  sustainable  use  of  inputs  provided,  and  should  be  an  integral  part  of  similar 
projects in the future. The good results achieved by the EUFF projects rest partly on the 
fact  that  training  and  capacity  building  accompanied  all  types  of  interventions  and 
targeted  all  levels  of  beneficiaries  from  farmers,  local  implementation  counterparts  to 
government representatives. While in some cases, the short duration of the project made it 
difficult to build institutional and management sustainability capacities, the EUFF projects 
demonstrated that working through and developing the capacity of government structures, 
farmer institutions and/or  building on  private sector and existing  long-term projects was 
the most effective approach to achieving outreach and sustainability. 

•  The support and commitment of host governments and national counterparts was vital for 
the outcomes of the projects. Countries in which the government did not fully support the 
FF  project  and  its  interventions  fared  much  less  well  than  those  with  strong  national 
support. Delays in signing some projects, for instance, shortened their length, undermined 
sustainability  and  created  pressure  on  staff.  However,  those  projects  in  which 
governmental  staff  within  the  relevant  ministries  were  involved  from  the  project 
formulation  stage,  benefited  from  a  high  degree  of  local  ownership,  motivation  and 
commitment. Collaboration with the government is essential to any project that aims 
to  leave  behind  significant  technical  expertise,  considerable  number  of  inputs  and 
renovated/constructed  facilities.  The  long-term  benefits  of  these  interventions  depend 
greatly on the government’s sustained involvement and guidance to farmers in the use and 
operation of inputs. 

in  sustaining  efforts.  Furthermore,  empowering,  from 

•  FF  projects,  which  also  addressed  the  capacity  of  key  ministries,  have  proven  most 
effective 
the 
municipalities and departmental offices of agriculture and food security through Letters of 
Agreement, and linking them to local initiatives, proved essential for project sustainability 
and their inclusion into government budgets. 

the  outset, 

24 

 
 
 
•  The use of existing structures and entities maximised impact. This included partnerships 
with on going national and international projects, and the involvement of a broad range of 
stakeholders, including government staff as well as the private sector, NGOs and farming 
communities in the project implementation.  

The  integration  of  programmes  in  existing  institutions,  both  public  and  private, 
significantly  reinforced  sustainable  local  ownership.  Relevant  national  on  going 
programmes were, wherever possible, built on and extended, and technical collaboration 
and  coordination  of  all  stakeholders  encouraged.  Existing  institutional  structures  and 
entities with already defined coordinating and implementing functions are best used when 
integrated into the individual project’s implementing arrangements in the design process. 
To facilitate future replication and secure continued governmental support, the design of 
project interventions needs to be in compliance with prevailing government policies. 

4.3 

Success stories: Zambia, Mozambique, Cambodia, Cuba, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone 

Farmer Input Support Response Initiative to Rising Prices of Agricultural 
Commodities in Zambia 
Financing:  7.500.000 EUR - Implementing partner:  FAO 

Electronic vouchers, as a means of providing quality agricultural inputs to farmers on time 
and at minimum transaction cost, were supplied to 7,950 lead farmers for purchasing seeds, 
fertilizers,  tools  and  Conservation  Agriculture  (CA)  equipment.  Initial  results  in  the  field 
collected  from  monitoring  mission  clearly  showed  increased  yields  as  compared  to 
traditional methods. Conservation Agricultural Programme (CAP), Conservation Agriculture 
for  Production  and  Productivity  (CASPP),  Conservation  Farming  Unit  (CFU),  Zambian 
National  Farmers'  Union  (ZNFU)  indicate  that  the  farming  community  accepts  the 
technology and that crop increases are realized. During the dry spell (February 2011) it was 
clearly  demonstrated  that  the  agricultural  production  under  CA,  mainly  vegetables,  were 
resistant to water scarcity. It is estimated  that  approximately 200,000 households (HH) are 
now practicing CA. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU Food Facility in support of the Food Production Action Plan (PRO-PAPA) in 
Mozambique2 
Financing:  4.700.000 EUR - Implementing partner:  IFAD 

The project’s goal was to enhance agriculture and fisheries production and productivity by up 
scaling  selected  existing  activities  in  three  on-going  IFAD-financed  programmes:  (i)  the 
Sofala  Bank  Artisanal  Fisheries  Project  (PPABAS);  (ii)  the  Rural  Finance  Support 
Programme (PAFIR); and (iii) the Rural Market Promotion Programme (PROMER).  

Overall,  the  project  has  reached  -  with  tangible  services,  equipment  and  infrastructure  - 
30,160 households directly, which represents 151% of the target. While, at an early stage after 
its completion, impacts cannot be fully assessed, a preliminary impacts assessment has been 
presented  using  available  data.  Fishery  activities  aiming  to  increase  in  catch,  in  catch  rates 
and value of the marketed catch targeted 2,500 households.  

It is estimated that at least 8,800 households benefited from the investments made on the fish 
markets infrastructure. This figure should substantially increase when the various point of first 
sale  (equipped  with  the  cooling  equipment)  will  enter  in  full  operation. Points  of  First  Sale 
are  built  for  the  first  time  in  Mozambique.  This  model  combines  improved  infrastructure, 
including fish conservation equipment, with an inclusive management system, that allows for 
co-responsibility and full participation of stakeholders in the operation and maintenance of the 
market.  

Regarding the financial services component PROPAPA benefited 6,300 clients, out of whom 
3,821 are new clients. It is expected that this number will increase by 33-35% per credit cycle, 
under the assumption of reimbursement rates above 90%. This means that the target will be 
achieved in 2013, considering two credit cycles per year. In addition 140 kilometres of roads 
were rehabilitated to improve products’ market access.  

The  total  number  of  beneficiaries  of  the  road  improvements  is  estimated  at  about  15,000 
households, therefore doubling the anticipated result of 7,500 households. The average cost of 
the improvements per beneficiary is US$ 17. 

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6vDhDqlBvA&feature=autoplay&list=PLF80520918D66B21D&playnext=2 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Improving food security of farming families affected by food prices volatility in 
Cambodia3 
Financing: 10.970.000 EUR- Implementing partner:  FAO 

Despite  a  short  and  time  bound  project  with  a  total  duration  of  24  months  (a  key  factor  to 
consider  in  Cambodia  is  the  monsoonal  agricultural  cycle  with  rain  usually  commencing  in 
earnest from July to the end of November) the project contributed to achieving a 10% increase 
in food stocks for 53 000 vulnerable rural households and, well above this target, food stocks 
almost  doubled  from  440  kg/household  to  840  kg/household  over  a  one-year  period. 
Likewise, a 10% increase in food self-sufficiency has been reached, in terms of the percentage 
of farm families able to survive on their own rice stocks. The project provided for an almost 
50% increase in the percentage of the population who were self-sufficient, lifting this baseline 
statistic  from  32  %  to  48%  of  beneficiary  households.  By  these  two  major  measures,  the 
project made a significant improvement in the reduction of hunger and malnutrition, thereby 
also contributing to rural household resilience and confidence.  

Programa de Apoyo Local a la Modernización Agropecuaria –PALMA - in Cuba  
Financing: 11.700.000 EUR – Implementing partner: UNDP 

The effects of the swift and continuous increase in international food prices and Cuba’s high 
dependency (80%) on imported foodstuffs combined with the 2008 hurricanes represented a 
paramount challenge for the country, making food security a national priority.  In this context, 
a series of measures have progressively been put in place to increase the quantity, efficiency 
and quality of food production. The main processes at the core of this new approach include 
decentralising  decision-making  to  the  municipal  level,  and  transferring  the  key  role  in  food 
production  to  cooperatives  and  individual  producers.  A  process  was  initiated  in  September 
2008  to  distribute  idle  land  on  a  10-year  renewable  usufruct  basis  to  be  used  for  food 
production purposes, with 100,000 applications accepted by beginning of 2010. Special focus 
is  also  given  to  urban  and  sub-urban  agriculture.  The  European  Commission  is  providing 
support to these processes with the Food Facility allowing to launch the Programa de Apoyo 
Local  a  la  Modernización  del  sector  Agropecuario.  PALMA  relies  on  the  bottom-up 
methodology  established  by  the  UNDP  "Programme  for  Local  Human  Development" 
(PDHL),  which  has  operated  in  Cuba  for  more  than  ten  years.  It  aims  to  support  the 
modernisation  of  local  agriculture  in  37  pilot  municipalities  and  decentralisation  of  food 
production by providing support and capacity building to cooperatives and individual farmers. 
This  programme  was  enhanced  with  a  further  €  4.4  million  under  the  EC  Food  Security 
Thematic Programme (FSTP) adopted in May 2009. 

3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VubZHcxRDjs 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Addressing the negative impact of rising food prices on food insecure households in 
Pakistan4 

Financing: 24.700.000 EUR- Implementing partner:  FAO 

Pakistan  is  listed  among  the  40  countries  where  the  food  prices  crisis  has  exacerbated 
structural  constraints.  About  17  million  people  have  joined  the  food  insecure  category  (60 
million)  during  the  current  food  crisis,  bringing  the  total  to  about  half  of  the  population  of 
Pakistan.  Approximately  17,000  tonnes  of  crop  inputs  (quality,  high  yielding  and  locally 
appropriate  seed,  varieties  and  quality  fertilizers)  were  distributed  to  more  than  94,000 
vulnerable farming households in highly food vulnerable areas during four cropping seasons 
in  food-deficient  areas  of  NWFP,  Sindh,  Baluchistan  and  Punjab.  In  addition,  households 
were provided with seed for a secondary crop (lentils, vegetable seed or fodder seed) and 150 
secondary  irrigation  channels  were  renovated.  The  input  distribution  and  irrigation  channel 
renovation  allowed  farmers  to  greatly  increase  their  crop  yields  –  both  by  increasing 
productivity  on  already  irrigated  land  and  by  bringing  land  back  into  cultivation  where 
previously water was not available for irrigation. The seed and fertilizer distribution enabled 
farmers to build up their working capital so that in future they are better able to purchase fresh 
inputs as necessary to maintain increased productivity. Seed can be multiplied for a further 3-
4 seasons before it needs replacing with new stocks.  Irrigation canals should be maintained in 
future under the control of the water users associations. 

4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhjiV-UJtJ4 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Smallholder Commercialization Programme in Sierra Leone 
Financing: 5.400.000 EUR – Implementing partner: WFP 

the  Government  of  Sierra  Leone  Small  Holder 
The  EUFF  directly  supported 
Commercialization Programme (SCP) that is under the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture 
Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS).  Component 5 of the SCP deals with ‘’social protection 
and productive safety nets’’ for which WFP is a lead agency.  The main focus of Component 
5  as  set  forth  by  MAFFS  includes  Inland  Valley  Swamp  (IVS)  rehabilitation,  tree  crop 
rehabilitation,  feeder  roads  rehabilitation  and  construction  of  Agricultural  Business  Centres 
(ABCs).  The  external  evaluation  commissioned  by  WFP  (August  2011),  concluded  that  the 
Food Facility had enabled WFP to undertake substantial Food-for-Work (FFW) and Food-for-
Training  activities  of  ABCs  in  Sierra  Leone  and  has  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Government  of  Sierra  Leone’s  SCP.  The  contribution  is  more  evident  in  the  area  of 
productive and social safety nets in selected rural areas. The project has complemented other 
interventions  by  FAO,  IFAD  and  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Food  Security 
(MAFFS).  With  regard  to  improving  food  security  of  beneficiary  families  and  improving 
national governance of food security matters, the Project delivered the following outputs: (i) 
8,463mt  food  and  nutritional  components  distributed  under  Food  for  Work,  (ii)  3,588ha 
rehabilitated  irrigated  land,  (iii)  644,134  EUR  Cash  for  Work  distributed,  (iv)  188  post-
harvest storage units constructed, (v) 888km roads constructed, and 43,199 trainees in various 
subjects. 

5. 

 CALL FOR PROPOSALS IMPLEMENTATION MODE 

5.1 

Distribution per EU FF objective 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 

Lessons learned from the Food Facility 

•  Beyond  the  achievement  of  Food  Facility’s  objectives,  more  than  55%  of  the 
interventions  increased  vulnerable  households  resilience,  allowing  them  to  cope  with 
successive food crises, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa. Overall, NGOs projects were 
able  to  mitigate  the  impact  of  food  insecurity  (improved  diet  quality  and  quantity, 
increased incomes, etc.) although this impact was limited in magnitude as the duration of 
the projects ranged between 14 and 25 months (21.5 months on average). 

•  NGO projects were mostly targeting the agricultural sector and focused on the rural 
context.  Although  the  agricultural  sector  is  key  in  responding  to  food  insecurity, 
additional  means  and  approaches  are  increasingly  necessary  to  tackle  emerging 
global  challenges  (increased  inequalities,  urbanization  and  population  growth,  market 
instability,  climate  changes,  etc.).  Projects aiming  at  mitigating  the  effects  of  food  price 
rise  through  increased  food  supply  alone  were  not  able  to  fully  demonstrate  substantial 
impact.  However,  there  were  particularly  interesting  interventions  aiming  at  promoting 
value  chains  and  innovative  practices,  or  aiming  at  enhancing  production  in  challenging 
agro-ecological contexts.  

•  Agricultural  inputs  distribution  (seeds  and  fertilizers),  are  the  backbone  of  80%  of  the 
projects - barring projects based on livestock development (in which inputs such as feeds 
and/or  medicines  were  seldom  distributed).  The  underlying  rationale  being  that  most 
farmers (and the general population affected by soaring prices) depend on staple food for 
their  self-consumption.  Hence  the  provision  of  quality  seeds  of  staple  crops  has  been 
seen as a priority. In many areas where projects intervene, productive risks factors like 
topography;  climate;  soils  etc.  are  factors  that  need  to  be  better  considered  with 
productive  efforts  either  reoriented  to  well-targeted  commodities  in  disaster-prone 
areas or based on more hard-researched solutions. NGOs keener on considering long-
term concerns and economic challenges, would be more in favor of high-value crops, in 
combination with staple crops and/or with income-generating activities.  

•  Having  strong  local  partners  was  definitely  a  plus  in  project  implementation,  and  many 
projects  benefitted  from  a  good  collaboration  that  existed  between  the  applicant  and  its 
partners.  On  the  other  hand,  all  projects  were  designed  to  incorporate,  to  some  extent, 
working  arrangements  with  local  authorities,  the  quality  of  this  partnership  varied 
considerably.  In  some  cases,  local  authorities  were  over-burdened;  in  other  cases,  they 
were  associated  in  economic  functions,  such  as  the  management  of  storage  capacities 
resulting  in  a  weak  management.  In  this  context,  more  professional  interest  groups 
should handle such kind of economic tasks. 

5.3 

Success stories : Mali, Kenya, Bangladesh, Lao LDR, Tanzania, Nepal, and Ethiopia 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Best practice in targeting beneficiaries in Mali 
Financing: 1.700.000 EUR– Implementing partner: Oxfam GB  

Prior designing its pilot safety net project, Oxfam GB in Mali carried out a socio-economic 
study  using  the  Household  Economy  Approach  (HEA),  an  approach  based  on  community 
participation. The findings of this study has allowed to rank the population of the three areas 
of  intervention  according  to  their  wealth  rank  and  defined  criteria  with  the  community  to 
identify each of the wealth groups. The two poorest groups were targeted in the project and 
activities  tailored  to  the  needs  of  both  groups;  the  very  poor  received  cash  transfers  and 
training on savings and on health and nutrition, while the poor received a support to improve 
their  productive  capacities.  The  HEA,  which  quantifies  sources  on  food  and  incomes,  also 
allowed  identifying  the  necessary  level  of  transfer  to  achieve  expected  results.  Example  of 
targeting criteria for the agro-cotton food economy zone in Mali / Sikasso: 

Very  Poor  households:  <  1.5  ha  of  land  exploited;  no  production  of  cotton;  no  ploughing 
equipment; <5 poultry; < 2 months self-sufficiency. 

Poor households: 1-3 ha of exploited land; 0- ½ ha of cotton production; 1 bull/plough; < 10 
poultry; < 4 months self-sufficiency. 

Food voucher system to enhance local trade and local production in Kenya  
Financing 4.569.000 EUR - Save The Children 

Food  assistance  has  been  provided  to  pastoralist  communities  in  Wajir  and  Turkana  arid 
lands, through local markets voucher  system. A total of 60,969 beneficiaries in Wajir and 
4,500  in  Turkana  had  received  locally  produced  food  commodities  as  substitutes.  After  22 
months  of  the  implementation,  positive  gains  to  traders,  producers  and  food  assistance 
beneficiaries emerged. All the 106 cereal traders in Wajir and Turkana reported a minimum of 
70% increase in their business income as compared to the baseline figures. All the sampled 
beneficiaries  reported  their  satisfaction  with  this  alternative  way  of  distributing  food 
assistance through local traders via the use of vouchers. Beneficiaries who had access to meat 
and fish had access to protein rich foods for significantly longer periods, 13.2 days more than 
those  receiving  General  Food  Distribution  (GFD)  pulses.  About  88%  of  the  normal  GFD 
beneficiaries  interviewed  indicated  their  interest  to  join  this  alternative  approach  of  GFD 
distribution using local traders and through vouchers. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Strengthening productive capacities of ultra-poor people in Bangladesh 
Financing 2.088.000 EUR - NETZ 

NETZ  intervention  aimed  to  support  28,000  ultra-poor  people  in  meeting  their  nutritional 
needs  through  safety  net  (linking  to  existing  government  schemes)  and  through  the 
development  of  their productive  capacities with training, technical assistance and making 
agricultural utilities available to them. The project achieved exceptionally good results. At the 
end  of  the  project  most  of  beneficiaries  had  increased  income  and  were  still  retaining 
substantial number of productive assets. Over 80% of target families increased their per capita 
income  per  day  at  least  by  40%  (inflation  adjusted)  by  October  2011;  at  least  90%  target 
families  have  maintained  the  value  of  the  productive  capital  transferred  by  the  action, 
minimum 60% have increased the capital value transferred by the action. At the start of the 
action the selected 7,200 ultra poor families were able to have 3 meals per day on average for 
only 4.6 months in a year. Through the achievements of the action these families can consume 
3 meals per day for an average of 10 months in a year. 

Enhancing milled rice production in Lao PDR 
Financing 2.110.000 EUR – Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation Association 

The  production  of  good  quality  rice  is  limited  by  both  capacity  and  technology  used  by 
farmers  to  grow  paddy,  and  significant  rice  milling  inefficiencies.  The  project  proposed  to 
rapidly increase the quantity and stability of supplies of good quality milled rice for domestic 
consumption  and  trade  by  supporting  the  production  through  strengthening  the  milling 
companies,  i.e.  a  value-chain  development  by  the  private  sector.  Activities  involve  the 
creation  of  a  co-investment  fund  managed  by  miller  groups  to  modernise  the  sector,  the 
improvement of the manufacturing practices and entrepreneurship behaviours (business plan, 
quality control, etc.), the support from millers to producers in agricultural input supplies, and 
policy  dialogues  with  various  stakeholders.  The  project  performed  exceptionally  well. 
Farmers  crop  yields  increased  by  30-50%;  farmers’  incomes  from  rice  increased  by  at  least 
60%;  rice  processed  through  milling  companies  increased  which  improved  the  supply.  The 
project also contributed to an improved framework conditions for rice production and trade. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A holistic approach to tackle child malnutrition in Lao PDR  
Financing 978.800 EUR – Health Practical Action  

The project targeted former forest dwellers who were recently encouraged to settle in valley 
areas.  These  populations  were  particularly  affected  by  malnutrition  due  to  their  lack  of 
knowledge  on  farming  and  nutrition  practices  in  their  new  environment.  The  intervention 
proposes a combination of activities tackling holistically child malnutrition and addressing 
several causes leading to malnutrition. Activities encompass the diversification of vegetal 
and  animal  production  sources  (soybeans,  frogs,  fish,  livestock,  fruits,  vegetables,  etc.)  by 
supporting  resource-poor  farmers  with  agricultural  and  livestock  inputs  (including  fish 
ponds),  by  promoting  sustainable  agriculture  techniques,  increasing  access  to  irrigation  and 
support  for  further  marketing  of  production.  In parallel,  target  populations  received  training 
and sensitisation on diverse food intakes, child-care practices (including breastfeeding), food 
conservation  and  transformation  and  on  appropriate  hygiene  practices.  Finally,  the  project 
included  a  component  to  identify  and  treat  children  affected  by  severe  acute  malnutrition. 
Decentralised  services  for  agriculture,  livestock  but  also  health  services  were  involved  in 
various phases. By focusing on the poorest and supporting them in accessing more nutritious 
food  (including  animal  products),  improving  hygiene  environment,  improving  child  care 
practices and providing a system to manage severe cases of acute malnutrition at community 
level and in partnership with health actors, this project achieved a substantial impact. 

Developing food crop wholesale market in Tanzania 
Financing 2.395.000 EUR – MVIWATA (National Network of Farmers) 

The  EUFF  project  implemented  by  the  local  NGO  MVIWATA  (National  Network  of 
Farmers) identified timely transfer of agricultural products from production areas as a crucial 
challenge to the national food security. During national food crisis there is normally a huge 
variability in food availability at local level with some remote areas in surplus and failing to 
sell the surplus to deficit areas. MVIWATA (experienced in the construction and organization 
of markets through projects financed by the French AFD) came up with the idea to promote 
better  access  to  markets  for  small-scale  farmers’  products,  especially  food  crops.  The 
overall  objective  was  to  secure  sustainable  access  to  locally  produced  food  crops  for  urban 
and  rural  populations  at  less  volatile  but  attractive  producer  prices.  This  objective  was 
achieved via the construction of two new markets, the rehabilitation of existing markets and 
enhancing capacity building of the Market Boards that run the markets. The project developed 
and  trained  marketed  boards,  which  took  over  the  management  of  the  marketing  facilities. 
Market  intelligence  strategies  to  proactively  identify  food  crop  production  opportunities  in 
relation  with  estimated  quantities  and  price  trends  were  developed;  relationships  with  local 
authorities, entrepreneurs and financial institutions were strengthened. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Promoting good governance and giving a voice to marginalized population in Nepal5 
Financing 1.447.000 EUR – Oxfam GB 

Oxfam project supported the Right to Food Network (RtFN), which is actively raising issues 
on food security at national level. RtFN does also link local level issues to the national level 
to  influence  the  policies.  The  project  developed  RtFN  chapters  at  district  levels  that  are 
advocating with local agencies such as DDC (District Development Office), DADO (District 
Agriculture  Development  Office)  and  other  stakeholders  for  effective  delivery  of  their 
services. Moreover the Project developed PLCs (Participatory Learning Centres) that are also 
facilitating the organization of famers (especially women) to demand for their rights to food 
security.  Through  lobbying  efforts  and  improved  linkages  with  different  national  level 
networks  such  as  RtFN,  food  cluster  (WFP,  FAO  and  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and 
Cooperatives), communities’ farmers have been able to advocate for improved national food 
security  policies  and  strategies.  A  result  at  local  level  was  for  example  the  decision  of 
Dadeldhura DDC to establish and promote seed banks in the whole district. At national level, 
the right to food and food security issues are included in the draft constitution of Nepal. 

Decreasing dependency towards social transfers, the graduation mechanism in Ethiopia 
Financing 1.350.000 EUR – Dan Church Aid 

Since  2005,  the  Ethiopian  Government  has  been  providing  food  and  cash  transfers  as  a 
response  to  chronically  food  insecure  populations  through  the  Productive  Safety  Net 
Programme (PSNP). This scheme aims at preventing asset depletion at household level and 
creating productive assets at community level. The challenge is now to reduce the caseload by 
ensuring that beneficiaries gain sufficient livelihoods, enabling them not to rely anymore on 
social  transfers.  This  process  is  known  as  graduation.  A  total  of  23,750  food  insecure 
households  benefitted  from  the  Dan  Church  Aid  project.  According  to  the  graduation 
assessment,  remarkable  livelihood  improvement  was  achieved  within  a  short  period  (food 
security, asset creation, asset protection, etc.): 21% households were considered food secure 
before the action and 56% after, mainly due to the increased access to irrigation facilities. The 
average income of irrigation users (Birr 4,269 per adult equivalent), is higher when compared 
to the per capita income of those who do not have access to irrigation. As a result 43% of the 
PSNP targeted households earned more than the regional benchmark (Birr 3,600) and hence 
became eligible for graduation. 

5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzArWgeYts0 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
5.4 

Learning from NGOs - EU FF case study in Ethiopia 

Overall,  360,136  households,  approximately  two  million  people  in  Ethiopia,  have  directly 
benefited from 13 NGO's projects implemented jointly by 28 international and local NGOs in 
Oromia, SNNPR, Amhara and Tigray States. In this framework, the EUFF financing amounts 
19.769.000 EUR. 

EU  FF  interventions  aimed  to  enhance  smallholder  farmers'  and  pastoralists'/agro-
pastoralists'  resilience  through  increased  agricultural/livestock  production  and  productivity 
and the promotion of other income diversification opportunities. The projects' initiatives have 
shown good complementarities to the on-going food security programs, particularly in terms 
of  facilitating  the  graduation  of  those  targeted  PSNP  beneficiaries  (around  50,095 
households)  through  promoting  various  on-farm  and  off-farm  income  diversification 
opportunities. 

(cid:138)Ten6 projects were supporting seed multiplication and distribution system. Accordingly, a 
total 41,342 quintals improved seeds were distributed to 106,023 households covering 36,080 
hectares of  farmland. As a  result of the intervention,  cereal  crop production per hectare has 
increased on average by 40-50%.   

(cid:138)Nine7  projects  have  funded  irrigation  schemes.  Accordingly,  54  river  diversion  irrigation 
schemes  (42  new),  40  check  dams/water  harvesting  structures,  808  Rope  &  Washer/treadle 
pumps,  and  565  hand  dug  wells  (HDW)  were  developed  for  irrigation  enabling  9,718 
households to produce 2-3 times in a year.  In total, 3,859 hectares of land was irrigated and 
productivity  of  food  crops  has  increased  on  average  by  50%  in  most  of  the  projects' 
intervention woredas. 

(cid:138)Five projects8 have supported 24,372 households (mainly women headed households) with 
livelihood diversification & asset creation through provision of sheep and goats, on credit 
basis.  The  credit  system  uses  a  strategy  where  the  primary  beneficiary  will  transfer  the 
offspring  or  mother  goats/sheep  in  kind  to  the  secondary  beneficiary.  Both  the  primary  and 
secondary beneficiaries are from the same peer group for which they consider the sheep/goats 
as  a  common  property.  Such  a  strategy  avoids  any  attempt  to  be  made  by  the  primary 
beneficiary to sell or abuse the mother goats. 

(cid:138)Eleven9 projects supported the construction of 114 grain-banks and stores and 38 community 
market places. Market places were constructed in the rural growth potential areas facilitating 
marketing of agricultural products, and reducing post harvest losses and timely transportation 

6 Implementing partners were CAid UK, CARITAS Bel, CISP, DCA, GRC, IDE UK, LVIA, Oxfam GB, SHA, and VITA. 

7 Implementing partners were CA UK, CARITAS, CISP, DCA, IDE, GRC, LVIA, Oxfam GB, REST, and VITA. 

8 Implementing partners were CAid UK, CARE, CARITAS, IDE UK, and TROCAIRE. 

9 EU-FF projects engaged in the construction grain banks/stores were CAid UK, CARE, CARITAS, CISP, DCA, IDE UK, 
GRC, LVIA, Oxfam GB, SHA, and VITA. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
challenges of perishable agricultural produces. Establishment of grain banks (GB) also helps 
to stabilize food price allowing households to purchase grain at a lower price and/or receive 
grain  loans  from  the  GB  at  times  of  high  prices.  Grain  banks/stores,  established  and 
administered  by  communities  aim  to  increase  local  seed  provision  security,  thereby 
contributing to the possibilities of continued utilization of locally important varieties.  

36 

 
 
 
6. 

 BUDGET SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION MODE  

State of play Budget Support allocations 

6.1 

1.1 

EU FF Budget Support Allocations10 

Sectoral Budget Support  Tajikistan  

Rwanda 
Mozambique 
Bolivia 

DRC 
Malawi 
Haiti 
Ghana 
Tanzania 
Togo 

General Budget Support 

TOTAL 

7.750.000 
15.600.000 
5.200.000 
7.750.000 

26.000.000 
15.900.000 
5.800.000 
15.000.000 
20.000.000 
8.200.000 

127.200.000 

(The  implementation  of  all  Budget  Support  operations  under  the  FF  has  been  managed  by  the  Geographical 
Directorates together with the EU Delegations).  

6.2 

Lessons learned 

• 

Interventions  financed  as  Budget  Support  (BS)  presented  a  good  response  for  all  those 
countries  which  had  their  own  satisfactory  response  to  the  finance  public  criteria  and 
which  were  already  qualified  by  EU  for  receiving  BS.  They  allow  a  rapid  response,  the 
beneficiary countries being able to pre-finance emergency actions from their own budget, 
as soon as there was a EU commitment. 

•  Many governments embraced greater levels of overall subsidies of various types, imported 
grain at very high prices or imposed severe export restrictions, installed price controls and 
subsidized  food  distribution  schemes,  established  or  reinforced  public  procurement 
mechanisms  at  fixed  prices,  or  organized  subsidized  fertilizer  distribution  schemes  for 
small farmers In many countries the FPC obliged governments to reduce import taxes and 
to increase social expenditures in order to mitigate effects on the most vulnerable parts of 
the  population.11  These  measures  often  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  national  budget. 

10 10 countries versus 15 countries planned in initial programming and allocation amounting EUR 165.3 million. 

11  FAO  “Country  responses  to  the  food  security  crisis.  Nature  and  preliminary  implications  of  the  policies 
pursued.”  Based  on  information  obtained  from  81  countries,  the  two  most  widely  applied  market  and  trade 
policy  measures  were  reduction  of  tariffs  or  custom  fees,  as  reported  by  43  countries,  and  selling  grain  from 
public  stocks  or  from  imports,  as  reported  by  35  countries.  Reducing  tariffs  is  among  the  easiest  measures  to 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Support  provided  through  EU  FF  under  Budget  Support  permitted  maintaining  high 
expenditures for the social and rural sector. It is to be noted that, due to eligibility criteria, 
only in 10 out of the 15 initially foreseen countries budget support could be disbursed. 

6.3 

Examples of EUFF Budget Support interventions  

EU FF budget support to maintain social expenditures in Tanzania 
Financing: 20.000.000 EUR 

The Food Facility General Budget Support (GBS) was additional to the already existing GBS 
(300 Million EUR). The Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP) 
under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADAP) seeks to 
achieve  at  least  a  minimum  of  6%  growth  in  the  agriculture  sector.  The  key  objective  is  to 
help  smallholder  farmers,  pastoralists  and  agro-pastoralists  and  fishing  households  to  adopt 
improved  agricultural  practices  for  which  the  government  needed  to  allocate  a  minimum  of 
10%  of  its  budget.  The  investment  plan  is  expected  to  cost  the  government  US$5.3billion 
when  the  program  is  fully  implemented  by  2016.  It  brings  together  all  stakeholders  to  a 
common agenda of comprehensively transforming the sector to create wealth, reduce poverty 
and achieve food and nutrition security. In the current budget of 2011/12, the Government has 
allocated  6.8%  of  its  budget  on  agriculture  out  of  a  total  budget  of  US$7.8billion.  The 
additional  general  budget  support  has  contributed  to  mitigate  effects  of  the  food  crisis  and 
food  insecurity  in  Tanzania,  by  providing  additional  resources  to  address  the  volatile  Food 
prices. This meant improved food security for the poorest layer of the population through the 
implementation of the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty for Tanzania 
(MKUKUTA). 

implement.  Some  23  countries  suspended  or  reduced  VAT  and  other  taxes,  while  25  countries  restricted  or 
banned exports. Price controls were reported in 21 countries, with 10 of these in Africa. A number of countries 
have applied two, three or even four different market and trade measures to bring down domestic prices.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
EU FF budget support complementing budget support interventions in Mozambique  
Financing:  5.200.000 EUR 

The  European  Commission  has  contributed  to  the  implementation  of  the  national  Sector 
Policy  Programme  PROAGRI  and  is  the  largest  contributor  with  30%  of  all  donor 
contributions since the  start  of  the Programme.  PROAGRI  is  aligned  with  the  direct  budget 
support  provided  by  a  G19  donors  group  and  is  complementary  to  the  EU  general  budget 
support  (PRBS  -  Poverty  Reduction  Budget  Support-  III,  MDG  -Millennium  Development 
Goals-  Programme).  The  Programme  is  financed  under  the  Food  Facility  Instrument.  This 
financing is on top of the approximately €15 million that the EU makes available annually to 
agricultural sector via MINAG as part of PROAGRI. 

7. 

 RESULTS-BASED GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT  

7.1 

Performance of EU Food Facility projects monitored 

Overview ROM EU FF 

TOTAL 

N° of countries visited 

N° of missions undertaken 

N° of experts mobilized 

N° of projects monitored 

N° of Monitoring Reports produced 

49 

235 

46 

176 

236 

Total budget of monitored EU FF projects (in millions EUR) 

723 

Average  budget  per  EU  FF  project  monitored  (in  millions 
EUR) 

4.1 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall performance of projects by category   

Category I 

Very good performance 

Category II 

Good performance 

2% 

4  

68% 

119 

Category III 

Performing with problems 

23% 

Category IV 

Not performing, or having major difficulty  

7% 

41 

12 

TOTAL 

100% 

176 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TYPE 

VERY 

GOOD 

PROBLEMS 

SERIOUS 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

GOOD 

(B) 

(C) 

DEFICIENCIES 

(A) 

Relevance/Quality 
Design 

of 

Alignment to policies and 
target 

Appropriateness  of  the 
intervention 

8% 

69% 

23% 

22% 

73% 

5% 

6% 

47% 

44% 

Support by stakeholders 

8% 

60% 

31% 

Mainstreaming  of  cross-
cutting 

9% 

65% 

25% 

Efficiency 

4% 

62% 

31% 

Inputs management 

Activity timeliness 

6% 

6% 

34% 

40% 

57% 

51% 

41 

(D) 

. 

. 

3% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

2.82 

3.16 

2.55 

2.75 

2.81 

2.66 

2.64 

2.59 

 
 
 
 
 
Outputs achievement 

7% 

56% 

35% 

Partner  contribution  & 
involvement  

6% 

64% 

28% 

Effectiveness 

Results attainment 

1% 

3% 

55% 

41% 

59% 

34% 

Project 
achievement 

Purpose 

9% 

67% 

23% 

Impact 

8% 

67% 

24% 

Contribution  to  overall 
objective 

8% 

67% 

24% 

Wider effects 

Sustainability 

Economic viability 

5% 

4% 

3% 

67% 

27% 

51% 

44% 

43% 

Local ownership 

11% 

56% 

Policy support 

5% 

57% 

48% 

31% 

36% 

Institutional 
building 

capacity 

5% 

64% 

29% 

Overall Score 

2% 

76% 

22% 

Number of projects 

3 

133 

39 

Total 
projects 

number 

of 

Total 
Monitoring Reports 

number 

of 

176 

236 

2.67 

2.73 

2.73 

2.63 

2.83 

2.80 

2.82 

2.77 

2.64 

2.44 

2.77 

2.66 

2.73 

2.73 

2% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

6% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1 

Monitoring period 

2010 

N° operations 
monitored 

N° reports produced 

122 

135 

42 

2011 

90 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Relevance 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Impact 

Sustainability 

Overall 

GOOD 

(A or B)* 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

GOOD 

(A or B)* 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

76% 

57% 

44% 

69% 

60% 

75% 

2.80 

2.55 

2.63 

2.71 

2.70 

73% 

67% 

60% 

78% 

52% 

2.68 

74% 

2.80 

2.67 

2.76 

2.86 

2.58 

2.73 

(*)  The  presented  percentages  do  not  add  up  to  100%  because  they  represent  the  percentage  of  projects  in  the 
category for each criterion, and the “overall” percentage represents the % of the projects with an overall score in the 
category. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.2 

EU FF projects ROM scores per region 

Region 

2010 

2011 

TOTAL 

Projects 
monitored 

Overall 
Score 

Projects 
monitored

Overall 
Score 

Projects 
monitored 

Overall 
Score 

European 

Neighbourhood  

2 

2.73 

1 

2.87 

3 

2.77 

Countries 

Africa,  

Indian Ocean,  

76 

2.69 

54 

2.74 

110 

2.72 

South Africa 

Asia 

Latin America 

Caribbean, 

Pacific, 
OCTs 

Cuba, 

30 

10 

2.67 

2.75 

4 

2.31 

26 

8 

1 

2.69 

2.85 

46 

13 

2.74 

2.85 

2.58 

4 

2.33 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3 

EU FF projects ROM scores per implementing channel  

a) International Organizations 

Monitoring period 

2010 

N° operations 
monitored 

N° reports produced 

38 

40 

2011 

39 

39 

Criterion 

Relevance 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Impact 

Sustainability 

GOOD 

(A or B) 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

GOOD 

(A or B) 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

71% 

37% 

24% 

63% 

50% 

2.64 

2.34 

2.49 

2.67 

2.55 

67% 

69% 

62% 

72% 

49% 

2.77 

2.71 

2.76 

2.83 

2.50 

Overall 

66% 

2.54 

69% 

2.71 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(*) The presented percentages do not add up to 100% because they represent the percentage of projects in the 
category for each criterion, and the “overall” percentage represents the % of the projects with an overall score in 
the category. 

b) Non-Governmental Organisations 

Monitoring period 

2010 

N° operations 
monitored 

N° reports produced 

84 

95 

2011 

51 

62 

Criterion 

Relevance 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

Impact 

Sustainability 

GOOD 

(A or B) 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

GOOD 

(A or B) 

AVERAGE 
SCORE 

79% 

65% 

54% 

71% 

64% 

2.87 

2.65 

2.70 

2.74 

2.77 

78% 

65% 

59% 

82% 

55% 

2.83 

2.64 

2.76 

2.88 

2.64 

Overall 

80% 

2.74 

78% 

2.75 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.4  Main ROM recommendations and lessons learned 

•  Project  design  should  be  better  taken  care  of,  in  particular  when  setting  the  Logical 
Framework  (LFM)  of  the  projects.  The  stakeholders’  analysis  and  the  problem  tree  as 
Annexes  to  the  LFMs  should  be  considered  as  requirement  in  the  awarding  of  the 
contracts.  Particular  focus  should  be  put  on  the  indicators  to  be  SMART  (Specific, 
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound). Project design need to have a built-
in  flexibility  in  order  to  easily  adjust  to  the  situation  on  the  ground.  In  addition, 
sustainability  is  an  issue  to  be  considered  from  project  design  and  continues  throughout 
project implementation.  

•  Paramount elements to be taken into account regarding projects implementation: the 
adequate  consideration  of  factors  like  droughts  is  essential  regarding  the  timing  of  FF 
projects; Mandatory pre-assessment of target group absorption and management capacity; 
Involvement of experienced local NGOs and motivated end-beneficiaries; Identification of 
“Leaders”  in  Associations  and  Organizations  of  farmers/producers  for  dissemination  of 
results;  Focus  on  small  intervention  area  to  avoid  logistical  complexities;  Realistic 
planning  of  delivery  of  resources  and  inputs  (recruitment,  tenders);  Use  of  feasibility 
studies  for  the  selection  of  areas  of  intervention  /  beneficiaries;  Limit  the  number  of 
implementing  partners;  Emphasis  on  development  and  capacity  building  of  community 
level  and  national/regional  institutional  structures  rather  than  on  mere  delivery  of 
“physical”  results;  Information  and  training  material  should  be  pictorial  and  easily 
understandable  for  easy  dissemination;  Dissemination  workshops  at  project  completion 
with as wide as possible range of relevant participants (e.g. Government, Regional / Local 
Authorities, NGOs, donors, civil society and traditional structures);  

•  Projects effectiveness can be increased with improved communication channels between 
projects’  management  teams  and  partners.  Furthermore,  the  projects  should  enhance  the 
cooperation  with  relevant  third  parties  (Embassies,  Ministries,  Local  and  National 
Authorities and Civil Society). This is valid for all projects independently of their domain 
of intervention. In addition the active engagement of final beneficiaries in project design 
and  implementation  should  be  systematic  and  Government  /  beneficiary  commitment 
should be demonstrated in practical terms (e.g. increase in extension personnel, budgetary 
commitments, legal reforms etc.). 

•  Crosscutting issues: most monitored projects are acting in favor of female workers where 
and  when  possible.  Environmental  aspects  are  often  not  addressed  directly  but  as  FF 
projects  often  deal  with  irrigational  and  agricultural  issues,  they  usually  are  designed 
following  well-known  best  practices  concerning  sustainability  and  the  environment. 
However, gender and Environment adequate analysis and mainstreaming require specific 
OVIs for cross-cutting issues. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

 FOOD FACILITY STUDIES 

8.1 

Institutional  response  by  the  UN  system  to  the  global  food  price  crisis  and  the  EU 
Food Facility – November 2009 

Executive Summary  

During  the  first  semester  2008,  in  response  to  the  global  crisis,  the  EU  decided  to  commit 
€1billion  on  a  set  of  activities  supporting  countries  shocked  by  the  impact  of  soaring  food 
prices and focusing on food production and access to food. 

The UN system was identified as a possible intermediary. At that time, under the Initiative on 
Soaring  Food  Prices,  the  UN-HLTF  had  just  started  the  joint  country  assessments  led  by 
FAO.  Getting  feedback  from  agencies  separately  would  have  implied  the  availability  of 
tremendous amount of information, which would have been hard for EC to turn - in a short 
time - into one harmonized feedback. There was therefore a need for a consolidated approach. 
Thus  the  request  submitted  to  HLTF  to  act  as  an  interface  between  the  EC  and  the  already 
selected agencies and to present –in a very limited time frame- the information received from 
the different agencies into “One UN feedback.” 

This study, “Institutional response by the UN System to the global Food price crisis and the 
UE Food Facility”, aims at analyzing the coordination, the synergies and the implementation 
mechanisms put in place by UN agencies involved in the EU Food Facility, both within the 
frame  of  the  HLTF  “Comprehensive  Framework  of  Actions”  and  the  EC  regulation 
1337/2008 of December 2008. It also aims to assess whether the EU Food Facility may be the 
booster of an all-embracing coordination at the country level. 

The  planning  phase,  for  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Food  Facility,  was  carried  out  in  a 
comprehensive  and  expedite  way.  However,  country  assessments  show  some  shortcomings. 
This  corroborates  the  conclusion  that  the  EU  Food  Facility  approach  is  suitable  for  an 
immediate  response  covering  emergency  and  recovery,  while  perhaps  being  unsuitable  for 
planning  longer-term  responses,  for  which  larger  investments  in  field  investigation,  data 
collection and analysis are required. 

Whereas the EU Food Facility strategy turned out to be a success at the global level in terms 
of “One UN feedback”, at the field level not all the agencies were able to respond in a choral 
manner, possibly due to the following reasons: 

•  At  country  level  there  is  a  divide  between  agencies  dealing  with  agriculture  development 
and  (cid:31)those  concerned  with  food  assistance  and  emergency.  A  further  distinction 
differentiates implementing agencies from financial and lending ones, such as IFAD and the 
WB, which have their own strict procedures.  

•  In-country  development  activities  are  covered  by  UNDAF;  the  UN  System  framework 
providing one unified and coordinated response to development challenges. This framework, 
however, does not cover emergency and recovery activities. Besides, within the UN System 
there is no organization encompassing the full scope of food security.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
•  UN  agencies  have  the  tendency  to  follow  their  own  country  plans  and  apply  their  own 
internal rules and procedures. (cid:31)Overall, field visits confirmed that the projects under the EU 
Food  Facility,  besides  responding  to  the  needs  of  the  country,  build  on  the  comparative 
advantages of partner agencies and are a) fully consistent with the overall strategy adopted by 
the  Governments  concerned  to  address  emergency  and  recovery  requirements  b)  coherent 
with the recovery actions stressed under the HLTF CFA and with the spirit, the objectives and 
the intervention sectors of the EU Food Facility. (cid:31)The EU Food Facility projects seem to be 
well taken by the involved implementing agencies. Beside the recruitment of ad-hoc staff in 
support  to  the  projects,  no  major  adaptations  were  necessary  as  the  agencies’  technical  and 
logistical  capacities  were  already  in  place.  Indeed,  FAO,  being  the  major  recipient  of  EC 
funds,  achieved  “economies  of  scale”  which  allowed  the  adoption  of  specific  measures  to 
reduce  transaction  costs,  as  well  as  to  harmonize  project  implementation  in  all  countries 
concerned and expedite decisions (ie increased delegation of Authority to FAO Reps, regular 
teleconference  meetings  amongst  all  EU  Food  Facility  project  units,  internal  task  force  for 
coordination). (cid:31)Coordination level varies depending on the country as well as on the actors 
involved  and  their  institutional  mandates.  The  fact  that  food  security  is  a  crosscutting  issue 
should  not  be  underestimated.  In  Liberia,  for  instance,  despite  a  well-conceived  structure, 
coordination  is  limited,  mainly  due  to  the  post-conflict  Government  framework,  with  its 
centralized  powers  and  one  geographical  control  which  make  it  difficult  to  cut  across  line 
ministries. 

On  the  other  hand  in  countries  such  as  Rwanda,  Ghana  and  Bangladesh,  where  the 
government takes control of coordination, activities seem to be implemented more efficiently 
and delivery is at a satisfactory level. 

Without oversimplifying, the use of a common coordination agreement at the field level for 
the  implementation  of  "Joint  Programmes"  would  have  facilitated  the  adoption  of  the  so-
called  pass-  through  agreement.  However  this  approach,  which  proved  to  be  effective  with 
humanitarian assistance, has the following constraints: a) it needs specific arrangements at the 
country level, which slows down the process, b) it generates uncertainty on who is technically 
and  financially  accountable  for  delivery  c)  the  internal  rules  for  determining  the  Project 
Support Costs (PSC) vary depending on the agency d) an additional transaction cost of about 
2% has to be to granted to the administrative agent. 

The new massive political commitment to long term food security, as declared in L’Aquila on 
July  2009,  and  the  proposal  launched  for  the  creation  of  a  Global  Fund  on  Food  Security, 
particularly  seen  within  the  framework  of  a  global  evolving  context,  have  to  be  scored  as 
positive  and  encouraging  signals.  This,  after  almost  two  decades  of  decreasing  aid  to 
agriculture and despite worldwide increases in ODA, are felt as huge developments, and the 
challenge is coming on the way to support Food Security in the 10 20-year period. 

Within  that  context,  there  is  a  remarkable  eagerness  about  coordinating  funding,  thus 
providing the EC with the opportunity for building on the experience of the EU-FF.  

Taking into account that: 

•  The implementation of the overall FF is still at the initial stage;  

•  In some of the countries visited (The Philippines), the projects to be financed either did not 
(cid:31)start or are not yet formally approved;  

49 

 
 
 
•  Some of the Delegations (e.g. Liberia and The Philippines) still have to adjust to the new 
load (cid:31)of responsibility;  

•  No  global  solutions  are  available  and  that  adjustments  and  improvements  are  country 
specific. (cid:31) 

The following recommendations can be made:  

From now onward, HLTF perhaps may devote additional efforts in providing support (cid:31)at the 
country  level  for  improving  efficiency  of  coordination  and  helping  to  ensure  adequate 
knowledge  and  information  sharing;  hence  boosting  the  capacity  of  jointly  identifying 
solutions to common problems that may occur during implementation.  

As  the  case  may  be,  improved  coordination  may  be  reflected  by  an  adjustment  of  HLTF 
structure so that it can count on focal people within their respective organizations rather than 
with  seconded  people,  so  to  be  able  to  rely  upon  specific  expertise  at  the  HQ  and  country 
level.  

Innovative and more flexible rules need to be devised by EC that, though firmly anchored to 
undisputable  principles  of  coherence,  equity  and  transparency,  may  cope  with  unexpected 
suddenly  changing  situations  and  allow  for  the  indispensable  leeway,  at  field  and  project 
management level, and prevent further delays and drawbacks in projects implementation.  

EC  country  Delegations  may  take  the  opportunity  to  step  up  their  cooperation  with  UN 
agencies,  trying  to  identify  shared  approaches  to  the  achievement  of  food  security  and 
agricultural development goals, besides pro-actively contributing to an enhanced coordination 
between HLTF, UN agencies and EC.  

The  EC  Delegations,  as  it  is  happening  in  Liberia  and  The  Philippines,  must  be  endowed, 
whenever necessary, with additional capacities. These should be especially devoted to: i) the 
coordination  of  the  FF  initiatives,  ii)  the  identification  of  new  alternative  options,  iii)  the 
conceptualisation of next steps to be undertaken, iv) the active participation of NGOs, v) the 
regular  monitoring  of  programme  unfolding  and,  vi)  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
visibility plan.  

In  countries  where  the  EU-FF  is  implemented,  the  EC  Delegations  may  consider  the 
opportunity to promote the establishment of "temporary" Food Facility Steering  

Committees,  within  broader  Food  Security  coordination  structures,  with  the  participation  of 
the  government  Departments  and  the  UN  agencies  concerned,  as  well  as  other  major 
stakeholders  and  a  representation  of  relevant  NGOs.  Indeed,  when  regulatory  and  overall 
guidance tasks would be fulfilled, it could easily be dissolved. 

Accordingly, and country specific, it would be advisable that the coordination of the EU Food 
Facility  related  actions  be  entrusted  to  one  of  the  Government  Departments/Institutions  that 
already play a major role in the implementation of the various projects.  

The envisaged FF Steering Committees - wherever feasible - under the guidance of the local 
EC Delegations and in cooperation with concerned UN agencies, could be the originator and 
promoter of:  

50 

 
 
 
-a coordination mechanism that may bring into line capacities, procedures and (cid:31)requirements. 
Such  a  mechanism  not  only  would  foster  synergies,  but  perhaps  more  important,  would 
prevent unfortunate, wasteful and image- damaging overlapping.  

-a  shared  reporting  and  monitoring  procedures  that,  though  based  on  purposely  designed 
outlines and simple forms, may satisfy the EU binding requirements.  

All concerned agencies, having been operational in the country for sometime, often have an 
articulated  programme  of  both  ongoing  and  pipeline  projects.  On  the  other  side,  the 
emergency  situations  call  for  a  quickness  of  action  that  does  not  allow  for  the  design  of 
innovative ideas and projects. Therefore, the UN agencies strategy of allocating EU FF funds 
to support or complement established aid schemes or ongoing initiatives should be accepted 
and endorsed.  

There  is  an  ample  scope  for  the  EC  to  consider  the  possibility  of  carrying  out  an  interim 
evaluation of the Food Facility, so to be able to draw perhaps a number of important lessons. 
This would enable improving the overall exercise in the event it should be repeated or should 
the  need  arise  in  the  future  to  identify  an  appropriate  strategy  to  allocate  funds  for  Food 
Security.  

8.2 

Supply Response from the Agricultural Sector in Developing Countries to Food Price 
Increases –  July 2010 

Executive summary 

The present contribution to the analysis of the “Supply Response from the Agricultural Sector 
in  Developing  Countries  to  Food  Price  Increases”  is  a  rapid,  qualitative  assessment  of  the 
factors which have contributed to the present situation of staple food production. 

The study focuses on cereals production and public policies responses. It is based on literature 
review  and  six  country  case  studies  (Zambia,  Benin,  Pakistan,  Laos,  Honduras  and 
Nicaragua). 

Given  the  scarcity  of  statistical  data  for  the  2008-2010  period  and  the  limited  country 
coverage, this review is only exploratory in nature, while trying to systematically assess the 
factors which have influenced supply response. 

Key findings are the following: 

•  There  is  to  date  no  evidence  of  any  significant  increase  of  staple  food  production  in  the 
developing world, in average, over 2007-2010, that could be linked by a causal relationship to 
the world food prices increase.  

•  Many developing countries have adopted food-self sufficiency as a new orientation of their 
agricultural  policies  and  deployed important  emergency  and  mid-term  measures  to  this  end. 
This has entailed over the past three years significant interventions on the inputs and outputs 
markets.  

•  World  price  increases  have  not  been  transmitted,  in  average,  at  the  farm  gate  level. 
Consumer prices experienced significant increases (about 50% in real terms in 2008, and they 
were still 20 higher than pre-crisis prices in July 2009). However, these high consumer prices 
typically  did  not  translate  into  increases  at  the  producer  level.  There  are  cases  of  countries 

51 

 
 
 
where public procurement, however, was offering high prices to farmers (Pakistan, Zambia).  

•  In  some  countries  where  strong  production  support  policy  measures  were  implemented, 
efforts  concentrated  on  subsidized  fertilizer  &  seed  distribution  and  public  procurement 
schemes (often at fixed prices). Such schemes have reached about a quarter of the peasantry 
and a third of marketable surplus in Zambia and Benin.  

•  The  countries  that  have  experienced  the  best  supply  response  are  those  where  both 
subsidized schemes are implemented together (i.e. fertilizer schemes and public procurement). 
Zambia for example has experienced two consecutive record crops and even a bumper crop in 
2010,  reaching  unprecedented  exports.  Pakistan  is  another  example  where  this  kind  of 
combination for rice and wheat has contributed to two consecutive good crops, with above the 
average net cereals exports.  

•  High  fixed  prices  for  the  producer  (when  fixed  prices  are  used  for  public  procurement) 
seem to be an incentive that works. Zambia and Pakistan have applied with success prices that 
were respectively 20% and 50% in nominal terms to the pre-crisis prices.  

•  Most  countries  have  not  experienced  significant  production  increase  in  average  over  the 
past three years. Some of them (like Laos, Nicaragua or Honduras) have been implementing 
important  state  driven  fertilizer  distribution  and  subsidy  schemes  but  this  was  not  coupled 
with significant public procurement schemes.  

•  Inputs distribution seems to have emerged as the single most strategic solution adopted for 
securing higher levels of staple food in a sustainable manner. In some countries, private sector 
based  inputs  distribution  is  being  promoted  and  developed  now  based  on  existing  networks 
(cooperatives  or  producers  organizations,  or  agro-dealers  retail  networks)  and  innovative 
mechanisms (such as electronic voucher schemes) that ensure a linkage between state subsidy 
and private sector’s involvement development (Zambia). In other countries (like Benin), the 
challenge  is  more  complex,  because  of  the  non-existence  of  a  pre-existing  capacity  of  the 
private sector to ensure inputs retail distribution in rural areas. 

•  Countries  are  experiencing  contradictions  between  the  state  driven  and  subsidized 
mechanisms that were installed as an emergency response in 2008 and that continue to exist 
today,  and  the  policy  frameworks  they  had  adopted  before  the  crisis.  There  seems  to  be  a 
political willingness to maintain this type of instruments operational as part of an “emergency 
preparedness” strategy. This will need to be taken into consideration while working on overall 
policy coherence at country level.  

•  New  policy  frameworks  need  to  be  established  that  could  permit,  as  a  top  priority,  the 
actual development of the private sector’s role (producers associations and traders) in inputs 
distribution and in crops marketing. (cid:31)Recommendations addressed to the Food Facility, EC 
Delegations and the related programmes focus on: i) a study/research agenda; ii) four priority 
areas of intervention that based on the present study and case studies seem to be relevant for 
the follow-up of the Food Facility implementation at country level and at global level, and iii) 
positive  experiences  observed  in  case  studies  that  might  deserve  replication.  (cid:31)The 
instruments/programmes that were observed in country case studies and assessed as having a 
positive  impact  for  promoting  sustainable  food  production  increases,  and  that  could  be 
actively supported elsewhere, are principally the following:  

52 

 
 
 
Combining  (coupling)  and  implementing  simultaneously  strong  “fertilizer  subsidy 
schemes”  and  “public  procurement  schemes”  covering  a  significant  share  of  the 
national peasantry. This can be achieved either through targeted EC budgetary support or 
specific  technical  assistance  programmes.  The  latter  must  aim  at  boosting  efficiency  and 
effectiveness  of  practices,  and  driving  them  towards  “smart  fertilizer  subsidy”  as  well  as 
towards  public  procurement  bodies  relying  on  commercial  banks  (Zambia  example,  where 
the total cost of both combined instruments in 2010 was in the range of US$ 125 million). 

Supporting that inputs traders replace the state for inputs distribution to small holders: this 
can be achieved by promoting electronic voucher schemes for access to subsidized inputs 
by farmers through retail agro-dealers’ shops. Vouches can be instrumental tools to foster the 
development of the private sector’s involvement in inputs distribution even in remote areas, 
while  diminishing  costs,  improving  accountability  and  transparency,  and  allowing  for 
traceability (Zambia example). 

Reinforcing public extension services to food crop producers in parallel with the provision 
of  fertilizers,  improved  seeds  and  other  agricultural  inputs.  The  advantage  can  be  the 
promotion of the organization of farmers groups and the transmission of good practices, as 
well  as  the  facilitation  of  the  replacement  of  the  state  by  the  private  sector  for  input 
distribution, i.e. promoting the voucher systems. 

Strengthening farmers’ cooperatives for inputs distribution, marketing facilitation (from 
bulking at village level up to district and higher levels), and as financial intermediaries. 
EC  and  other  donor  institutions  have  been  strengthening  the  cooperative  sector  in  Central 
America. The existing institutions have now a relatively high operational level and are well 
developed. 

Promoting  modern  market  institutions  such  as  market  information  systems  (MIS)  of  the 
second  generation  (mobile  phone  based),  warehouse  receipt  systems  (WRS)  and 
commodity exchanges (Zambia example). 

Promoting  conservation  agriculture  (CA),  which  offers  remarkable  potential  for  the 
sustainability of production and productivity increases (Zambia example). 

8.3 

Safety Net Interventions financed under the Food Facility – August 2010 

Summary 

The  Global  Objective  is  to  assist  the  European  Commission  Services  in  the  successful 
implementation of activities financed under the Food Facility, and to draw lessons for future 
EC development policies in the field of food security.  

The  Specific  Objective  is  to  complete  an  analysis  of  the  role  of  safety  net  programmes 
financed under the Food Facility, and to assess their added value in helping people manage 
risks. Three case studies have been judiciously selected, as per the Terms of Reference (ToRs) 
for the study.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Senegal,  the  World  Food  Programme  is  the  implementing  agency,  with  a  Food  Facility 
input of Euro10.9m budget. There are three activity foci, two of which are in the comparative 
advantage capability of WFP to implement (the third, agricultural production was supposedly 
to be outsourced to FAO, using its comparative advantage). 

In  Palestine,  UNRWA  is  the  implementing  agency,  with  a  Food  Facility  top-up  of 
Euro39.7m,  assigned  on  May  26th  2009,  and  all  used  to  plug  a  gaping  hole  in  UNRWA 
finances. This was caused in large part by the soaring price of food on the market to enable 
UNRWA’s  safety  net  programme,  itself  needed  to  counterbalance  the  socio-political 
dysfunction in that part of the world. In the absence of this windfall, many Palestinians in the 
Gaza Strip would have perished or starved. The instruments of Direct Support assistance did 
not  change  as  a  result  of  the  FF  contribution.  Clearly,  UNRWA  was  the  right  choice  of 
implementing partner, although the involvement of WFP could have been considered to take 
care of the non-refugees in the Gaza Strip as well. 

In  Ethiopia,  the  implementing  agency  is  listed  as  World  Bank  in  the  assignment  ToRs, 
though the Bank’s role is to head the Trust Fund into which programme monies are paid and 
from  which  they  are  drawn  down.  The  true  implementing  partner  is  the  Food  Security 
Coordinator within the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (MoARD). There are some misgivings 
by some parties within the Programme that the Public Works component, that uses some 80% 
of the funds available, falls under MoARD. By the nature of Public Works activities, a lot of 
the funding goes into Watershed management and MoARD is the appropriate partner for that; 
yet  it  is  hardly  the  right  partner  for  irrigation  engineering,  roads  and  culverts,  schools  and 
clinics.  This  may  explain  why  in  all  the  latter  infrastructural  works,  questions  have  been 
raised  over  the  quality  of  the  work  done,  though  there  is  a  trend  for  this  challenge  to  be 
resolved to some extent through training given at woreda level. The FF top-up assigned to the 
FSNP  in  2009  was  Euro20m,  subsequently  topped  up  again  by  Euro3.1m,  and  all  used  that 
year, to compensate for the price of the Safety Net food component, in the market place.   

Recommendations  whereby  future  EC  Cooperation  could  be  improved  to  enhance 
effectiveness and sustainability of Safety Net support measures. 

Ethiopia:  Commission  an  FWC  in  which  a  facilitator  identifies  and  collates  the  Terms  and 
Conditions  applying  to  PSNP  regular  (not  contract)  staff  across the  participating  Ministries, 
and  at  the  various  levels  from  Federal  to  Woreda;  then  devises  through  a  process  of 
consultation cost-free initiatives to improve the T & C, which are likely to be acceptable to 
GoE,  which  the  Donor  Coordination  Team  adopt  and  strongly  promote  with  GoE,  in  the 
interests of all stakeholders.  

Working  through  the  Donor  Coordination  Team,  under  the  current  chairmanship  of  Ireland, 
work  to  remove  the  various  coordination  and  management  dysfunctions  in  partnership  with 
the  Food  Security  Coordination  Unit;  not  just  in  official  meetings  but  through  one-on-one 
rounds of golf, or similar informal settings. 

Palestine: Feeding programmes for children amended so that support is given for the whole 
three years up until pre-school starts, rather than merely for the first six months of life. Yet 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
another example of value being added to both the programme and the beneficiaries. There will 
be a cost clearly, and the Food Facility could be used to good effect to cover it. 

Supply assistance for the discussion on whether food distribution can be replaced by cash. As 
this seems very complex because of the repercussions on the programmes’ financial situation 
and the objectives of serving the refugees the best it can, in certain UNRWA circles there is 
quite  a  resistance  towards  the  idea.  In  particular,  where  food  markets  are  not  properly 
functioning, alternatives should be looked into in order to have more economical actions, by 
which  the  saving  of  funds  gives  better  opportunities  for  the  total  programme  to  be 
implemented. 

Senegal: Further studies are required on the subject of food or cash vouchers versus just cash. 
UNICEF and the WB have already done such work, but given the reluctance of WFP, because 
of  its  prioritising  ‘food’  from  the  inception  of  the  programme,  it  is  advisable  that  further 
studies in this subject are done. According to UNICEF, also the IMF’s advice that cash should 
be used more, for economic reasons as it gives rise to more economic development should be 
taken into account. 

When services of other organisations are supposed to be rendered, it should not be taken for 
granted  that  such  an  organisation  steps  into  the  programme,  but  a  contract  should  be  made 
also with such an organisation. So, if such services are included in a programme one should 
make  certain  that  such  actually  happens,  lest  valuable  parts  of  a  project  do  not  get 
implemented (e.g. involvement of FAO in the Food for Assets programme, which easily could 
have  been  brought  under  the  overall  FF  contract  with  FAO  covering  several  countries;  this 
was  the  case  with  Liberia  where  a  special  contract  was  made  with  reference  to  the  overall 
contract). 

8.4 

Food Facility Beneficiary assessment  –  December 2010 

Executive summary 

From January to November 2010 a Beneficiaries Assessment (BA) Study was carried out for 
projects financed under the Food Facility. Three Experts carried out Field missions, each of 
whom was assigned to one country (Philippines, Cambodia and Zambia). 

This Study aims to assist the European Commission services in the successful implementation 
of  activities  financed  under  the  Food  Facility,  to  draw  lessons  for  future  EC  development 
policies  and  project  design  in  the  field  of  food  security.  Its  focus  is  on  the  beneficiaries  of 
three selected projects financed under the Food Facility. It shall help the Commission services 
improve the effectiveness of the Food Facility and related actions. The target of the study is to 
improve  the  decision  making  of  the  managers  responsible  for  the  programming  and 
implementation of the Food Facility and other EC funded actions in the field of food security. 
The goal of the study is improvement the EC’s project and policy design in the field of food 
security.  

The projects assessed are: 

55 

 
 
 
Philippines: 

“Making Safe Food Available and Accessible to Rural Poor Households in the 
Philippines” implemented by CARE Nederland; 

“Focused Food Production Assistance to Vulnerable Sectors” implemented by 
SEARCA (Southeast Asian Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research 
in Agriculture); 

Cambodia: 

“Improve  the  food  security  of  farming  families  affected  by  the  soaring  food 
prices.” implemented by FAO; 

Zambia: 

“Responding  to  soaring  food  prices:  a  step  towards  sustainable  agriculture, 
income generation and empowerment of small-scale farmers in Mazabuka and 
Monze Districts” implemented by CeLIM. 

BA  is  a  qualitative  research  and  management  tool  for  verifying  the  quality  of  development 
interventions.  It  aims  at  improving  development  impacts  by  gaining  beneficiaries’  views  of 
planned and/or on-going activities. The BA objective is to assess the value of an activity as 
perceived  by  Project  beneficiaries  and  to  integrate  findings  into  Project  activities.  The  BA 
approach is not intended to replace quantitative surveys and other data gathering methods. It 
complements  these  by  providing  reliable,  qualitative,  in-depth  information  on  the  socio-
cultural conditions and perceptions of a Project’s target group. This information is intended to 
be of immediate use to managers and policy-makers responsible for improving peoples’ well 
being.  BA  facilitates  the  development  of  demand  driven  initiates  and  enhances  their 
sustainability.  The  approach  relies  primarily  on  conversational  interviews,  backed  by  prior 
review  of  secondary  data.  In  well-guided  interviews,  people  are  expected  to  reveal  their 
feelings,  thoughts,  and  beliefs  about  particular  issues.  It  uncovers  information  that  would 
otherwise not come to light. This is particularly important when seeking insight from women 
and the poor. 

The following core topical areas for conversation were selected for this study - the underlined 
topics were initially presented with the Inception Report: 

(cid:131) Food availability from local production; 
(cid:131) Produce marketing channels and selling price movements; 
(cid:131) Food availability from the market and food price movements; 
(cid:131) Food crises; 
(cid:131) Social networks and community-based safety nets; 
(cid:131) Food aid; 
(cid:131) Farming support services; 
(cid:131) Beneficiaries’ participation in the projects; 
(cid:131) Supply of inputs and services; 
(cid:131) Beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the projects; 
(cid:131) Local sustainability mechanisms and institutional capacities. 

The  Experts’  briefings  with  the  EUDs  in  the  three  countries  resulted  to  some  extent  in 
modifications  of  how  the  above  topics  were  to  be  covered,  subsequently  how  the 
conversations were structured and guided. The topics above, which are not underlined, were 
added before the first Expert went to her Food Facility project areas in the Philippines, and the 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Cambodia study followed these topics later, while the Zambia study was carried out more in 
line with the initial core topics due to serious time constraints. 

The  sample  size  was  determined  by  the  time  available  to  carry  out  the  field  level 
conversations.  Between  44  and  66  beneficiaries  could  be  interviewed  during  the  field  time 
available  to  this  study.  Therefore,  utmost  care  was  taken  in  representative  coverage  of  all 
types of beneficiaries, such as better-off, medium-income and poor farmers, wide age range of 
farmers, equal number of male and female farmers, vulnerable women and women involved 
in nutrition and supplemental feeding. The sample beneficiaries cover a wide range of food 
production  activities  such  as  rice,  maize,  goat  production,  inland  fishing,  marine  fishing, 
aquaculture, and vegetable growing. 

Findings 

Most beneficiaries produce for their subsistence. Little produce can be sold to the market or 
shared  with  poor  families  in  need.  Farmers  need  income  in  order  to  pay  other  essential 
necessities and additional food for a better nutrition. Hence, any surplus - as far as available - 
has  to  go  to  the  market.  However,  at  present  none  of  the  projects  includes  farmer  support 
activities that would aim at their marketing their eventual surplus production. Dependence on 
rain-fed  agriculture  greatly  limits  farm  productivity.  Irrigation  is  absent  in  all  project  areas, 
although  natural  conditions  are  conducive  to  water  retention  and  small  irrigation  schemes. 
Fruit  and  vegetables  are  usually  not  being  grown  by  the  beneficiaries.  Vegetables  are 
generally  considered  a  welcome  food  source  and  in  addition  a  good  income  source.  Post-
harvest  losses  due  to  inappropriate  storage  occur  frequently.  Livestock  production  is  an 
important cash oriented activity in all project areas visited. In all areas covered by this study, 
natural  hazards  can  have  a  detrimental  impact  on  farm  production.  Beneficiaries  across  the 
three  countries,  where  the  three  FF  projects  are  being  implemented,  see  capital  as  the  main 
requirement for increasing production and income. Some rely largely on professional lenders 
and some cultures do not know of such approaches.  

Networks of communal solidarity that could potentially mitigate impacts of food crises do not 
exist in all project areas. Such networks could render the impacts of the Food Facility’s short-
term assistance more sustainable.  

Frequency  of  support  from  various  services  (projects  and  Government)  seems  often  to  be  a 
concern,  especially  in  a  context  where  project  duration  is  short.  Agricultural  extension 
officers, fishery officers, agronomy officers of local, District and Provincial offices are often - 
but  not  always  -  involved  to  varying  degrees.  Training  received  from  the  FF  projects  is 
generally found satisfactory and useful. Livestock related training and extension is rather an 
exception  than  a  general  rule  -  veterinary  officers  are  less  available  than  agriculture 
specialists.  

Physical inputs such as certified seed, fertilisers for the staple crop and for vegetables, tools, 
other  gear  and  machinery  are  being  well  delivered  to  the  beneficiaries,  although  occasional 
delays  are  being  encountered.  Beneficiary  participation  depends  to  one  part  on  the 
performance  of  the  support  mechanisms  in  so  far  that  the  promoted  technologies  must  be 

57 

 
 
 
supported by timely delivery the necessary inputs. Otherwise, production loss is imminent and 
farmers lose interest. The beneficiaries receiving inputs and services were generally satisfied 
with the quality. Often, farmers see the quantity of inputs delivered as a constraint to potential 
impact, hence, they ask for more inputs.  

Increases in farm input prices represent a major constraint to potential benefits beneficiaries 
could  gain  from  FF  projects,  particularly  in  Cambodia.  Hence,  the  beneficiaries  are  most 
grateful for the free high-quality inputs (especially seeds) they receive from the projects.  

Only  in  Cambodia  beneficiaries  have  to  cope  with  strongly  increased  food  prices.  In  most 
countries marketing does not take place in nearby village markets, due to (semi-) subsistence 
economic  situation.  However,  in  such  environments  bartering  of  produce  may  occur.  Prices 
are very variable across the projects covered by this study. In Zambia, farmers prefer to sell to 
a  Government  agency  that  buys  food  at  subsidised  prices  above  market  prices.  This  is  not 
necessarily an incentive to their participation in the FF project.  

The majority of the rural smallholders benefitting from the FF projects eat only two meals a 
day.  The  staple  food  of  beneficiary  households  originates  from  their  own  production,  with 
starchy  foods  dominating  the  diet.  Meal  shortages,  i.e.,  the  limited  ability  to  purchase  food 
from the market are induced by 1. low agricultural productivity and 2.  low level of income 
available  after  costs  for  other  essential  items  such  as  schooling,  etc.  Projects  comprise  of  a 
nutrition training component aiming mainly at children. Others comprise of a post-harvest or 
safe food storage component. 

Farmers  have  previously  experienced  and/or  are  currently  experiencing  emergency  relief 
(food aid, cash-for-work and food-for-work) in all of the project areas under this assessment. 
Disincentive effects of food aid are widely known in so far that farmers’ reliance on food aid 
is often detrimental to their adoption of new farming technologies such as those proposed by 
FF  projects  and  regular  development  projects  -  farmers  have  a  less  innovative  and/or  self-
confident  behaviour  when  they  rely  on  food  aid  as  a  supplement  to  their  currently  low 
production that can be increased. 

It  appears  that  some  of  the  FF’s  implementing  partners  have  commenced  field  level 
operations late; hence, their beneficiaries have little knowledge of the specific FF project and 
not yet experienced all inputs and services. Participation of beneficiaries and local authorities 
as well as local Government services in project planning is usually known to be an important 
determinant of project impact. Therefore, the implementing organisations of the FF projects 
assessed  by  this  study,  conducted  diligent  validation  of  beneficiaries’  socio-economic 
situation in screening of beneficiaries for eligibility. 

Timely  delivery  of  inputs  is  key  with  regard  to  beneficiaries’  satisfaction  and  participation 
over the course of a project. Throughout the projects assessed, beneficiaries are satisfied with 
the inputs and services (training) provided. However, at the early implementation stages some 
“critical reticence” exists with regard to the impacts on future yields. 

58 

 
 
 
Some  of  the  FF  projects  assessed  have  established  close  working  relationships  with  local 
services such as agriculture offices, planning and development offices, etc. It seems, however, 
that traditional authorities - where not yet involved in the projects - could play an important 
decision-making  and  advisory  role  towards  sustainability,  if  they  were  taught  what  is 
technically  required  to  take  farm  production  forward.  In  remote  situations  such  as  in  the 
project intervention areas in the Philippines and in Zambia, local services are often not very 
effective, which is reflected in beneficiaries’ limited knowledge of other potential sources of 
support, e.g., nationwide programmes. Beneficiaries are well aware of the “shortness” of the 
FF  projects,  hence,  in  their  early  stages  have  doubt  about  impact  and/or  are  reticent  to 
participate. In some areas they believe that Government services will take over, in others they 
know  that  Government  services  are  too  weak  or  resource  constrained  to  continue  in  a 
meaningful manner. 

Conclusions 

Overall, the Food Facility is a short-to-mid-term means for alleviating the negative impact of 
global food price hikes. The Food Facility implementation, as represented by this assessment, 
is still at its early stages with numerous inputs and services still to be delivered. Hence, this 
report  can  outline  only  the  findings  relating  to  design  (e.g.,  participatory  involvement  of 
beneficiaries)  and  to  on-going  implementation  at  the  activity  level,  not  at  output/result  or 
impact  level.  Subsequently,  a  few  recommendations  can  be  made  with  a  view  to  reinforce 
project operations so that the desired impacts can be reached. 

Recommendations 

From a global political point of view, it was important and innovative that the EC decided to 
make funds available for the Food Facility to counter the potential negative impact of global 
food  price  increases.  In  the  humanitarian  sphere  relating  to  ECHO  projects  and  within 
organisations  such  as  the  FAO/UN,  there  is  at  present  substantial  discussion  going  on  as  to 
how  emergency  interventions  can  be  linked  with  development  efforts,  especially  when 
humanitarian or emergency/relief interventions relate to mitigating impacts of natural hazards 
and/or  climate  change  impacts  on  smallholder  farm  production.  In  this  regard,  the  Food 
Facility supports the current global integration initiatives very well. It is desirable that  such 
effort is carried on, in order to contribute to bridging the gap between emergency operations 
and development interventions. Optimally the lessons learned from the FF projects upon their 
completion would contribute to recommending specific interventions to regular development 
interventions.  I.e.,  the  FF’s  motivation,  objectives  and  knowledge  gathered  from  its  project 
interventions should become part of upcoming development projects. 

Urban  populations  are  much  more  prone  to  food  price  increases  due  to  world  market  price 
movements  of  inputs  and  food.  Especially  in  countries  where  rural  populations  feed 
themselves  from  their  own  production  (subsistence  farming  and  fishing)  and  do  not  have 
much of a production surplus to sell to the urban areas, the Food Facility might bring some 
impact to urban  populations if national food production can be increased. However, longer-
term assistance is required if smallholders are to induce a reduction of costly food imports. 

59 

 
 
 
A well defined Food Facility implementation, i.e., rigorous screening for appropriate coverage 
of  the  desired  impact  areas  in  project  proposals  -  is  of  utmost  importance  e.g.,  surplus 
marketing is not part of the FF projects assessed by this study, but with a view to longer-term 
development projects it is important to learn how marketing in the FF projects’ geographical 
areas can be facilitated. Food security is often understood as just farm-orientated agricultural 
interventions  with  the  respective  accompanying  measures  in  sector  governance  and 
management  -  livestock,  fisheries  and  other  income  generating  activities  are  often  ignored, 
although household cash income enables food purchases. It is often claimed that the poorest 
of the poor must be addressed. However, they do not have much opportunity in agriculture - a 
fact that can be well seen and that is being well addressed by the projects in the Philippines, 
Cambodia  and  Zambia,  as  they  have  chosen  to  work  with  farm  households  who  have  good 
potential  to  improve  food  supply  for  themselves  and  for  their  communities  including  the 
landless.  A  non-discriminating  and  wider  livelihoods  approach  aiming  at  food  security  for 
farmers and the landless alike often proves to bring more significant changes than approaches 
that  focus  on  one  major  income  earning  activity  such  as  agriculture.  However,  none  of  the 
beneficiaries covered by the present study point to activities and desired impacts apart from 
agriculture.  Some  even  point  specifically  to  their  livestock  and  fisheries  related  constraints. 
This could mean that the three FF projects have so far not undertaken sufficient efforts to deal 
with their aquaculture (Philippines) component and income generating activities (Cambodia). 
Further scrutiny or monitoring is required to make sure the projects address all of their desired 
outputs appropriately. 

(cid:131)  Projects should focus in the course of the remaining implementation time on making their 
impact  sustainable.  While  beneficiaries  are  confident  that  benefits  will  accrue  from  the 
projects, the Food Facility needs to ensure proper monitoring and quantification of such 
(potential) gains. 

(cid:131)  Although the Food Facility’s support to poor farmers through subsidised or free inputs is 
justified  in  view  of  the  FF’s  scope  and  objectives,  longer-term  emphasis  is  required  on 
stepwise  smallholder  empowerment  and  on  building  of  their  self-confidence.  The  Food 
Facility cannot fully address this issue, as it is limited to 3-years duration. However, EDF 
development  projects  as  well  as  ECHO/DIPECHO  interventions  can  learn  from  the  FF 
project lessons learned. 

(cid:131)  Projects  should  urgently  address  marketing  aspects.  The  more  surplus  a  farmer  will  be 
able  to  produce,  the  more  he  needs  reliable  outlets  in  terms  of  price  and  quantity. 
Community-based  storage  facilities  as  well  as  marketing  collectives,  and  possibly  cell 
phone based price information systems could allow farmers to maximise their incomes by 
selling at the right time to the right buyer. 

(cid:131)  Wherever viable and/or where micro-finance (community) organisations are present in the 

communities, supporting measures should be added. 

(cid:131)  Project  planning  must  mandatorily  consider  and  implementation  must  absolutely  respect 
cultural calendars, so that inputs are available to the farms exactly at the time when they 
are  needed.  The  management  of  the  projects  under  the  Food  Facility  needs  to  look  into 
procurement procedures for physical inputs as practiced by any proposed partner in order 
to eliminate further undesirable delays. 

(cid:131)  Productive  support  through  income  generating  activities  should  be  made  possible  to  the 

otherwise excluded poorest, i.e., the landless farm workers and gatherers. 

60 

 
 
 
(cid:131)  Mitigation  of  the  negative  impacts  of  natural  disasters  such  as  typhoons,  floods  and 
droughts is mandatory in areas where they occur and the FF intervenes. The risk of losing 
production to these hazards can in such areas annihilate the complete FF effort. As it is not 
the  Food  Facility’s  mandate  to  mitigate  disaster  caused  by  natural  calamities,  it  s 
recommended for the three projects support is sought from specialised agencies that can 
help to reduce the imminent disaster risk (e.g., ECHO/DIPECHO). 
It  is  mandatory  to  provide  continuous  hands-on  training  and  follow-up  built  on 
participation of and frequent interaction with beneficiaries. To this end, communities shall 
be organized and empowered to multiply newly acquired knowledge onto a wider range of 
beneficiaries.  This  is  of  utmost  importance  in  the  FF  context,  where  shorter-term 
interventions are taking place, i.e., the time window to impact is narrow. 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131)  Where appropriate, stronger inclusion of livestock related activities/innovations and/or of 
fishing/aquaculture  related  activities/innovations  to  cater  for  additional  income  to 
supplement expected benefits from the current agriculture-focused interventions. 

(cid:131)  Also  timing  of  nutrition  advice  is  equally  important.  As  the  subject  matter  is  about 
behaviour  changes,  constant  and  long-term  assistance  is  required  if  real  impact  is  to  be 
achieved. 

(cid:131)  Co-operation between and co-ordination of local authorities, Government services, NGOs 
and Community Based Organisations is also important. Capacity building of local services 
should be considered. 

9. 

 FOOD FACILITY FINAL EVALUATION 

9.1 

Executive Summary 

9.1.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

The current evaluation12 assesses the European Union Food Facility (Regulation 1337/2008) 
as an instrument and the European Commission’s cooperation activities under this instrument 
over the period 2008 to 2011. The geographical scope includes all 49 countries where Food 
Facility funded activities were undertaken13. The objective of the evaluation was to ascertain 
whether  the  objectives  have  been  met,  to  enable  the  formulation  of  conclusions  based  on 
objective, credible, reliable and valid findings and to formulate recommendations with a view 
to improving relevant future development cooperation operations.  

9.1.2 Background of the evaluation 

The  volatility  of  food  prices  and  agricultural  inputs  in  2007  and  2008  put  numerous 
developing  countries  and  their  populations  in  a  dramatic  situation  and  put  the  realisation  of 
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at risk. Moreover, the rising prices have resulted 
in riots, unrest and instability in several countries, jeopardising the achievements of years of 
political development and peacekeeping investments. This Food Price Crisis (FPC) demanded 

12 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/intervention-areas/ruraldev/food_intro_en.htm 

13 The EU FF regulation 1337/228 laid down the requirement to carry out appropriate external evaluation of the activities carried out under 
the regulation. An external final evaluation was launched in May 2011. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
short-medium term action from the international community, in order to mitigate its effects on 
the poor in developing countries.  

The  FAO  launched  its  Initiative  on  Soaring  Food  Prices  (ISFP)  in  December  2007,  in 
response to the urgent needs of the most vulnerable people faced with skyrocketing prices and 
difficult  choices.  In  April  2008,  the  Chief  Executive  Board  (CEB)  of  the  United  Nations 
established  a  High-Level  Task  Force  (UNHLTF)  on  the  Global  Food  Crisis,  under  the 
leadership  of  the  UN  Secretary-General.  The  UNHTLF  proposed  a  unified  response  to  the 
FPC  and  a  global  strategy  and  action  plan,  the  so-called  Comprehensive  Framework  for 
Action (CFA). 

The  FAO  High-Level  Conference  on  World  Food  Security  in  June  2008  called  on  the 
international  community  to  increase  its  assistance  to  developing  countries.  This  call  was 
echoed  by  the  G8+  Summit  in  Japan  the  following  month,  where  the  President  of  the 
European  Commission  announced  the  Commission's  intention  to  propose  a  quick  response 
‘Facility’ of 1 billion EUR to diminish the effects of the on-going FPC.  

The first EU intervention decisions made in 2008 to mitigate the Food Price Crisis originated 
from existing EC instruments: the EDF-B envelope (185.9 million EUR),  FSTP (50 million 
EUR)  and  ECHO  (210  million  EUR).  However,  the  amount  made  available  or  reallocated 
through these existing instruments was insufficient to address the financial requirements for 
responding  to  the  FPC.  On  16  December  2008,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
adopted  the  Regulation,  establishing  a  “facility  for  rapid  response  to  soaring  food  prices  in 
developing  countries”  (this  was  to  become  the  European  Union  Food  Facility  -  EU  FF). 
Operating  over  a  3-year  period  from  2009-2011,  the  fund  was  intended  to  bridge  the  gap 
between  emergency  aid  and  medium  to  long-term  development  assistance.  Its  primary 
objectives were to: i) encourage food producers to increase supply in targeted countries and 
regions; ii) support activities to respond rapidly and directly to mitigate the negative effects of 
volatile food prices on local populations in line with global food security objectives, including 
UN  standards  for  nutritional  requirements;  and  iii)  strengthen  the  productive  capacities  and 
governance of the agricultural sector so as to enhance the sustainability of interventions.  

The 1 billion EUR EU FF was planned and designed with a view to complementing existing 
EU policies and strategies in the field of Food Security over a three-year period. Fifty-seven 
percent of the total budget was channelled through UN agencies and the World Bank, while 
the remainder was disbursed through budget support, non-state actors, member states agencies 
and regional organisations.  

9.1.3 Methodology of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  approach  is  based  on  a  reconstruction  of  the  intervention  logic  and  is 
structured  around  ten  evaluation  questions,  with  corresponding  judgment  criteria  and 
indicators.  These  evaluation  questions  are  linked  to  the  five  DAC  evaluation  criteria 
(relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  impact  and  sustainability),  coherence,  EC  added  value 
and to a number of other key issues. Answers to individual evaluation questions were found, 
and  overall  conclusions  reached,  through  an  approach  consisting  of;  i)  an  overall  inventory 

62 

 
 
 
and typology of the interventions financed under the EU FF; ii) the collection of information 
from all 232 interventions financed during the desk study phase; iii) field visits to 12 of the 
beneficiary  countries;  iv)  the  analysis  of  surveys  completed  by  the  EU  Delegations;  v)  a 
consultation  of  all  available  project  documents;  vi)  studies  of  231  ROM  reports;  vii) 
interviews with stakeholders from the EC HQ and FAO, UNHLTF, EU delegations, and viii) 
project level interviews and focus groups.  

9.1.4 Main Findings related to the EU FF as an instrument  

The  EC,  through  its  decision  to  support  the  coordinated  international  response  to  the 
FPC,  has  brought  food  security  and  rural  development  at  the  forefront  of  its  own 
development  cooperation  agenda  and  of  the  international  development  agenda.  In 
addition, the EC has gained significant visibility through the implementation of the EU 
FF, thus strengthening its leading role in the international response. 

The creation of the EU FF was the sole means at the disposal of the Commission to rapidly 
commit a substantial volume of funds to the agricultural and food security sectors in countries 
affected by the FPC. By creating a “specific instrument” in response to the FPC, agricultural 
development  and  food  security  were  brought  to  the  forefront  of  the  EC's  development 
cooperation  and  the  international  development  agenda14.  This  achievement  would  not  have 
been accomplished by simply increasing funding through existing instruments, which have a 
far more limited visibility.  

The  EU  FF  enabled  the  rapid  increase  in  the  overall  volume  of  funds  directed  through  EU 
cooperation to the agricultural and rural sector as part of a coordinated international response 
to  the  food  price  crisis.  Although  the  EU  re-deployed  other  instruments  in  response  to  the 
crisis, these were not sufficiently flexible enough or lacked the sufficient funding to allow the 
necessary response to the crisis. So, the creation of a specific instrument was necessary. 

The  instrument  provided  a  rapid  response  to  the  crisis  and  allowed  the  EU  to  conduct  a 
dialogue  in  global  fora  and  with  partner  countries.  The  announcement  that  the  EU  would 
contribute 1 billion EUR towards the L’Aquila commitments, whereby countries would seek 
to mobilise 22 billion USD (14.3 billion EUR), strengthened these commitments, afforded a 
high visibility to the EU and made it a leader in the accomplishment of this initiative. 

At  the  instrument  level,  substantial  resources  were  attributed  with  a  reduced  administrative 
burden for important interventions. 

14 The share of ODA devoted to agriculture reached a level of 19 percent in 1980, but fell to 3.8 percent in 2006. However it seems that this 
trend is slightly reversing.  

63 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  EU  FF  is  fully  coherent  with  the  2008  Declaration  of  the  World  Summit  on  Food 
Security  and  supports  the  pillars  of  Food  Security15  in  countries  affected  by  the  FPC, 
however, support is concentrated on triggering a supply response from the smallholder-
farming sector. 

The  EU  FF  instrument  enjoyed  a  high  flexibility  for  intervention,  which  translated  into 
interventions across a wide range of activities. The main share of interventions financed under 
the EU FF sought to increase the availability of food through an intensification of production 
by  smallholders.  The  other  pillars  of  Food  Security  (access  to  quality  food/nutrition)  were 
also tackled by some of the interventions, but to a lesser extent. There is a broad consistency 
and coherence between EU FF interventions, EC instruments and other donors’ interventions. 
Coordination was also satisfactory. In fact, the EU FF is fully in line with the Declaration of 
the World Summit on Food Security and the Paris Declaration. 

The  EU  FF  was  programmed  as  a  short  to  medium-term  instrument  and  its  activities 
were concentrated in short-term support. 

The EU FF was programmed as a short to medium-term instrument in order to act as a bridge 
between  emergency  and  long-term  development,  even  though  by  2008  it  was  expected  that 
food prices would remain volatile in the mid-term. Due to the short time period available, the 
interventions concentrated on promoting resilience and reducing the effects of the FPC on the 
most affected groups. However, the underlying causes (both natural and man-made) of food 
insecurity  in  target  countries  remain  out  of  the  scope  of  the  EU  FF.  Although  there  are  no 
plans  for  continuing  the  EU  FF  with  another  instrument  at  this  stage,  a  number  of  projects 
financed under the EU FF have benefitted or will benefit from further financing under long-
term instruments (FSTP, EDF). 

The  selection  of  countries  benefitting  from  the  EU  FF  was  based  on  a  set  of  criteria 
defined in the appendix to the regulation, however, not all targeted countries were the 
“most affected” by the FPC and the large number of beneficiary countries resulted in a 
dispersion of efforts. 

The choice of partner countries benefitting from the EU FF was made according to a set of 
criteria laid down in the appendix to the regulation. Initially, the proposal was to work in 35 
countries  but  this  was  increased  to  50  countries  in  the  regulation  adopted  by  European 
Parliament. All countries chosen met the set criteria: many countries were strongly hit by the 
FPC,  whilst  other  countries  with  advanced  food  security  measures  already  in  place,  found 
these were jeopardised by the FPC. In these countries, the support provided under the EU FF 
helped  national  policy-makers  to  continue  the  implementation  of  their  national  measures, 
despite the FPC (e.g. Jamaica, Malawi). 

15 Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet 
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy  life. The four pillars of food security are availability, access, utilization 
and  stability.  The  nutritional  dimension  is  integral  to  the  concept  of  food  security  (Source:  FAO  World  Summit  on  Food  Security,  16-
18.11.2009) 

64 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  establishment  of  the  EU  FF  within  a  timeframe  of  only  10  months  and  the 
management  of  the  implementation  process  demonstrated  the  high  efficiency  of  all 
participating institutions.  

To establish the EU FF within a timeframe of only 10 months involved enormous preparatory 
work and inter-institutional coordination, thus the achievement of the creation of the Facility 
in  this  short  time  frame  can  be  considered  a  considerable  success.  The  EC  HQ  and  EUDs 
demonstrated a very efficient management of the EU FF. Less than 2% of the EU FF funds 
were  used  for  EC  administrative  support.  The  recruitment  of  additional  contractual  agents 
under the EU FF permitted an adequate follow-up and coordination of interventions.  

The use of UN organisations, many of them with a presence in the target countries and 
with  well-established  direct  relations  to  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  facilitated  the 
identification of interventions.  

The  initial  programming  of  interventions  was  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  a  Country  Needs 
Assessments (CNAs) performed by UN organisations. These CNAs revealed the extent of the 
crisis  and  proposed  responses  in  each  country.  However,  CNAs  were  somewhat  limited  by 
their lack of involvement of other key stakeholders and by not considering Non-State Actors 
(NSAs) and Budget Support (BS) as possible channels of support. 

Interventions financed under the EU FF were effective in both mitigating the effects of 
the  FPC  on  the  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  interventions  and  in  promoting  resilience 
within these populations.  

The support provided corresponded to the needs of the beneficiaries. The FPC has caused or 
aggravated  the  food  insecurity  in  target  countries.  Although  the  support  provided  under  the 
EU FF arrived some months after the peak in global food prices, it did arrive in time to deal 
with  the  effects  of  this  crisis  and  tackle  food  insecurity.  Nevertheless,  it  reached  a  limited 
proportion of the vulnerable population at the target country level. This leads to the question: 
to  what  extent  was  fragmentation  between  a  large  number  of  countries  and  implementing 
partners  justified  or  would  it  have  been  more  effective  to  concentrate  efforts  in  fewer 
countries through a better sectoral and geographical division of labour with other partners?  

The  EU  FF  was  completed  in  2012  when  all  the  interventions  financed  were  closed, 
administratively  speaking.  Although  food  prices  remain  high  and  the  overall  food  security 
situation in many countries has not improved, no new interventions can be financed. Whilst 
resilience has been achieved with direct beneficiaries of EU FF interventions and in countries 
with a favourable context, there could still be a need for financing other interventions on an 
ad-hoc  basis  where  needed  (in  addition  to  emergency  support  which  can  be  provided  by 
ECHO).  

65 

 
 
 
9.1.5 Main Findings related to interventions financed under the EU FF  

Interventions financed under the EU FF were in line with the capacities and strategies of 
the  targeted  countries  and  regions,  and  corresponded  to  the  needs  of  the  targeted 
beneficiaries.  Most  interventions  promoted  a  supply  response  from  the  smallholder-
farming sector. 

The  interventions  financed  focused  on  triggering  a  supply  response  from  the  smallholder-
farming sector, and were thus important for poverty reduction. However, this strategy did not 
encourage a positive supply response beyond direct beneficiaries. There was a predominance 
of  interventions  related  to  agricultural  and  local  development,  but  only  a  few  interventions 
were in favour of the urban population or focused on tackling nutrition (food consumption).  

The delays in starting activities at the field level were frequent, however, in most cases 
these had been recovered by the end of the project. Efficiency of implementation varied 
greatly according to country, project and implementation channel. 

The  quality  of  management  of  interventions  through  implementing  partners  and  the 
coordination  of  activities  with  national  governments  and  EUDs  was  generally  good.  About 
60% of the interventions financed were upgrades of existing projects, thus enabling a quicker 
start-up  of  activities  at  the  field  level.  Thus,  about  75%  of  all  projects  were  implemented 
without significant delays. However, because of the pace of planning many projects (notably 
50%  of  those  from  IOs)  had  to  be  amended  in  the  course  of  their  implementation.  Projects 
tended to be overambitious in their design given the time available. However, in most cases 
delays  had  been  recovered  by  the  end  of  the  project,  and  foreseen  activities  implemented, 
which is important efficiency-wise. 

The  efficiency  of  interventions  varied  greatly  according  to  interventions,  countries  and 
implementing partners. The dispersion of support to about 4916 countries and more than 232 
interventions has multiplied the costs related to staff (national and international), vehicles and 
operational  costs.  A  concentration  of  support  in  fewer  countries  and  larger  interventions 
(possibly  under  budget  support)  would  increase  efficiency.  Partner  management  costs  were 
limited  to  7%  of  project  costs,  although  this  masks  the  fact  that  some  of  the  International 
Organisations  projects  subcontracted  large  share  of  the  work  –  therefore  inducing  an 
additional level of management costs. 

The  implementation  of  projects  under  multi-country  contribution  agreements  facilitated  the 
approval of interventions on the one hand, but made monitoring interventions more complex. 
As  multi-country  contribution  agreements  were  centrally  managed,  the  role  of  the  EU 
Delegations  remained  limited.  Even  if  projects  started  officially  with  the  signature  of  the 
Financial Agreements, implementation at the field level often showed some delays.  

The  interventions  financed  with  regional  organisations  complemented  on-going  support 
provided by the EU through other financial sources (e.g. Intra-ACP cooperation). The support 

16 Comoros was initially foreseen as a beneficiary country but finally did not receive support from the instrument.  

66 

 
 
 
                                                            
provided was intended to mitigate the effects of the FPC at the regional level and speed up the 
resilience of the target region.  

The blend of partners and implementing modalities were generally good. Comparative 
advantages of partners could have been better factored in project attribution for some 
specific countries or contexts. 

UN  organisations  showed  a  considerably  higher  absorption  capacity  than  national  and 
international NSAs. So, without attributing a considerable share of funds to UN organisations, 
the administrative burden on the EU would have considerably increased and the response of 
the  EU  FF  would  not  have  been  as  quick  as  it  has  been.  The  final  choice  of  channels  for 
intervention  –  International  Organisations,  NSAs,  BS  and  Regional  Organisations  –  was 
reflected in the needs and the specific situation of each country and complied with the specific 
objectives of the regulation.  

Ownership of the projects was generally good with close linkages to governments at the 
national, regional or local levels.  

Although governments were not generally involved in the management of the projects, except 
for Budgetary Support, project ownership by governments (at all levels) was generally good. 
All  interventions  were  in  line  (or  at  least  did  not  contrast  with)  national  policies  for  the 
agricultural and food security  sectors. International Organisations had  a permanent  dialogue 
with national Ministries of Agriculture, thus ensuring national ownership of projects. Projects 
implemented by NSAs were usually closely coordinated with local and regional government 
structures.  

Interventions corresponded to needs of direct beneficiaries and the level of effectiveness 
was good, however, the sustainability of many of the achievements remains fragile. 

The  specific  objectives  corresponded  well  to  the  needs  generated  by  the  FPC  and  were 
generally  in  line  with  the  needs  assessments  undertaken  by  UN  organisations  and  other 
stakeholders. Relatively few interventions contributed to support measures such as safety net 
measures  aiming  at  addressing  basic  food  needs,  and  nutrition  while  most  contributed  to 
boosting agricultural production. Interventions demonstrated a good level of effectiveness at 
the direct beneficiaries' level and directly targeted communities and regions, resulting in real 
increases in production and resilience to future shocks:  

improved  access 

- Production capacity and sector governance (at a local level) were increased through targeted 
actions.  Direct  beneficiaries  reported  often  very  important  increases  in  production  thanks  to 
the 
in 
production/yields  were  not  achieved  and/or  reported  this  was  due  to  climatic  problems  or 
simply due to the fact that the agricultural seasons were not yet completed at the time of the 
evaluators' visits.  

technical  support.  If 

to  agricultural 

inputs  and 

increases 

- Strengthened (or new) farmers’ organisations were better able to manage the use of shared 
facilities, gain access to markets and claim their rights with local authorities.  

67 

 
 
 
-  Investments  in  infrastructure  and  capacity  building  increased  the  production  capacity  of 
farmers and made them less vulnerable to future shocks.  

However,  at  the  time  of  the  final  evaluation  of  the  EU  FF,  it  was  too  early  for  a  final 
assessment  of  the  projects'  achievements.  Many  projects  had  only  recently  completed  their 
activities (training, infrastructure, etc.) and aggregated data on project achievements (increase 
in production, increase in yields, reduction of losses, etc.) were not all available. Interventions 
financed under the EU FF did not significantly influence food prices which remained high due 
to many other factors.  

The  sustainability  of  achievements  is  variable  and  will  depend  on  whether  national 
governments,  the  EU  or  other  donors  will  continue  to  support  beneficiaries  in  order  to 
consolidate  the  achievements  made.  The  2-year  time  span  of  many  of  the  medium-term 
projects was too short to guarantee lasting results. Cash/food for work schemes did not require 
sustainability,  and  even  though  the  immediate  crisis  is  over,  much  remains  to  be  done  to 
achieve lasting food security. 

9.1.6 Recommendations  

As the EU FF instrument has already come to its end, the following recommendations were 
formulated,  with  reference  to;  (1)  the  design  of  future  specific  instruments  for  similar 
situations and; (2) EU support for countries affected by the food price crisis. 

The EU should consider converting the EU FF into a permanent “Stand-by” instrument, 
in order to respond rapidly to upcoming and sudden Food Price Crisis, and mitigate impacts 
on food insecurity situations. In the case of permanent, recurrent, or cyclical food insecurity 
situations,  the  instrument  could  mainly  be  used  for  mitigating  the  effects  that  have 
“deepened” existing food insecurity situations. Food Security should remain on the top of 
the long term programmed cooperation of the EU in line with the Agenda for Change. 

The design of future specific instruments should be more focused, so expected results can be 
achieved in the initially foreseen time-frame and resources. In this respect and as advocated in 
the “Agenda for Change”, the EU should concentrate its support to the most affected countries 
and  strategic  beneficiaries  to  ensure  resources  are  allocated  where  maximum  impact  can  be 
achieved.  In  addition,  the  EU  should  ensure  complementarity  through  sectoral  division  of 
labour with EU Member States and UN organisations. 

Prior to the creation of any instrument, it is recommended to carry out a problem analysis and 
adopt a single primary objective tackling specific issues and clearly defined beneficiaries.  

At country and interventions level, the EU should be involved in Country Needs Assessments 
and facilitate civil society participation. If needs assessments and design of interventions are 
outsourced  to  UN  Organisations,  and/or  top  up  existing  operations,  it  is  recommendable  to 
follow  EU  methodological  instruments,  and  clearly  define  the  expected  results  to  be 
achieved with the EC's contribution in the timeframe foreseen. 

68 

 
 
 
In  addition,  efforts  should  concentrate  on  supporting  interventions  clearly  linked  to  the 
objective of the instrument when selecting individual interventions at country level.  

When  selecting  partners  and  aid  modalities,  the  EU  should  pay  specific  attention  to  the 
comparative  advantages  provided  by  different  implementation  channels.  At  the  design 
stage,  and  in  light  of  tight  timeframes,  specific  attention  should  be  given  to  ensuring 
sustainability  through  systematic  inclusion  of  built-in  exit  or  handing  out  strategies. 
Because  of  the  very  nature  of  food  security,  attention  to  horizontal  aspects,  which  might 
negatively affect the workload of women and put pressure on the environment should also 
receive specific attention at the design stage. 

At a more strategic level, the EC (under its programmed cooperation) should continue to play 
an  active  role  in  policy  dialogue  at  the  country  level  and  help  the  governments  of  partner 
countries  realise  the  importance  and  multi-sector  dimension  of  food  security.  Underlying 
causes  negatively  affecting  food  security  should  be  established  and  adequately  tackled  by 
Governments in their national policies. 

Finally,  EU  interventions  should  endeavour  to  systematise  lessons  learnt  and  share 
experiences with implementing partners (on the basis of an agreed system). Specific attention 
should  be  given  to  questions  of  the  replicability  of  interventions  and  to  the  cost-benefit 
analysis of the interventions (ex-post review). 

9.1.7 Lessons learned 

At strategic level 

The EC has shown that it is possible to rapidly establish an effective instrument in response 
to  an  unforeseen  need.  The  lessons  learnt  show  that  delays  in  implementations  can  be 
avoided or reduced if; (1) the implementing partners are already present in the project region 
and an established relationship with target groups and governments already exists; (2) project 
design  is  simple  and  does  not  include  too  many  different  levels  of  actors;  and  (3)  all  the 
interventions are simply to top up existing projects.   

A single primary objective and log-frame for the instrument would lead to greater clarity on 
the proposed intervention logic and facilitate the monitoring of the progress of achievements.  

Budget support measures are a suitable instrument if a country has already "qualified" for 
BS  interventions  from  international  donors  (especially  the  EU)  and  if  a  government  has  its 
own adequate response to a crisis. The assistance provided under the EU FF, in the form of 
budgetary  support,  was  in  addition  to  the  support  provided  by  the  EU  through  other 
instruments and partner countries. As such, it is thus impossible to isolate the impact achieved 
thanks 
the 
implementation  of  national  policies,  there  is  a  rather  high  probability  that  these 
interventions will be sustainable after the end of the EU FF's support. 

this  additional  support.  However,  as  BS 

interventions  support 

to 

Focusing assistance on marginalised farmers with sufficient production potential increases 
food  security  at  a  community  level,  but  does  not  necessarily  improve  food  availability  in 

69 

 
 
 
urban  areas  and/or  influence  price  development.  The  question  of  replicability  of 
interventions at national level and at what cost should be considered at the moment of project 
approval. 

Policy  issues  need  to  be  specifically  included  in  major  programmes  funded  with 
international  organisations.  Without  a  strong  policy  element  there  is  a  greater  chance  of 
crises being repeated in the future. 

It  is  particularly  important  to  carefully  address  sustainability  issues  in  one-off  instruments 
such  as  the  EU  FF,  as  there  is  no  guarantee  that  programmes  or  funds  will  be  available  for 
follow-up projects.  

An  instrument  that  is  designed  to  respond  to  a  single  challenge  (the  food  price  crisis)  must 
take  into  account  in  its  programming  the  many  other  external  factors  that  affect  food 
prices and availability. In this case, the EU FF had to work against a background of climate 
change,  global  fuel  price  and  financial  crises  and  many  other  regional  and  national  crises 
such as droughts, floods and earthquakes. 

At operational level 

The  establishment  of  global  contracts  makes  it  difficult  for  EUDs  to  follow  up  the  EU  FF 
interventions  at  a  national  level.  The  EU  FF  contained  many  medium-  and  longer-term 
actions. The severe time constraints on these projects (including all the NGO projects) did not 
allow for as much impact as could have been achieved with a longer implementation period. 

On the one hand, the use of UN Agencies enabled a high absorption capacity of funds and 
relatively  quick  service  delivery  at  field  level.  On  the  other,  the  rather  lengthy  procedures 
needed  to  initiate  WB  projects  and  the  difficulties  associated  with  setting  up  a  regional 
programme  make  these  two  modalities  less  suitable  for  programmes  designed  to  produce  a 
rapid response to a crisis (with the exception of the topping up of existing programmes). 

Fast  track  procedures  allow  for  a  quick  approval  of  interventions.  However,  in  order  to 
achieve a quick implementation at field level, fast track procedures for implementation (at the 
implementing partner level) should also be applied.  

Under  the  EU  FF,  many  actions  which  would  have  needed  a  medium  to  long-term 
implementation period to reach their full impact, instead reduced their implementation period 
so as to make them eligible for EU FF funding.  

interventions  enjoy  a  better 

impact  when  combined  with 
Input  distribution 
strengthening extension services to farmers and improved market access. Seed production 
systems  give  results  in  the  medium  to  long  term  only.  To  achieve  good  results,  better 
cooperation between research institutions, extension services, seed producing farmers, traders 
and consuming farmers is necessary and seeds have to be tested under farm conditions.  

70 

 
 
 
10. 

 EU FOOD FACILITY VISIBILITY LINKS 

1.  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/documents/184a_foodfacili

ty_en.pdf 

2.  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/documents/185a_foo

dfacility_auction_floor_en.pdf 

3.  http://www.tvlink.org/mediadetails.php?key=46e49706d858ccfe5bdf&title=Responding+t

o+the+global+food+crisis+-
+EU+Food+Facility+Programme&titleleft=EU%20in%20the%20World 

4.  http://www.tvlink.org/mediadetails.php?key=114402889ffe33364bed&title=Food+facility

%3A+A+global+food+crisis+response&titleleft=Social%20affairs 

5.  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdlh9c_eu-food-facility-en_news 

6.  http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqlmwb_inside-story-the-eu-s-food-facility-plan-08-

april-pt1_news?ralg=meta2-only#from=playrelon-1 

71