Water Management

√

Forestry/

Agroforestry

√

Agriculture & Land

Management

√

Infrastructure

√

Access Infrastructure

√

Energy Efficiency

√

Waste management+

Sanitation √

Training

√

19%

18%

17%

17%

16%

9%

4%

Infrastructures

Water management

Forestry/Agroforestry

Access infrastructures

Agriculture & landmanagement

Training

Waste management+Sanitation

Annex 6: Evaluation of the Impact of FFA on Livelihood Resilience in Guatemala

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Reg. PRRO 6089

Reg. PRRO 10212

Reg. PRRO 10444

Reg. PRRO 200043

CP 10092

CP 200031

Timeline1

0

10

20

30

40

50

2003 2004 2005 2006

Tho

usa

nd

s

Reg PRRO 10212

0

10

20

30

40

2008 2009 2010

Reg PRRO 10444.0

0

10

20

30

40

CP 10092.0 & CP 200031

CP 10092 CP 200031

% of FFA Projects by

Type Category

(2003-2011)

1 Reg PRRO 10212.0 ended in 2007 but FFA in Guatemala was implemented until 2006; Reg PRRO 200043 started in 2011 but FFA started in 2012; Reg PRRO 1444.0 started in 2007 but FFA in

Guatemala started in 2008; 2 Reg PRRO 200043 is not included as the projects started in 2011 but FFA was planned but not implemented until 2012.

Sources: SPRs & CO

WFP Projects with FFA: 3 (2 CP, 4 Regional PRRO)

Since: 2002

Areas of Intervention:

Participants2

1. Country Context

Guatemala has a population of 14.7 million and ranks 131 out of 187 in the 2011 UNDP Human Development Index. With a Gini index of 53.7, Guatemala has one of the highest levels of inequality in the world1. Its chronic undernutrition/stunting rate of 49 percent among children under 5 is the highest in Latin America and the Caribbean and among the highest in the world. Fifty-three percent of the population lives in poverty, and 13 percent in extreme poverty2. Guatemala is prone to recurrent disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, landslides and droughts that significantly affect the productivity of households, their livelihoods and their ability to cope with external shocks. Extreme and recurrent weather events make rural people more vulnerable because they depend on subsistence farming and/or daily agricultural wage labour for their food and source of income. Floods and hurricanes damage infrastructures, assets, and limit access to markets. Finally, they cause crop losses and force people to become more dependent on food purchases. The most vulnerable groups are indigenous women, girls and boys living in the highlands and the dry corridor characterized by drought, degraded soils and low agricultural yields3. The majority of poor households depend on subsistence farming to meet their livelihoods. Low agricultural yield and a number of additional factors such as limited livelihood opportunities and natural shocks can severely impact the ability of families to meet their nutritional needs. One of the main objectives of the Government’s agricultural policy4 is to support subsistence farmers and their families to move from subsistence to profitability through diversified and increased production and improved access to markets.

Making vulnerable people more resilient to natural shocks and enhancing food production capacities were some of the key objectives of the EU’s response efforts in Guatemala5.The EU, in a joint programme with WFP, the Government of Guatemala and other UN agencies aimed to improve the food security of rural people living on subsistence farmers and increase the productive capacities of farmers through food for assets and food for training activities6. The use of food transfers conditioned on participation in training and FFA activities, encouraged people’s participation while aiming to address immediate food security requirements.

1 WFP. Executive Brief: Guatemala (June 2012)

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 WFP Project document CP 2010-2014

5 The project ended in October 2011.WFP and the EU. EU Food Facility Fact Sheet, 2011.

6 EU,WFP,FAO. Manual de Consulta de Normas Tecnicas para la Implementacion de Actividades del Tipo

Alimentos por Trabajo y Alimentos por Capacitacion, 2010.

Table 1. Overview of WFP FFA Programming in Guatemala

Regional PRRO 6089.0 Regional PRRO 10212.0 Regional PRRO 10444.0 CP 10092.0 CP 200031

Title

Assistance for reconstruction and rehabilitation to families in Central America affected by Hurricane Mitch

Targeted Food Assistance for People Affected by Shocks and for the Recovery of Livelihoods

Assistance to Vulnerable Groups Affected by Natural Disasters and Other Shocks in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua Country Programme 2001-2009 Country Programme 2010-2014

Time Frame (actual) 1999-2003 2003-2007 (1) 2007-2011 (2) 2003-2010 2010-2014

CFA − − − − −

FFA x x x x x

Ration & working days

Monthly family rations according to the progress of works and the work norms established for each activity (for 120 days)

Family rations are set by established work norms in FFA activities

Family rations are set by established work norms in FFA activities

Family rations are set by established work norms in FFA activities

Family ration of 2.7 kg/day supplied for 80 days per year

FFA objectives i) guarantee household food security to

beneficiaries while they participate in activities reconstruct the social and economic infrastructure of their communities; ii) promote and support, through FFW activities, local initiatives for the creation of temporary employment opportunities to rehabilitate destroyed infrastructure

Enable families to preserve and create assets to mitigate the effects of shocks and strengthen livelihoods

i)mitigate the effects of natural disasters in the longer term ii) increase the longer-term resilience of vulnerable communities and households

i. Activity 3 (Supporting Food-insecure Households in the Resettlement process): enable resettled vulnerable households to access goods and services that will create lasting social and productive assets ii. Activity 4 (Creation of Assets to Cope with Natural Disaster): improve the food security situation of households highly exposed to natural disasters and adverse environmental factors

Activity ( Improve livelihoods of subsistence farmers): i)increase agricultural production, create physical and human assets and invest in environmental practices ii) rebuild and improve the livelihoods of subsistence farmers affected by recurrent shocks, complementing government work to promote sustainable livelihoods

FFA Areas of intervention

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Waste management+Sanitation Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Energy Efficiency Waste management+Sanitation Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Waste management+Sanitation Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Energy Efficiency Waste management+Sanitation Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Training

Outputs 1) Rehabilitation of production capacities (Rehabilitation or construction of small irrigation systems, forestry activities, Rehabilitation or construction of soil conservation works) 2)Rehabilitation of social and economic infrastructure (access roads, bridges, schools, health centres)

Human, social, natural assets: micro-irrigation systems, nurseries, family/community gardens terraces, which will help improve land productivity, the availability and access to food and family income

FFA will focus on rehabilitating damaged agricultural lands and infrastructure (reforestation, agricultural diversification, construction of small dams, barriers, canals, wells)

Act.3: basic social infrastructure (houses, latrines, watersystems, drainage systems, schools and health centres) Act.4: Soil and water conservation, reforestation, small-scale irrigation schemes, feeder roads, backyard gardening

Soil and water conservation activities, home gardens, tree nurseries and forestry, prevention of natural resource degradation, terraces, irrigation projects, silos and climate change adaptation

Geog. Coverage (Departments)

Alta Verapez, Baja verapaz, Chimaltenango Escuintla, Huehuetenango, Izabal, Jalapa, Jutiapa, Peten, Quetzaltenango, Quiche, Retalhuleu, San marcos, Santa rosa, Solola, Suchitepequez, Totonicapan, Zacapa

Alta Verapez, Baja verapaz, Chiquimula, El progreso, Huehuetenango, Jalapa, Jutiapa, Quetzaltenango, Quiche, San marcos, Santa rosa, Solola, Suchitepequez, Sacatepequez, Zacapa,

Baja Verapez, San Marcos, Sololá, Escuintla, Santa Rosa, Izabal, Chiquimula, Zacapa, Progreso, Jalapa, Jutiapa, Quiche

Alta Verapez, Baja verapaz, Chimaltenango, Escuintla, Huehuetenango, Izabal, Peten, Quetzaltenango, Quiche, Retalhuleu, San marcos, Santa rosa, Solola, Suchitepequez

Baja verapaz, El progreso, Jalapa (until 2011), Quiche (until 2011), Totonicapan (since 2012)

(1) Project ended in 2007 but FFA in Guatemala was implemented until 2006; (2) Project started in 2007 but FFA in Guatemala started in 2008; Reg PRRO 200043 is not included in the above table as the projects started in 2011 but FFA was planned but not implemented until 2012. Sources: Project Documents, SPRs, CO.

Guatemala

Rainy season

Flood/ landslide

(+main events)

Tropical storm

(+main events)

Drought

(+main events)

Sowing / planting

Harvesting

Lean season

DECJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

Frost period Frost period

2009

Lands l ide 2002 Flood 2000 Flood

2005

Muds l ide

2009 Flood

2008

Lands l ide

2008 Flood

2000 Flood

2008 Flood

2005 Flood

2005

Hurricane

Adrian

1994 2009 2001

2002 Hurricane

2001 Hurricane Iri s

1998 Hurricane Mitch 2011 Tropica l depress ion 12E

1st rainy season 2nd rainy season

1.1 WFP’s FFA in Guatemala WFP has worked in Guatemala since 1970 and has provided assistance to rural farmers and vulnerable people affected by shocks since the early 80s. As shown in Table 1, between 2002 and 2011, FFA took place mainly within 3 Regional PRROs7 and 2 Country Programmes (CP). One of the main FFA objectives of the Regional PRRO 6089.0 (1999-2003) “Assistance to victims of Hurricane Mitch” was to promote and support local initiatives for the creation of temporary employment opportunities to rehabilitate destroyed infrastructure through a participatory approach that allowed participants to decide themselves what activities to undertake according to their needs and priorities8. The subsequent Regional PRRO 10212.0 (2003-2007) focused more on prevention and mitigation of shocks rather than reconstruction by enabling environment for asset-creation to mitigate the effects of shocks. The years preceding the programme were characterized by a combination of droughts, floods and hurricanes as shown in Table 2. The 2001 drought resulted in crop losses of between 60 and 80% in the driest areas9. Driven by the principles of participation and empowerment, FFA activities aimed to create assets to help strengthen livelihoods resilience to disasters by improving land productivity, access to food and increased income. Table 2: Guatemala Seasonal & Hazard Calendar

A mid-term evaluation of PRRO 10212.0 (2003-2007) linked the achievement of objectives with increased community participation and involvement in the activities. This was an objective that was maintained in the following Regional PRRO 10444.0 (2007-2011) that was operational in 12 departments and 64 municipalities. FFA activities lasted for 4 months and were mainly implemented during the lean season from April to August. Between 2008 and 2011, 256 FFA projects focused on agriculture and land management (27%) followed by water management (16%), access infrastructure (16%), and forestry (13%). FFA was implemented under the relief component to address the immediate disaster-mitigation needs and under the recovery component to prevent 7In 2011, Reg PRRO 200043 started but FFA was planned but not implemented until 2012

8 WFP Project Document Regional PRRO 6089.0

9 9 WFP Project Document Regional PRRO 10212.0

and mitigate the effects of natural shocks by building disaster mitigating- assets to protect livelihoods and increase the long term resilience of vulnerable communities10. Training to strengthen community responses to disasters and improving community organization was an important feature in all the three PRROs. In parallel to the PRROs, two Country Programmes were implemented in Guatemala between 2002 and 2011. An average of about 18,000 participants, out of whom 78% were women participated in FFA activities between 2003 and 2009. A total of 222 FFA projects were undertaken in 14 departments and 86 municipalities. The FFA component (under the first CP 2001-2009) was implemented under Activity 3 of the CP. The main targeted beneficiaries were vulnerable households, especially female-headed ones affected by post conflict with the aim to create long-lasting assets and productive infrastructures. The assets created were mainly basic social infrastructure such as housing rehabilitation and reconstruction and roads, whereas the impact evaluation focuses on natural resources. During the Inception Phase, a decision will be taken as to whether or not to exclude this component from the evaluation for two reasons: the focus on displaced populations as compared to resident populations; and because of the focus on infrastructure as compared to natural resources. These would have different impact pathways and assumptions and thus could compromise the ability to draw strong conclusions from the data. Under Activity 4 of the CP, FFA activities aimed at creating assets to cope with natural disasters by creating and preserving assets for food production and disaster mitigation. The target beneficiary groups of this CP component were vulnerable households living in degraded lands and those exposed to adverse climatic conditions. Assets created under this component were mainly related to agriculture and land management (rehabilitation of soil, and bench terraces construction), forestry (tree planting) and water management (small irrigation schemes and water system construction). Corresponding training was provided to participants on asset maintenance with particular emphasis on women‘s ownership of the assets. Figure 1 shows the main FFA areas of intervention under both CP activities between 2003 and 2009.

In the subsequent Country Programme (2010-2014), FFA activities had the main objective of improving the livelihoods of subsistence farmers affected by recurrent shocks. In close partnership with the Government of Guatemala, and with the funds provided by the EU-funded Food Facility, FFA aimed to reach vulnerable farmers having less than 1 hectare of arable land, low literacy level, limited knowledge of

10

WFP Project Document Regional PRRO 10444.0

33%

22%

21%

15%

9%

Fig. 1: Main FFA areas of intervention

Infrastructures

Forestry/ Agroforestry

Water management

Access infrastructures

Agriculture & landmanagement

agricultural techniques and those whose subsistence agriculture was not able to meet their food needs. In the period 2009-2011, 42 FFA projects were concentrated in 4 departments (Baja Verapez, El Progreso, Jalapa, Quiche) and 21 municipalities. FFA focused on improved agricultural techniques for grain production, home gardens, forestry, irrigation schemes and improvement of agricultural infrastructures. The main FFA area of intervention was forestry (48%), followed by water management (24%), agricultural and land management and training with 14 % respectively. Table 3 provides an overall picture of the FFA projects implemented in the 4 departments. Table 3: FFA Projects by type and department (2009-2011)

Department Agriculture & land management

Forestry/ Agroforestry Training

Water Management

Grand Total %

Baja verapaz 4 4

8 19%

El progreso

6 3 6 15 36%

Jalapa

4 2 4 10 24%

Quiche 2 6 1

9 21%

Grand Total 6 20 6 10 42 100%

% 14% 48% 14% 24%

The concentration of FFA efforts in fewer departments, the targeting of farmers according to specific criteria and supported for long time periods, was done in order for more sustainable productive assets to be created representing a long term and development oriented approach. 1.1 Data and Baseline The Country Office has provided detailed FFA data on assets schemes, beneficiaries and geographical coverage over time for the period between 2003 and 2012. A baseline study was conducted during April and May 2012 and focused on FFA components of the Country Programme and the PRRO programme. Surveys were done at household and community level for both projects. This baseline will not likely be useful for the impact evaluation because it was too recently conducted. 1.2 Stakeholders and Users of the Evaluation

Table 3 provides an overview of the main stakeholders in the evaluation. A more detailed analysis of interests and roles of each stakeholders in the evaluation will be further refined in the Inception Report. Key stakeholders include those directly involved in the design and implementation of FFA projects including the FFA participants themselves. The Government of Guatemala at the national and sub-national level is one of the key partners with WFP in the planning and implementation of FFA interventions. In addition, a large number of cooperating partners, UN agencies such as FAO, and local NGOs work together with WFP to implement FFA activities, provide agricultural inputs and technical assistance. Donor agencies that support FFA activities have a direct interest in the findings of the evaluation.

Table 4: Stakeholders and Users of the Evaluation

Beneficiaries Donors Cooperating UN Agencies

Operational Governmental Partners

FFA Cooperating International

Local NGOs

Food Insecure Households affected by recurrent natural shocks Rural Communities Poor & subsistance farmer households Female-headed households Indigenous communities

Australia Brazil Canada European Commission France Italy Spain USA UN CERF Private Donors

FAO IFAD UNDP

Government of Guatemala Ministry of Agriculture Rural Development Programme (PRORURAL) National Peace Fund (FONAPAZ) Food Security and Nutrition Secretariat (SESAN) National Institute for Agricultural Trade (INDECA) Local municipalities

IOM CARE International Mercy Corps International Plan International Catholic Relief Services Christian Children's Fund World Vision International World Neighbours

Asociacion Desarrollo Comunitario Integral Asociacion de Silvicultores Comunitarios Asociacion SHARE Guatemala Fundacion Kanil Asociacion Accion Cristiana Asociacion para el desarrollo Pastoral de la Tierra Vivero Campo Viejo Asociacion Barillense de Agricultores Asociacion del Estor para el Desarrollo Integral Asociacion Pro Agua del Pueblo Cooperativa Integral de Consumo Union Desarrollo Integral de las Comunidades Rurales Aldemar Caritas Guatemala Cooperativa Integral Agricola Fundasistemas

1.3 Communication

See Section 6.5 of the TOR for further details on communication.

Key outputs will be produced in English but summary documents will be translated into Spanish. Field work with communities will be conducted in local languages; translation may be necessary. The final evaluation report will be summarized for the Executive Board in all UN official languages. The Summary Evaluation Report will be presented to the WFP Executive Board in June 2013.

1.4 Budget

As outlined in 6.6 of the TOR, the evaluation will be funded from OE’s Programme Support and Administrative budget. The overall budget figure for Guatemala is US 200,000. A detailed budget will be included in the Inception Report.

Water Management

√

Access Infrastructures

√

Flood Protection

√ Training

WFP Projects with FFA: 2 (Country Programmes)

Since: 2002

Modality: FFW/CFW

Areas of Intervention:

Annex 7: Evaluation of the Impact of FFA on Livelihood Resilience in Bangladesh

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

CP 10059.0

CP 10410.01

Participants (thousands) ss

Assets created (CP 10410.0)

Flood protection

Embankment (No.) 150

Ground Raising (No.) 1,069

H/S Raising (No.) 4,462

Water Management

Pond (No.) 21

Canal (No.) 32

Access Infrastructure Feeder Roads (Km) built & maintained 2,053

Roads built (Km) 1,476

Areas o

f Inte

rventio

n

Timeline

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

10059.0 Act. IFS 10059.0 Act. RD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2009 2010 2011

CP

10

05

9.0

CP

10

41

0.0

5%

34%

61%

Water management

Access Infrastructures

Flood protection

Total No of FFA Projects by Area of intervention (CP 10410.0)

1 CP 10410.0 started in 2007 but FFA was implemented since 2009

2The RD programme activity was gradually phased out and concentrated into IFS

Sources: CO & SPRs

1. Country Context

Despite important economic progress over the past decade, Bangladesh faces high rates of poverty and food insecurity. Approximately 49 percent of the population lives on less than US$1.25 per day. It ranks 146 out of 187 countries on the 2011 UNDP Human Development Index1 and has a level of hunger that is alarming according to the 2011 Global Hunger Index ranking 70 out of 81 countries in the index2. Bangladesh is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world and ranks first among the 15 countries considered at “extreme risk” of experiencing natural disasters3. Frequent natural disasters, such as cyclones and floods disrupt lives and livelihoods, exacerbate food insecurity and undermine poverty reduction efforts because of extensive damage to crops, homes, and household or community assets4. The Government of Bangladesh has placed preparing for the impacts of natural disasters as one of country’s highest priorities5. WFP works together with the government to address the requirements spelled out in the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan 2009 by preventing dramatic deterioration in undernutrition and the use of negative coping strategies caused by sudden shocks.6 The focus is on implementing programmes that improve food security, work towards disaster mitigation and prevention and to provide sustainable livelihoods solutions for the most vulnerable. Further, WFP aims to enhance resilience to disasters and the effects of climate change as set out in the WFP’s Bangladesh Country Strategy. Priority Three of the strategy will put emphasis on strengthening food and nutrition security by responding rapidly to shocks and mitigating the negative effects of disasters7. The disaster risk reduction component is based on a resilience building approach and focuses on:

Physical and environmental resilience: reducing the risk and exposure of vulnerable groups to shocks by building protective assets and working on community and household level adaptation strategies.

Economic resilience: protecting existing livelihood assets and creating short-term employment opportunities through food and cash for assets during the agricultural lean seasons.

Social resilience: enhancing community cohesion through a participatory approach to decisions about the assets created

1 UNDP. Human Development Report, 2011

2 IFPRI. 2011Global Hunger Index , 2011

3 Maplecroft. Natural Disasters Risk Index 2010

4 WFP. WFP/VAM Food Security Atlas, 2004

5 WFP. WFP Bangladesh Country Strategy, 2011.

6 WFP. WFP Bangladesh Country Strategy, 2011

7 WFP. WFP Bangladesh Country Strategy, 2011

Table 1. Overview of WFP’s FFA Activities in Bangladesh

CP 10059.0 CP 10410.0

Title Country Programme 2001-2006 Country Programme 2007-2010

FFA Time Frame

2001-2006 2009-2011

CFA Cash incentives were provided to participants x

FFA x x

FFA objectives Programme activity: Integrated Food Security (IFS) i)enable ultra-poor and food-insecure households and communities to enhance their income-earning capacity and disaster preparedness by creating human and physical assets Programme activity: Rural Development (RD) i) provide food and employment to the ultra-poor and food insecure in highly food-insecure areas at times of critical need and to enhance their human development potential; ii)create rural infrastructure and community assets for disaster mitigation in order to sustain development gains for the hungry poor.

Enhance resilience of vulnerable households and communities to natural disasters

FFA Areas of intervention

Water management Infrastructure Access infrastructure Flood protection Training

Water management Access infrastructure Flood protection Training

Outputs Integrated Food Security: fish-ponds, raised homesteads, small drainage canals and irrigation systems, village connecting rural roads, river embankments and dykes (to create assets that serve income-generation and disaster-preparedness purposes) Rural Development: i. water schemes (to protect communities from floods and cyclones) and roads schemes; ii. Backbone infrastructure (embankments and roads) to protect communities from disasters and enhance economic development

Raised homesteads, flood and cyclone shelters, protected drinking-water sources, rural roads

Geographical Coverage (Districts)

Panchagarh, Nilphamari, Rangpur, Lalmonirhat, Kurigram, Sherpur, Netrakona, Mymensingh, Kishoreganj, Pabna, Kushtia , Meherpur, Chuadanga, Rajbari, Shariatpur, Barisal, Jhalokati, Patukhali, Bhola, Barging

Bagherat, Barguna, Bhola, Bogra, Gaibandha, Jamalpur, Khulna, Kurigram, Lalmonirhat, Pabna, Patukhali, Satkhira, Sirajganj

Sources: Project Documents, SPRs, CO

1.1 WFP’s FFA in Bangladesh WFP has worked in Bangladesh since the 1970s and has implemented Food for Assets activities since 1976. The very first project with FFA activities began as "National Relief Works Programme for Land and Water Development" and gradually changed to "National Food Assisted Works Programme for Land and Water Development," "Food for Work" and "Rural Development" until it was incorporated into the Country Programme 2001-2006 under the Integrated Food Security (IFS) component8. Names and objectives of FFA activities were revised through time to address changing needs and align with WFP’s policies and strategies like the Enabling Development Policy and Food Aid Assisted Development (FAAD)9. As a result, FFA continued to have a large relief component until it gradually shifted into rehabilitation and then to development as new development elements were incorporated into the programmes. As shown in Table 1, between 2002 and 2011, FFA has continued mainly under 2 Country Programmes (CP)10 . The FFA components aimed to protect existing livelihoods assets providing short term employment during the lean seasons and reducing the risk and exposure of vulnerable groups to shocks by building assets that served income-generation and disaster preparedness purposes. In the past, FFA programmes have focused on physical public infrastructure with little emphasis on community ownership. However, beginning with the IFS component of the CP 2002-2006, communities began to identify their own needs and priorities and make decisions on the activities to be implemented. This approach was thought to be a means of increasing community ownership and sustainability of the assets created11. Under the IFS activity12, FFA gradually shifted from large scale and general infrastructure to community assets that aimed to create community benefits by preventing flood damage, improving the natural resource base of the communities, improving access to markets and providing future income generation activities. A combination of food and cash wages was provided to FFA participants in order to enable them to buy complementary food items and meet other family needs13. An evaluation conducted in 2004 showed that female participants preferred the combination of food and cash because cash enabled them to buy complementary foods while the use of cash only would have resulted in a smaller nutritional benefit as money would have been diverted away from food needs14. The areas of interventions of the FFA schemes were mainly in water management, flood protection and access infrastructure. Assets were selected for their high potential to

8 WFP Bangladesh. Brief History of WFP's Thirty Years in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Past, 2006.

9 WFP Bangladesh. Brief History of WFP's Thirty Years in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Past, 2006.

10 FFA was also included in Emergency Programmes EMOPs but these are not included in this evaluation so are not

described in this report. 11

WFP. WFP’s Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy and Compliance with the Hyogo Framework for Action. Bangladesh Case Study, 2007. 12

FFA was implemented also under the Rural Development activity of the CP but projects were reduced and partly incorporated into the Integrated Food Security. 13

WFP Bangladesh. Brief History of WFP's Thirty Years in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Past, 2006. 14

DRN, ADE, BAASTEL, ECO and NCG. Joint Evaluation of Effectiveness and Impact of the Enabling Development Policy of the WFP: Bangladesh Country Study, 2004.

protect communities from disasters (mainly floods) such as raised homesteads, ground raising, and embankments in order to prevent the loss of community assets due to flood damage. As reported in a recent evaluation15, FFA resulted in positive impacts and outcomes such as:

Household income and productive assets increased;

Community and household assets were better protected from flooding;

Unity and solidarity among the participants/group members increased;

Nutrition, food security and hygiene conditions of the participants improved. The second Country Programme started in 2007 but FFA only started in 2009. The FFA component (using both food and cash modalities) was housed under Enhancing Resilience, one of the 4 activities of the Country Programme. Aligned with the GoB’s disaster management strategy and WFP Strategic Objective 2, the Enhancing Resilience activity focused on mitigating the effects of natural disaster through specific risk-reduction activities16. As in the previous CP, FFA schemes were mainly focused on water management, flood protection and access infrastructure. The FFA activities targeted the ultra-poor people living in the most food-insecure areas of Bangladesh and vulnerable households living in disaster-prone areas. Assets were identified by participants through local level planning according to their needs and priorities in order to builds ownership and sustainability of the assets created. An average of approximately 68,000 participants, of which 76% were women, were supported through FFA activities between 2002 and 2006 while between 2009 and 2011, an average of approximately 55,000 participants were supported of which 80% were women. In the period 2008-2011, 471 FFA projects were undertaken in 13 districts and 45 upazillas. Activities carried out were:

Flood protection (61%) – mainly embankment, ground rising and homestead rising aimed at preventing floods from destroying crops, food stocks and the assets of the poor.

Access infrastructure (34%) - mainly roads to link farmers to markets and increase food security of local communities.

Water management (5%) - mainly canals and fish ponds to provide additional sources of protein, a cash product, and for irrigation purposes.

As shown in Table 2 below, 22% of FFA projects in the CP were undertaken in Kurigram district, followed by Sirajganj (21%), Gaibandha and Jamalpur with 19% respectively followed by all the other districts. Those particular districts were prioritized because they included concentrations of highly food-insecure communities, living on unstable marginal lands near the main rivers of Bangladesh (chars), and thus highly susceptible to flooding. Most poor households were functionally landless sharecroppers. As the figures above suggest, WFP has supported and concentrated its efforts on flood protection schemes because flooding is very much part of the normal seasonal cycle and

15

DRN, ADE, BAASTEL, ECO and NCG. Joint Evaluation of Effectiveness and Impact of the Enabling Development Policy of the WFP: Bangladesh Country Study, 2004. 16

WFP. Project Document Country Programme 2007-2010.

many vulnerable people are negatively affected each year by floods that cause a loss of assets and employment. Table 2: Total Number of FFA Projects by Area of Intervention (2008-2011)

District Access Infrastructure

Flood Protection Training

Water Management Total

BAGERHAT 4 3 7

BARGUNA 1 4 5 10

BHOLA 2 7 9

BOGRA 1 14 15

GAIBANDHA 28 56 1 3 88

JAMALPUR 26 63 89

KHULNA 4 4 4 12

KURIGRAM 44 55 4 103

LALMONIRHAT 5 4 1 10

PABNA 5 6 11

PATUKHALI 2 6 3 11

SATKHIRA 2 4 2 8

SIRAJGANJ 38 60 98

Total Projects 158 287 1 25 471

% 34% 61% 0% 5% 100%

Under both the CPs, project participants were trained in risk reduction/preparedness planning, with the objective of combining knowledge building with work opportunities provided through FFA and asset development to expand their capacities to better cope with shocks and crises after the termination of food assistance. 1.2 Data Availability

The Country Office provided detailed FFA data on asset schemes, beneficiaries and geographical coverage from 2008-2011. Data from 2002-2006 was not available. Preliminary communication with the Country Office did not reveal any baseline data or end line analysis for FFA activities. Their availability and usefulness for the impact evaluation will be further assessed during the inception phase.

1.3 Stakeholders and Users of the Evaluation

Table 3 provides an overview of the main stakeholders in the evaluation. A more detailed analysis of interests and roles of each stakeholders in the evaluation will be further refined in the Inception Report.

Key direct stakeholders include those directly involved in the design and implementation of FFA projects including the FFA participants themselves. The Government of Bangladesh at the national and sub-national level is one of the key partners with WFP in the planning and implementation of FFA interventions. In

addition, a large number of cooperating partners and local NGOs complement WFP’s efforts by bringing local knowledge and technical expertise, contributing to identifying the appropriate FFA schemes that meet the communities’ needs and priorities and then helping to implement them.

Indirect stakeholders include key donor agencies that support FFA activities and have, therefore, an interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and whether FFA interventions have met the objectives and expectations. Additionally, WFP is partner with some UN agencies to implement FFA, and therefore, they have direct interest in the findings of the evaluation.

Table 3: Evaluation Users & Stakeholders

Sources: Project Documents, SPRs, WFP Donor Relations

1.4 Communication with Stakeholders

See Section 6.5 of the TOR for further details on communication. Key outputs will be

produced in English. Field work with communities will be conducted in local languages;

translation may be necessary. The final evaluation report will be summarized for the

Executive Board in all UN official languages. The Summary Evaluation Report will be

presented to the WFP Executive Board in November 2013.

1.5 Budget As outlined in Section 6.6 of the TOR, the evaluation will be funded from OE’s Programme Support and Administrative budget. The overall budget figure for Bangladesh is US$200,000. A detailed budget will be included in the Inception Report.

Operation Beneficiaries Donors Cooperating UN Agencies

Operational Governmental Partners

FFA Cooperating International Local NGOs

CP 10059.0

Ultra-poor and food-insecure households, Women, Vulnerable groups affected by consecutive natural shocks, User groups, Communities, Villages, Food-insecure in disaster-prone districts

Australia, Canada, Bangladesh, Japan, UK, USA, CERF, Priv. Donors

IFAD

Food Security Assistance Committees, Local Government Division, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Local Government Engineering Department, Bangladesh Water Development Board

GTZ, Concern

Jagoroni Chakra, TMSS, Proshika,RASDO, Adivasi Unnayan Kendra, Assistance for Social Organization and Development, Rural Reconstruction Foundation, The Employment & Technology Development agency, Adivasi Unnayan Kendra,Assistance for the Livelihood of Origins,Eco-Social Development Organization, Gram Unnayon Sangathon, & others

CP 10410.0

Ultra-poor and food-insecure households, Women, Vulnerable groups affected by consecutive natural shocks, User groups, Communities, Villages, Food-insecure in disaster-prone districts

Australia, European Commission, Japan, Netherlands, UNCERF

UNDP, FAO

Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives

Muslim Aid UK

Adivasi Unnayan Kendra, Assistance for the Livelihood of Origins, Eco-Social Development Organization, Gram Unnayan Karma, Gram Unnayon Sangathon, Manab Mukti Sangstha,Sangram, Shushilan, & others)

Water Management

√

Forestry/

Agroforestry

√

Agriculture & Land

Management

√

Infrastructure

√

Access Infrastructure

√

Energy Efficiency

√

Flood Protection

√

Waste management+

Sanitation √

Training

√

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tho

usa

nd

s FFA Participants

37%

22%

21%

9%

6%

3%

3%

1%

Total No of FFA Projects by Area of intervention (2007-2011)

Annex 8: Nepal: Evaluation of the Impact of FFA on Livelihood

Resilience WFP Projects with FFA: 3 (1 CP, 2 PRRO)

Since: 2002 Areas of Intervention

Timeline

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CP 10093.0* PRRO 10676.0 PRRO 200152

QUIP PLIC

Project Project Type Title

10093.0 CP Country Programme Nepal (2002-2006)

10676.0 PRRO Food Assistance for Conflict-Affected Populations in Nepal

200152 PRRO Assistance to Food-insecure Populations in the Mid- and Far-West Hill and Mountain Regions

CFA 13%

FFA 70%

FFA/ CFA 17% Transfer

Modality of

WFP FFA

project

Schemes

2007-20111

Areas o

f Inte

rventio

n

1 RCIW modality has been merged with FFA

Sources: SPRs, Country Office

1. Country Context

Nepal is one of the least developed countries in the world, ranking 142nd out of 177 countries on the 2008 Human Development Index2. Nepal’s recent decade long civil conflict significantly impaired economic development. Since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement, expected economic growth has been largely overshadowed by a fragile political situation and turbulent political transition (including frequent labour strikes, general strikes (bandhs) and prevailing insecurity), which has affected the ability of government to focus on economic development. The rate of poverty was reduced from 42% in 1995/96 to 31% in 2003/04 primarily due to a large increase in remittance income (which now represents 22%-25% of GDP). However, poverty remains considerable and high inflation over the past few years is undermining gains made during the prior decade. Food price inflation (at 18.1% in February 2010) remains a key driver of inflation1. In recent years Nepal has faced a number of significant food security challenges, including a protracted conflict and recovery process. Nepal is susceptible to climate change and in recent years the impact of severe weather shocks such as drought, erratic rainfall and flooding (on top of significant population growth) have resulted in regular negative food production balances for the first time in history. Over 3.5 million Nepalese people are estimated to be food insecure and in the most food insecure districts of the country average rates of acute malnutrition are higher than 10-15%2. Three and half million people in Nepal are considered to be moderately to severely food insecure and 41% of the population is estimated to be undernourished3. Geography plays an important role in food insecurity and poverty in Nepal, with remote mid and far-western hill and mountain areas suffering from a combination of factors including lack of access, poor agricultural production capacity and frequent natural disasters, particularly floods and droughts. One of the key priorities of the government of Nepal is investment in infrastructures and rural development. WFP works together with the Government to address the issues identified in the WFP Nepal Country Strategy by increasing productive work activities that focus on the development of community assets which support agricultural production, longer term food security and enhanced resilience to shocks4. Priority 1.4 of the Country Strategy aims to improve agricultural production, develop alternative livelihood options and strengthen food markets in food insecure areas. Through the implementation of food and/or cash for assets/training, WFP will increase emphasis on the building of assets providing alternative livelihoods and increasing the resilience of vulnerable households exposed to the negative impacts of climate change and environmental degradation5.

1 Nepal Rastra Bank, 2008 & 2009. Inflation figures.

2 WFP Nepal Country Strategy 2012-2013

3 FAO and WFP, 2007, Joint Food Security Assessment.

4 WFP Nepal Country Strategy 2012-2013

5 WFP Nepal Country Strategy 2010-2013

Table 1. Overview of WFP FFA activities in Nepal

CP 10093.0 PRRO 10676.0 PRRO 200152

Title Country Programme Nepal (2002-2006) Food Assistance for Conflict-Affected Populations in Nepal

Assistance to Food-insecure Populations in the Mid- and Far-West Hill and Mountain Regions

Time Frame (actual)

Jan 2002 - Dec 2006 (1) Sept 2007- Dec 2010 Jan 2001-Dec 2012

CFA − X X

FFA X X X

Ration & working days

The food ration (4 Kg of rice per working day or a total ration of 280 Kg per year) covers the average requirements of a family for 4 months annually (average of 70 work days per year)

40 kg of rice and 5 kg of pulses for every 10 working days per month for an average period of 4 months

40 kg of rice and 5 kg of pulses for every 10 workdays per month for 4 months each year

FFA objectives

Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW): 1) assist poor people in developing productive assets that improve physical access, agricultural production and natural resource management. 2) enhance skills, capacities and income opportunities at the local level. 3) preserve assets and prevent or mitigate the effects of natural disasters

1) Provide short-term food security 2) rebuild/construct critical infrastructure through FFW schemes in rural areas highly impacted by conflict 3) improve market access, create short-term employment opportunities and facilitate access to basic social service delivery.

1) foster improved community resilience through the creation of productive assets and agricultural/livelihood training 2) address the immediate, short-term food needs of vulnerable populations, and support their recovery from multiple shocks 3)increase market access and alternative livelihood and income-generating opportunities

FFA Areas of intervention

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Flood Protection Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Energy Efficiency Flood Protection Waste management+Sanitation Training

Agriculture and Land Management Forestry/Agroforestry Water Management Infrastructures Access Infrastructures Energy Efficiency Flood Protection Training

Outputs Core project: Roads & trails Others: flood and soil erosion control structures, small-scale irrigation facilities, horticulture, agroforestry, soil and water conservation structures in watersheds

Critical infrastructures: (re)construction of schools, health clinics, roads, bridges, foot trails

Small-scale irrigation and other water management systems, riverbank protection, greenhouses, orchards and fish ponds, feeder roads and trails

Geographical Coverage (Region & district)

Far-western (Darchula, Baitadi,Dadeldhura, Doti, Bajhang ,Bajura, Achham) Mid-western (Humla, Mugu, Jumla, Dolpa, Salyan, Pyuthan, Jajarkot, Kalikot, Dailekh) Central Region (Makawanpur, Sindhupalchok, Dolakha, Ramechhap, Kavre) East (Udayapur, Dhanusha, Siraha, Saptari)

Far-western (Darchula, Baitadi, Dadeldhura, Doti, Bajhang , Bajura, Achham) Mid-western (Humla, Mugu, Jumla, Dolpa, Salyan, Pyuthan, Jajarkot, Kalikot, Dailekh, Rukum, Rolpa) Central Region (Makawanpur, Sindhupalchok, Dolakha, Ramechhap, Kavre, Sindhuli) East (Udayapur, Dhanusha, Siraha, Saptari)

Far-western (Darchula, Baitadi, Dadeldhura, Doti, Bajhang , Bajura, Achham) Mid-western (Humla, Mugu, Jumla, Dolpa, Jajarkot, Kalikot, Dailekh, Rukum, Rolpa)

1.1 WFP’s FFA in Nepal WFP has worked in Nepal since the 1960s and has implemented Food for Assets activities since 1995. In 1996, WFP Nepal in partnership with the Government of Nepal and other partners initiated the Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW) aimed at helping poor households living in rural areas to cope with food insecurity, unemployment and environmental degradation. Initially, FFA as a modality within RCIW intended to improve the short-term food security of poor households. In 2002, an RCIW component was included in the Country Programme (CP) 2002-2006. At this time, the purpose of FFA was expanded after consideration of the lessons learnt during the first years of RCIW to focus on improving the long-term food security and livelihoods of the poorest districts in Nepal6, especially in the mid and far-western hill and mountain regions. Guided by the principles of participation, transparency and sustainability, RCIW aimed at assisting poor people in benefiting from the assets created on a long-term basis. The approach used was a combination of core projects such as roads, community level micro projects and complementary activities. Through food and cash for assets, RCIW provided short-term employment while working together with communities to identify and prioritise their needs in order to develop assets for long-term food security and community development. FFA schemes included roads to link the most remote Village Development Committees (VDCs)7 to the main road networks, small irrigation schemes, ponds, flood control measures such as river control structures, agroforestry projects and soil erosion control structures. In the short-term, RCIW aimed to provide food and cash to food insecure people; a review of activities in 2008 indicated that it also generated employment that resulted in a decrease in seasonal migration and improved the quality of life of rural people in other ways8. For example, roads construction increased access to markets and main centres, decreased long-distance walking hours, improved access to social infrastructures and reduced cost of transportations and commodities. The development of natural resource assets contributed to increased food production, income and improved food security. Other assets like embankments and river control measures prevented villages and agricultural fields to be washed away by floods during the rainy seasons. The review indicated that part of the success of the programme came as a result of effective partnership with the Government of Nepal, DFID, GTZ and user groups that enabled WFP to continue implementation of its activities during the years of conflict that characterized almost 10 years history between 1996 and 2006. To this end, QIC9 and PLIC10 (a new modality for using RCIW resources provided by WFP) project components under the CP were implemented in conflict –affected districts by WFP and its partners in areas where government’s access was restricted.

6 WFP. Rural Community Infrastructure Works Programme. A Decade of RCIW 1996-2007. 2008.

7 VDC is similar to a municipality in Nepal, which is the lower administrative part of the local development

ministry, and can comprise multiple settlements. 8 WFP. Rural Community Infrastructure Works Programme. A Decade of RCIW 1996-2007. 2008

9 Quick Impact Projects

10 Protecting Livelihood in Crisis

Between 2007 and 2011, FFA continued mainly under two PRROs aimed at providing assistance to food insecure people affected by conflict and recurrent droughts. The first years of FFA under PRRO 10676.0 (2007-2010) were mainly focused on rebuilding critical infrastructure damaged by the conflict; in the subsequent years, it evolved towards developing assets that aimed to improve food security, long-term livelihoods, and reduced vulnerability. Through community-based approach, FFA served also the ultimate objectives of maintaining peace and facilitating an atmosphere of reconciliation between communities and returnees displaced by the conflict11. The main beneficiaries of this PRRO were food insecure populations in conflict-affected areas and those more exposed to natural disasters. The ration of 40Kg of rice and 5 of pulses for every 10 working days per month for a total period of 4 months allowed beneficiaries to better cope during the seasonal lean periods. The focus on both short and long term objectives and the creation of assets for long-term food security was replicated in PRRO 200152 that started in 2011. The recent Country Portfolio Evaluation indicated that alignment of PRRO activities with government priorities began to decline in 2009. Although WFP attempted to address medium-term livelihood recovery needs, constraints related to multi-year funding for more development-oriented interventions prevented better alignment. Government capacity development has become a priority for both donors and the Government, but is not consistent with WFP’s approach of working primarily with NGOs for FFA interventions12. Overall, the evaluation found that WFP met or exceeded its FFA targets during the evaluation period; it was able to reach large numbers of people, reduce immediate food shortage problems and protect assets and livelihoods in the short term. Significant impacts in increased income, reduced migration and reduced use of credit for food purchase were shown in 2008 and 2009. The evaluation was less definitive on whether FFA activities created longer-term household assets or improved livelihood conditions. One of the main problems was that most of the households that WFP works with are chronically food-insecure. Greater impact was achieved when WFP FFA activities were combined with complementary programmes implemented by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) or Mercy Corps. Consistent with the recommendations of the Country Portfolio Evaluation, FFA activities were implemented in fewer districts targeting the most vulnerable populations in mid and far west hill and mountain regions allowing for better synergy between programme activities and more intensive use of resources. In 2011, FFA activities under this PRRO covered 21 districts and 225 VDCs. The evaluation also recommended that communities be given a greater say in determining the ratio of food to cash in programming. The main FFA objective of the project was to improve community resilience through the creation of productive assets and agricultural /livelihood training in order to increase market access, provide a source of livelihood and income and increase

11

WFP Project Document PRRO 10676.0 12 Summary Evaluation Report Nepal Country Portfolio WFP/EB.2/2010/6‐B 24 September 2010

resilience of communities to multiple shocks. Out of 757 FFA schemes in 2011, 346 were implemented in the water management sector (community ponds, irrigation schemes etc.) representing 46% of the total, followed by agriculture and land management (22%), access infrastructure (15%), and the others. For the entire period covered by both PRROs (2007-2011) an average of about 128,000 participants were supported, amongst whom 46% were women. During this period, 2,741 FFA projects were undertaken in almost 36 districts and 584 VDCs. These related to: Water management (37%) - mainly community ponds, irrigation schemes, water

source improvements. Access infrastructure (22%) – mainly bridges, roads and trails to connect people

living in isolated and remote areas to the main national roads. Infrastructure (21%) such as community and school facilities created mainly

during the first years of the first PRRO to reconstruct critical infrastructures impacted by the conflict.

Agriculture and land management (9%), followed by forestry and flood protection.

Table 2 provides an overall picture of the FFA projects implemented between 2007 and 2011 in the 36 districts. Table 2. FFA projects in Nepal 2007-2011

District Access Infrastructure

Agriculture & land management

Energy Efficiency

Flood Protection

Forestry/ Agroforestry Infrastructure Training

Waste Management+ Sanitation

Water Management Total

Achham 32 18 5 6 44 6 78 189

Baitadi 42 25 2 31 80 180

Bajhang 36 20 1 3 3 54 16 106 239

Bajura 21 2 2 15 44 8 65 157

Banke 4 4

Bardiya 2 2

Dadeldhura 31 13 5 1 18 53 121

Dailekh 45 14 7 4 2 39 56 167

Darchula 18 60 37 2 26 33 176

Dhanusa 8 8

Dolakha 3 3

Dolpa 46 1 43 22 112

Doti 10 7 1 52 70

Gorkha 8 2 8 5 2 7 32

Humla 16 20 3 24 30 56 149

Jajarkot 37 3 1 25 4 56 126

Jumla 28 9 5 5 26 34 107

Kailali 65 1 33 3 49 43 194

Kalikot 7 1 2 6 15 43 74

Kanchanpur 14 11 18 9 52

Kavrepalanchok 2 2

Khotang 1 3 2 6

Makwanpur 5 7 12

Mugu 24 22 5 13 31 7 33 135

Pyuthan 14 1 12 19 46

Ramechhap 3 3

Rolpa 19 2 16 23 60

Rukum 14 39 31 84

Salyan 13 1 7 11 32

Saptari 10 2 7 19

Sindhupalchok 3 3

Siraha 2 2

Solukhumbu 1 1

Sunsari 4 2 2 3 11

Surkhet 6 12 18 36

Udayapur 8 15 22 17 65 127

Total Projects 595 233 26 75 151 564 84 2 1,011 2,741

Percentage 22% 9% 1% 3% 6% 21% 3% 0% 37% 100%

During this period, FFA activities have supported vulnerable communities to create assets aimed at reducing food insecurity and mitigate the effects of shocks while meeting their immediate food needs. Critical assets, in exchange for food and or cash have linked vulnerable and remote farmers to markets, increased agricultural production of small-holder farmers and provided safety nets; therefore, asset creation fostered an environment within which household incomes could rise13. Cash or the combination of food and cash was introduced in 2007 in those areas where households have better access to markets. Monitoring and evaluation reports have shown that cash has effectively served as an incentive and been used to meet food needs whereas food only has been the preferred modality in areas where farmers have little arable land, limited purchasing power and access to markets14. In all the cases, WFP implemented food, cash or the combination of the two taking into consideration market conditions, delivery opportunities and beneficiaries ‘preferences. Between 2007 and 2011, 70% was provided in food only, combination of cash and food represented 17% followed by cash only (13%). Training has accompanied FFA activities since assets creation programmes began in 1995. Trainings promoted skills, empowerment and sense of ownership, and helped communities to identify and prioritize their needs and build long-term capacities. Training on many different topics have been made available including seed production, vegetable/kitchen gardening and farmer field schools. Additional assets were reported to have been created by the beneficiaries as result of skill transfer provided by these trainings. In Nepal, there is a strong emphasis on transparency and accountability during all the stages of the implementation of FFA activities. Mechanisms to help ensure transparency include participation of User Groups in the entire decision making processes related to project planning, construction, sustainability & maintenance of assets created. To this end, project books were maintained by User Groups to record all details of the FFA project; in addition, public audits were conducted by Users’ committee (at least 2 times in a project period). In these audits, beneficiaries, members of user committees, VDC representatives and project partners participated in the meetings to review the timeliness and quality of the work as well as the beneficiary perspectives. 1.2 Data Availability The Country Office provided detailed FFA data and main figures on assets schemes, beneficiaries and geographical coverage over time for the years 2007-2011. 13

WFP More than Roads: Using markets to feed the hungry in Nepal 14

WFP Draft Country Programme 200319

A baseline survey was conducted in 2007, while mid-term evaluations were undertaken in 2008 and 2009. In 2010, 1,200 household surveys from both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households were carried out and the results were included in an end-line report. The survey found that 36% of households reported that their incomes had increased and that they recovered from shocks faster than non-programme households. In addition, 80% of the assets were used by at least half of the people in the community with schools, bridges and trails being the most functional and utilised15. Finally, most households believed that the training they received under FFA had or would improve their income or agricultural production. 1.3 Stakeholders and Users of the Evaluation

Table 3 provides an overview of the main stakeholders in the evaluation. A more detailed analysis of interests and roles of each stakeholders in the evaluation will be further refined in the Inception Report. Key direct stakeholders include those directly involved in the design and implementation of FFA projects including the FFA participants themselves. WFP worked closely with the Government of Nepal and International/local NGOs to implement its FFA activities creating synergies and enhancing the quality of the projects16. The Government of Nepal at the national and sub-national level has been one of the key partners with WFP under the RCIW programme; WFP has also worked closely with other UN agencies such as FAO on food security and agriculture-related activities. Indirect stakeholders include key donor agencies that support FFA activities and have, therefore, an interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and whether FFA interventions have met the objectives and expectations. Table 3: Main Evaluation Users & Stakeholders

15

WFP End of Project Report 10676.0 16

WFP End of Project Report PRRO 10676.0

Beneficiaries Donors Cooperating UN Agencies

Operational Governmental Partners

FFA Cooperating International Local NGOs

Vulnerable and

food security

Households

Communities

affected by

recurrent natural

shocks

Conflict-affected

populations

Women-headed

households

Indigenous

groups

Rural

communities

User Groups

European

Commission

Government of

Nepal

UN CERF

UK

USA

Netherlands

Germany

Canada

UNFPA

World Bank

FAO

UNICEF

UNDP

IFAD

Ministry of

Agriculture and

Cooperatives

Ministry of Local

Development

Village Development

Committee (VDC)

District Development

Committee (DDC)

Mercy Corps

International

Save the

Children

GIZ

Concern

Worldwide

Hellen Keller

International

Winrock

International

World

Education

The Mountain

Institute

Helvetas

Manohari Development

Institute

ADRA Nepal

Development Project

Services Centre

District Road Support

Programme

Ecards

Himalayan Health and

Environmental Service

National Trust for Nature

Conservation

Pro Public

SEBAC

Support Activities for Poor

Producers of Nepal

1.4 Communication with Stakeholders

See Section 6.5 of the TOR for further details on communication.

Key outputs will be produced in English. Field work with communities will be conducted in local languages; translation may be necessary. The final evaluation report will be summarized for the Executive Board in all UN official languages. The Summary Evaluation Report will be presented to the WFP Executive Board in November 2013. 1.5 Budget As outlined in 6.6 of the TOR, the evaluation will be funded from OE’s Programme Support and Administrative budget. The overall budget figure for Nepal is US 180,000, reduced by $20,000 because the inception mission was undertaken during the evaluability assessment and therefore, further inception phase analysis will be done as desk work. A detailed budget will be included in the Inception Report.

Guatemala Annex 6Bangladesh Annex 7Nepal Annex 8