summary report - annex
Post on 10-Jan-2022
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Summary Report - Annex
Taking Stock of USAID’s Past and Ongoing Activities under the
East Africa Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy (2011-2015) and
Work Completed from 2016 to 2018
This publication was produced on November 2018.
This publication was produced by the Institute for People, Innovation and Change in Organizations – Eastern Africa (PICO-Eastern Africa), now
known as Emerge Centre for Innovations – Africa (ECI-Africa)
Cover photo credit: Africa Lead
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 2
Contents
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Annex 1 - Survey Instruments ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Annex 1a: Analytical Framework for the Literature Review ...................................................................................... 9
Annex 1b: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for key Informant Interviews ........................................................... 11
Annex 1c: Semi-Structured Questionnaire to Guide Focused Group Discussions ........................................... 13
Annex 1d: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for the Online Survey ........................................................................ 14
Annex 2 - Analysis and Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Annex 2A: Resilience ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
1. Background and Context Analysis .................................................................................................................... 19
2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
4. Challenges and Gaps ............................................................................................................................................ 25
5. Opportunities Going Forward ........................................................................................................................... 25
Annex 2B: Nutrition .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
1. Background and Context Analysis .................................................................................................................... 27
2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
4. Challenges and Gaps ............................................................................................................................................ 36
5. Opportunities Going Forward ........................................................................................................................... 36
Annex 2C: Technology Development and Deployment .......................................................................................... 37
1. Background and Context Analysis .................................................................................................................... 37
2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 39
4. Challenges and Gaps ............................................................................................................................................ 40
5. Opportunities Going Forward ........................................................................................................................... 42
Annex 2D: Cross-Cutting Issues .................................................................................................................................... 45
Cross Cutting Issues Underpinning Programming ...................................................................................................... 45
1. Summary of perspectives by Regional stakeholders – What Worked Well and What Did Not ..... 45
2. Identified Critical Cross-Cutting issues ........................................................................................................... 46
3. Opportunities Going Forward ........................................................................................................................... 52
Annex 3 - Summary of USAID’S Key Implementing Partners ...................................................................................... 54
1. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) ................................................................ 54
2. East African Community (EAC) ........................................................................................................................ 54
3. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) ............................................................................. 55
4. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA) ........................................................................................................................ 55
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 3
5. Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) ........................................................................................................................................... 56
6. East Africa Trade and Investment Hub (EATIH) ........................................................................................... 56
7. East Africa Grain Council (EAGC) ................................................................................................................... 56
8. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) ........................................................... 57
9. Africa Lead II .......................................................................................................................................................... 57
10. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (RESAKSS) ........................................... 58
11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) .............................................................................. 58
12. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) 58
13. The African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) .................................... 59
References ................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 4
Acronyms ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance
ACTESA Alliance for Commodity Trade in East and Southern Africa
AfDP African Development Bank
AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act
AIIM African Institution Innovation Mechanism
AMU Arab Maghreb Union
APPOs Administrative Personnel Processing Office
AR4D Agricultural Research for Development
ARIS Animal Resource Information System
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATTC Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization
AUC African Union Commission
AU-IBAR African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources
BDS Business Development Services
BFFS Belgian Fund for Food Security
BFS Bureau for Food Security
BR Biennial Review
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CBC COMESA Business Council
CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia
CCRP Collaborative Crop Research Program
CEMAC Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa
CEWARN Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism
CFAs Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agents
CFTA Continental Free Trade Area
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
C-MRF COMESA Mutual Recognition Framework
COMBIP COMESA Biotechnology Initiative Program
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
COMPETE Competitiveness and Trade Expansion
COMSHIP COMESA Seed Harmonization Implementation Plan
CPPs Country Programming Paper
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EABC East African Business Council
EAC East Africa Community
EAFF Eastern Africa Farmers Federation
EAGC Eastern Africa Grain Council
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 5
EAPIC East African Phytosanitary Information Committee
EATIH East Africa Trade Investment Hub
EBA World Bank’s Enabling the Business of Agriculture
ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ECRABREN Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network
ECSA- HC East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community
EDRASAIA Early Detection Reporting and Surveillance-Avian Influenza in Africa
EU European Union
FAW Fall Army Worm
FEWs Famine Early Warning Systems Network
FGDs Focused Group Discussions
FSVC Financial Service Volunteer Corp
FTF Feed the Future
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFSS Global Food Security Strategy
GIS Geographic Information System
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GM Genetic Modification
HoRN Horn of Africa Resilience Network
ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
ICPAC IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre
ICPALD IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas Development and Livestock Development
ICT Information, Communication and Technology
IDDRSI Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JSR Joint Stakeholders Review
KALRO Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization
KEPSA Kenya Private Sector Alliance
KEVEVAPI Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute
KFW German Development Bank
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MA Mutual Accountability
MCMV Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus
MDMV Maize Dwarf Mosaic Virus
MERCOSUR Southern Common Market (South America)
MLN Maize Lethal Necrosis
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 6
NARIs National Agricultural Research Institutes
NASECO Nalweyo Seed Company Ltd.
NEALCO North Eastern Africa Livestock council
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development
NEPDP North Eastern Pastoral Development Programme
NPCA NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency
NPPOs National Plant Protection Organizations
OEGI Office of Economic Growth and Integration
OFSP Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato
OFSP Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato
OIE World Organization for Animal Health
PACA Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa
PCU Project Coordination Unit
PICO- EA People, Innovation and Change in Organizations in Eastern Africa
PRA Pest Risk Assessment
PREG Partnership for Resilience and Economic Growth
PREPARED Planning for Resilience in East Africa through Policy, Adaptation, Research, and Economic Development
RATIN the Regional Agricultural Trade Information Network
RAU Resilience Analysis Unit
RCMRD Regional Center for Mapping Resources for Development
RECs Regional Economic Communities
RELPA Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in Pastoral
ReSAKSS. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System
RFP Request for Proposals
RIGOs Regional Intergovernmental Organizations
RPG Regionally Public Good
RPP Regional Programming Paper
SADC Southern African Development Community
SCMV Sugarcane Mosaic Virus
SFP Supplementary Feeding Program
SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SMP Standard Methods and Procedures
SMP-AH Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health
SMP-AH Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SWIFT Single Window Information System
TADs Transboundary Animal Diseases
TBT Technical Barriers to Trade
TIMPs Technologies, Innovations and Management Practices
TMEA Trade Mark East Africa
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 7
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
US United States
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID/KEA USAID Kenya and East Africa
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VCs Value Chains
VSLA Village Saving and Loaning Associations
WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union
WCO World Customs Organization
WDI World Development Indicators
WTO World Trade Organization
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 8
Introduction
The USAID Kenya/East Africa Office of Economic Growth and Integration (USAID/KEA OEGI) is in the
process of developing the East Africa Regional GFSS Plan, implemented through Feed the Future, to guide its
programs for the next five years. To inform the development of the East Africa Regional GFSS Plan,
USAID/KEA commissioned a stock-take to review the progress of previous and ongoing activities in the
region, with a focus on the status of investments, achievements to date (including the period 2016 to 2018),
challenges and gaps, and opportunities for investments going forward. The major thematic areas covered
were: Trade and Markets, Resilience, Nutrition, and Technology development and deployment. The
assessment also reviewed the cross-cutting issues which underpin performance and impacts – quality and
appropriateness of partnerships, inclusivity, regionality content of the portfolio, sustainability, stakeholder
capacity strengthening, and resourcing and reporting cycles. The stock-take was primarily informed by in-
depth desk reviews, stakeholder consultations (with a heavy focus on USAID implementing partners and
regional as well as national beneficiaries) conducted through questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews
(KII), focus group discussions (FGD) and a validation workshop following the preparation of an initial draft
report.
Key Components of the Annex
The results of the stock-take are presented in two parts: 1) A SUMMARY REPORT of the stock-take (a
separate document) which presents a synopsis of each of the thematic areas – Trade and Markets,
Resilience, Nutrition, and Technology Development & Deployment – covering, for each, Interventions
undertaken, Achievements, Challenges and Gaps, and investment Opportunities going forward; and 2) A
comprehensive ANNEX to the stock-take report (this document, an important companion document to
the SUMMARY REPORT) which presents detailed stock-take process and results: Survey instruments used,
major stakeholder categories (implementing partners) interviewed, analysis and findings for the thematic
areas (except Trade and Markets which is presented in detail in the Summary Report).
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 9
Annex 1 - Survey Instruments
The survey tools were used to guide the data collection process. They were used to capture the views of
the various actors who had been or are still involved in the implementation of specific USAID/KEA OEGI
funded projects such as managers of beneficiary institutions, members of USAID funded projects Steering
Committees, consultants who worked on USAID funded projects among others.
The specific tools used were:
An analytical framework for the literature review
Semi-structured questionnaire for the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Semi- structure questionnaire for the Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)
Semi- structured questionnaire for the online survey
Annex 1A: Analytical Framework for the Literature Review
Topic Issues to Cover
Thematic Areas
Trade and Markets Focused commodities/VCs
Policies affecting trade (trade facilitation)
Customs/border efficiency
SPS
VC/trade financing
Quality testing capacity issues
Quantitative data on trade (trade flows), informal trade
Access to requisite Technologies e.g. ICT
Access to
Technologies,
Knowledge and
Inputs
Technology (e.g. cop variety or animal breed) development
Movement of agricultural commodities (e.g. grain and seeds) (Harmonization of
policies, certification)
Technology transfer and scaling
Research/Innovation prioritization
(Aflatoxin-Aflasafe, Fowl Army Worm, Maize Necrosis Virus)
Private Sector and
Nutrition Commodities (with nutrition focus) + AR4D
Dissemination and scaling
Food safety e.g. Aflatoxin, SPS issues
Nutrition programs e.g. SFPs
Commercialization (including processing) of nutritionally enhanced foods
(NEFs) -e.g. QPM - i.e. structure trading systems.
Private Sector: e.g. Support to COMESA Business Council; others?
Resilience Early warning systems and seasonal forecasting e.g. FEWS
Insurance products (Index Based livestock insurance)
Crisis response (drought, floods etc.)
Building response capacity
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 10
Topic Issues to Cover
Food and cash aid
Partnerships coordination interventions e.g. “regional PREG”?
Food reserves
Regionality Definition vs. actual practice with specific thematic areas
Subsidiarity principle
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Sustainability
Regional analysis (of country lessons) and collective (regional) learning
Inclusivity Wealth categories – rich vs poor
Youth and women
Big (e.g. MNCs) vs emerging (small businesses)
Country and local ownership
Coverage of “all” target countries) or just a “subset”.
Elite capture- Are issues relevant for the majority receiving the bulk of
investment – or is the focus on the ‘influential elite’?
Partnerships Appropriate collaborations (with governments, other development partners,
implementing partners, private sector)
Comparative advantage
Leveraging of resources
Synergy/competition
Choice of partners, partnership arrangements & implications
Portfolio Mix/Balance To what extent is the portfolio balance reflecting needs on the ground and
comparative advantage
Sequencing of project focus towards self-reliance
Sustainability To what extent is this built into program design and execution – and are we
seeing signs of it in (some) mature projects/programs?
Conclusion and Recommendations
Optimizing Portfolio
and Implementation
Arrangements
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 11
Annex 1B: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews
Area of Study Interview Questions
Project(s)
Characteristics
1. Which project(s) funded by USAID under the framework of USAID/EA Feed
the Future 2011-2015 Strategy have you been involved in or are familiar with?
2. When was/were the project(s) implemented?
3. What was/is the geographical coverage in terms of countries?
Achievements of the
Collaborative Project
1. What were/are the objectives of the projects(s) and to what extent has each
of these objectives been achieved?
2. What example(s) of behavioural change constitute “impacts” of the
intervention, and how can these/this be attributed to the USAID intervention?
3. What were/are the planned intermediate results for each project and to what
extent has each of the results been achieved?
4. What were/are the activities designed for achieving the results and
objective(s)?
5. In your opinion were the activities and implementation arrangements
appropriate for achieving the project(s) objective(s)?
Partnership
Arrangements and
Effectiveness of the
Process of
Collaboration
1. What were the agreed arrangements for partnerships during the project(s)
development and implementation?
2. In the course of the project development and implementation, what may have
gone well and should be strengthened /scaled in the future?
3. What could have been better and should be dropped or improved?
4. In working with USAID, what has been the strengths and opportunities of
your collaboration?
5. What has/have been the challenge(s) in the collaboration and what could have
been better and should be improved?
6. To what extent have /are the institutional arrangements and partnerships led
to successful implementation of the project? How could the efficiency be
improved?
7. What are/were the major gaps in the project implementation and how should
they be addressed?
8. What are the key lessons learnt during the project(s) implementation?
Relevance and
Responsiveness of the
Intervention to the
Needs of
Stakeholders
1. To what extent are USAID’s intervention focus and activities specifically
addressing the challenges and opportunities relevant and responding to the
needs of its stakeholders?
2. Are there specific project content, arrangements, management and
governance elements that have influenced the results?
3. In general, what is USAID doing well in terms of program(s) content, focus
and implementation processes?
4. What aspects of project content should have been dropped and what
desirable content(s) should have been added?
USAID’s Roles and
Approaches in
Regional Integration
1. What should USAID do to deepen regional integration? What has
been/should be USAID Regional Role?
2. How can USAID enhance partnership with the RECs (COMESA, EAC, IGAD)
to deepen regional integration?
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 12
Area of Study Interview Questions
3. How can USAID strengthen partnership with other regional
organisations/institutions to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the
implementation of its projects and programmes?
4. How can USAID Regional Programme facilitate access to food, quality seed
etc. and how can they do it better?
5. How can USAID facilitate the improvement and harmonization of standards
to enhance regional integration?
6. Is there any evidence to show that harmonisation of policies facilitates
integration of trade?
USAID’s Achievement
in Regional
Integration
1. To what extent has USAID integrated the use of technologies and innovations
in ensuring efficiency of its delivery?
2. To what extent are sustainability mechanisms built into the design and
activities of USAID funded projects?
3. To what extent does USAID coordinate its interventions with other donors
and relevant institutions to build synergies and complementarity and leverage
funding to improve efficiency?
4. To what extent are USAID interventions at regional level harmonised with its
interventions at national level? What is the process for that harmonisation?
5. To what extent is the USAID approach to enhance food security through
facilitating regional trade is efficient? Is there any evidence of success?
Going Forward 1. Considering the current USAID portfolio, what should be the priorities for
future collaboration in the following areas:
2. Markets and trade
3. Technology development and dissemination
4. Enhancing partnership with the private sector to improve nutrition
5. Strengthening resilience and livelihoods
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 13
Annex 1C: Semi-Structured Questionnaire to Guide Focused Group Discussions
This guide was intended for discussions with groups of actors from the same institution who have had
experience implementing or overseeing implementation of all or various USAID Strategic Results Areas such
as USAID Kenya and East Africa Mission staff, staff of Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and those
from other agricultural research and development institutions.
1. Considering the Strategic Results areas of the East Africa Feed the Future Multi Year Strategy 2011-
2015 namely, increasing trade of staple foods in the region, improving access to inputs and
technologies, ensuring food security and nutrition, improving resilience, supporting strategic
partnerships with African regional institutions and promoting regional services to achieve trade flow
coordination, what can be considered as major successes in the course of the implementation?
2. What are the major gaps in the Strategy implementation and how should they be addressed?
3. In the course of projects development and implementation, what has gone well that should be
strengthened and scaled in the future?
4. What could have been better and should be improved or dropped altogether?
5. In working with USAID/partner institutions, what has been the strength of the collaboration?
6. What has/have been the challenges in building partnership with other institutions and could those
challenges be addressed?
7. Considering your experience, are there specific examples of project content, arrangements,
management and governance elements that enhanced the success of USAID-funded projects?
8. What are the key lessons learnt in the course of development, implementation and coordination of
USAID-funded projects?
9. What should be USAID’s role in regional integration?
10. What should USAID do to deepen regional integration?
11. How can USAID enhance partnership with the RECs (COMESA, EAC, IGAD ) to deepen regional
integration?
12. How can USAID strengthen partnership with other regional organisations/institutions to enhance
the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of its projects and programmes?
13. How can USAID Regional Programme facilitate access to food, quality seed etc. and how can they do
it better?
14. How can USAID facilitate the improvement of standards to enhance regional integration?
15. Is there any evidence to show that harmonisation of policies facilitates integration of trade?
16. To what extent has USAID integrated the use of technologies and innovations in ensuring efficiency
of its delivery?
17. To what extent are sustainability mechanisms built into the design and activities of USAID funded
projects?
18. To what extent does USAID coordinate its interventions with other donors and relevant institutions
to build synergies and complementarity and leverage funding to improve efficiency?
19. To what extent are USAID interventions at regional level harmonised with its interventions at
national level? What is the process for that harmonisation?
20. To what extent is the USAID approach to enhance food security through facilitating regional trade
efficient? Is there any evidence of success?
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 14
21. Considering the current USAID portfolio, what should be the priorities for future collaboration in
the following areas: Markets and trade, technology development and dissemination, enhancing
partnership with the private sector to improve nutrition and strengthening livelihoods resilience?
Annex 1D: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for the Online Survey
This instrument was administered online to capture the views of the various stakeholders whom we were not able to have a conversation with.
A. Respondent Information and General Perceptions on Performance
1. Identifying information – contact info (anonymity by choice)
i. Optional contact information (name, organization, email, country etc.)
ii. In what capacity have you or your organization been involved in USAID regional projects?
a) Implementing Partner (grantee/sub-grantee)
b) Evaluator of past or current project
c) National target institution
d) Former mission staff
e) Current mission staff
f) Others? Specify…
2. Please select the stakeholder category option that best describes your organization
a) Farmer organization
b) National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
c) Civil Society Organization (CSO)
d) Government ministry
e) University or other tertiary education institution
f) CGIAR and other International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC)
g) Regional Agricultural Research Institution
h) Private Sector (e.g. trade and business organizations)
i) Development Partner (Donor Institution)
j) Regional Economic Community (REC)/Regional Inter-Governmental Organization (RIGO))
k) Continental organization/agency (e.g. AUC, NEPAD, etc.)
l) Other (please specify)
3. Have you been involved in a USAID Feed the Future project? YES/NO
4. If YES to QUESTION 3, please list the USAID programs you have been involved in or participated?
5. Of the USAID projects you are familiar with, please comment on their overall performance in terms
of efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired goals and outcomes?
6. USAID work in the region attempts to improve trade, develop markets, enhance food security and
nutrition, develop & disseminate technology, build resilience among other things. Based on the
USAID regional activities and projects that you are familiar with; please share your perspectives on
the general effectiveness of the regional program in addressing these priorities of the region.
(Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree Strongly disagree, N/A). What is the reason for your answer?
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 15
a) USAID regional projects are generally well designed and implemented.
b) USAID regional programming is not entirely cohesive, the individual projects and activities
that make up the program are disjointed and disparate
c) USAID regional projects are well integrated and harmonized with projects developed at
national level by USAID country offices (i.e. bilateral missions)
7. Of the projects you are familiar with, what implementation strategies and approaches influenced
achievement of results or lack thereof?
8. In your opinion – based on what you know and projects you have interacted with - what are the
THREE BIGGEST achievements of USAID regional work?
9. In your opinion – based on what you know and projects you have interacted with - what are the
THREE BIGGEST challenges that constrain these interventions from being more effective?
10. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what should USAID
change/stop doing to improve partnerships?
11. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what should USAID
continue doing to strengthen PARTNERSHIPS?
12. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what NEW PRACTICE
OR APPROACH should USAID INTRODUCE to strengthen PARTNERSHIPS?
13. USAID work in the region focuses on the following thematic areas: Trade and markets; Access to
technologies and inputs; Food Security, Nutrition; and Resilience. In your opinion, what other areas
should USAID programs focus on?
14. In your opinion, what aspect of USAID regional work should be STOPPED or phased out and why?
15. In general, is USAID/KEA OEGI work in the region (through its programs, projects and activities)
relevant to the needs and priorities of the region (Very relevant, Neutral, Very irrelevant, Somewhat
relevant, Somewhat irrelevant, I don't know)
16. What can USAID do to improve the relevance of its programmes? Please share any advice or
comments
17. Please indicate which of the following USAID/KEA OEGI thematic areas you have interacted with or
are most familiar with (Trade and markets , Resilience, Access to technologies and inputs, Nutrition, None
of the above). If you've chosen none of the above, please describe in brief the area you have been
involved in and your experiences.
B. Trade and Markets
18. USAID has invested in several regional (and bilateral) projects focused on market development,
trade facilitation and related areas. In your view what are the main constraints to regional markets
and trade development? (Highly constraining, Moderately constraining, Not Constraining at all, N/A)
a) A constant clash between regional free trade and national protectionism
b) Weak capacity of national institutions to facilitate trade
c) Lack of information
d) Limited finance
e) Other specify….1
19. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place in each of the following areas in regional
trade and market development (very important, somewhat important, not important, don’t know/no
answer)
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 16
a) Border and customs efficiency
b) Trade finance
c) Trade information management
d) Business development support for companies
e) SME development
f) ICT and other automated systems
g) Standards, SPS and related
h) Others specify
20. In your opinion, what have been the THREE most effective USAID Regional Program interventions in
trade and markets over the last 8 years (since 2011)
21. Please explain your choice for the THREE projects above?
22. Please rate the effectiveness of RECs/RIGO’s as partners in regional trade development work
(Extremely effective, Not so effective, Very effective, Not at all effective, Somewhat effective)
23. How can the regional trade work with RIGO's be made more effective? Please offer a comment.
24. Are local companies/ institutions appropriately involved in USAID Regional programs on trade and
markets? YES/NO – please explain your answer
25. Please suggest HOW local companies might be more effectively involved in USAID programs
26. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to help improve USAID work in the region?
YES/NO (if YES - please add your comment)
C. Access to Technologies and Inputs
27. USAID has invested in several regional (and bilateral) projects focused on Agricultural R&D, input
supply systems and the dissemination and scaling of technologies. In your view what are the most
important areas agricultural R&D efforts? (Very important, Somewhat important, Not important, I don't
know)
a) Building capacity of RARI’s (research facilities)
b) Supporting scaling/diffusion/dissemination of ready Technologies, Innovations and
Management Practices
c) Supporting research prioritization efforts
d) Investing in better coordination of technology development
e) Supporting increased availability of seeds and other inputs
f) Financing for research
g) Other specify….
28. In your opinion, what have been the THREE most effective USAID Regional Program interventions in
research and development over the last 8 years (since 2011).
29. Who would be the most effective partners for USAID regional programming in delivering
technological solutions and inputs to farmers? (Highly appropriate, Moderately appropriate, Not
appropriate,N/A)
a) Regional Agricultural research institutions (ASARECA etc)
b) RIGO’s (EAC, COMESA)
c) National Governments
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 17
d) Private Sector
e) Please explain your answers above (optional)
30. In your opinion, what should be the research priorities for USAID regional funding? Rank in terms of broad research areas: (Highest priority, Moderate priority, Low priority, Not important, N/A). Explain your choice (optional)
a) Policy research
b) Crop and livestock breeding and genetics
c) Market and delivery systems research
d) Regional resilience including climate change adaptation
e) Food safety including aflatoxin management
f) Management of diseases and pests: FAW, MLN etc
g) Other specify
31. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to help improve USAID work in the region?
YES/NO (if YES - please add your comment)
D. Nutrition
32. Based on your knowledge, in what MAJOR and specific ways is USAID programming in the region
impacting on nutrition?
33. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place in each of the following areas (Very important,
Somewhat important, Not important, I don't know)
a) Bio-fortification
b) Food safety and quality
c) Dietary diversity (inc. through trade)
d) Nutrition education
e) Other (please specify)
34. In your opinion, what have been the THREE most effective USAID Regional Program interventions in
nutrition over the last 8 years (since 2011)?
35. Who would make the most appropriate and effective partners for USAID regional programming on
nutrition?
36. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to help improve USAID work in the region?
YES/NO
37. (if YES - please add your comment)
E. Resilience
38. Is the current understanding of resilience within the regional program robust and relevant? Please
comment (Yes, No, Somehow). Please explain your answer
39. In your view, what risks (or shocks) should the USAID regional resilience program seek to address?
40. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place on each of the following areas in regional
Resilience (Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important, I don't know)
a) Natural Resource Management (NRM)
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 18
b) Humanitarian assistance (food aid and related)
c) Livelihoods support and basic social services
d) Pastoral disaster risk management, preparedness and response
e) Research, knowledge management and technology transfer
f) Conflict prevention, resolution and peace building
g) Increased sustainable productivity through climate smart approaches
h) Others please specify
41. What recent (since 2011) USAID resilience projects have been most successful in your view (and
why)?
42. In your view, does USAID regional programme reflect a wholesome coverage of issues relevant for
resilience? YES/NO (If no, what aspects are missing?)
43. Are local institutions appropriately involved in USAID Regional programs on resilience (YES/NO)
Please explain your answer
44. Which institutions/organizations should USAID work with to ensure optimum delivery in this area?
45. What aspects of Resilience should be given investment priority in region going forward?
46. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to help improve USAID work in the region?
YES/NO (if YES - please add your comment)
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 19
Annex 2 - Analysis and Findings
Annex 2 contains the analysis and finding from the stock take on nutrition, technology development and
deployment, resilience and the cross-cutting issues underpinning programming from the desk review and the
validation workshop.
Annex 2A: Resilience
1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ANALYSIS
USAID defines “Resilience to recurrent crisis” as the ability of people, households, communities, countries and
systems to mitigate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner to reduce chronic vulnerability and
facilitate inclusive growth.
Persistent and widespread drought is a recurrent feature in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) of East
Africa. More than 90% of Agriculture in ASALs is rain-fed and there is a direct link between drought and
food insecurity. In 2010/2011, the Greater Horn of Africa region was hit by a severe drought that affected an
estimated 13 million people, causing famine in some parts of the East African region. The huge devastation
caused by this 2010/2011, and later by the 2015/2016 drought, are a testimony that traditional coping
mechanisms are no longer working and the traditional responses of providing humanitarian assistance and
food aid are inefficient in terms of building the capacity of the vulnerable populations to adapt and recover
from shocks and stresses. The magnitude of suffering pinpoints to the ineffectiveness of drought response
approaches put in place over the last decades and which were predominantly relying on food aid. This
underpins the need to find more sustainable solutions. Indeed, it is also clear that worsening climatic
variability in drought-prone areas are challenging the traditional survival skills of resident communities in
these harsh environments. Over the last decade alone, international donors have spent around 90 billion US
$ in 9 countries of the Greater Horn of Africa, accounting for almost 50 percent of all humanitarian
assistance in the world.
The misery resulting from these crises has led to a switch of mind-set in the donor community and by
governments in the region. It became evident that interventions to respond to, and recover from, crisis
situations should strengthen medium and long-term resilience to disasters, covering multiple dimensions of
shocks, while also ensuring that drought does not result into another humanitarian crisis.
USAID’s Response
Contributing to finding lasting solutions to recurrent crises became a major priority for USAID which
committed itself to helping build the resilience of vulnerable communities in disaster-prone areas by
increasing their ability to manage crises – but without compromising their future well-being. For USAID,
improving resilience of people is about creating opportunities and options so that they can make choices
about their livelihoods and their lives. It is also about ensuring that communities in disaster-prone areas
become less vulnerable through adoption of practices that increase their chances to cope and recover from
climatic and other shocks that negatively affect their livelihoods. People are more resilient when they are
systems in place that continue to operate despite shocks and stresses, implying that – at that point -
communities have acquired the ability to withstand and bounce back from shocks.
USAID's strategy in building resilience helps share and shift the responsibility for managing risk, investing in
resilience, and responding to shocks when they do occur from donors to governments, communities, and
the private sector. The overriding aim is to reduce costs of recurrent crises, including the unsustainable
costs of responding to large-scale humanitarian emergencies in the same places every few years.
It has become clear that, in building resilience, the approach should integrate multiple components such as
community involvement, access to finance, market integration, and asset strategies, as well as a long-term
commitment to improving the ability to minimize exposure to shocks and, where possible, to recover
quickly when exposed. It has also become clear that building resilience involves supporting individuals,
households, and communities as they make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 20
strategies based on their conditions and strengthening the enabling environment and systems in which
households and communities are embedded.
2. INTERVENTIONS
Under Feed the Future, USAID East Africa has developed strategic partnerships with the Regional Economic
Communities (RECs) including the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and
Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) to strengthen
East Africa’s Economic and Food Security. Programs to build resilience of communities to adverse effects of
climate change and climate variability and to improve the region’s ability to respond to shocks and counter
extremist groups that seek to destabilize global markets and undermine security were mainly implemented
in the framework of the partnerships with IGAD. The largest part of USAID supported resilience building
programs and activities are implemented under the USAID-IGAD Regional Development Objective
Agreement Grant (RDOAG) because IGAD accounts more than 60% of its land mass under Arid and Semi-
Arid Lands (ASALs) which are exposed to frequent droughts and other climatic and conflict related shocks.
These investments have been informed by the past experiences (summarized in section 1 above).
Besides activities carried out through partnerships with the RECs, USAID EA is also coordinating other
resilience-building activities planned at regional level under the Horn of Africa Resilience Network (HoRN)
and implemented by specialised agencies mainly in IGAD member countries under the USAID bilateral
missions.
2.1. USAID EA Activities under IGAD
USAID partnership started in 2006 focusing on supporting IGAD to strengthen regional security, improve
climate prediction and analysis, and promote resilience and economic development. The current agreement
under the RDOAG was signed in 2016. Programs and projects funded under Feed the Future to build
resilience in the framework of the new RDOAG include:
1. Direct support to IGAD’s Secretariat to help the institution manage regional resilience building
programs, improve its procurement procedures, financial accountability and governance;
2. Funding projects implemented by the IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development
(ICPALD) including:
The “Developing standard methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH) project
implemented by AU-IBAR and completed in 2017.
The Strengthening Sanitary and Phytosanitary capacity of IGAD Member States to promote
livestock trade project. This is a second phase of the SMP-AH project focusing also on
harmonising sanitary standards related to livestock diseases. The project started in April 2018.
The Improving Food Security in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands: Strengthening Feed and Fodder
availability focusing on livestock corridors project which also started in April 2018.
3. Supporting the IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre (ICPAC) for the implementation of
the project on “Developing decision support tools for early warning and building resilience” in
support of the PREPARED project as well as in support of current IGAD and EAC activities to
strengthen food security through an informed planning of crop and livestock production.
4. Support the development and implementation of the “IGAD Disaster Resilience and Sustainability
Initiative -IDDRSI” (Box 1).
5. Supporting the “IGAD Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism – CEWARN) activities for
conflicts prevention and mitigation.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 21
Box 1: IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Strategy
Following the severe drought that devastated the region in 2010/2011, the decision to end drought
emergences was taken by IGAD and East African Community (EAC) Heads of State and Government at a
Summit convened in September 2011 in Nairobi. The Summit made a commitment to address the effects
of recurring droughts on vulnerable communities in the IGAD region and called for increased commitment
by affected countries and Development Partners to support investments in sustainable development especially in
the Arid and Semiarid Lands (ASALs). The Nairobi Summit urged all countries to work together as a region
and all concerned to do things differently, working concertedly and holistically, combining relief and
development interventions, aimed at building resilience to future shocks. This culminated into the
IDDRSI as the strategy aimed at addressing the effects of drought and related shocks in the IGAD region in a
sustainable and holistic manner. The preparation of the IDDRSI Strategy was an inclusive and participatory
process that involved IGAD Secretariat and IGAD specialized institutions as well as public and non-state
actors in member states. The Strategy was further informed by consultations with other stakeholders
commonly affected by drought or involved in responding to its effects, including the CGIAR and UN
agencies and development partners. The process of developing the Strategy was guided by the IGAD
Strategy 2011 – 2015 which envisions a region with communities free from vulnerabilities to drought
emergencies. The strategy proposes operational and institutional implementation arrangements and a
result-based monitoring and evaluation system to track the progress of projects activities in the
implementation of the initiative. The Strategy identifies 7 priority intervention areas:
a. Ensuring equitable access and sustainable use of natural resources, while improving
environmental management;
b. Enhancing market access, facilitating trade and availing versatile financial services;
c. Providing equitable access to livelihood support and basic social services;
d. Improving disaster risk management capabilities and preparedness for effective response;
e. Enhancing the generation and use of research, knowledge, technology and innovations in the
IGAD region;
f. Promoting conflict prevention and resolution, and peace building;
g. Strengthening coordination mechanisms and institutional arrangements for more organized,
collaborative and synergistic action.
The strategy, by design, recognizes that while drought-prone communities face common challenges and
are often interconnected through shared natural resources and regional trade and trans-boundary human
and animal movements, individual IGAD member states may have their own specificities and areas of
emphasis.
2.2. Activities Coordinated by the USAID East Africa Regional Office
These activities are coordinated by “The Horn of Africa Resilience Network (HoRN)” which was
established in 2012 to support the USAID EA Mission in its commitment to building resilient communities
and economies in East Africa. The Network includes national governments and regional institutions such as
IGAD and development partners. Its objective is to strengthen regional and cross-border collaboration to
improve evidence-based learning to promote resilient and democratic societies.
From 2012 to 2016, the HoRN developed the Regional Resilience Framework to guide resilience
investments and to serve as a common reference for resilience programming throughout the region. Building
on 4 years of experience, the HoRN developed in 2016 a new regional framework (see Box 2), the
‘Regional Resilience Framework 2.0’ which identified three objectives to achieve the above outcome –
that is: (i) Expanded and Viable Economic Opportunities; (ii) Strengthened Institutions, Systems and
Governance; and (iii) Improved and Sustained Human Capital.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 22
Box 2: The Horn of Africa Resilience Network Vision, Outcome and Focus
The HoRN vision is “People, households and communities in the Horn of Africa drylands escape poverty and
chronic vulnerability and are resilient in the face of recurrent shocks and stresses”. The outcome is “increased
resilience of chronically vulnerable individuals, households, communities and systems”.
The HoRN Regional Resilience Framework is used for the development and implementation of resilience
building programs and projects by the USAID missions in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia Somalia and South
Sudan.
A regional coordination unit located at the USAID EA offices has the responsibility of documenting the
knowledge accumulated from projects implemented in participating countries for sharing with all
stakeholders. Annual meetings are organized to share the experiences.
Building on the recognition that building resilience needs to be addressed through a multi-sectoral approach,
the Regional Resilience Framework 2.0 established a model of multi-sectoral, integrated and inclusive
systems strengthening approach including improving access to finance, enhancing market access, livelihoods
diversification, smart crop and livestock production and environmental management, developing social
capital including education and health and enhancing access to water and sanitation for human consumption
and crop (irrigation) and livestock production. The approach is that systems should be merged and
strengthened simultaneously as they act in synergy, not in isolation.
3. ACHIEVEMENTS
3.1. USAID-RECs Partnership
Significant achievements from the USAID partnership with IGAD are summarized below:
a) Achievement from the ICPALD led project:
Eleven Standard Methods and Procedures (SMPs) for control of cross-border livestock diseases; 16
Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for diagnosis of livestock diseases and 26
epidemiological diseases investigation SOPs developed and disseminated from the AU-IBAR implemented
SMP-AH project. The SMP outlined for each of nine priority diseases the surveillance, controlling and
diagnostic steps to manage/control the disease. National policies to prevent and control outbreaks of
livestock diseases harmonized in nine East African Countries including Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Staff of laboratories and vaccines institutes of IGAD
member countries trained on laboratory SOPs and laboratory equipment and consumables provided by
the project. One thousand doses of the Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) produced by the
Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute (KEVEVAPI) through the project support and a reginal
network for quarantines where technicians screen live animals for diseases prior to traders moving them
to the export markets established. Livestock trade related policies between IGAD member countries
developed and implemented. Live animals export from Berbera and Bosaso to the Middle East increased,
reaching 2 to 3.5 million head of cattle per annum. Three bilateral (Ethiopia and Kenya; Ethiopia and
Somalia; Ethiopia and Djibouti) and one multilateral (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and South Sudan)
agreements for control of livestock diseased across borders signed.
b) Achievements from IDDRSI implementation:
A Regional Strategy, a Regional Programming Paper (RPP) and all IGAD Countries Country Programming
Papers (CPPs) for the implementation of the IGAD Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Project
(IDDRSI) developed and one billion US $ dollar mobilised from other donors for the implementation of
the CPPS during the first phase (2013-2017) of IDDRSI. An interlinked coordination mechanism at
regional and national levels established, operationalised and tools for sharing information developed. They
include (i) the IGAD Info based on country information and (ii) the Di-Monitoring, a web-based tool to
monitor project implementation. IGAD Member States experts trained by the Project Coordination Unit
(PCU) to collect data and information from the different resilience interventions and upload them into
their respective country portals. A consensus established between the Governments and the donor
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 23
community on the implementation of IDDRSI. Establishment of the Resilience Analysis Unit (RAU) under
the PCU focusing at understanding vulnerability, resilience analysis and measurement. RAU assesses the
impact of resilience investment, determining whether or not the intended objectives of the investment
are achieved.
Achievements from the IDDRSI country programs indicate in Kenya that the country is making significant
progress towards ending droughts emergencies. This is reflected by the fact that since 2013, the country
managed all drought episodes without international appeal except in 2017 where an exceptionally severe
drought affected the entire East Africa region. The dependency on humanitarian assistance was
significantly reduced from US $ 459.4 million in 2014 to US $ 379.8 million in 2016. In Ethiopia, the
budget allocated to resilience building increased significantly but a drought induced by El-Nino in 2015
caused a humanitarian crisis that results into the government and donors providing humanitarian
assistance to 10.2 million people, indicating that although the situation has improved, humanitarian
assistance is still an integral part of the response under severe crises. The drought was the worse in the
last 50 years. In Uganda, the impact of reducing economic vulnerability through increased investment in
resilience reduction mechanisms is considered to be still very modest.
c) Achievement from ICPAC activities: include strengthened capacity of national meteorological services to
use the decision support tools developed disseminated to provide forecasts for agricultural and
livestock production.
d) Achievement from activities carried out by CEWARN: include twenty- six projects to counter violence from
extremist groups developed and implemented in Somalia, Northern Kenya, South Sudan and Karamoja
Cluster; the CEWARN conflict reporting system redesigned to be able to report more than 15 types of
conflicts; Construction and management of six peace dividend facilities including a maternity ward,
watering holes, a community peace hall and a livestock market in conflict zones; and peace actors
including women, youth, elders, security officials and political leaders trained in conflict resolution.
3.2. Achievements from Activities Coordinated by the USAID East Africa Regional Office
The stock-take selected three projects implemented in the framework of the HoRN Regional Resilience
Framework. These were: (i) The Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME) in
Ethiopia; (ii) The Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands – Accelerated Growth (REGAL-AG) in Kenya; and
(iii) The Resilience through Enhanced Adaptation, Action Learning and Partnership (REAAP) project in Ethiopia as an
illustration of some significant achievements. Although the three projects were funded by bilateral USAID
missions, they were developed based on priorities and approaches defined in the Regional Resilience
Framework. Documented achievements are relevant for multiple countries and demonstrative of approaches
which can be contextualized and applied across the region through more intentional cross-learning. The
projects used the integrated inclusive approach as defined in the HoRN Regional Resilience Framework 2.0.
The achievements are summarized below:
a. The Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME), Ethiopia. PRIME (2012-2017)
was developed and implemented in the Somalia, Oromia and Afar regions where chronic poverty was
the norm as families struggled with repeated incidences of drought. The goal of PRIME was to improve
household income and enhance resilience to climate change. The project concentrated its activities in
five key areas, including: (i) livestock productivity and competitiveness; (ii) natural resources
management and climate change adaptation; (iii) human nutrition; (iv) alternative livelihoods and financial
access; and (v) learning management.
The project used the integrated inclusive approach as defined in the HoRN Regional Resilience
Framework 2.0, merging and strengthening the financial, markets, health, agriculture and environment
systems to act in synergy. These interventions resulted in an estimated 4% increase in income of
households after the 5- year project implementation and during the Ethiopia two worst droughts in half
a century (2015-2017) where most families suffered a 30% decline in food security, PRIME targeted
households only suffered a 4% decline. During the droughts, PRIME responded by integrating its
emergency response activities with its systems-focused development programs. The successes from the
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 24
project indicate that “integrated long-term investment in systems-strengthening can break the cycle of
poverty and improve household, businesses and community resilience to shocks and stresses long into
the future.
b. The Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands – Accelerated Growth (REGAL-AG), Kenya
The purpose of the REGAL-AG (2012-2018) was (and is) to grow the economy of Northern Kenya to
enable pastoral communities to endure the effects of climate change and natural disasters. The project
fosters improved livestock productivity to create employment opportunities and increase pastoralists’
income and prosperity through expanding end-market opportunities and catalysing commercial
investment in the livestock sector. The project is implemented in five drought-prone counties of northern
Kenya including Garissa, Isiolo, Marsabit, Turkana and Wajir. Activities of the project include construction
of 20 livestock markets, awarding 36 grants to support business development to buy-down risks and
facilitate the establishment of viable livestock related businesses (animal feeds, milk processing, chicken
production and processing etc.) and scaling up pasture production. Achievements from the 5-year project
implementation include 24597 rural households benefited from up-grades in 12 livestock markets
infrastructures investments; 2616 individuals were trained in agricultural production and food security; 31
microenterprises and 17 small enterprises received business support services in record keeping, branding
and brand marketing, market penetration and finance management. US $ 1,187,637 were leveraged as
private sector investment of which US$ 731500 was credit from financial institutions to support
investments in the livestock sector.
c. The Resilience through Enhanced Adaptation, Action Learning and Partnership (REAAP) Project, Ethiopia.
The goal of REAAP (2014-2017) was to encourage almost half a million people from drought-prone
districts of Oromia State in Ethiopia to implement risk-reducing actions to improve their resilience to
climate change. The activities included organising 300,000 people into communities involved in collective
actions including reducing risk by promoting community internal saving and lending; engagement in health
and nutrition interventions; sharing seasonal weather forecasting information between 3,000 households
during meetings to make better informed decision on investment into climate- smart agriculture and
livestock production; involvement in natural resources management, including planting trees to
rehabilitate environment and hillside terracing to reduce erosion; enhancing access to safe water for
domestic use and crop and livestock production, and enhancing the quality of nutrition and health.
Achievements from the project include mobilization of 59,000 US $ through the savings at community
level used to buy food, livestock and initiate petty trade during droughts; 1,200 hectares put under
climate-smart agriculture technologies; 31 miles of hill terracing; water supply systems rehabilitated and
digging wells which benefited 650 people; construction of 23 ponds which benefited 16,000 people and
livestock; more than 1,000 people benefiting from food cooking demonstrations and 145 health experts
trained to improve rural health through improvement of children feeding practices.
Some of the key lessons can help guide future resilience building programming. They include specific project
content, arrangements and governance elements that influence results. They can be summarised as follows:
i. Involving communities organised into strong organisations in early warning and community-based
development of interventions for disaster management is a common characteristic of successful
projects.
ii. Long-term investment in integrated systems-strengthening can break the cycle of poverty and improve
household, businesses and communities’ resilience to shocks under normal circumstances as well as
during periods of shocks and stresses.
iii. Strengthening market access and linkages for households and communities play a key role in building
resilient individuals and societies.
iv. During disaster crises, integrating emergency response activities such as humanitarian assistance with
the integrated systems-focused development programs result into increased capacity to withstand the
effects of disasters and stresses.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 25
4. CHALLENGES AND GAPS
Persistent and widespread drought is a recurrent feature in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) s of East
Africa. The drought and the harsh environment exacerbated by climate change phenomena, war and conflicts
has created situations of chronic vulnerability, extreme poverty, persistent food insecurity and human
suffering. The extent of devastation currently caused by droughts clearly shows that traditional coping
mechanisms and responses are no longer working in terms of building capacity of vulnerable populations to
adapt and recover from crises. The challenge is to find new ways and innovative approaches to build the
capacity of communities to cope with and recover from frequent shocks and stresses.
5. OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD
The shared vision on resilience across the USAID/KEA OEGI and the Regional Intergovernmental
Organizations (COMESA, EAC, IGAD) is of “Ending the need for foreign assistance” to achieve self-
reliance by building resilience of households, communities and systems so that they are able to cope and
recover from shocks and stresses. Identified opportunities by stakeholders are summarized below.
(a) Joint Programming at Regional and National levels.
There is an opportunity for strengthening resilience at regional and national levels, building on the existing
Regional Resilience Framework 2.0 developed under the Horn of Africa Resilience Network and the IDDRSI
Framework. The specific recommendations to harness this opportunity include:
i. Using the USAID definition of Resilience, adopt the IDDRSI conceptual model for resilience planning,
focusing on disaster-prone areas and broadening the causes of disasters (multi-risk) to include
livestock diseases, food deficits, prices volatility, insecurity and conflicts which are generally
exacerbated by drought.
ii. Using a participatory approach to develop a Regional Multi-Risk Framework and Implementation Plan,
defining the priorities and objectives of multi-sectoral collaborative efforts to build resilience.
iii. Building on the IDDRSI National Committees for Building Resilience to develop contextualized
country specific plans for multi-risk resilience addressing the priorities and objectives agreed upon in
the Regional Implementation Plan.
(b) Building Resilience Response and Recovery Capacity.
Current USAID supported resilience building programs and projects are implemented at identified clusters
and sites in IGAD member countries where models for regional approaches for drought management are
being developed and up-scaled in similar environments. There is an opportunity to develop in the same
clusters and sites multi-risk disaster management models to build resilience to the multiple causes of
disasters.
Recommendations from stakeholders to tap on that opportunity include:
i. Use the IDDRSI clusters to identify hotspots for implementation of the country specific plans for
building multi-risk resilience. The plans will consist of community-based multi-sectoral interventions,
combining community-based early warning based on climate predictions to promote climate-smart
crop and livestock production; natural resources management; improving access to finance; livelihoods
diversification; promoting social capital, including access to health and education services; improving
access to sanitation services and water resources for human consumption and crop and livestock
production, and incorporating conflict resolution mechanisms into the overall community-based multi-
risk disaster management. The Early warning should also be used to predict food balances and provide
cross-border information on climate prediction for crop-livestock production planning. Country plans
will be used to leverage funds from other donors for their implementation.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 26
ii. Develop and promote recovery strategies and plans, including restocking and development of climate-
smart crop and livestock production.
iii. Support technologies for efficient water utilization including ground water mapping, identification of
water access points and how they can be utilized for human consumption and crop and livestock
production; and improve management of shared water bodies.
(c) Strengthen Resilience Management Institutions at National and Regional Levels.
Ensuring that multi-risk disaster resilience building programs and activities are coordinated at regional
and national levels is crucial, considering the many and diverse actors involved in disaster resilience
activities. They include government and non-governmental institutions, regional institutions, donors, and
private sector actors – working at both national and regional levels. Strong coordination is therefore
required to avoid duplications, build synergies and complementarities, enhance cost-effectiveness and
most importantly strengthen mutual learning at regional and national levels. For this to happen, it is
important that institutions involved in the coordination at national and regional level establish explicit
linkages to ensure that synergies are captured, and efficiency and effectiveness achieved.
Stakeholder recommendations to USAID to ensure that strong institutions are in place to manage
the future programme include:
i. Strengthen institutional arrangements to ensure strong governance and coordination of the Resilience
Building Initiatives at the regional and national levels.
ii. Ensure strong linkages between activities carried out at the country level by the bilateral missions
with regional activities carried out at regional level under IGAD, East African Community and the
HoRN.
Table 1: Summary of Opportunities and Specific Recommendations to Build Resilience of Systems
and Communities in East Africa:
Opportunity Area Recommendation
1. Resilience Programming Using the USAID definition of resilience, adopt and adapt the IDDRISI
conceptual model for resilience planning, focusing on disaster-prone
areas and with broad coverage beyond drought - i.e. including other
shocks such as crop and livestock pest & disease epidemics, food
deficits, food price volatility, insecurity and conflicts.
Build on the IDDRSI National Committees for Building Resilience to
develop contextualized country specific plans for multi-risk resilience -
addressing the priorities and objectives agreed upon in the Regional
Implementation Plan.
Use a participatory approach to develop a Regional multi-risk
Framework and Implementation Plan, defining the priorities and
objectives of multi-sectoral collaborative efforts to build resilience.
Strengthen the evidence-based learning through research and monitor
outcomes from the learning sites. Build a knowledge management
system for sharing lessons at regional level.
2. Building Resilience
Response and Recovery
Capacity
Use the IDDRSI clusters (above) to identify hotspots for
implementation of the country specific plans for building multi-risk
resilience. The plans will consist of multi-sectoral interventions
combining community-based early warning based on climate
predictions and incorporating crop production, natural resources
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 27
Opportunity Area Recommendation
management, access to finance, income diversification, enhancing
market access and promoting social capital - including access to health
and education services. Country plans will be used to leverage funds
from other donors for their implementation.
Develop and promote recovery strategies and plans, including
restocking and development of climate smart crop and livestock
production.
Support technologies for efficient water utilization including ground
water mapping, identification of water access points and how they can
be utilized for human consumption and crop and livestock production;
and improve management of shared water bodies.
3. Strengthen Resilience
Management
Institutions at National
and Regional Levels
Strengthen institutional arrangements to ensure strong governance and
coordination of the Resilience Building Initiatives at the regional and
national levels
Ensure strong linkages between activities carried out at the country
level by the bilateral missions with activities carried out at regional
level under IGAD, East African Community and USAID Regional
Mission
Annex 2B: Nutrition
1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ANALYSIS
Work on Improving Nutrition Under the 2011-2015 Strategy
Research has shown that smallholder-based agricultural development does reduce the prevalence of malnutrition,
particularly stunting, in developing economies. Nutrition education and health-based interventions are more effective
when they complement increased agricultural productivity, more cropping, and increased household incomes. Increased
flows of staple foods from surplus to deficit areas and lower food prices as a result of more efficient production and
marketing systems are expected to have measurable impact on food security and nutritional status throughout the
region. [FTF Strategy]
Although the definition of food security includes aspects of nutrition security, in most cases, the application
of the term food security does not include nutrition security. The World Bank defines nutrition security as
‘the ongoing access to the basic elements of good nutrition, i.e. a balanced diet, safe environment, clean
water, and adequate health care (preventive and curative) for all people, and the knowledge needed to care
for and ensure a healthy and active life for all household members’ (McDermott et al, 2013). Thus, nutrition
security goes beyond the traditional food security by considering access to essential nutrients, not just
calories and also addresses food safety.
Status of Nutrition in the EA Region
More than 25 percent of the world's children under the age of 5 years suffer from undernutrition. This
includes 155 million children who are stunted due to chronic undernutrition and other limiting factors
during the most vulnerable years of a child's life. It also includes 52 million children who are affected by
wasting, a result of severe illness and undernourishment and a major cause of mortality. Undernutrition
leaves children vulnerable to disease, impoverishes families, diminishes community resilience, and reduces
critical human capital and capacity, thereby causing long-term detriment to national economies and social
development. Global prevalence of undernourishment 2005 to 2017 is summarized in Table 1. Of note is
the fact that prevalence is consistently higher in Africa than any other region of the world, and that this is
arising from the high prevalence in SSA. Moreover, eastern Africa has the highest prevalence of
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 28
undernourishment among all sub-regions of Africa – making it, by extension, the most
undernourished sub-region in the world!
Table 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment in the World (%), 2005–2017
2005 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017*
AFRICA 21.2 19.1 18.6 18.3 19.7 20.4
Northern Africa 6.2 5 8.3 8.1 8.5 8.5
Northern Africa (excluding Sudan) 6.2 5 4.8 4.6 5 5
Sub-Saharan Africa 24.3 21.7 21 20.7 22.3 23.2
Eastern Africa 34.3 31.3 30.9 30.2 31.6 31.4
Middle Africa 32.4 27.8 26 24.2 25.7 26.1
Southern Africa 6.5 7.1 6.9 7.4 8.2 8.4
Western Africa 12.3 10.4 10.4 10.7 12.8 15.1
Asia 17.3 13.6 12.9 12 11.5 11.4
Latin America and the Caribbean 9.1 6.8 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.1
North America and Europe < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5
*Projected values
Source: FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2018.
Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Across a range of metrics, progress remains slow in Africa: for example, global data (2000 – 2016) by
UNICEF/WHO/World Bank indicates that stunting has declined twice as quickly in Asia and Latin America
and the Caribbean as it had in Africa, and that Africa is the only continent in which the number of stunted
children had risen between 2000 and 2016. The trends in two nutrition indicators (undernourishment, and
stunting) for EA region are summarized in Figures 1 and 2 which show that, although there are notable
exceptions, the region has made visible, albeit variable, gains in its efforts to address malnutrition during the
period 1991 and 2015. In Zambia, undernourishment at the general population level showed a consistently
increasing trend. But the trend has been clearly progressively decreasing, albeit at variable rates, in all the EA
(EAC plus Ethiopia) countries since 2000. In addition, except for Burundi, the rest of the countries showed
decline (albeit small) in height for age (stunting) among under-fives during the same period. However,
undernourished population shows mixed results in the region.
There was no data on prevalence of undernourishment for Somalia. However, stunting rate among children
in Somalia was low in the 1990s and remained lower than that in all the EA countries, with minimal change,
during the period. The other countries showed notable improvements in status of nutrition. The overall
improvement was partly driven by economic growth that led to increase in per capita incomes by almost all
countries in the region. Despite this improving trend, none of the countries in the region exhibits stunting
rates better than world threshold of 20 percent. Moreover, in terms of prevalence of undernourishment,
the region is generally below the average for the African continent. In addition, the performance of Ethiopia,
Burundi and DRC with respect to stunting of children under 5 also remained worse than the African average
over this period, but the rate of improvement of Ethiopia in these metrics over this period was higher than
all the other countries.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 29
Figure 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment (% of population)
*[EAC + Ethiopia]
Source: Graph based on ReSAKSS data (http://www.resakss.org/)
Figure 2: Prevalence of Stunting, Height for Age (% of children under 5)
*[EAC + Ethiopia]
Source: Graph based on ReSAKSS data (http://www.resakss.org/)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Perc
en
tage o
f p
op
ula
tio
n
Africa
Ethiopia
Kenya
Rwanda
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Average (EA)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
% o
f ch
ild
ren
un
der
5
Africa
Burundi
Ethiopia
Kenya
Rwanda
Somalia
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
DRC
Average(EA)
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 30
Despite these modest gains in nutrition status in the region, the populations suffering from malnutrition are
still worrying. Overall, the improvements are too slow, and trivial in the face of confounding factors.
Respondents interviewed during this stock-take expressed mixed reactions to the data from the reviews.
Widespread poverty and illnesses, lack of coherent social protection legislations, and, unpredictability of
public support and transfers to households in need of food relief - especially during emergencies, are
considered to still compound the nutritional challenge in some (usually marginal) parts of all EA countries. In
addition, there is an increasing prevalence in the region of life style related/non-communicable diseases such
as cancer, diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). Others include retrogressive stereotypes which
exclude certain (marginalized and vulnerable) groups from mainstream economic activities and gainful
employment, thus reducing their access to, and utilization of, food.
2. INTERVENTIONS
Feed the Future is an agricultural growth strategy with clearly articulated nutritional objectives. Increased
flows of staple foods from surplus to deficit areas combined with lower food prices resulting from more
efficient production and marketing systems is being promoted to have measurable impact on food security
and nutritional status in the region. Four categories— grains, roots, and tubers, legumes and nuts,
animal-sourced foods (dairy, eggs, and flesh meats from mostly small animals and
aquaculture), and foods from horticulture (fruits and vegetables)—are identified in the FTF
Strategy to capture the food groups used to measure minimum acceptable diet (MAD) for children ages 6 to
23 months and women’s dietary diversity (Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, USAID 2018). Table 2 below
presents the value chains the stock-take was able to identify from various FTF project documents covering
the period 2011 to 2018 and indicates a wide coverage with maize featuring in all EA countries, and legumes
(especially beans), livestock and fruits featuring in most country lists
Table 2: Value Chains Identified from FTF Documents
Country Value Chains
Ethiopia Maize, wheat, vegetable, pulses, sesame/chickpea, meat and live animals, dairy,
honey, coffee.
Kenya Maize, cassava, millet/sorghum, sweet/Irish potato, vegetable, banana, mango,
passion fruit, beans, legume, cowpea, groundnuts, green grams, pigeon peas,
dairy, livestock, flowers.
Rwanda Maize, beans, livestock, pineapple, cassava, rice, coffee, pyrethrum, dairy.
Tanzania Maize, rice, horticulture, vegetables, flowers, spices.
Uganda Maize, beans, coffee, and some subdistrict–specific crops and livestock.
Zambia Maize, horticulture, groundnut, soy, sunflower.
Under the nutrition theme, the USAID EA Regional Strategy (2011-2015) identified four broad activity areas
which aimed to synergize agriculture, trade, and nutrition objectives in collaboration with USAID/EA’s
Regional Health and HIV Office (RHH). The priority areas focused on the critical “one thousand days” for
pregnant and lactating women and children under two years of age. The areas were: a) fortification and bio-
fortification; b) food quality and safety; c) dietary diversity; and d) institutional capacity. Operationally, many
of these areas are embedded within the focus and support areas of the strategy, contributing to increased
availability of, access to, and utilization of food. Thus, trade and markets, and improved technologies,
knowledge and input, all contribute in different ways to the nutrition objectives and outcomes.
In relation to dietary diversity specifically, key USAID regional priorities are “… to promote increased
consumption of heme iron, vitamin A and zinc, coupled with reductions in the consumption of sugar,
saturated fats and simple carbohydrates”. The Strategy includes: development and dissemination of model
policies through regional organizations to promote a transition to more diverse and nutritious diets, based
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 31
on analysis of nutritionally-linked economic impacts. Awareness was to be built about the relationships
between household food security, nutrition, stunting and obesity. Support to the horticulture value chain,
making fruits and vegetables rich in micronutrients and fibre more widely available and accessible, was to
complement these policy-level programs.
USAID and Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture
The term ‘nutrition-sensitive agriculture’ has emerged in the recent past as an appropriate way to define
agriculture investments intentionally designed to also improve nutrition (Box 1). Investments require
deliberate and appropriate forethought and planning to yield impact on nutritional status and consequently
good health and wellbeing. Several pathways have been identified showing how nutrition-sensitive agriculture
interventions can more directly impact nutrition and food security. The pathways include: Agricultural Income
– to facilitate food purchase and for health care and education expenditures; Food Production – through
reduced food prices, home consumption, and processing and storage; and Women’s Empowerment – through
women’s decision-making in the household, women’s time use and the impact on their ability to care for
themselves and their children, women’s workload and the impact on maternal energy use, and women’s
control of income, participation in markets, and resource allocation.
The stock-take examined four strategies that are implicitly being applied in USAID programming in the
region which reflect nutrient-sensitive agriculture approach: Trade focus; Production and value-chain
development focus; fortification and bio-fortification; and food safety. Nutrition education while very
important is driven primarily by USAID bilateral missions. The same is true for women empowerment which
was examined across all the four. The two are not, therefor, analyzed further in this report.
Box 1. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture and Nutrient-Rich Foods
1. A commodity is defined as nutrient-rich if it meets any of the following criteria*:
Is bio-fortified
Is a legume, nut, or some seeds such as sesame, sunflower, pumpkin seeds, wheat germ, or
sprouted legume seeds
Is an animal source food, including dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), fish, eggs, organ meats,
meat, flesh foods, and other miscellaneous small animal protein (e.g., grubs, insects)
Is a dark yellow or orange-fleshed root or tuber
Is a fruit or vegetable that meets the threshold for being a "high source" of one or more
micronutrients on a per 100 calorie and per 100-gram basis
2. In addition, value chain approaches deliberately designed to be nutrition sensitive
*See: USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025), Technical Guidance Brief (2015) https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-
health/nutrition/nutrition-sensitive-agriculture-nutrient-rich-value-chains
2.1 Making Trade Work for Nutrition
Increased trade is well recognized by FTF as an important means to avail access to food – specifically staple
commodities and nutritious foods. Although it is not possible to quantify the contribution of USAID
investments to this, trade figures (see trade section) show that both intra-African exports and imports
(including for nutrition-rich commodities) have generally increased in the EA region, especially during the
2005 to 2015 period. USAID has also been keen to assess the extent to which trade is contributing to
nutrition. One example is work on the fruits and fresh vegetables (FFV) production and marketing systems
in the EA region (Box 2). This work sought to assess the extent to which trade-related interventions could
enhance FFV consumption in the region. The hypothesis was that as regional markets become increasingly
integrated, FFV should become more widely available throughout the year, helping stabilize prices and
making these products more affordable to consumers. Reliable access to larger regional markets should also
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 32
encourage farmers to diversify production for sale, potentially increasing household incomes. Year-round
availability of a range of FFV should encourage increased trade in FFV and would have a direct impact on
reducing malnutrition.
Box 2. Trade Interventions to Improve Nutrition – Fruits and Fresh Vegetables (FFV)
Through a USAID/EA funded assignment, the East Africa Trade Hub conducted two studies looking at
the FFV sector and identified several challenges and recommended interventions. Recommendations
centered on improving data and information collection and analysis, identifying key public and private
partners to lead efforts to enhance FFV trade, supporting efforts to build capacities of regional and
national level FFV trade associations, improving wholesale market efficiencies through better cooperation
among value chain actors and developing nutritional awareness campaigns to encourage more FFV
consumption. The specific key recommendations included:
Improve the region’s capacity to collect and analyze FFV trade flow, price and market information
Develop interventions to address wholesale market inefficiencies
Improve the FFV policy and enabling environment
Promote consumer awareness campaigns on the nutritional benefits of eating FFV
2.2 Making Value Chains Work for Nutrition
Adopting value-chain concepts has enormous potential to help increase both the supply of nutritious foods
to the poor and their demand for those foods. First, value-chain analysis can be used to assess why foods
are, or are not, available in specific communities, why foods cost what they do, and how the nutrient quality
of foods changes from production throughout the chain. Once problems are identified, value chain
approaches can be used to design and implement solutions to increase the availability, affordability, and
quality of nutritious foods. Value-chain analysis can also be used to address acceptability and demand
constraints. It can be used, for example, to identify what kind of “value” needs to be added to products to
increase consumer acceptability and demand, as well as to determine if adding nutritional value alters the
way the consumers “value” the products or their “willingness to pay” (Hawkes and Ruel, 2011; Box 3).
Although quantitative data was not collected in the stock-take, consultations with stakeholders revealed
that, in addition to nutrition-focused projects, choice of value chains in USAID projects in the region is
consistently guided by a nutrition objective.
Box 3. How to Apply Value-Chain Concepts to Achieving Nutrition Goals
Start with explicit nutrition goals. While there is not a single “value-chain-for-nutrition” approach,
all value-chain approaches to nutrition should focus on a clearly stated, outcome-oriented nutrition goal.
[USAID EA Strategy and programming have explicit nutrition objectives]
Create and capture value for nutrition. Although value-chain approaches to nutrition do need to
consider economic value for actors in the chain—a necessary component of any value-chain approach—
they should also consider the value for nutrition. Increases in economic value for vulnerable value-chain
actors can be associated with increased value for nutrition, even if this is not their original intention
[The deliberate choice of nutrient-rich commodities in the USAID portfolio speaks to this]
Add value not only for nutrition but also for actors along the value chain. Solutions for
nutrition that do not work for actors within the value chain are not value-chain solutions. Rather,
nutrition-oriented activities should become a solution to the problems faced by these actors as well, thus
adding value for both consumers and actors along the value chain
(http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2013/06/ValueChainsForNutrition.pdf)
Source: Hawkes and Ruel (2011)
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 33
2.3 Making Bio-Fortification and Fortification Work for Nutrition
Bio-fortification is a process by which crops are bred in a way that increases their nutritional value. Breeding
nutritious crops is much cheaper than adding micronutrients to already processed foods. Lack of essential
micronutrients such as iodine, iron, zinc and vitamin A in diets, often referred to as the ‘hidden hunger’ -
because the symptoms of deficiency often manifest only when they become severe - is a threat to millions of
African lives. In the 2011-2015 Strategy, USAID committed to promoting the consumption of bio-fortified
crops. Specifically, lessons learned from pilot programs to evaluate the consumer acceptability of orange-
fleshed sweet potatoes (OFSP) and iron-fortified lentils, were to be made available; an ongoing project in
Rwanda was also identified for support. Based on the results of these experiences, a plan was to be
developed to scale up the availability and use of bio-fortified commodities across the region.
The story of the OFSP in Uganda (Box 4) is an example of currently available bio-fortified varieties of 13
crops, including Vitamin A sweet potato, cassava, and maize, iron-rich beans and pearl millet, and zinc-rich
wheat and rice, which have been released in 30 countries around the world. Peer-reviewed clinical trials
have demonstrated that bio-fortified foods have a positive impact in health and nutritional status, including:
reduction in the prevalence of diarrhea among children under three; reversal of iron deficiency in children
and women; improved cognitive and physical performance in women and children; and improved night vision
in children.
Working with its partners, especially HarvestPlus, USAID has made significant contribution to the
development and deployment of several bio-fortified commodities which are making major contributions to
human nutrition in and outside of Africa. In the EA region, Uganda (beans and sweet potato), Zambia (maize,
sweet potato, and cassava), and Rwanda (beans) are among countries that have benefited from the bio-
fortification work and scaling of the resulting products; many of these projects have received support from
USAID ( both EA/OEGI and BFS).
Box 4. USAID Support to Scaling of Bio-Fortified Sweet Potato in Uganda
Vitamin A deficiency is a significant health concern across SSA, affecting 43 million children under age 5,
and contributing to high rates of blindness, disease and premature death in children and pregnant
women. In Uganda it affects 38 percent of children aged 6 months to 59 months and 36 percent of
women aged 15 to 49 years, according to the 2011 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey. Lack of
vitamin A also impedes children’s growth, increases their vulnerability to disease, and contributes to
poor immune function and maternal mortality. Orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) is an important
source of beta-carotene, the pre-cursor to vitamin A.
OFSP was introduced in Uganda in 2007 by HarvestPlus project of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In 2012, HarvestPlus and the USAID introduced the new
sweet potato variety. OFSP has now been adopted by over 55,000 Ugandan farming households, with up
to 237,000 households expected to be planting and eating this year (2018). A total of six varieties have
been released and currently (2018) being used in Uganda. The project provided enriched sweet potato
plants to breed with the local white or yellow variety to more than 10,000 farming households.
In addition to addressing vitamin A deficiencies, the OFSP is as sweet as the indigenous white sweet
potato, and has high and fast-maturing yields.
Agricultural extension staff work closely with farmers’ groups and other parties to ensure
widespread OFSP availability and sustainability.
People are interested in growing OFSP mainly for home consumption.
Schools around Uganda that grow potatoes in their gardens as a main crop are increasingly adopting
the OFSP.
HarvestPlus provides information and training to farmers on how to conserve the potato vines from
season to season.
Nutrition training is also offered to the farmers. Families learn how to prepare the potatoes, which
contribute to the nutritional needs of young children and pregnant and breastfeeding women, as a
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 34
Box 4. USAID Support to Scaling of Bio-Fortified Sweet Potato in Uganda
component of a balanced diet.
With support from USAID, HarvestPlus is proactively working to link OFSP farmers to markets.
Food fortification: The USAID (2011-2015) Strategy stated that the East, Central and Southern Africa Health
Community (ECSA) was to work with partners to support the implementation of regionally harmonized
fortification, safety, and quality standards for salt, sugar, oils and grain-based products, and to address
technical and other non-tariff barriers to trade in fortified commodities, as well as policy and regulatory
barriers faced by the private sector for the regional distribution of fortified foods. ECSA has worked with
technical committees in the EAC and COMESA to advocate for the cross-sectoral implementation of
harmonized policies and standards. Alliances of partners working at the regional and national levels have
been formed to increase likelihood that fortified foods reach vulnerable households. Guidelines and manuals
on fortification have been developed and policies formulated.
2.4 Food Quality and Safety
USAID’s Regional Strategy 2011-2015 commitment to food quality and safety is well embedded in strategies
for reducing barriers to trade within East Africa: a focus on improving efficiency and transparency of cross-
border transactions, harmonizing safety and quality standards and reducing the time and cost of doing
business in the region. However, there is also a more direct strategy and accompanying investments focusing
on aflatoxin control and management. Thus, the USAID EA investments in food quality and safety can be
categorized into two broad areas:
Aflatoxin: At a broader level, Feed the Future has committed to a comprehensive program of aflatoxin
(Box 5) control measures in collaboration with partners including USDA, the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA), and the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among others, leveraging funding from other development partners,
especially the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, especially for work done through CGIAR Centres (e.g.
ILRI-BecA) and PACA:
The development of the PACA as an institutional arrangement to further define continental programming
needed across the health, agriculture, and trade sectors to control aflatoxin
Scaling up of “Aflasafe” initiative (led by IITA) to promote biological control of aflatoxin, especially for small
producers (see Technology Development and Deployment section of this report)
Distribution of knowledge and best practices to organizations providing technical assistance to address
aflatoxin challenges along the value chain through improved post-harvest handling and storage at the
household, village and warehousing levels.
Strengthening the “whole of government” approach: USAID/EA also committed to working closely with the
CDC to disseminate the results of their research assessing the correlation between chronic exposures to
aflatoxin and stunting.
Box 5. Aflatoxin Challenge
Aflatoxin contamination is a growing threat to trade, food and health security in SSA, where smallholder
farmers are challenged by food production and now climate variability. Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring
mycotoxin that grows on grains and legumes, is endemic throughout the region. The region (SSA) is
losing more than 450 million dollars annually in trade revenue of major staples, particularly maize, and
groundnuts as a result of aflatoxin contamination. Linked to suppressed immunity, liver cancer in humans
and stunting in children, the health bill attributable to aflatoxin-contaminated food runs into billions of
dollars in a continent already over-burdened with health challenges. Contamination occurs across the
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 35
production, postharvest and primary processing steps in the value chain. Acute exposure results in
mortality rates of 25 to 40 percent, while chronic exposure of lower levels causes impaired immune
function, growth retardation and liver disease (Gong et al, 2002a; b). Aflatoxin poses the greatest risk to
populations (such as in EA region) consuming maize as their staple food as well as groundnuts, and also
affects livestock. Moreover, the estimated annual loss to African food exporters of cereals, dried fruit
and nuts from attempting to meet EU aflatoxin standards is roughly $670 million (Otsuki et al. 2001)
Harmonization of safety and quality standards as part of the SPS interventions (see Trade and
Markets section).
3. ACHIEVEMENTS
The proposed indicators in the Strategy toward “Increased Access, Availability, and Utilization of African-
grown staple foods in Regionally Integrated Markets on the Northern and Central Corridors” are outlined
explicitly in the Results Framework of the 2011-2015 Strategy, and targets are set for indicators measuring
the percent change in the volume and value of intra-regional trade in: targeted agricultural commodities;
fortified foods; and agricultural inputs. The stock-take found that most projects – even those not classified as
‘nutrition projects’ recognized nutrition as an important consideration in programming, with many making
explicit statements on nutrition and taking relevant action during implementation. However, the feedback
was generally qualitative. Examples of concrete achievements include:
Harmonization of standards for 22 staple foods to liberalize and increase regional trade; relevant for
small traders who facilitate movement of local staples was the introduction of simplified certificate of
origin to allow duty-free cross border shipment of EAC-origin goods worth less than $2,000,
allowing small farmers and traders to increase trade – thus, availing food in deficit areas
Progress made with scaling of bio-fortified crops – e.g. OFSP in Uganda and iron-bio-fortified beans
in Rwanda. Released varieties are both nutrient-rich and higher yielding than conventional varieties.
Intentional inclusion of nutrition-rich foods as priority value chains in the trade portfolio, and
analytical work (e.g. by EA Trade Hub on Fresh Vegetables and Fruits) to improve understanding of
how value chains of nutrition-critical commodities can be improved.
‘Proof of concept’ of Aflasafe technology and roll out of the commercialization process. Field-testing
of Aflasafe™ has produced extremely positive results: Aflatoxin contamination of maize and
groundnut was consistently reduced by between 80 and 90%, and even as high as 99%. This increases
crop values by at least 5% while addressing this serious food safety issue.
Progress with SPS in EAC and COMESA with implications for nutrition include:
Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) conducted to review phytosanitary import conditions and establish
a systems approach for risk mitigation in food staples and horticultural products in COMESA
countries. This has opened export possibilities – e.g. Kenya avocado exports to South Africa
opened in 2018
Establishment of the East African Phytosanitary Information Committee (EAPIC) Pest Database
system
Development of regional sampling protocols for aflatoxin monitoring
Increases in the adoption and adaptation of standards and regulations in the East Africa region
East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC) developed 17 food fortification
and inspection manuals for staple foods, and control manuals for salt, oil, sugar, maize flour and
wheat flour. By 2013, significant progress had been achieved throughout the ECSA region, for
example:
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 36
Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania mandated the fortification of all or some of the staple foods
(wheat, vegetable oil, sugar and maize flour)
Uganda passed legislation in 2011 requiring mandatory fortification of vegetable oil (with vitamin
A), wheat flour and maize flour (with iron, folic acid, zinc, vitamin A, niacin and other B
vitamins).
25 flour millers and six oil industries in Kenya signed Memoranda of Understanding with the
government to comply with East African standards.
4. CHALLENGES AND GAPS
1. See SPS implementation challenges in the Trade and Markets section
2. Documented direct evidence of the impact of food borne illnesses on nutrition, health systems and
economies is needed to encourage countries (public and private sectors) to invest in national food
safety systems
3. More investment is needed to develop affordable drying and food preservation technologies that
small-scale rural farmers can use on farm to reduce food spoilage and to improve the shelf-life of
their produce, especially highly perishable foods such as fruits and vegetables.
4. Fortification of commercially produced maize flour (by major millers) is not serving the needs of the
majority of rural families who depend on flour produced from local posho-mills. There is need to
adapt and scale available fortification formula and protocols for local use.
5. Food safety awareness and capacity in the region still remains low despite its health and nutrition
impacts
5. Opportunities Going Forward
Table 3 presents a summary of opportunities identified based on the stock-take. These are potential
investment areas based on analysis of challenges experienced and gaps identified by implementing partners
and other stakeholders in the region.
Table 3: Summary of Opportunities and Recommendations for Nutrition Investments Going Forward
Opportunity Area Recommendation
Making local &
regional value chains
work for nutrition
Ensure that choice of priority value chains (see trade section) include nutrient-rich
commodities – and establish nutrition outcomes/targets for regional VC and
analyze systemic issues that undermine nutrition
Map available affordable effective drying and food preservation technologies and
make these accessible to rural smallholders in the region; make additional
investments to address gaps
Promoting food
safety policy and
interventions that
increase resilience,
enhance nutrition
and ensure safe trade
Put in place value chain monitoring systems (sampling and testing) for prioritized
food safety hazards - e.g. mycotoxins, pesticide residues, heavy metal residues,
microbiological hazards, and facilitate mutual recognition by EA member states
Facilitate development and promotion of mitigation options for prioritized
hazards - such as Aflasafe for aflatoxin control
Strengthen institutional competencies of agencies responsible for food safety –
e.g. through virtual learning platforms – to enhance compliance; explore linkage
with existing learning platforms such as the Food Safety Innovation Lab and MSU
food safety knowledge platform
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 37
Opportunity Area Recommendation
Promote aggregation of high-quality goods that can be purchased for trade
regionally or internationally – e.g. Kumwe in Rwanda which dries maize on the
cob to reduce aflatoxin to nearly zero
Design and operationalize storage facilities and aggregation centers (see trade)
with a deliberate focus on impact of postharvest handling on food safety and
nutrition
Facilitate training of extension personnel in the region to have critical awareness
and capacity to be able to provide ‘post-harvest extension’ relevant for food safety
Bio-fortification Create awareness about biofortified food commodities and address seed trade
challenges that constrain regional movement, dissemination and scaling of
regionally prioritized bio-fortified commodities
Continue support for bio-fortification research focused on priority EA staples
Fortification of foods Support interventions to achieve full compliance with existing fortification
standards for priority value chains - wheat flour, vegetable oil, sugar, and maize
flour – and ensure compliance by small millers
Scale up and disseminate guidelines for fortifying locally milled flour
Establish a regionally-owned Laboratory Certification of foods compliant to bio-
fortification standards of export markets
Annex 2C: Technology Development and Deployment
1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ANALYSIS
In spite of their invaluable contribution to economic growth, farmers in developing countries often lack the
technologies, skills and other resources to respond to agricultural development challenges. Agricultural
research and development (AR4D) helps generate new technologies and improved policies, which are key
drivers of growth in agricultural productivity and resilience. The role of technology in agriculture is three-
fold: producing more and higher-quality food for the growing population; enhancing nutritional value and
safety of food to improve consumers’ health and wellbeing; and contributing to agricultural sustainability and
efficiency by reducing resource use in agriculture (DuPont, 2012). Improved agricultural productivity is a key
objective of the USAID East Africa (USAID/EA) regional mission’s Feed the Future (FTF) Strategy.
Recognizing the challenge that most agricultural research activities in developing countries are focused
on problems at national and local levels, the USAID/EA is committed to a regional collective approach
in which they support regional activities that complement and add value in three key results areas, i.e.
technology and knowledge creation through agricultural research for development (or AR4D),
diffusion of technologies and knowledge to end-users, and the development of regional alliances for
effective management of seed and SPS policy matters. It is a provision within the strategy that
agricultural research activities are carried out collaboratively and in partnership with expert and user
organizations at national, regional and international levels. The research activities are interlinked with
comprehensive programs in human and institutional capacity building.
This report summarizes stock-take findings on agricultural technology development, diffusion and scaling up,
including human and institutional capacity building, in the following focus areas that USAID/EA supported
through the FTF strategy: (1) Cereal diseases and pests that affect the major value chains, focusing on
Aflatoxin, Maize Lethal Necrosis and Fall Armyworm; and (2) Seed technologies with respect to traits
development and scaling up and commercialization of seeds of varieties with specific desirable traits. For
each focus area the report summarizes past and ongoing intervention efforts by USAID/EA, achievements
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 38
realized to date in terms of technology development, scaling, diffusion and availability including capacity
strengthening; challenges and gaps; and opportunities for future intervention.
2. INTERVENTIONS
1. Aflatoxin: Aflatoxin is a toxin produced by a fungus, Aspergillus flavus which attacks and multiplies
on maize grain, milk, meat and eggs and is a leading food and feed safety risk in maize in East Africa.
In high doses the toxin poses serious threats to both human and livestock health. Apart from
impacting on public health, aflatoxin presents challenge to trade due to movement restrictions.
Interventions of the USAID/EA started with the Low-cost Diagnostic Test-kit piloted in 2013 under
Diagnostics for All Program, and the Aflatoxin USAID program which produced a biocontrol
product called Aflasafe that has proved capable of reducing aflatoxin in crops by up to 99%. Later the
USAID/EA and USDA-FAS committed funds to design, construct and equip the modular
manufacturing plant in Kenya (2014-2016). Thereafter the Aflasafe Technology Transfer and
Commercialization (ATTC) project (2015-2019) is being funded by BMGF (USD 10m) and
USAID/EA (USD 5m) and other leveraged funding such as the World Bank AgResults Aflasafe
project, and is being implemented by IITA (Lead) in collaboration with NARS of respective African
countries, other IARCs and regional research organizations.
2. Fall Armyworm: Fall Armyworm (FAW), an invasive crop pest native to the Americas, was first
confirmed in Africa in 2016 (CABI, 2017) and has since been found in over 30 African countries
including East Africa. In its larval life stage as a moth, FAW (Spodoptera frugiperda) spreads quickly
across large geographic areas and can persist throughout the year, causing severe food security and
economic losses through grain damage, trade restrictions and excessive pesticide applications that
lead to environmental damages (Day et al., 2017). The CGIAR and other international and national
research organizations lead by CIMMYT, and with the support of various donor agencies have
developed technologies focusing on different approaches to the management of FAW in Africa that
need scaling for wide application. The main interventions by the USAID/EA under the Feed the
Future initiative has been a response to the challenge of enhancing access to the technologies
developed by the CGIAR and other R&D organizations. Jointly with the Office of US Foreign
Disaster Assistance and in partnership with CIMMYT and the CGIAR program on maize (CCRP),
the USAID/EA supported the production of comprehensive integrated pest management (IPM) guide
– ‘Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management’ (Feed the Future, 2018) to help
scientists, plant protection organizations, extension agencies, research institutions, and governments
working with farmers tackle the pest. USAID also supported a convening of a regional stakeholders’
workshop for the EAC on combating the FAW; the workshop was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 17 –
18 September 2018 and was facilitated by Africa Lead (Kihagi J, 2018). The main objectives of the
workshop were to: take stock of the status of FAW management efforts and practices in the region;
identify critical challenges and limitations in existing FAW action plans; identify priority strategic
actions to enhance FAW interventions within the EAC; and define the critical role (niche) and value
add for EAC on FAW management in the region.
3. Maize Lethal Necrosis: Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) is a viral disease of maize crop caused by a
combination of two viruses, the main one being the Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus (MCMV),
transmitted by insects and contaminated water. It was identified in East Africa (Kenya) in 2011 (and
later in Tanzania, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda, Burundi and Ethiopia). It attacks maize in farms in large
scale causing rotting and also affects trade in maize staples due to movement restrictions. USAID/EA
interventions for the control of MLN started with 5-year MLN Diagnostics and Prevention of Seed
Transmission project (2015-2019) jointly supported by the CGIAR’s Collaborative Crop Research
Program (CCRP), with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) leading
the collaborative effort. The current USAID/EA support focuses on integrated MLN Management
and is pulling together national, regional and international partners to prevent the spread of MLN-
causing MCMV, support seed companies to produce MCMV-free commercial seed, spread improved
farming practices for disease control and create a ‘community of practice’ for disease diagnosis and
management in East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) where the disease is
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 39
presently prevalent and in the three of major commercial maize seed exporting countries in sub-
Saharan (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe). USAID and USDA have also supported several MLN
activities in Kenya by supporting a project in which CIMMYT teamed up with the Kenya Agricultural
and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO).
4. Seed technologies: USAID/EA’s interventions in seed technology development and deployment
have been mainly through ASARECA and the RECs. They include: (1) Support to ASARECA as the
key partner for regional collective action in resolving food security problems through AR4D was
through multi-donor institutional funding, hence the intervention targeted all the planned AR4D and
other activities of ASARECA. The ASARECA Operational Plan (ASARECA, 2014) reveals that the
AR4D-related activities aimed to: (i) enhance the AR4D capacities of NARs through infrastructure
development and building of partnerships, (ii) increase the number of stakeholders applying new and
improved technologies, innovation and management practices (TIMPs), (iii) increase stakeholders’
access to knowledge and information on TIMPs, and (iv) increased number stakeholders trained to
enhance their skills in agricultures and nutrition (2) Support to COMESA: Under the Integrated
Partnership Assistance Agreement (IPAA) between USAID/EA and COMESA the initiatives that
promoted technology development and deployment include the CAADP Initiative implemented in
partnership with FAO, GIZ and NCPA; the ACTESA Seed Initiative; the ACTESA Biotechnology
Initiative and thee ACTESA Fertilizer initiative. (3) Support to EAC aimed to increase regional
economic growth and integration through development and harmonization of standards for seed
technologies.
3. ACHIEVEMENTS
1. Aflatoxin: The following have been achieved under USAID/EA support in collaboration with other
funders: (1) Aflasafe Ke01TM has been developed and registered in Kenya under KALRO as per the
technology transfer and licensing agreement while effort to register Aflasafe in the other targeted
Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, countries; (2) the Kenyan Aflasafe factory has been constructed
(completed 2017) and launched (2018), and is operational; (3) capacity building has been conducted
in Kenya to enhance Aflasafe technology diffusion; e.g. technical and sales staff have been trained to
support the promotion and adoption of Aflasafe by the private sector in Kenya, while 1,200
extension officers have been trained to support farmers on Aflasafe application; (4) Aflasafe
commercialization strategy has been developed for Tanzania and a feasibility study undertaken which
is being used to attract and mobilize partners; and (5) lessons learned from the operation of the
Kenya plant are supporting operational improvements in Kenya and approaches to
commercialization of Aflasafe in other countries.
2. Fall Armyworm: Following the production of the Fall Armyworm in Africa – A Guide for Integrated
Pest Management the USAID/EA support has achieved the following: (1) sensitization of stakeholders
on the importance of managing FAW and the status of development of technologies for FWA
control; (2) commitment by EAC Secretariat, partner states, and development partners to prioritize
the development of an EAC regional action plan on FAW to harmonize protocols, methodologies,
and policies applicable to FAW management and control, with a target realization deadline of March
2019; (3) commitment to the strengthening of coordination, networking, and information sharing in
the region (4) Technologies for control of fall armyworm have been compiled and made available as
a learning tool effective January 2018 focusing on low-cost technologies and practices that suit
smallholder farmers, and developed in a collaborative and science-based approach that meets the
internally agreed principles on food security (FAO, 2009); (5) following in the steps of FAO’s
FAMEWS, USAID/EA supported the production of animated videos for identifying FAW infestation
in maize; (6) the USAID/EA has also been instrumental in instituting FAW Germplasm Screening, as
has been implemented in Kiboko, Kenya; (7) institutional and human capacities have been built
through technical training that ensures sustainability and/or improvement of the technologies, as well
as the possibility of developing alternatives ones; and (8) the USAID, in partnership with CABI has
supported the production of country-specific Pest Management Decision Guides (PMDGs).
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 40
3. Maize Lethal Necrosis: Achievements realized so far include the following: (1) 15 maize hybrids
tolerant to maize lethal necrosis (MLN) developed by 2015, 3 varieties having been released, with
one variety (Bazuka) already commercialized by Nalweyo Seed Company (NASECO) in Uganda; (2)
science-based MLN phytosanitary standards have been developed and a Phytosanitary Community of
Practice established with membership representing important categories of stakeholders in research,
production and trade; (3) An effective surveillance and monitoring system, with improved
surveillance protocols and MLN-free seed checklists, optimized immune strips for MCMV virus,
information portal (MLN.CIMMYT.ORG) and Emergency Response Plan for MLN surveillance have
been established, shared and put to use by NPPOs; (4) Spread of MLN from endemic countries has
been completely contained; (5) Technology diffusion has been enhanced through sensitization and
capacity building for RECs, and training on production and dissemination of MLN-free seeds for seed
producers, extension officers, lab technicians and APPO staff; (6) Integrated pest management (IPM)
manual on MLN has been developed with a comprehensive protocol on how to produce MLN-free
product; and (7) Scaling up and commercialization of technologies is being boosted through
extensive private sector involvement.
4. Seed technologies: A performance report (ASARECA, 2014) on progress towards realization of
2014 targets of ASARECA’s Operational Plan-01 reveals the following achievements to which
USAID/EA made a contribution: (1) Concept developed, with IFPRI partnership, that guides
prioritization of technologies of cross-border and upscaling importance; (2) Facilitated the
production and scaling of 2,436 tons of quality pre-basic, basic and certified seeds of selected
commodities (e.g. Quality Protein Maize, African Indigenous Vegetables, lavender, snap & climbing
beans, etc.); (3) supported technology diffusion that enabled 1.45 million farmers and other primary
sector producers, including individual processors, rural entrepreneurs, managers and traders, natural
resource managers, among others, who applied new and improved technologies, innovations and
management practices (TIMPs); (4) Facilitated the development of 409 different demand-driven
gender-responsive TIMPs and a further 498 TIMPs availed for uptake by targeted stakeholders within
the ASARECA-member countries; (5) Undertook capacity strengthening for NARS that benefitted
over 80,000 individuals in short and long term training and over 470 assorted infrastructures
developed; and (6) Over 800 different information packages were produced and made available to
partners.
4. CHALLENGES AND GAPS
1. Aflatoxin: The target of the ATTC project was to have Aflasafe manufacturing fully commercialized
in four East African countries but this was achieved only in Kenya. Even then, the Kenyan plant is not
yet commercialized as it is owned by the Kenya Government through KALRO and the business is
operated jointly by KALRO and IITA with support from the USAID/EA and is experiencing
operational challenges. More importantly, the plant does not have a sustainable arrangement as a
commercial business (options: KALRO to sell or lease to a private partner, or run it professionally
as a commercial enterprise). Lessons learnt by IITA from the Kenyan case include the need to
mobilize and support the private sector (rather than governments) to establish Aflasafe plants, and
the need to register products in other countries so as not to lose innovation or intellectual property
rights. Other challenges facing the Aflasafe program include: development of a regional product
(since Aflasafe products are country-specific since they are developed for local fungus strains); low
awareness about aflatoxin/Aflasafe by private sector, hence , efforts to mobilize them to engage in
the business do not yield positive results; mobilizing and supporting private sector at country level
to invest in aflatoxin business requires involvement of USAID country missions; there is need to
support other East African countries that were identified to set up their Aflasafe plants; and RECs
need improve standards and monitor implementation of harmonized SPS standards and regulations
with respect to aflatoxin control.
2. Aflatoxin is known to have such high stability and potency that make it a major problem at all steps
of the value chain, including harvest, transport, and storage and processing, hence control
interventions must target stages of the value chain. A recent study (CTA, 2018) also showed that
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 41
aflatoxin contamination levels in African countries continue to exceed international levels and that
East Africa remains the prime target for aflatoxin control. The postharvest management techniques
currently being used - and they include Aflastop‘s Storage and Drying, Cultivate Africa’s Future
Storage Method, sorting options, detoxification/decontamination and use of adsorbents/binders –
have proven too expensive and too technical for the majority of stakeholders (farmers, traders,
consumers) to use, hence low-cost pre-harvest control methods should be developed. The biology
of the fungus is not yet well understood and has not been fully applied in the development of its
control strategies, while the fungi strains are country-specific and the biocontrol technologies
developed in one country may not work elsewhere. More elaborate basic research is, therefore,
required to inform new control technologies. Finally, awareness of aflatoxin and the associated risks
among African consumers and value chain actors (farmers, traders and seed companies), especially
among the uneducated, is extremely low, which makes awareness building a key component of
future interventions.
3. Fall Armyworm: Overall, the FAW Guide for Africa project assembled effective technologies for
integrated management of Fall Armyworm, linked up various stakeholders for future collaboration
among R&D institutions and Universities in the US and organizations in Africa at International,
regional, and national levels, and built institutional and individual capacities on research and
management of FAW. Assembling and making the FAW management technologies easily accessible
and the linkages created were major achievements. However, the responses so far still leave gaps
that would need further investment: (1)FAW scouting by farming communities and effective
monitoring at country and regional levels are still limited in terms of technology and knowledge; (2)
responses to FAW invasion are still based on application of pesticides, as proven approaches to
prevent and avoid the invasions are limited and need researching (3) some technologies presented in
the FAW Guide, such as breeding for resistance and biological control approaches, are still in
development stages and would require further research and validation, and this includes even
pesticide use for there are still no specific recommendations; (4) pesticide use and applicator training
are still under the control of individual national governments, thus there is need for a more regional
approach to FAW management strategies and regulations and streamlining them with new
management technologies that are coming up; (5) scaling up the different technologies and diffusing
them to reach farmers still needs investment; and (6) adaptation of pests to control measures is a
common occurrence that would always require monitoring and change of management strategies,
hence continued basic and applied research to develop alternative technologies remains necessary.
4. Maize Lethal Necrosis: It is reported that in 2014 Kenya lost 23 percent of her maize production
to MLN; about 2.1 million metric tons worth USD 188 million. Thus, MLN threat remains and there
is urgent need to intensify inter-institutional action on MLN disease surveillance and monitoring in
MLN-affected countries in eastern Africa, where the actions seem not to have worked effectively.
Phytosanitary measures that should be intensified to prevent entry of the disease into
countries/regions which are free from the disease include increased surveillance, seed movement
restriction from endemic areas, sharing information and stepping up collaboration among countries.
Also, there is need to strengthen the national plant protection systems to effectively detect, monitor
and contain the spread of MLN particularly through seed, and including concrete steps to coordinate
with the commercial maize seed sector to produce and commercialize MLN-free seed to the
farmers. On the side of technology development there are still serious gaps and concerns about the
management of MLN. For example, not much research had been done on epidemiology of MLN to
inform strategy development for control of infection. MLN is caused by two viruses which must
infect the cereal at the same time to be pathogenic and depending on maize genotype, age of
infection and environmental conditions. There is need to understand the development of MLN-
resistance in maize which can be exploited for screening. Being a relatively new disease there is
urgent need to develop local capacity at institutional and individual levels for research and for
strengthening SPS techniques and frameworks. MLN is a regional problem due to rapid spread of the
disease across borders. It is, therefore, important that research and technical guidance are
coordinated through partnership at regional level and this could be achieved through enhanced
partnership with a more strengthened ASARECA.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 42
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Policy
research
Breeding
and
genetics
Market
and
delivery
systems
Regional
resilience
Food
safety
Diseases
and pests
High priority Medium priority Low priority
5. Seed Technologies: For ASARECA, hurdles that affect cross-border movement and authorization
for release of new varieties or other technologies still constitute barriers that limit the impact of
proven research products. There is also need for harmonized standards or procedures by which
technologies of different categories are validated. It is further felt that the collaborative approach to
research requires harmonized intellectual property rights to enhance partnership among scientists.
In COMESA it was noted that seed harmonization needs greater private sector outreach to make
the activity more self-financing. The mid-term evaluation of USAID/EA support to EAC revealed
several challenges relating to technology development, availability and use. The overall challenge,
which seemed a common concern in the funding arrangement with other partners, was that the
programming approach was not RBM-based but, rather, an activity-based assistance agreement
updated with yearly amendment letters. In the case of ASARECA a clear evidence of this challenge is
contained in the 2014 report of the synopsis of project performance where attribution of the
achievements to USAID/EA could only be determined based on their funding as a proportion of the
total ASARECA funding. Another important challenge was the low levels of involvement of USAID
bilateral missions in programming. The two RECs have also noted that the approach lacked focus on
capacity development through technical training; instead, there was provision of USAID-paid staff
whose salaries took most of the support funds.
5. OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD
The bases for selecting the investment
opportunities and intervention approaches
recommended under each project area discussed
in this section were the findings of the
stakeholder survey which are presented
briefly. Figure 1 shows the priority areas of
agricultural research for development
recommended by stakeholders for USAID
funding. The highest preference goes to
management of diseases and pests while the
lowest priority area is crop and livestock
breeding and genetics. These findings reaffirms
the focus of this stock-take on technologies
for management of crop diseases and pests as
well as management of TADs but also justifies
concern for aspects of breeding for improved
seed varieties and formulation of SPS
standards and regulations which are discussed
here below as priority investment opportunities.
Figure 2 Shows the survey
findings on the importance of
different stages and activities in
technology development and
deployment for investment.
Scaling and dissemination of
technology, increasing availability
of seeds and other inputs,
building capacity of NARIS and
financing research rank high in
that order of priority. Improving
the coordination of technology
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Building capacity of NARIs
Scaling and dissemination of
technologies and management practices
Supporting research prioritization
effort
Improving coordination of technology
development
Increasing availability of seeds and
other inputs
Financing for research
Very important Somewhat important Not important
Figure 2: Importance of Different Stages of Technology
Development and Deployment for Investment
Figure 1: Priority Areas of A4RD Recommended for
Investment
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 43
development and research prioritization process were also seen as important.
The importance of different types of partnership in agricultural technology development and deployment was
assessed through a stakeholder survey. Figure 3 illustrates the prioritization of four such partnerships for
technology delivery, with private sector being exceptionally important. Others are national governments
including the NARIs, the regional intergovernmental organizations (RIGOs), and regional research institutes,
such as ASARECA. It is understood
that the importance of these
partnerships may vary with the step of
the technology delivery process, e.g.
private sector may be more important
at the level of technology
commercialization, but their
involvement at the level of technology
design is equally important for ensuring
that the technology meets the needs of
the end-user. A summary of the
identified priority opportunities is
presented in Table 1 while the details
are discussed here below.
The stock-take has identified six
opportunity areas, each with a number
of priority investments as follows:
Speeding up Commercialization of Aflasafe
Effectiveness of Aflasafe as a biocontrol agent for aflatoxin has been proven beyond doubt, while its low cost
and safety compared to pesticides and postharvest control methods make it superior. The success of the
pilot plant in Kenya and acceptability of the product across borders as is implied by its registration in other
countries of the region are indications of its viability. Therefore, the Regional Mission should speed up
commercialization of Aflasafe in the four selected East African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and
Burundi) and, with lessons from Kenya’s experiences, promote Aflasafe uptake and use by farmers
throughout the region. The logical order of interventions would be to follow the order of country priorities
identified by the Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization (ATTC) project 2015-2019: (i) Track-
1 priority country (Kenya): Support transition of the modular Aflasafe Ke01 plant at Katumani towards a PPP
enterprise between KALRO and a competitively selected private company and follow held resolve issues
arising from Aflasafe distribution and use. This should be supported with enhanced awareness building for
demand creation to attract private companies and financial and technical support for transition process; (ii)
Other Track-1 priority countries (Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi): Speed up identification of winning enterprises
with financial and technical support for the search processes and for establishment and operationalization of
Aflasafe plants; (iii) Track-2 East African countries (Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan): Continue Aflasafe
registration efforts - informed by lessons learned from private sector take over in Kenya and on-going roll-
outs in the other Track-1 countries across SSA.
Scaling up Application of Technologies for Management of Fall Armyworm (FAW)
The Fall Armyworm (FAW) Guide for Africa, which was developed through the support of the USAID/EA
regional mission, has many such technologies which are yet to be exploited. This stock-take identified a
major investment opportunity: (i) Support RECs and other regional A4RD bodies (especially ASARECA) to
closely monitor and track FAW using Early Warning Systems, and to identify best FAW management
practices and lessons from other countries and regions and to scale up these technologies throughout the
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Regional research institutes
RIGOs
National governments
Private sector
Highly appropriate Moderately appropriate Not appropriate N/A
Figure 3: Prioritization of Partnerships for Delivering
Technology Solutions
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 44
region. In doing so, the USAID regional mission should plan to also benefit from and build on
recommendations of the regional stakeholder workshop scheduled to be held in Addis Ababa during the
month of October 2018.
Enhanced Support for Maize Lethal Necrosis (MLN) Control
Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) remains a great opportunity for investment as it affects the most popular staple
in most countries in SSA. Three groups of priority interventions have been identified, all of which call for
increased engagement with the private sector in scaling up and commercializing the technologies. The
USAID regional mission should focus on the following high priorities: (1) Increase support for
commercialization of MLN diagnostic technologies and production of MLN-free seeds for farmers, starting
with the 15 MLN-resistant/tolerant maize varieties already identified. (2) Leverage on MLN-resistant/tolerant
varieties to sensitize countries to speed up domestication of policies relevant for seed movement in the
region.
Putting Research into use Through Demand-Based Programming and Capacity Strengthening
There is need to improve the programming approach so as to link technology development with user needs.
This calls for increased regional collaboration and engagement of implementing and beneficiary partners in
prioritization of agricultural technology development, release and scaling. The stock-take identified four
priority investments under this opportunity area. These are: (1) Support investments that conserve
indigenous germplasm with inherent adaptive tributes - e.g. disease and drought resistance - and facilitate
their exploitation in crop and livestock improvement programs in the region. (2) Invest in strengthening
institutional capacities in the region to be able to screen, adapt, adopt and apply promising technologies in
response to major disease outbreaks and seed problems. (3) Establish a regional information system to
provide early warning and platform for information sharing on crop and livestock pests and diseases. (4)
Establish forums and mechanisms that bring together researchers, private sector, consumers, governments
and donor partners for dialogue on priority setting in technology development and scaling.
Table 1: Summary of Opportunity Areas and Recommendations for Technology Investment
Opportunity Area Recommendation
1. Speeding up
commercialization of
Aflasafe in the EAC
member states
Fast-track the commercialization process of Aflasafe in East Africa in line
with the country priorities identified by the Aflasafe Technology
Transfer and Commercialization (ATTC) project 2015-2019
2. Scaling up application of
technologies for
management of Fall
Armyworm (FAW)
Support the development and implementation of effective FAW
scouting, monitoring and management in FAW-affected countries
3. Enhanced support for
Maize Lethal Necrosis
(MLN) control
Support for commercialization of MLN diagnostic technologies and
scaling up production of MLN-free/resistant/tolerant seeds for farmers
starting with the 15 MLN-resistant/tolerant maize varieties already
identified
Leverage on MLN – specifically resistant/tolerant varieties - to sensitize
countries to speed up domestication of policies relevant for seed
movement in the region.
6. Putting research into
use through demand-
based programming and
capacity strengthening
Support investments that conserve indigenous germplasm with inherent
adaptive tributes - e.g. disease and drought resistance - and facilitate
their exploitation in crop and livestock improvement programs in the
region.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 45
Opportunity Area Recommendation
Establish forums and mechanisms that bring together researchers,
private sector, consumers, governments and donor partners for dialogue
on priority setting in technology development and scaling
Invest in strengthening institutional capacities in the region to be able to
screen, adapt, adopt and apply promising technologies in response to major
disease outbreaks and seed problems.
Annex 2D: Cross-Cutting Issues
Cross Cutting Issues Underpinning Programming
Cross-cutting issues as covered by the stock-take focused on dimensions of programming which relate to
the WHO (is engaged) and the HOW (they are engaged). Specifically, the stock-take sought to document
the way and extent to which these (programming approaches) affect relevance of outcomes, efficiency of
working, effectiveness of delivery and overall sustainability of the outcomes and impacts of USAID
investments.
1. Summary of Perspectives by Regional Stakeholders – What Worked Well and What Did
Not
The summary in the table below is of actual comments as received from stakeholders. Some of these came
from multiple stakeholders/groups. So, this is not an evaluative table. It simply takes stock of these
perspectives.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 46
Table 1: A Summary of Perspectives by USAID Regional Stakeholders
What is Working What is Not Working Well
Projects are generally well designed
and implemented
Training and exposing country
governments to regulatory laws,
changes, etc.
Capacity building of stakeholders -
especially national government staff
In-depth studies on local/regional
issues
Improved capacity of local
institutions to develop, implement
and evaluate development projects
aligned with national priorities
Convening important actors around
an issue
Effective planning with clear
milestones
Collaboration in the planning
process
Creating networking and
information sharing forums/meetings
Continuation of funding in some
areas
Working with other regional
donors, and other development
partners
Tension/competition between USAID regional
and bilateral programs
Poor /lack of information sharing between
regional and bilateral missions
Inadequate involvement of the private sector
General collaboration and partnership among
partners
Implementing Partners rarely aware of each
other’s efforts
Programs funded/implemented on annual basis
Some projects are implemented in ways that
are not suitable for sustainability
Most projects do not support institutional
development, which undermines their capacity
to deliver on the projects
Bureaucratic procedures in USAID system
Delays in disbursement of funds and yearly
funding prevent medium to long term planning
Too little flexibility in responding to realities on
the ground and matters arising during
implementations.
Rigid indicators not allowing learning and
adaptive implementation
Technical capacity e.g. within the contractors.
Unclear subject-matter boundaries between
some projects (activities) that implement
similar.
The stakeholder feedback summarized above formed important basis for further analysis of key aspects of
programming – especially focusing on issues of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability as
implied by the feedback and results of the review. The resulting areas – a total of 7 - covered are:
Regionality, Political Economy, Inclusivity, Sustainability, Partnerships, and Capacities of key stakeholders,
Funding and reporting cycles. The issues under each are summarized briefly below.
2. Identified Critical Cross-Cutting Issues
Regionality
A regional public good is one that: Has application in, or generates shared benefits for, multiple countries of
a region and consumption by one country does not potentially reduce its availability for consumption by
another country. USAID regional portfolio should focus on those issues that no single country can address
on its own, or those whose resolution by multiple countries is more efficient, effective and sustainable than
if done by a single country. The Regional Mission should pay close attention to identification and delivery of
clear ‘regional value-add’. To achieve this, regular, quality conversations with Bilateral Missions should be an
important driver in design and execution. It is important to bear in mind that some regional goods may be at
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 47
odds with national interests and sovereignty, and these need to be negotiated carefully. Regionality can also
be undermined by overlapping country membership of RECs that sometimes works at cross-purposes.
Examples: Certain types of research (e.g. on pests and diseases) may be relevant in, and for, broad
geographies or agro-ecological conditions astride borders; there are also interventions which are generic
and not confined to national boundaries; resolution of regional trade issues is an example – requires actions
by, and delivers benefits to, multiple countries. The Regional approach has advantages: efficient use of
resources, holistic approach which, if done correctly, can be more effective in delivering on the changes
pursued.
Specific examples and actions:
Regional programs should be designed closely with bilateral missions, ensuring that regional and
national dimensions and roles are clear. The whole process should be joint, consultative, and based
on mutual priorities.
Map out USAID interventions within the countries and regions in order to identify where projects
are being implemented and coordinate with other development partners to align more closely on
project objectives, intended outcomes and implementation arrangements that exploit synergies and
avoid duplication. This would also help implementing partners determine the most efficient and
effective ways to work.
Modalities for coordinated management should be clearly stated, and progress reviewed annually as
part of the Annual Review and Learning event. Strengthen the current Regional Conference so that
it has a more intentional focus on sharing, learning and JOINT planning aimed at strengthening
synergies between Regional and Bilateral programs.
Strengthen the engagement of the RECs at all levels possible:
Involve RECs in the complementary programmes – as much as possible
Conduct midterm reviews with RECs – as used to happen
Establish a regular Regional Convening on agriculture- involving RECs and responsible Ministers
(Agriculture AND Trade), with each such meeting focusing on a specific challenge framed so
that outcome leads to a clear way forward.
Focus on issues or problems that transcend borders, and which require shared action and, which,
when addressed deliver shared benefits or win-win outcomes (to multiple member states).
Be guided by need to obtain shared responsibility and ownership.
Political Economy Issues
There is no doubt that a combination of politics and economics influences decisions and lack of decisions by
countries on issues national, regional and global. Political economy has been used to refer to policy advice
that economists offer to government officials based on an analysis of the economy – but tempered by
political considerations. Discourses and resulting decisions relating to the state, markets, social class, culture,
citizens, and globalization are influenced in significant measure by this intersection between politics and
economics.
Specific examples and actions:
Some issues relating to inclusivity (see below) and recommended actions may be consequences of
political economy – and hence are relevant here.
Understanding and being able to unpack the crucial role of political factors in determining
positions - and policies (explicit and implicit) - that have implications for the success and overall
performance of USAID programs and programming is critical, and the Regional Mission needs
to be intentional in how it addresses such specific issues – e.g. through investments in
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 48
improving the capacity and understanding of those in critical positions, negotiations and
mediations where (historical) mistrust overshadows or replaces economic logic, etc.
When issues are identified, organize targeted convenings involving the parties concerned - with
clear action points which are actively followed up
The Mission should also be self-aware and critical of how political economy plays out in its own
programming decisions and positions. They should be more deliberate in addressing this.
Inclusivity
Broad-based agriculture sector growth necessitates that investments be inclusive: enabling wider
participation of the majority of farmers, particularly women and other economically and socially marginalized
groups, who are at the greatest risk of food insecurity, and who stand to benefit the most from agriculture
sector growth. Enabling such participation requires identifying a broad range of small-scale producers, and
actors along critical value chains, and recognizing their diversity, and targeting interventions according to
their specific capacities and needs. Several inclusivity issues were suggested or implied from conversations
with stakeholders during the stock-take. They include need to:
Be deliberate in engaging local institutions (including private sector) in program implementation - e.g.
through mentorship and broader capacity strengthening achieved through tangible roles in
projects/programs. This should contribute also to longer term sustainability
Take deliberate actions to include women, youth and other marginalized social groups, and ensure
that program deliverables address the needs of these traditionally marginalized groups
Pay attention to needs of the poor in design and execution – and being conscious of the risk and
danger of ‘elite capture’
Ensure that the program portfolio is delivering not only on the needs of a select subset of countries
(e.g. ‘those in which it is easy to work’ or ‘those already making progress’).
Pay attention to commodities (crops and livestock) and value chains that are important to minority
and vulnerable groups.
Specific examples and actions:
Inclusion of youth and women is explicit in the USAID FTF Strategy, but in practice is not well
mainstreamed yet in all dimensions of programming – that is, strong involvement of these groups and
intentional focus on relevance (for these groups) of products delivered by interventions – e.g.
capacity development, financial services, etc. Activities must go beyond gender disaggregation into
more robust focus on differential needs, interventions and outcomes.
There is often a default to work with the larger private sector stakeholders. Noting, however that
countries are at different levels on private sector presence and level of development, for example –
and that this will determine which countries get involved in what, and how.
There was the question: Is USAID intentional in building capacity at the outset for ownership and
inclusion in its programs? How can capacity strengthening within the region be done more
deliberately from design stages?
Sustainability
Program sustainability is defined as ‘having the human, financial, technological, and organizational resources
to provide services to meet needs and attain results towards the mission on an on-going basis and requiring
the organizational and programmatic infrastructure to carry out core functions independent of individuals or
one-time opportunities. Sustainability is thus a measure of the continuation of benefits from a development
intervention after major development assistance has been completed.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 49
Specific examples and actions:
Who determines the agenda: Use authentic processes to identify programming priorities, keeping in
mind that strong personalities together with ‘elite capture’ syndrome is always at play. Regional
convenings deliberately designed and run to hear ALL critical VOICES is a good way to achieve this
(i.e. inclusive and bottom-up approach). For regional actions that eventually require community-level
uptake/participation, work with bilateral missions to get authentic voices at these levels from the
start and through participatory implementation that ensures local ownership. Otherwise programs
will be mis-aligned in terms of intended deliverables and/or approach to achieving them.
Local content: The FTF Strategy is quite explicit in its commitment to engaging local institutions.
Stakeholders’ feedback is that, while USAID programming clearly focuses on local producers (and is
making some efforts to include women and youth) local content is generally missing in terms of
implementing partner institutions (private sector and civil society). This is not only a missed
opportunity for strengthening capacity and confidence among local institutions but is also
compromising sustainability of current programs.
Regionality: Clarity in programming in what is regional vs what is national helps to determine – from
the onset – likelihood of sustainability. Doing for countries (at regional level) what should be done
with them in programming from the start means that there will be no ownership.
Programming is sustainable when there is shared responsibility, ownership and appreciation of
benefits to all parties who must be involved for success
Inclusivity: Programs that are inclusive in design and implementation (e.g. engaging the right (local)
partners, target beneficiaries, etc. and ensuring they see the benefits and that they get the capacity
they need to drive the interventions), thus ensuring ownership, have higher likelihood of being
sustainable.
Partnerships: to ensure that there are shared goals, investments, and resources. When there is
assured capacity (in all forms) for continuity.
Evidence informing programs: Ensure that the evidence being used is unbiased (intentionally or
accidentally) – that is, representativeness of marginal groups, marginal areas, etc. This includes use of
disaggregated data (e.g. gender, commodities, etc.)
Exit strategy from the start: Make it a requirement that all projects have a well-articulated exit strategy
designed to ensure sustainability.
Performance management – ensure greater accountability and transparency in programming
Be more intentional and strategic in engaging NGOs, ensuring that the chosen institutions have high
likelihood to strengthen and not compromise sustainability – based on how they engage local
institutions and readiness to stay around to take projects/programs to tipping points.
Partnerships
Appropriateness of partners: the extent to which the chosen partners are consistently those with
comparative advantage – i.e. those best placed to do these functions (in relation to delivery
effectiveness and efficiency, as well as inclusion and sustainability considerations)
Partnership arrangements: nature and quality of the partnerships involved - optimization of synergies
among partners and effectiveness and efficiency of processes, mutual learning, credit-sharing, etc.
Win-win arrangements in which partners know ‘what is in it for them’ and understand that the
partnership facilitates delivery of these benefits.
Partnership modalities with inbuilt sustainability elements.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 50
RECs remain the most relevant public sector partner for USAID regional programming. This is
because RECS have the convening power at regional level and can mobilize relevant stakeholders –
public and private sector, as well as civil society. They also provide regulatory and policy framework
and mandate (for partners) to engage and address the regional issues relating to food security.
However, lack of capacity constrains their ability to cause transformative change. Currently, support
to RECs is done through embedded USAID-funded positions at the Secretariats. This is not
sustainable in its current form. A different approach is needed (see “capacities of stakeholders”
below).
Specific examples and actions:
The stock-take found that some partners were implementing similar things, leading to subtle turf
wars. Consequently, different partners claimed to have achieved the same things – e.g. EATIH &
Trademark EA – which have both worked on trade facilitation, policy, border efficiencies etc.
Some partners received resources from multiple donors/sources (e.g. Trademark, ASARECA) for
the same area/deliverable, thus making it difficult to disentangle outcomes to which USAID
investments had contributed or fully supported. The need for USAID to coordinate better with
other regional development partners was raised as a major issue
Partnership should be driven by objectives: For example, convening, capacity building,
commercialization, etc. Ensure projects are aligned with the partner’s strategic objectives – this
involves engaging partners (including private sector) right from the program design stage to identify
in time potential challenges and solutions as well as possible areas of cooperation.
Explicit determination and discussion - from the start - of goals, win-win content, roles and
responsibilities are critical to making partnerships work. On-going quality, open communication is
crucial
Political Goodwill— is a problem sometimes (e.g. slow progress with SPS Protocol in some
countries) — meanwhile other countries are implementing. Political Will does rely on the
benefits/usefulness to each country— for example, Tanzania adopted right away the Mutual
Recognition Framework and work permits but being slow with the SPS Protocol. Understanding
what is underlying these is important. This requires quality conversation/communication to get at the
interests that are underneath the position.
Note that understanding and managing ‘Political Will’ requires leverage and LEADERSHIP from high
levels in partner institutions.
Encouraging of the Coalition of the Willing
Alignment, quality coordination, joint programming and on-going open communication are critical
elements of quality of partnerships. And quality of partnerships really matters! Clear and transparent
determination of comparative advantage of roles matter a lot (e.g. research partners are different
from the RECs). In addition, partnership requires real benefits to each party (the “what is in it for me”
consideration); it should be a win-win, and this requires specificity. Importantly quality leadership
by all parties as part of overall coordination is crucial!
Facilitate implementing partners to jointly plan activities: There is need for a regional FTF plan, or at
least the coordination of national plans in a way that allows for: elimination of duplication of efforts;
capitalizing on the core competencies of implementing partners and programs; and optimizing the
use of resources. This would require thematic discussions that go beyond an annual meeting and will
require the engagement of the most senior staff of the Regional Mission and the Country Mission
Directors.
Work with and through existing players with credible influence and presence in East Africa
Integrate partnerships into the project design and develop indicators to track this
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 51
Develop a culture of regular communication with partners to address issues as they emerge, and
facilitate experience sharing and learning platforms for all partners
Work more closely with the large regional off-takers - e.g. Olam, AFGRI, Unga, ETG, Cargil and see
how they could engage more effectively to improve markets using their buying power. Link these to
WRS programmes, new modes of finance, collateral management, etc.
Capacities of Key Stakeholders
Stakeholders were asked to consider what strategies USAID Regional Mission need to put in place to
achieve capacity strengthening of RECs and other crucial implementing partners in ways that ensure
sustainability beyond USAID support.
Specific examples and actions:
Work with RECs - and through them member states - to develop a sustainable staffing strategy.
USAID could commit to initial support over a specified period (mutually determined for each such
position), but with clear targets for the Secretariat to take over such priority (non-project) staffing
positions – to be mainstreamed into RECs Secretariat payroll. This should be included in the
partnership agreements between USAID and RECs. This challenge requires engagement at higher
level with countries – e.g. at Ministerial Conferences – and is an example of where Bilateral and
Regional Missions need to work very closely together.
Be intentional about sustainability, applying a lens that deliberately considers local (Regional/African)
content of the partners being engaged – and the likelihood that these partners can effectively
facilitate ownership, build local capacity and practice while also being able to deliver desired results.
In identifying partners for specific roles, look out for institutions that may not necessarily be BIG and
VISIBLE now, but have potential to deliver and grow in these roles; work with such institutions to
develop an institutional arrangement and implementation plan that includes a strong mentorship,
with clear targets. This could include (if needed) posting of USAID-supported experts into such
institutions - for predetermined periods of time.
Build the capacity of local partners to become more effective change agents – this goes beyond
short-term engagements in projects, to include medium- to long-term mentorships of both value
chain actors and service providers.
Develop more direct relationships with local partners not necessarily going through intermediary
organizations
Facilitate project implementation support through provision of technical assistance in specific project
areas, organizing for capacity building of partners, conducting joint project reviews, and regional level
planning
Encourage, support, and reward those Implementing Partners who identify, leverage, and strengthen
capacities of local organizations.
Funding and Reporting Cycles
Stakeholders were asked to suggest what should be done to move towards funding and reporting cycles that
reduce ‘dead time’ that partners have experienced. ‘Dead time’ is said to result from: a) too much reporting,
including impromptu demands on grantees (which eat up time for implementation); b) short cycles of
funding (e.g. annual funding cycles), and c) unpredictability as well as irregularity of disbursements of funds.
Specific examples and actions:
Adopt results-based management (RBM) approach to programming and establish realistic M&E plans
and reporting time frame that provides for adequate time to have worthwhile results to report!
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 52
Consider a combination of detailed and light reporting – pre-determined beforehand and spread
across the project period, and inbuilt into implementation cycles.
Adhere to agreed disbursement timelines – unless delays are caused by grantee performance (e.g.
delayed reporting or inability to achieve agreed targets)
Move away from short-term towards long-term funding (3-5 years) to ensure continuity of
programmes towards sustainability
For projects/interventions that clearly require multiple years, avoid arrangements in which the
grantee or service provider has no certainty as to whether and when the next tranche will be
disbursed. This is a costly arrangement due to increased transaction costs, dead time and often
results into “recycled deliverables”
Refrain from using intermittent, short-term service contracts for interventions that require long-
term sustained efforts to reach critical tipping points, and for which ‘start and stop approach’ is
inefficient in resource use and ineffective in delivering desired outcomes.
Share relevant reports, especially those from USAID
3. Opportunities Going Forward
Table 1 summarizes priority potential intervention areas which USAID should consider going forward to
improve its programming in the region.
Table 2. Opportunities and Recommendations on Cross-Cutting Programmatic Issues
Opportunity Recommendation
Regionality Regional programs should be designed in close collaboration with bilateral missions,
ensuring that regional and national dimensions and roles are clear and non-
contradictory. The whole process should be joint, consultative, and based on
mutually agreed roles and implementation plans. Modalities for coordination should
be clearly stated, and progress reviewed annually as part of an Annual Review and
Learning event.
Political
economy
Develop mechanisms for targeted high level interventions in the form of
negotiations or mediations based on deep understanding of underlying issues that
undermine specific regional agendas -e.g. inaction or slow action by specific member
states on agreed policy or other regional instruments.
Establish a regular Regional Convening on agriculture - involving RECs and
responsible Ministers (Agriculture AND Trade), with each such meeting focusing on
a specific (political economy) challenge framed so that outcome leads to a clear way
forward.
Inclusivity Continue emphasis on youth and women inclusion, but go beyond numbers (gender
disaggregation) to more robust focus on differential needs, interventions and
outcomes for these and other traditionally marginalized groups.
Be deliberate in increasing engagement of local institutions (including but not limited
to private sector) in program implementation - e.g. appropriate mentorship and
through tangible roles in projects/programs – not just as beneficiaries but also as
implementing partners (strongly linked to sustainability).
Sustainability Put in place authentic stakeholder engagement processes for identifying regional
program priorities, keeping in mind that possibility of ‘elite capture’ is real. The
process should also ensure that the evidence being used is unbiased (intentionally or
accidentally) – i.e., it has representativeness of marginal groups, marginal areas, etc.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 53
Opportunity Recommendation
For regional interventions that eventually require national and community-level
uptake/participation, work with bilateral missions to get authentic voices at these
levels from the start and through participatory implementation that ensures local
ownership.
Strengthen local content of programs through strategic engagement of local
institutions (private sector and civil society) as implementing partners. USAID
should proactively identify potential partners (institutions that may not necessarily
be BIG and VISIBLE now but have potential to deliver and grow in these roles). This
provides opportunity for strengthening capacity (see inclusivity above), but also for
enhancing sustainability.
Ensure that exit strategy is consistently built into program design as a matter of
practice.
Partnerships Take deliberate steps to improve quality of partnership between bilateral missions
and regional mission (see also regionality). Steps need to be formalized and not left to
happen by chance.
Where there are overlaps in program coverage by multiple implementing partners,
create modalities for joint planning and on-going cross-talk (regular convenings
involving these implementers) to enhance synergies and efficiency, and to avoid
duplication and turf-wars
Capacities of key
stakeholders
Work with RECs - and through them member states - to develop a sustainable
staffing strategy. USAID could commit to initial support over a specified period
(mutually determined for each such position), and with REC commitment to
mainstreaming these into RECs Secretariat payroll at the end of USAID support.
This should be included in the partnership agreements between USAID and RECs.
Funding and
reporting cycles Adopt results-based management (RBM) approach to programming and establish
realistic M&E plans and reporting time frame that provides for adequate time to
have worthwhile results to report
Consider a combination of detailed and light reporting – pre-determined beforehand
and spread across the project period, and inbuilt into implementation cycles.
Adhere to agreed disbursement timelines – unless delays are caused by grantee
performance
Refrain from using intermittent, short-term service contracts for interventions that
require long-term sustained efforts to reach critical tipping points, and for which
‘start and stop approach’ is inefficient and ineffective in delivering desired outcomes.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 54
Annex 3 - Summary of USAID’S Key Implementing
Partners
Partnership with various categories of stakeholders is fundamental in achieving meaningful results, especially
when the investment has to cover an extended geographical area and deliver a wide range of outcomes.
Great partnership should leverage resources into a common pool, synergize efforts and build on the
strengths of each stakeholder. Over the years USAID regional mission for East Africa has partnered with
various regional and international bodies to develop and harmonize policies that create an enabling
environment to facilitate trade, ensure food safety, increase regional resilience, enhance technology
development and deployment to tackle regional problems and promote harmonious relations among the
countries in the region. Some of the key USAID implementing partners are summarized below, with a focus
on the specific areas they have worked on supported by USAID investments. It must be pointed out that
USAID works with a large number of partners, and this list is not comprehensive.
1. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
COMESA, formed in 1994, is a regional organization of 21 African Member States with an aim to achieve
sustainable economic and social progress particularly in trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport,
communication and information, technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture, environment and
natural resources.
COMESA and USAID have maintained a strong partnership since 1998 through the integrated partnership
assistance agreements (IPAA). USAID provides assistance to COMESA in the following areas: trade and
investment, agriculture, conflict mitigation, administration, governance & institutional strengthening. USAID
works with two COMESA agencies: Alliance for Common Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA)
an initiatives to improve regional integration, harmonize policies and increase competitiveness for staple
foods and markets, and the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) to increase access to electricity for all East
Africans in the region.
In 2016, USAID and COMESA entered into a new $77 million Regional Development Objective Grant
Agreement (RDOAG), a five-year partnership agreement to collaborate on development objectives as
prioritized in COMESA’s Medium-Term Strategic Plan (2016-2020). The agreement focuses on shared
objectives of sustainable economic integration across the region and strengthening COMESA’s leadership
and continuous learning. Support to COMESA is provided through direct grants and technical assistance
provided by USAID/EA regional implementing partners such as Africa Lead II.
Select activities to date which have been supported by USAID include implementation of COMSHIP,
development and coordination of CAADP, implemented Trade for Peace activities seeking to increase cross-
border trade and build awareness of the role of trade in peace building, governance and poverty reduction,
developed SPS policies through the ACTESA Seed and Biotechnology Initiatives, and supported COMESA
Business Council (CBC).
2. East African Community (EAC)
East African Community (EAC) is a regional intergovernmental organization with six partner states
consisting of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. It was established in 1967,
collapsed in 1977 and was revived in 2000. The organization aims to strengthen the ties between the
members through a common market, a common customs tariff and provide a range of public services to
achieve balanced economic growth within the region.
USAID has partnered with EAC since 2005, directly supporting the Lake Victoria Basin Commission on the
Trans-boundary Water for Biodiversity Initiative in the Mara River Basin. USAID supports EAC efforts in
improving the quality of life of the people of East Africa through supporting value-added production,
enhanced food security, trade and investment.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 55
Like with COMESA, a $194 million RDOAG was signed between USAID and EAC in 2016. The five-year
agreement focuses on shared objectives of sustainable economic integration across the region and
strengthening EAC countries in trade and investment, environment, agriculture and health.
Some key activities or projects that have been implemented under the partnership between USAID and EAC
include: implementation of customs unions by harmonizing the Customs Procedures and Customs Valuation
Methods to guide adherence to international best practices; enacted the EAC Single Customs Territory
(SCT) (2014); adoption of the web-based RADDEx 2.0 system allowing centralized sharing of customs-
clearance information; established Joint Border Committees to improve coordination between government
agencies and the private sector at 16 key border posts; the completion of the CAADP compact, results
framework, and investment plan (2016); development of EAC Animal Feed Standards EAC SPS Bill and
Measures (2013); the EAC Aflatoxin Prevention and Control Strategy and Action Plan (2015), FNSP (2014)
and EAC Harmonized Regulatory Framework and Procedures for Fertilizer Marketing (2014).
3. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) established in 1996 is an economic organization with
eight member states including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya. IGAD’s
mission is to assist and complement member-state efforts to increase cooperation to: (1) achieve food
security and environmental protection; (2) promote and maintain peace and security; (3) manage
humanitarian affairs; and (4) support economic cooperation and integration.
IGAD and USAID have partnered since 2006. They also signed a RDOAG worth $17 million in June, 2016.
The five year agreement focuses on shared development priorities to promote sustainable economic
integration across the region; improve systems to respond to development risks, such as those related to
climate change, drought and violent extremism; and strengthen IGAD’s organizational leadership. Direct
funding to IGAD to date is $23,035,630, including about $11.3 million in direct funding to support activities
in conflict mitigation, climate change and resilience.
USAID has and continues to support four initiatives under IGAD - as prioritized in IGAD’s new five-year
strategy (2016-2020) including: (i) the IGAD Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism
(CEWARN) helping to counter violent extremism and strengthen cross-border conflict management in the
Horn of Africa. Conflict Early Warning and Response Units (CEWERU) are in the six IGAD member states;
(ii) the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) works with member
states to prepare for drought and other extreme weather events. USAID provides support for two main
activities: Building a knowledge-management system; and providing IGAD Secretariat support in
administration, finance and procurement; (iii) the IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Center
(ICPAC) integrates climate science and research into the region’s economic policies. USAID is building
ICPAC capacity as an integral part of USAID’s Planning for Resiliency in East Africa through Policy,
Adaptation, Research and Economic Development Program (PREPARED); and (iv) the IGAD Centre for
Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) which implementing all activities under Agriculture
and Livestock Development.
4. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA)
Trade and Markets East Africa (Trade Mark East Africa – TMEA) is a not-for profit company limited by
guarantees established in 2010 to support the growth of trade, both regionally and internationally in East
Africa. TMEA provides both technical and monetary support to the EAC, national governments, the private
sector and civil society organizations. TMEA works to improve the ease of trading through streamlining port,
transit, customs and border operations in order to enhance trade.
In 2012, Trade Mark East Africa signed a trade partnership agreement with USAID aimed at promoting
exports to current and new markets including the United States, supporting East African Community’s
(EAC) progress on regional trade integration. Specific targets were to increase intra-regional trade by 25
percent and exports to the rest of the world by 10 percent by 2016.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 56
It is important to note that TMEA is funded by various donors thereby it is hard to attribute the particular
contribution of USAID’s Feed the Future program. However some of the projects that have been
implemented through USAID and other donor support include the One Stop Border Program, constructing
13 One Stop Borders along the central and northern trade corridors, at a cost of approximately US$7
million each aimed at reducing barriers to transit and moving to single border crossings; implemented the
Mombasa Port Resilient Infrastructure Program; and the Single Window Information System for Trade
(SWIFT).
5. Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative
Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)
Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance
(ACDI/VOCA) is an economic development organization founded in 1963. It aims to foster broad-based
economic growth, raise living standards, and create vibrant communities through catalyzing investment,
climate smart agriculture, empowerment & resilience, institutional strengthening and market systems.
ACDI/VOCA has implemented various projects under the Global Feed the Future strategy worldwide.
In Eastern Africa, ACDI/VOCA partnered with USAID/EA to improve market linkages and build the capacity
of African institutions between 2010 and 2016.
The projects implemented were: East Africa Market Linkages Initiative Project (MLI) for $1.9 million, a multi-
country project that worked alongside partners such as ACTESA to integrate smallholder farmers into more
efficient national and regional markets from 2010 to 2012; and the African Institution Innovation Mechanism
(AIIM-Assist) from 2012-2016 aimed at providing technical and operational capacity building for African
agricultural institutions. AIIM-Assist built the capacity of organizations such as East Africa Farmers
Federation, AgMark and supported 5 other organizations selected by Kenya Plant health inspectorate Service
(KEPHIS).
6. East Africa Trade and Investment Hub (EATIH)
The East Africa Trade and Investment Hub simply referred to as the Hub is USAID program on its third
phase being implemented from 2014 to 2019. It has previously been known as East African Trade Hub
(EATH) and as Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program (COMPETE Africa). The Hub partners with
East African and United States (U.S.) businesses to attract investment and boost trade in East Africa to
transform the regions’ private sector into vibrant global trading partners. The Hub accomplishes this by
promoting two-way trade between U.S and EA under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),
deepening regional integration, increasing competitiveness of select value chains and promoting the use of
global technology to drive growth of trade. The hub covers East African Community countries as well as
Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mauritius.
USAID to date has invested $64 million into the Hub. Some of the key activities overseen by the Hub
include supporting EAC to adopt nine harmonized grain standards resulting in improved grain quality;
provided training to the EAC on the World Trade Organization’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
notification systems; providing trainings to firms on AGOA benefits and sector-specific technical export
requirements; supported the development or revision of five national AGOA strategies aim at eliminating
barriers preventing businesses from exploiting AGOA; and supports countries’ compliance with intra-
regional and international trade agreements such U.S.-EAC Cooperation Agreement on Trade Facilitation,
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and SPS and the EAC Common Market Protocol.
7. East Africa Grain Council (EAGC)
East Africa Grain Council (EAGC) is a regional private sector membership, not-for-profit organization
founded in 2006 and registered as a company limited by guarantee. EAGC covers 10 countries in Eastern
Africa region i.e. Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Ethiopia and South
Sudan.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 57
EAGC works to promote structured trading system (STS) through the warehouse receipting systems (WRS)
and Regional Grain Trading platform (G-Soko), providing market information systems through the Regional
Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network (RATIN- (www.ratin.net), evidence-based policy advocacy and
training and capacity building through the Eastern Africa Grain Institute (EAGI).
Projects implemented by the EAGC under the FTF 2011-2015 Multi-Year Strategy include: Development of
the COMESA CAADP Compact – EAGC signed the Compact on behalf of the Private Sector; facilitated the
work of the Technical Committees at national level for standards harmonization; implementation of the
Standards harmonization project; the Trade Balance Sheet project aimed at providing information on food
surplus and food deficit areas to IGAD and EAC member States to facilitate movement of food commodities
from surplus areas to deficit areas; and operationalization of the Regional Agricultural Trade Information
Network (RATIN) under USAID’S COMPETE project.
8. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
A member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, known by its Spanish acronym, CIMMYT, is a non-profit research
and training organization, formed in 1966 with more than 400 partners in over 100 countries world-wide.
CIMMYT works throughout the developing world to improve livelihoods and foster more productive,
sustainable maize and wheat farming. In Africa, CIMMYT works in breeding drought tolerance and low-
fertility soils maize, insect and pest resistance maize, foliar diseases and parasitic weeds; sustainably
intensifying production in maize and wheat-based systems; and investigating opportunities to reduce
micronutrient and protein malnutrition among women and young children.
In 2015 CIMMYT received a grant of $17.8 million from USAID for a three year period up to 2018 to
implement the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Seed Scaling (DTMASS) project. DTMASS aims to
produce and deploy affordable and improved drought-tolerant, stress-resilient and high-yielding maize
varieties for 1.8 million smallholder farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia
by the end of the project. USAID also funded the Maize Lethal Necrosis Diagnostics and Prevention of Seed
Transmission project from 2015-2019 to coordinate regional efforts to strengthen response to the rapid
emergence and spread of MLN.
9. Africa Lead II
Africa Lead II is a five-year Cooperative Agreement between the Bureau for Food Security (BFS) at the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and a DAI-led Consortium. Africa Lead II is Feed the
Future’s primary capacity building program in sub Saharan Africa serving as a catalyst and connector for
learning and innovations in individual leadership behavior, institutional performance and policy process.
Africa Lead II works in three strategic areas: improving institutional capacity; strengthening management of
policy change and alignment processes and; enhancing capacity and engagement of non-state actors, including
the private sector. Other core members of the DAI led consortium include Winrock International, Training
Resources Group, Inc. (TRG), and Management Systems International (MSI).
Some of the project Africa Lead has overseen and supported include: The advancement of agricultural
transformation in alignment with the African Union Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP); development of IGAD Implementation Letter; Supporting USAID’s Fall Army Worm
(FAW) Task Force stakeholder engagement; and in collaboration with COMESA and ACTESA, Africa Lead
has supported activities to harmonize seed law and regulation. The program also supports activities of both
the bilateral and the regional mission which align with their feed the future objectives.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 58
10. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (RESAKSS)
ReSAKSS is an Africa-wide network established for supporting implementation of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). ReSAKSS is facilitated by the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) in partnership with the Africa-based CGIAR centers, the NEPAD Planning and
Coordinating Agency (NPCA), the African Union Commission (AUC), and the Regional Economic
Communities (RECs). ReSAKSS offers high-quality analyses and knowledge products to improve
policymaking, track progress, document success, and derive lessons for the implementation of the CAADP
agenda and other agricultural and rural development policies and programs in Africa.
Since 2015, ReSAKSS has received $1 million per year from USAID. Other funding partners include the
Department for International Development (DFID), Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency (SIDA), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Some of the activities carried out by ReSAKSS
to date include mapping livestock value chains in the IGAD region, identifying the status and trends of public
agricultural expenditures in COMESA, EAC and IGAD and exploiting opportunities in intra-regional trade in
food staples in COMESA region among others.
11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) is a non-profit institution, and member of the
CGIAR. It generates agricultural innovations to meet Africa’s most pressing challenges so as improve
livelihoods, enhance food and nutrition security, increase employment and preserve natural resource
integrity. IITA works with various partners within the thirty five sub-Saharan countries where it operates.
In 2015, USAID East Africa Regional Mission contributing $5 million, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (on the
behalf of the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA)) contributing $10 million, and USDA-FAS
funded the first aflatoxin biocontrol modular plant & second factory in Africa under the Technology Transfer
and Commercialization Project (ATTC) 2015-2020. The plant was jointly built and owned by Kenya
Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) & IITA. IITA & USDA-ARS provided technical
support & turnkey construction. Construction, installation, pre-certification and commissioning have been
completed, commercialization and creating/driving market demand is ongoing
IITA has also provided technical support to EAC in the development of EAC Strategy and Action Plan on
Aflatoxin Prevention and Control, trained country experts and produced 11 evidence-based technical papers
that informed the regional strategy. IITA has also participated in the development of 9 policy briefs on what
countries need to do to control Aflatoxin in support of the development of country plans.
12. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
(ASARECA)
ASARECA is a not-for-profit sub-regional organization of the National Agricultural Research Systems
(NARS) consisting of 11 member countries, namely: Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. ASARECA works
with scientists, agricultural extension officers and strategic partners from member countries, as well as
regional and international A4RD institutions to catalyze and promote cross-border collaboration in
agricultural research that leads to effective and efficient impact across the region. This is achieved through
sharing and promoting knowledge as well as coming up with innovative solutions to agricultural challenges.
USAID has supported ASARECA since 1994. From 2002- 2011, through a two 5-year Cooperative
Agreements, USAID provided ASARECA with a total of $20 million. The funds supported the organization’s
Secretariat activities - governance, developing capacity in administration and finance, program management
and partnerships, and the development of policy guidelines for ASARECA. Five new units were established
to support programs as well as targeted research and technology dissemination activities. Seven new
programs were launched. The research portfolio included research into staple crops, non-staple crops,
livestock and fisheries, agro-biodiversity and biotechnology, natural resource management and forestry,
policy analysis and advocacy, up-scaling and knowledge management.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 59
With support from USAID, ASARECA was able to: Provide support to the planning and implementation of
CAADP Pillar IV in partnership with FAO, GIZ and NCPA; support implementation of four biotechnology
projects – i.e. the Marker-assisted breeding of the Stay-Green trait of Sorghum to enhance terminal drought
tolerance in Eastern Africa through the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II; support the
participation of PAAP in EAC and COMESA work on harmonizing staple crops standards to enhance trade
in EAC and COMESA countries; support Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network (ECRABREN)
on research on new bean varieties; among others.
13. The African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR)
AU-IBAR has a mission to provide leadership in the development of animal resources for Africa through
supporting and empowering AU Member States and Regional Economic Communities to coordinate and
harmonize disease control policies, strategies and legal frameworks.
USAID has funded various projects implemented by AU-IBAR, including: the Pastoral Livelihoods Programme
(PLP); Animal Resource Information System (ARIS); North Eastern Pastoral Development Programme
(NEPDP); Early Detection Reporting and Surveillance-Avian Influenza in Africa (EDRASAIA); and Standard
Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH).
Under Feed the Future Programme, USAID provided $7.75m to AU-IBAR to implement the SMP-AH
project from March 2012-March 2017. The aim of the project was to standardize procedures for detection
of, and response to, specified trade‐significant TADs, in line with OIE standards, so that the animal and
human health status of the importing countries is protected. The project covers IGAD member states which
include Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, the Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda.
The key activities under SMP-AH project included: supporting the participating countries to develop and
implement Standards Methods and Procedures, adapted to the Greater Horn of Africa region, for control of
trade-related transboundary animal diseases (TADs) in line with OIE standards; supporting capacity building
in disease surveillance to mitigate the risk of introduction of diseases to importing countries, live animals
from the region, destined for export are held in quarantine stations prior to export; and supporting the
North Eastern Africa Livestock council (NEALCO).
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 60
References
Africa Lead II.
https://www.africaleadftf.org/.
Africa Lead year two annual report (2015).
https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/AFRICA-LEAD-ANNUAL-REPORT-OCT-
2015.pdf
ASARECA (2014) Impact Evaluation of ASARECA Operational Plan 1 and Development Objectives and
Documentation of Lessons Learned. Final Report (by: Kate Wellard, May Sengendo, Haroon Sseguya,
Sheba Ndagire, Stephen Mugarura and William Otim-Nape; Natural Resources Institute, University Of
Greenwich with Africa Innovations Institute). ASARECA, February 2014.
Brief on Aflasafe Modular Manufacturing Plant at KALRO-Katumani, Kenya.
CABI (2017) Fall armyworm impacts and implications: Evidence note, September 2017. CABI, 144pp.
CIMMYT (2015) Distribution and impact of maize lethal necrosis in Kenya: Brief on a working paper. May
2015.
COMESA briefer_ September (2017).
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/01_COMESA_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf
COMESA Mid Term Strategic Plan (2016-2020). Lusaka Zambia.
http://www.comesa.int
CTA (2018). Improving the Evidence Base on Aflatoxin Contamination and Exposure in Africa: Strengthening
the Agriculture-Nutrition Nexus, by Sheila Okoth. The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation (CTA) Working Paper 16/13, November 2018.
Day et al. (2017) Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa. In: Outlooks on Pest Management –
October (2017). DOI:10.1564/v28_oct_02.
DuPont (2012). Role of Technology in Agriculture.
http://foodsecurity.dupont.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DuPont-Agriculture-Committee-The-
Role-of-Technology-in-Agriculture.pdf
EAC (2016). Annual Report. East Africa Report to the People.
EAC briefer September (2017).
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/02_EAC_fact_sheet_Sept_2017.pdf
East Africa Regional Livestock trade Stakeholders Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya February 22-23, (2017).
East African Community Development Strategy 2011-2016. Deepening and Accelerating Integration. EAC,
Arusha, (2011). https://www.eac.int
FAO (2009). Draft Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, World Summit on Food Security,
Rome, 16-18 November, (2009). FAO, WSFS 2009/2.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 61
Feed the Future (2016). Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II) annual
report: Annual report project year 3 / fiscal year 2016.
Feed the Future (2018). Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition.
Editors: Prasanna, B. M., Huesing, J. E., Eddy, R., & Peschke, V. M. USAID/CIMMYT/CGIAR, January
2018.
https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/fall-armyworm-africa-guide-integrated-pest-management-first-
edition.
Feed the Future (2017): Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II) Annual
Report (2017).
https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/AfricaLeadAnnualReportFY17PublicFINAL.pd
f.
Feed the Future: Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead ii) annual report:
October (2013) - September (2014). https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Africa-
Lead-II_Annual Report_FY14_12.09.14_final.pdf
Gong Y, Cardwell K, Wild C, et al. (2002a). Dietary Aflatoxin Exposure and Impaired Growth in Young
Children from Benin and Togo: Cross Sectional Study. British Medical Journal, Clinical Research
Edition, July 6.
Gong YY, Egal S, Hounsa A, Turner PC, Hall AJ, Cardwell KF, et al. (2002b). Determinants of aflatoxin
exposure in young children from Benin and Togo, West Africa: the critical role of weaning. Int J
Epidemiol. 32:556–562. [PubMed].
Hawkes. C., and Ruel, M.T. (2011). Value Chains for Nutrition. In: Leveraging agriculture for improving
nutrition and health, 2020 Conference Report, (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute, 2011.
Hutchins, S.H. and P.J. Gehring (1993) Perspective on the Value, Regulation, and Objective Utilization of Pest
Control Technology. Amer. Entomol. 39: 12-15.
IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Ethiopia. http://www.resilience.igad.int.
IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Kenya. http://www.resilience.igad.int.
IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Uganda. http://www.resilience.igad.int.
IGAD (2016) Mid Term Review of the 1st Phase, (2013-2017) of the Implementation of the Igad Drought
Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Strategy.
IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI). The IDDRSI Strategy. IGAD,
Djibouti, (2013).
Union, A. (2014). Malabo declaration on accelerated agricultural growth and transformation for shared
prosperity and improved livelihoods. Doc. assembly/au/2 (xxiii). Malabo, Guinea Bissau: African Union.
Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and
Improved Livelihood.
ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 62
McDermott, J., Aït-Aïssa, M., Morel, J., & Rapando, N. (2013). Agriculture and household nutrition security:
Development practice and research needs. Food Security, 5, 667–678.
ReSAKSS. https://www.ilri.org/RegionalStrategic.
UNICEF/WHO/World Bank (2017). Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition. UNICEF / WHO / World Bank
Group Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates Key findings of the 2017 edition [https://data.unicef.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/JME-2017_brochure_June-25.pdf].
USAID (2011). Evaluation of USAID/East Africa Support to The Association For Strengthening Agricultural
Research In Eastern And Central Africa (ASARECA) August 2011 Report.
USAID (2015). Evaluation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Trade Policy Constraints within the Maize and
Livestock/Animal-Sources Products Value Chains in East Africa.
USAID (2016). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID Support for the East African Community (EAC).
USAID Nairobi.
USAID (2016). Synthesis of Evaluations Related to Feed the Future Learning Agenda. USAID, Nairobi.
USAID (2017), IGAD briefer -September 2017.
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/03_IGAD_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf.
USAID (2018). Hub Factsheet_September 2018.
https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AL-FY16-Annual-Report_public.pdf.
USAID (2018). Mid Term Performance Evaluation of USAID Support for the East Africa Community (EAC).
USAID, Nairobi.
USAID/East Africa Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy, (2011-2015).
USAID/East Africa Resilience Learning Project. Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-
AH) project. External Evaluation Report (2016) USAID, Nairobi.
top related