ex action title eu contribution (eur) · · 2015-03-13ex action title eu contribution (eur) i)...

Pri

ori

ty

An

nex

Action title EU contribution

(EUR)

i) generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering innovation

1 Putting Research into Use for nutrition, sustainability

and resilience -PRUNSAR EUR 20 million

2 Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation

Systems - CDAIS EUR 12 million

3 Fortified foods EUR 5.5 million

4 Integrated Biological Control Applied Research

Programme -IBCARP EUR 12 million

ii) strengthening and promoting governance and capacity at the global,

continental, regional and national level, for all relevant stakeholders

5 Atlantic Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme -AOTTP- EUR 13.68 million

6 Food Security Impact, Resilience Sustainability and

Transformation FIRST EUR 30 million

7 Information for Nutrition Food Security Resilience

Decision Making-INFORMED EUR 25 million

8 Technical assistance for National Evaluation

Platforms for Nutrition TA-NEPN EUR 3.5 million

9 Asean Farmers Organisations Support Programme -

AFOSP EUR 15 million

iii) supporting the poor and food and nutrition insecure to react to crises

and strengthen resilience, including to the impacts of climate change.

10 Pro-Resilience Action -PRO-ACT EUR 70 million

SUPPORT MEASURES

11 Support Measures 2014 EUR 1 million

Total EU contribution to the Annual Action Programme 2014

and Annual Action Programme 2015 part I EUR 207.68 million

2 / 103

ANNEX 1

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2014 and

Annual Action Programme 2015 part I for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable

Agriculture under the Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic programme

Component 1: Generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering innovation

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Putting Research into Use for Nutrition, Sustainable

Agriculture and Resilience (PRUNSAR)

CRIS number: 2014/037-401

Total cost Total estimated cost: EUR 26.5 million

Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 20 million.

This action is co-financed by IFAD (International Fund for

Agricultural Development) for an amount of EUR 6.5 million

Aid method /

Management mode and

type of financing

Project Approach

Indirect management with IFAD

DAC-code 31182 Sector Agricultural

Research

2. RATIONALE AND CONTEXT

2.1. Summary of the action and its objectives

The overall objective of the action will be to put research into use at scale in sustainable

agricultural systems with large potential impacts on nutrition and resilience.

The purpose will be to develop and test innovative approaches that impact positively on the

livelihoods, nutrition or resilience of pilot rural communities and smallholder farmers and to

generate lessons for scaling up.

PRUNSAR has a focus on applied research. Projects (components of larger CGIAR research

programmes) are selected taking into account their potential to deliver impacts on the

livelihoods of smallholder farmers and poor rural communities, particularly focusing on

nutritional outcomes and resilience to stresses and shocks including those that are climate

related. Co-financing from IFAD, creates further opportunities for scaling up successful

research outcomes through rural development programmes.

PRUNSAR addresses the results ‘ensuring the success of global initiatives in research and

innovation’, and ‘exploring new strategic directions to put research into use and achieve

impact’ of the first component of the food and nutrition security theme of the GPGC multi-

annual indicative programme. It also contributes to targets related to nutrition, ecosystem

restoration and advisory services that are proposed in Corporate Results Framework prepared

by Commission services. PRUNSAR is located within the Strategy and Results Framework of

the CGIAR and its component research programmes, which have been developed through

broad stakeholder consultation.

3 / 103

2.2. Context

2.2.1. Global context

2.2.1.1. Economic and social situation and poverty analysis

While the world has seen substantial progress towards the Millennium Development Goals,

poverty persists and an estimated 842 million are still undernourished. Agriculture is usually

the most important sector driving growth in the least developed countries but there are

concerns that the rate of productivity increase of crops and livestock is faltering, and in some

cases failing to keep up with increasing demand.

The demand for food and other agricultural products in developing countries is expected to

approximately double by 2050 (as estimated from a 2005 baseline) due to a combination of

population growth and more diverse food preferences). There are particular challenges

associated with undernutrition, which kills an estimated 2.6 million children per year and

impairs the mental development of many millions more1. Hunger and undernutrition are

among the lagging targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Recent

performance on economic growth in developing countries has not always been matched by a

proportionate decline in undernutrition. A declining natural resource base, mounting

environmental pressures and the impacts of climate change, weaken the resilience of farmers

and rural communities.

2.2.1.2. Global development policy

The international community recognises the challenge of global food and nutrition security

and of strengthening resilience in the face of natural and human crises. The 2008 food price

crisis helped to galvanise efforts, leading to the L’Aquila Declaration, the revitalisation of the

World Committee on Food Security, and the SUN (Scaling up Nutrition) movement.

Recent Presidencies of the G8 and G20 recognise the importance of agricultural research and

innovation in supporting economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries and

the leading role played by the CGIAR in this context. These commitments have been echoed

by increasing donor contributions to agricultural research for development. African countries

have made a commitment to contribute 1 per cent of their agricultural GDP to agricultural

research.

2.2.2. Sector context: policies and challenges

In most low income countries the agricultural sector is still expected to play a primary role in

economic growth and poverty reduction. The challenge is to sustainably intensify production,

using soil and water resources efficiently while maintaining their health and minimising any

adverse environmental impacts, and to do so in an inclusive way that fosters equitable sharing

of benefits. As agriculture is nutrition-sensitive efforts should focus on understanding how

agricultural interventions lead to nutritional outcomes, to target support to those most likely to

achieve results and to measure progress.

Research plays an essential role in meeting these complex challenges, both by developing and

testing new technologies and by generating knowledge to inform approaches to policy and

institutional change. However for research to have impact the results must be accessible to

beneficiaries and appropriate to their needs. PRUNSAR focuses specifically on avenues of

research that are likely to lead to impact on the incomes, food and nutrition security of

smallholder farmers and poor rural communities, and to lessons that can inform scaling up

and broader dissemination.

1 COM (2013) 141

4 / 103

The reforms to the CGIAR over the period 2009-13 have aligned programmes to system level

outcomes on poverty reduction, food security, improved nutrition and sustainable natural

resource management. As these projected outcomes also closely align with the development

policy priorities of the EU, PRUNSAR will work through CGIAR research programmes to

achieve results that impact on livelihoods of smallholder farmers and poor rural communities.

This action is part of the first component (generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering

innovation) of the food and nutrition security theme of the GPGC multi-annual indicative

programme. It generates public goods and promotes adoption of new knowledge and

technologies, supporting two of the three results of this component: the success of global

initiatives in research and innovation, and exploring new strategic directions to put research

into use and achieve impact. It is also consistent with the Commission approach to research

and innovation for sustainable agriculture and food and nutrition security, providing support

to the global programmes of the CGIAR, focusing on adaptive research that can be put

directly into use, and working across the policy themes of nutrition, sustainable agriculture

and resilience.

2.3. Lessons learnt

A compilation of ROM results on agriculture and rural livelihoods from 2002 – 20132

included eight contracts for agricultural research for development. The ‘2008-10 EU

Contribution to the CGIAR’ scored ‘satisfactory (B)’ against all five ROM criteria of

relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and potential sustainability.

This sector-wide ROM report suggested that a project by project review would provide more

useful information and this has been implemented on samples of EU-supported CGIAR

projects and programmes annually since 2002 . In the 2012 review more than half of projects

reviewed scored satisfactory or better against all five ROM criteria. More recent reviews have

been even more impressive with the Generation Challenge Programme, developing stress

resistant crop varieties, and a project on innovation in the Andean region scoring ‘highly

satisfactory’ for three of the ROM criteria and ‘satisfactory’ two for the others. Results of the

2013 reviews are currently being compiled.

A lesson from these reviews was that research programmes improve sector productivity and

can attract partnerships with private sector and others to link research results with

development outcomes. While all research supported by development funds should lead to

impact, there needs to be a clear vision of impact pathways and the timelines, which will vary

according to the type of research being carried out. In general research requires long term

investment and that it is important to continue well performing projects through to completion

to capitalise on EU past investment and maximise potential impact. Logframes and

performance management frameworks must be adequate to track performance and guide

decisions on future support.

In 2011 the Commission sponsored a study to assess the extent to which its support to the

CGIAR has had an impact (or is likely to generate positive impacts) on food security and

poverty reduction through improving the agricultural practices and livelihoods of smallholder

farmers. This study concluded that EU-supported projects demonstrated reasonable success in

terms of uptake of results and impact at the farm level. Projects focusing directly on

productivity increases have the most impact on smallholder farmers, while it was less easy to

trace the direct impacts of projects focused on policy. Similarly projects that work closely

2 “Extension of ROM ACP study on the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Security and Rural Livelihoods

sector to Asia, Latin America and Neighbourhood regions”. DCI-FOOD 2013/333-799

5 / 103

with farmers and farmers groups, and which cooperate more closely with national and

regional research systems, are more likely to have impact than those that are more isolated.

This action builds on the recommendations of ROMs and of the 2011 review. It has a specific

focus on applied research carried out in close collaboration with beneficiaries and on scaling

up of tested technologies to maximise impact on smallholder farmers. It recognises the

partnerships and institutional arrangements that are required to promote uptake including

engagement of the private sector.

2.4. Complementary actions

Current EU commitments supporting agricultural research, extension and innovation at

global, regional and country level through a variety of instruments3 total approximately EUR

300 million4. Funding decisions recognise the comparative advantages of beneficiary

institutions in the context of their potential contribution of programmes to food security and

related objectives. Support to the CGIAR accounts for around one third of these

commitments.

This action complements ongoing support through the Food Security Thematic Programme to

CGIAR (EUR 82 million) and GFAR (EUR 8 million) respectively5, regional programmes

with FARA (EUR 14 million), AFAAS (EUR 5 million) (and sub-regional research

organisations ( EUR 32 million). It is also complementary with the ‘Integrated Biological

Control Applied Research Programme’ of ICIPE ( EUR 12 million) that is proposed in the

2014 Annual Action Plan of GPGCP, with the topic on sustainable intensification in the 2014

work programme of Horizon 2020 and the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on science,

technology and innovation within the context of the Joint Africa EU Strategy (JAES), which

has selected food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture as its first theme.

The action supports projects that are components of much larger CGIAR Research

Programmes (CRPs) that have been approved by the Fund Council as part of the 2010-12

CGIAR reforms. The CGIAR has a Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) that commits it to

deliver on outcomes of poverty reduction, food security, nutrition and natural resource

management. Projects funded under this action will deliver results related to intermediate

development outcomes (IDOs) towards these higher level goals. The Action is therefore an

integral part of the SRF and is complementary to actions of other donors to the CGIAR.

Given the geographical focus of this action, synergies will be sought with the SHARE

(Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience) and AGIR (Alliance Globale pour l’Initiative

Résilience Sahel) initiatives led by the EU that address vulnerability and resilience.

There is a much closer complementarity with IFAD, with projects being jointly identified for

co-financing under this action. Both EU and IFAD are interested in supporting research

projects that have clear links to development outcomes and tangible impacts in the field.

There are also potential links to rural development projects in IFAD’s loan portfolio that can

promote the scale-up of successful research outcomes and to development interventions in

food and nutrition security or sustainable agriculture at national level supported by geographic

instruments.

An ongoing evaluation of EU support to research and innovation for development will include

previous EU support to CGIAR and provide lessons for the implementation of the current

action.

3 Including FSTP, EDF, Accompanying Measures Sugar Protocol (DCI).

4 Estimate based on currently active programmes

5 Under Contribution Agreements with IFAD and FAO respectively.

6 / 103

2.5. Donor coordination

Coordination of donor support to the CGIAR takes place through the Fund Council, chaired

by the World Bank Vice-President. The Fund Council is an executive body, normally meeting

twice per year and taking decisions on the approval or rejection of research proposals

submitted by the CGIAR Consortium and on the prioritisation of funds among research

programmes and supporting activities. Europe is the largest regional donor to the CGIAR,

providing approximately half of the resources in the CGIAR Fund6. The Commission

currently occupies a seat on the Fund Council, along with six other EIARD members: France,

Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Coordination between European Member States and the European Commission on policies

and programming in ARD takes place through the European Initiative on Agricultural

Research for Development (EIARD)7. Effective coordination of European investments in

strengthening the CGIAR is one EIARD’s strategic objectives.

3. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

3.1. Objectives

The overall objective of the action will be to put research into use at scale in sustainable

agricultural systems with large potential impacts on nutrition and resilience.

The purpose will be to develop and test innovative approaches that impact positively on the

livelihoods, nutrition or resilience of pilot rural communities and smallholder farmers and to

generate lessons for scaling up.

3.2. Expected results and main activities

The action will deliver the following results:

1. Pro-poor scientific, technological and institutional innovations and knowledge,

with emphasis on the needs of low income smallholder farmers including women;

2. Evidence of the comparative effectiveness of alternative approaches to meeting

future needs for food and nutrition security and resilience to guide policy

decisions.

3. Capacity for pro-poor agricultural research and its uptake enhanced among

researchers, non-research stakeholders and institutions;

4. Partnerships established between research and non-research development

institutions for more effective uptake of research outputs.

5. Improved complementarities and synergies with agriculture and food security

programmes at country level.

Objectively verifiable indicators, means of verification and the assumptions underpinning

these objectives and results are specified in the logframe for this action.

The action comprises projects which have undergone IFAD’s process of quality assurance

and been reviewed by the Commission services. Projects have been identified on the basis that

they are likely to impact positively on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and poor rural

communities. All projects are based on sustainable agricultural systems, and are targeted to

6 Taking into account approval of this action, EU and Member States contribute 41%, and the

Commission alone 10% of the CGIAR Fund. Norway and Switzerland are also substantial donors. 7 COM (1997) 126

7 / 103

impacts on nutrition or on resilience or climate change adaptation. They are selected to build

on and complement support to CRPs under ongoing contracts and to explore new areas of

innovation. All are targeted to receive co-financing from IFAD and some have potential to

leverage funding for scale up from IFAD’s loan projects. They address the following research

questions:

Projects with a nutrition focus

How can we improve productivity and nutritional outcomes in crop-livestock

systems in central Africa (Humid tropics CRP)?

How can successful experience in aquaculture from Bangladesh be adapted

and scaled up to improve nutritional outcomes in Asian and African countries

(CRP Aquatic Agricultural Systems)?

How can food and fodder trees sustainably contribute to diets in eastern and

southern Africa (CRP Agriculture for Nutrition and Health)?

Projects focused on resilience and climate change adaptation

In arid and semi-arid areas (Drylands CRP) how can degraded land be restored

and put into productive use in Africa; and how can agricultural systems be

made more resilient in the areas most vulnerable to climate change (two

projects)?

How can adoption of stress-resistant rice varieties be scaled up in drought-

prone areas of Asia (GRISP8 CRP)?

How can root and tuber crops be used to reduce food vulnerability in south east

Asia (CRP Roots, tubers and bananas)?

Can spate irrigation be expanded to support adaptation to climate change in

Africa and Asia (CRP Water, Land and Ecosystems)?

Can bamboo be developed to diversify incomes and strengthen resilience in

Africa (CRP Forests, Trees and Agro-forestry)?

Can agro-biodiversity value chains be developed as a climate risk management

strategy for smallholder farmers (CRP Climate Change Agriculture and Food

Security)?

Results and activities for each CRP are specified in detailed proposals submitted by the lead

CGIAR centres to IFAD. Activities will be integral parts of broader CRPs and are included in

CRP detailed work plans and logframes. The CRPs selected include a broad range of activities

including data collection and analysis, laboratory-based development, trials on research

stations and farmers’ fields, capacity building, household surveys and economic and policy

analysis.

Indicators are selected considering Corporate Results Framework (CRF) prepared by the

Commission serivices and the indicative list in the GPGCP. In particular the indicator

‘agricultural and pastoral ecosystems restored’, ‘number of women and children benefitting

from nutrition related programme’ and ‘number of farmers receiving advisory services’ from

the CRF are included in the logframe. Of the nine indicative indicators in the GPGCP, two are

addressed in PRUNSAR design, three are included in the logframe, and one is a programme

level indicator to which PRUNSAR will contribute. Baselines will be compiled for measuring

progress towards milestones and targets.

8 Global Rice Science Partnership

8 / 103

3.3. Risks and assumptions

The main risks associated with this intervention are as follows:

i) Mechanisms and linkages to enable smallholder farmers to access and utilise

public goods from research programmes may not work effectively (medium

risk, high impact);

ii) Diverse demands and visions for agricultural research may not be translated

into coherent programmes and effective research outputs (low risk, high

impact);

iii) Lack of attention to complementary investments in rural infrastructure,

advisory services or micro-finance may inhibit uptake or up-scaling of results

(medium risk, medium impact);

iv) Developing country governments do not promote policies that provide an

enabling environment for farmers to take up and profit from research products;

The programme will address the above risks by:

i) Choosing projects that have clearly defined impact pathways to deliver results

of research to users, and in some cases, already proven mechanisms for scaling

up. Mechanisms will be in place to monitor results measure pro-poor

outcomes.

ii) Ensuring that the projects chosen are demand driven and based on the priority

needs of beneficiaries.

iii) Ensuring the research outputs are appropriate, given available infrastructure

and support services.

iv) Working closely with government partners and ensuring that decision makers

are aware of the results of research and their implications for policy or

institutional support.

3.4. Cross-cutting issues

The CGIAR adopted a gender strategy in 2013 and gender is well integrated in all CRPs.

Gender specific indicators and targets will be reported where appropriate, in particular for the

nutrition related interventions so that PRUNSAR can report against the CRF target.

Environmental sustainability is at the heart of this action. Component projects specifically

address desertification or agro-biodiversity, and at least 50% of the component projects will

be ‘climate smart’ benefiting adaptation and/or mitigation

3.5. Stakeholders

The main stakeholders are research institutions and practitioners, global and regional

organisations, donors, national governments, producers’ organisations, non-governmental

organisations and the private sector. Ultimate beneficiaries are mainly the rural poor:

smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk, and landless labourers.

The CGIAR reforms strongly emphasised the need for research to respond to demand and to

strengthen partnerships to deliver impact. Regional priorities were identified by multi-

stakeholder constituency and presented to the first Global Conference on Agricultural

Research for Development (GCARD) in 2010, providing an input to the identification of the

CRPs. Subsequently, CRPs held regional workshops in developing proposals to the Fund

Council. Recognition of the partnerships needed to translate research results into development

outcomes was one of the key factors in CRP approval.

Stakeholder ownership can be addressed at two levels. At the global level there is broad buy

in for the role of agricultural research and innovation in contributing to development

9 / 103

challenges, and to the key role of public sector research, and the CGIAR as the main

international actor in this area. This is evidenced by statements in the UN, the G8 and G20.

The signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between the African Union Commission

and the CGIAR in 2013 shows that African governments recognise the potential contribution

of CGIAR research to solving Africa’s food security problems.

The individual projects foreseen for support under this Action have been developed in

collaboration with national stakeholders with clearly identified target groups in mind. Some of

these build on existing partnerships with government agencies, NGOs or the private sector.

Beneficiaries will be directly involved in testing of research products in the field, capacity

building will be addressed and there will be emphasis on developing durable communities of

practice that are self-sustaining. At the country level research projects will collaborate with

EU Delegations and IFAD field offices to promote complementarities, synergies and lesson

sharing with EU and IFAD development programmes.

4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

4.1. Financing agreement

In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with the

partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.

4.2. Indicative operational implementation period

The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the activities

described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 60 months from the adoption of this

Action Document, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer

in the relevant agreements. The European Parliament and the relevant Committee shall be

informed of the extension of the operational implementation period within one month of that

extension being granted.

4.3. Implementation components and modules

4.3.1. Indirect management with an international organisation

This action with the objective of ‘developing and testing innovative approaches that impact

positively on the livelihoods, nutrition or resilience of pilot rural communities and

smallholder farmers and to generate lessons for scaling up’ may be implemented in indirect

management with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in accordance

with Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. This implementation is

justified because IFAD has specific expertise in managing agricultural research, and its

position as a donor and technical partner of the CGIAR for the same action.

The entrusted entity, which is a co-funder of the action would:

Assist the European Commission in the quality assurance of CGIAR research

programmes to be funded.

Under a Contribution Agreement with the World Bank (as Trustee) channel EU

resources through the CGIAR Fund, accepting fiduciary liability for EU funds and

thereby protecting the EU against financial risks 9.

Concluding grant agreements with international research centres for delivery of

specific outputs and activities within the framework of the CGIAR Research

Programmes.

9 The CGIAR reforms of 2010-12 have put in place a CGIAR Fund, managed by the World Bank, to

harmonise donor contributions and reduce transaction costs. There is no additional overhead in

channelling resources through the CGIAR Fund.

10 / 103

Review and approve the technical and financial reports submitted by the CGIAR

centres benefiting from the contribution and preparing a consolidated report.

Ensure that adequate monitoring arrangements for the programmes are in place

and work towards joint monitoring in collaboration with Fund Council members

and the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement.

The entrusted entity is currently undergoing the ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article

61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In anticipation of the results of this review,

the responsible authorising officer deems that, based on a preliminary evaluation and on the

long-standing and problem-free cooperation with this entity, it can be entrusted with budget-

implementation tasks under indirect management.

4.4. Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement and grants

The geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in

procurement and grant award procedures and in terms of origin of supplies purchased as

established in the basic act shall apply.

4.5. Indicative budget

Module Amount in EUR

thousands

Third party

contribution

(indicative,

where known)

4.3.4. – Indirect management with IFAD 20,000 6,500

Including – Evaluation and audit (50) N.A.

Including – Communication and visibility (100) N.A.

Totals 20,000 6,500

4.6. Performance monitoring

Appropriate indicators, targets and milestones are identified in the logframe for the action.

IFAD will monitor progress annually and include a status report in the annual technical and

financial reports submitted to the European Commission. These annual reports will be based

on reporting from research centres to IFAD.

At the level of the CGIAR system and the CRPs an Independent Evaluation Arrangement

(IEA) commissions evaluations of CRPs and establishes standards and procedures for

monitoring performance of CRP components. Performance monitoring is linked to a

harmonised system of annual progress reporting by which CRPs report progress against

indicators at output and purpose level. The Commission and IFAD have participated in a

working group of the Fund Council that established common sets of indicators and baseline

guidance. CRPs are working to develop intermediate development outcomes to enable

accurate tracking of progress along impact pathways.

A budgetary allocation will be retained for IFAD to commission monitoring of selected EU-

supported programmes in coordination with the work programme of the IEA and the specific

needs of the EU.

EU support through IFAD is subject to review by an annual senior level meeting in

accordance with the MoU between the organisations. EU support to the CGIAR will be

included in the agenda for this meeting. A separate bilateral annual meeting specifically

reviews progress on actions in support of the CGIAR.

11 / 103

4.7. Evaluation and audit

Each CGIAR centre is audited on an annual basis and audit reports are sent to the European

Commission through IFAD. Moreover, ad hoc audits may also be carried out by the European

Commission and/or by IFAD.

In coordination with IFAD and the IEA, a mid-term review (MTR) of EU support will be

commissioned in the third year of the action. Either a final review or an ex-post evaluation

will be commissioned based on the MTR and subsequent progress of the action.

4.8. Communication and visibility

Communication and visibility of the EU is a legal obligation for all external actions funded by

the EU.

This action shall contain communication and visibility measures which shall be based on a

specific Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action, to be elaborated before the start of

implementation and supported with the budget indicated in section 4.5 above.

The measures shall be implemented either (a) by the Commission, and/or (b) by the partner

country, contractors, grant beneficiaries and entrusted entities. Appropriate contractual

obligations shall be included in, respectively, financing agreements, procurement and grant

contracts, and delegation agreements.

The Joint Visibility Guidelines for EU-UN Action in the field shall be used to establish the

Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action and the appropriate contractual obligations.

12 / 103

ANNEX 2





1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems

(CDAIS) (CRIS: 2014/351-835)

Total cost Total estimated cost: €13,500,000

Total amount of EU budget contribution: €12,000,000

Consortium contribution: €1,500,000

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of

financing

Direct management: grant – direct award

DAC-code 31181 Sector Agricultural

extension



G20 agriculture ministers have established the Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP) to

coordinate capacity development (CD) on agricultural innovation systems (AIS). This action

will support the normative role of TAP and the piloting of CD in 8 pilot countries to support

smallholder farmers and others actors on value chains. It builds on previous national,

European and global experience, and complements existing efforts to support AIS

partnerships between government ministries, research organisations, advisory services,

tertiary education, farmer organisations and the private sector.

The Overall objective is: Agricultural innovation systems are efficient and sustainable in

meeting demands of smallholder farmers, agri-business and consumers, and the purpose is: A

global partnership on Capacity Development in Agricultural Innovation Systems is

established on a sustainable footing, with needs assessed and approaches and validated in 8

pilot countries.

The action addresses all three results of the first component of the food and nutrition security

and sustainable agriculture theme under the Global Public Goods and Challenges Programme

(GPGCP) multi-annual plan (MIP): ensuring the success of global initiatives in research and

innovation’, European coordination and influence, and ‘exploring new strategic directions to

put research into use and achieve impact’, and delivers against an indicator in the Corporate

Results Framework developed by Commission services.

2.2. Context

2.2.1. Global and Regional context


Public investment in agriculture is necessary to drive sustainable growth and poverty

reduction in most developing countries. This includes investment in research and innovation

to keep ahead of the yield curve. Although the emerging economies such as China, India and

Brazil have large national agricultural research systems (NARS) most low income countries

13 / 103

lack the individual, organizational and institutional capacities to successfully develop and

diffuse agricultural innovations.

2.2.1.2. Global and Regional development policy

Developing countries vary in their commitment to agriculture and to policies to stimulate

sustainable growth in the sector. In Africa, governments endorsed CAADP (Comprehensive

Africa Agriculture Development Plan), which commits them to invest 10% of national GDP

in the agriculture sector. Although there has been an increase in investment in agricultural

research over the last decade, most is attributable to developed and emerging economies. In

low income countries research spending is typically volatile as it usually depends on donor

support. In line with CAADP commitments African countries are expected to contribute 1%

of agricultural GDP to agricultural research but only 8 had achieved this target by 201110

.

CD is an essential element of the Renewed Partnership to End Hunger Regional Initiative in

Africa and its road map. The Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa, launched in 2014 -

African Year of Agriculture and Food Security – calls for a critical mass of capacity for

research and innovation in all African countries, as well as for regional centres of excellence.


Capacity in agricultural research and innovation in developing countries is usually weak and

CD investments are rarely demand-driven. Poor coordination between donor-led initiatives

and short life of projects limits cross country learning and sustainability of any gains.

Interventions often focus excessively on productivity while future agricultural systems need to

be productive, profitable, climate smart, socially inclusive and environmentally sound, in line

with the emerging Sustainable Development Goals.

Underlying this overall problem is the dominant “technology transfer” model, whereby

technology “generation”, “dissemination” and “adoption” are separate sequential systematic

steps, as opposed to an integrated and systemic approach to innovation in agriculture. The

organisational model of research institutes, universities, the individual capacities of their staff,

still reflect and reproduce a vision of development based on disciplinary boundaries. Such

organisations are also very often severely underfunded.

The emergence of TAP, an initiative of G20 Agriculture Ministers in 2012, provides an

opportunity to tackle problems of weak capacity in a systematic way. Both TAP and GFAR

(Global Forum on Agricultural Research) have adopted the AIS11

as an overarching

framework linking education, research, and extension to innovation. Focusing CD around AIS

opens opportunities to raise income for smallholder farmers and others on the value chains

linking farmers to markets and to stimulate job creation12

.

The Action is consistent with the focus on sustainable agriculture as a driver of growth in the

EU development policy – Agenda for Change (COM (2011) 637), which refers to the

importance of supporting capacity to carry out and use the results of research. CDAIS

addresses all three results of the first component of the GPGC-FSSA multi-annual indicative

plan: ensuring success of a global initiative on capacity development (TAP), utilising

European expertise through the AGRINATURA network13

, and promoting new ways to put

11

An innovation system is defined as 'networks of organisations or actors, together with their supporting

institutions and policies that bring new products, processes and forms of innovation into economic use'

In the context of innovation in rural areas in developing countries the 'actors' may be farmers and their

organisations, community groups, governmental or non-governmental agencies, or private business. 12

A value chain is the interrelated sequence of primary production, transformation, trade, and marketing of

agricultural products and encompasses storage, handling, processing and postharvest activities. 13

AGRINATURA is proposed to implement the project together with FAO.

14 / 103

research into use through the AIS model. It also addresses the indicator ‘access to extension

services’ in the Corporate Results Framework developed by Commission services.

2.3. Lessons learnt

A review of CD for agricultural research for development (ARD) conducted for EIARD14

in

2012, concluded that:

1. CD is needed for investments in agricultural research for development to generate

sustainable returns;

2. A stronger focus on the organisational and institutional levels is needed, as opposed to

individual training;

3. CD efforts should focus on multi-stakeholder processes and open innovation

partnerships, and not be restricted to individual research organisations or higher

education institutes;

4. Greater attention should be given to the use of participatory methods to identify

capacity needs and facilitate the institutionalisation of CD processes and outputs;

5. Currently, the planning, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment of CD

initiatives is weak and greater efforts are needed to design and adopt harmonized

approaches and to generate and share relevant information;

6. There are significant opportunities to enhance the benefits of CD for ARD, and that

European organisation are well placed to help shape such initiatives.

In 2009 FAO15

conducted an in-depth evaluation of efforts in six African countries and a

meta-synthesis of past evaluations. It concluded that too much emphasis had been given to

immediate results and outputs, and too little to sustainability, with most CD activities focused

on individuals and transfer of technical skills, and with insufficient emphasis on addressing

the enabling environment (policies, norms, values, legislation) to ensure incentives for

improving capacity.

Recent regional needs assessments by TAP16

in Africa, Central America and South Asia, have

also identified three major constraints: i) CD interventions from internal and external actors

are not sufficiently targeted to meet the AIS capacity needs of tropical countries; ii) CD

interventions are frequently implemented independently from each other by different actors,

and are often too small in scale, narrow in scope, and neglecting the institutional and

organizational capacity dimension; and iii) the lack of high-level political and operational

mechanisms limits the coordination of interventions for CD in tropical AIS.


At the global level CDAIS complements and adds value to the following initiatives supported

by the EU and other donors:

GFAR’s (Global Forum for Agricultural Research) Medium Term Plan (2013-2016),

which has a specific AIS CD objective.

CGIAR, which EU supports through selected research programmes. The CGIAR is

developing a CD strategy and currently chairs the TAP Global Task Force (GTF) to

steer the development of the common CD Framework17

.

14

Policy Brief on Capacity Development for agricultural research for development.

http://www.eiard.org/media/uploads/File/documents/policy%20briefs/EIARD%201.1%20capacity%20d

evelopment%20for%20ARD%20policy%20brief%20final.pdf 15

Evaluation of FAO’s Activities On CD In

Africa.http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/capacity_building/PC104-

5EvaluationCapacityDevelopmentAfricaK8635E.pdf 16

http://www.tropagplatform.org/ 17

EFARD (European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development) currently co-chairs of the TAP GTF.

http://www.eiard.org/media/uploads/File/documents/policy%20briefs/EIARD%201.1%20capacity%20development%20for%20ARD%20policy%20brief%20final.pdf

http://www.eiard.org/media/uploads/File/documents/policy%20briefs/EIARD%201.1%20capacity%20development%20for%20ARD%20policy%20brief%20final.pdf

15 / 103

The ACP (Africa Caribbean Pacific) research for sustainable development grants

which, inter alia, support CD of institutions to manage research.

The Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on science, technology and innovation

within the context of the Joint Africa EU Strategy (JAES), which has selected food

and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture as its first theme

Research and innovation projects financed under FP7 and Horizon 2020

An initiative co-financed by EU and FAO to engage expertise to support developing

country governments and regional organisations to better integrate food and nutrition

and sustainable agriculture issues in policies18

.

Also feeding into the projects CD assessments will be FAO’s Wide Strategy on Partnerships,

its Corporate Strategy on CD and CD Portal, its South-South Cooperation Strategy, its

initiative to enhance the adoption of technologies and practices for small agricultural

producers, and its support to GFAR and GFRAS (Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services).

In Africa project activities are in line with the CAADP National Agriculture and Food

Security Investment Plans and Country Core Education Groups19

. They complement CD

initiatives of FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa), AFAAS (African Forum for

Agricultural Advisory Services) and the sub-regional research organisations - CORAF (West

and Central Africa), ASARECA (Eastern and Central Africa) and CCARDESA (Southern

Africa). All receive core support from the EU to implement their medium term operational

plans (MTOPs).

The EU also supports African Human Capital in Science, Technology and Agripreneurship

for Food Security Framework (AHC-STAFF) within FARA’s MTOP. FARA’s membership

of the TAP Steering Committee will facilitate close collaboration between AHC-STAFF and

CDAIS to ensure that activities are complementary. PAEPARD (Platform for African

European Partnership on Agricultural Research for Development), co-led by FARA and

AGRINATURA, may guide some of CDAIS activities in African pilot countries. CDAIS will

collaborate with TEAM Africa (Tertiary Education in Agriculture Mechanism) and the Africa

Higher Education Centres of Excellence project supported by World Bank to ensure there is

no overlap in project activities.


TAP fosters capacity development interventions that acknowledge national leadership and

respond to national demands, based on strong partnerships. The TAP Steering Committee and

TAP partners will engage in policy dialogue at global level (global conferences, G20 MACS,

etc) for the adoption of a common framework for capacity development by G20 members

states, TAP partners, donors and other providers of capacity development for agricultural

innovation systems.

At country level the project will take advantage of donor coordination groups in the

agriculture or rural development sector. The FAO country representative can advocate for the

application of the common framework and for more coherence in capacity development by

donors.

18

Policies for Progress is a proposed action under the 2014 action plan of GPGCP. 19

See Workshop Report on Strategic issues around capacity development for agricultural innovation in Africa.

http://www.fara-

africa.org/media/uploads/library/docs/fara_publications/joint_planning_workshop_report_final.pdf

16 / 103


3.1. Objectives

The Overall objective is: ‘agricultural innovation systems are efficient and sustainable in

meeting demands of small holder farmers, agri-business and consumers’, and the purpose is:

‘a global partnership on Capacity Development in Agricultural Innovation Systems is

established on a sustainable footing, with needs assessed and approaches and validated in 8

pilot countries’.

The 8 pilot countries were selected on the following basis:

Sustainable agriculture or food security is a focal sector in the EU country programme.

They were included in the TAP CD needs assessments carried out in 2013.

The Country Programming Framework (CPF) agreed by the government and FAO has

a focus on strengthening agricultural innovation systems.

A shortlist of countries was refined through consultations with FAO regional and country

offices, and their government contacts. EU Delegations were consulted in relevant countries

The selection takes into account the interest of the respective governments in the proposed

programme as well as its complementarity with overall agricultural development agenda of

each country. Pilots are listed below:

Africa: Angola, Ethiopia, Niger, Rwanda,

Asia: Bangladesh, Laos,

Latin America: Guatemala, Honduras.


The Expected Results are as follows:

1. An effective global mechanism is established to promote, coordinate and evaluate

capacity development (CD) approaches to strengthen Agricultural Innovation Systems

(AIS).

2. CD needs and existing provision for strengthening agricultural innovation in 8 pilot

countries are defined accurately through inclusive country-led multi-stakeholder

processes that include the private sector

3. CD interventions in AIS within 8 pilot countries are demand-driven and efficient,

integrating the development of individual competencies, organizational capacities and

enabling policies around priority themes and value chains, benefiting smallholder

farmers.

CDAIS will be jointly implemented by FAO and AGRINATURA. FAO is primarily

responsible for Result 1 through the TAP mechanism, the main thrust of AGRINATURA’s

work will be in Result 3 and both FAO and AGRINATURA will have substantive

involvement in Result 2. However both implementing partners will each have responsibilities

under all three result areas. Activities are specified in the CDAIS logframe and

responsibilities will be delineated and specified in a grant contract with both parties.. National

coordinators will be appointed by the host governments to lead activities in the pilot countries.

A Management Committee, including members from TAP, AGRINATURA and FAO will

oversee implementation of the project. The CDAIS Management Committee will report to the

TAP Steering Committee, on which the EU will seek representation.

17 / 103

During the first six months CDAIS will develop a common framework for capacity

development. Subsequently, country based capacity needs assessments will be conducted and

capacity development intervention plans formulated.

Based on needs assessments and CD plans specific value chains will be targeted with tailor

made interventions. These will focus on improving capacity for joint innovation within value

chain partnerships, and also on improving the organisational culture, practices and procedures

of key stakeholder organisations. The project will build on and strengthen innovation

platforms in countries where these already exist or assist in establishing them in countries

without such mechanisms. Policy dialogue and CD market places will be organized to

improve the enabling environment for capacity development and increase coherence in

approaches for delivery. Lessons learned will be documented and shared at country, regional

and global level.


Risks and propose mitigating measures are as follows:

Multiple project partners and global, regional and national levels do not

communicate effectively and in a timely fashion (medium risk; high impact).

Mitigation: a capable and efficient project management system at each level with

clear lines of responsibility. Communication to reduce this risk will be included in

the action.

Delays in disbursement to project partners due to the complex partnerships involved

in this project, affect motivation and continuity of actions (medium risk; medium

impact). Mitigation: project management will pay particular attention to timely

narrative and financial reporting, and FAO and AGRINATURA will seek ways to

bring flexibility to managing complex partnerships.

Within participating countries, multi-stakeholders partnerships/platforms do not

share/prioritize project objectives or contribute to planned activities (medium risk;

medium impact). Mitigation measures include advocacy, coordination and

partnership brokering activities as part of the action. Principal TAP partners will

advocate for engagement with agencies in G-20 and developing countries.


Most smallholder farmers are women and CDAIS will include a specific focus on women’s

role in specific value chains. Furthermore there is an age crisis in rural areas as the youth

leave farming in search of other occupations. CDAIS will therefore also focus on youth and

with cross-cutting issues concerned with social equity. Many innovations involve trade-offs

between income generation, social equity and environmental sustainability and may also be

affected by climate variability and change. Raising awareness of these, and methods to

evaluate them, will be an important consideration. Gender and environmental factors will be

included as indicators of successful innovation systems at various stages of the project

activities (assessments, tool development, evaluation of outcomes and impacts). The project

will share lessons learned and experiences of TAP partners on developing inclusive

agricultural innovation systems that empower and build capacities of socially disadvantaged

groups such as the rural poor, women and youth. CD interventions in selected value chains

will pay special attention to the inclusion of such groups.

3.5. Stakeholders

CDAIS was developed taking into account the results of the comprehensive consultation and

assessment process, involving key stakeholders at global, regional and national levels, carried

out during the inception phase of the TAP. This was commissioned and guided by FAO and

included studies in 27 countries in three regions.

18 / 103

Many key stakeholders of CDAIS are already actively involved as TAP partners These

include international associations and organisations, such as CABI, CTA, CGIAR, FAO,

GCHERA, GFAR, GFRAS, IFAD, the World Bank, and regional and national associations

and institutions representing agricultural research, higher education, rural advisory services,

or producer organizations. Several are currently represented in the TAP Steering Committee

and Global Task Force or the CD Expert Group. The main role of the global stakeholders is to

contribute to the common framework and tools for CD, to provide support to target countries

pilots and to evaluate the results.

At national level, key players include policy-makers, rural advisory services, civil society

(including farmers’ organisations and NGOs), higher education, agricultural research and the

private sector. These are the immediate beneficiaries of CDAIS, benefiting from the

improvement of existing or the development of new innovation mechanisms that are in

accordance with the common framework. The project will build partnerships between global,

regional and local stakeholders through the ‘TAP Policy Dialogue’ and the ‘TAP

Marketplace’. This includes North-South, South-South and triangular partnerships between

national institutions in the participating pilot countries and TAP partners. CDAIS will

collaborate with EU Delegations in pilot countries to promote complementarities, synergies

and lesson sharing with EU country programmes.

The ultimate beneficiaries are the smallholders, processors and other stakeholders in

agricultural value chains and innovations systems in the specific 8 pilot countries. These will

benefit from improved services from strengthened AIS, generating income, jobs and growth.




partner countries, referred to in Budget Article 184(2) (b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012.



described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 60 months from the adoption of this






The action will be implemented through a direct grant award with a consortium comprising

FAO and AGRINATURA –EEIG, taking account of the comparative advantage of each

organisation. AGRINATURA-EEIG will provide the coordinator who will be the focal point

for communicating with the European Commission, receiving funds and submitting technical

and financial progress reports.

4.3.1. Grant: direct award (direct management )

(a) Objectives of the grant, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and expected

results

The grantee will be responsible for conducting activities related to all three results of

“Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation Systems”. The division of responsibilities

has been agreed between the two members of the consortium.

19 / 103

(b) Justification of a direct grant

Under the responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the grant may be awarded

without a call for proposals to a consortium comprising AGRINATURA-EEIG and FAO.

Under the responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the recourse to an award of a

grant without a call for proposals is justified because the beneficiary has technical competence

and a high degree of specialisation in the subject matter.

(c) Essential selection and award criteria

The selection criteria require extensive experience of capacity development with an

agricultural innovation perspective in developing countries, together with an institutional link

to the TAP as the international framework, agreed by the G20, for coordinating such

activities.

AGRINATURA has the status of a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG) whose

members, comprising 31 European universities and research institutes are bound by Articles

of Association and General Power of Attorney. The annual turnover of AGRINATURA-EEIG

members was 958M EUR in 2012. AGRINATURA-EEIG‘s members have particular

expertise and experience in agricultural research and capacity building in developing

countries, which are directly in line with the project purpose. AGRINATURA-EEIG has

signed a general Memorandum of Understanding with FAO.

FAO has a global mandate for agriculture and food security and plays a leading role in

capacity development in this context. Based on this mandate FAO was tasked by the G20 to

host the TAP Secretariat.

(d) Maximum rate of co-financing

The maximum rate of co-financing for this grant is 90%. This percentage takes account of the

fact that this contract arises as part of an action coordinated by an international organisation

(FAO), that the EU is the sole donor for the action, and that in the absence of EU financing

AGRINATURA-EEIG would not carry out the prescribed activities as part of their regular

work programme.

If the proposed grant agreement with the consortium of AGRINATURA-EEIG and FAO

proves not to be feasible, two separate grant agreements will be made: between the EU and

AGRINATURA-EEIG, and between the EU and FAO.

(e) Indicative trimester to contact the potential direct grant beneficiary

The last trimester of 2014.






Module Amount in

EUR

thousands

Third party

contribution

(indicative,

where known)

4.3.2. – Direct grant (direct management) 12000 1500

including – Evaluation (135) N.A.

20 / 103

including. – Communication and visibility (100) N.A.

Totals 12,000 1,500


The Consortium of FAO and AGRINATURA will monitor progress against indicators and

targets, as expressed in the logframe. Some indicators, related to access to extension services

and new partnerships relate directly to the GCCP MIP and can contribute to the reporting

framework developed by Commission services.

The project will prepare annual progress reports, both technical and financial, for submission

to the European Commission. Progress will relate to indicators, milestones and targets in the

logframe of the action. FAO and AGRINATURA will coordinate the content of the reports.

Reports will describe progress achieved, results obtained and workplan for the subsequent

reporting period. CDAIS will make also report on progress to the TAP Steering Committee.


An independent Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) following FAO evaluation guidance will be

undertaken during year three of the project. FAO’s Office of Evaluation, in consultation with

AGRINATURA, the EU, the FAO Research and Extension Unit, and the national programme

directors, will organize and backstop the MTE and provide quality Assurance of the final

report.

An independent Final Evaluation will be completed within six months of the actual

completion date of the project, taking account of the dates of the direct grant agreement. It

will aim at identifying project outcomes, their sustainability and actual or potential impacts.

The Consortium will provide an expenditure verification report prepared by an auditor

approved by the Commission. This report will accompany each request for payment. The

auditor will examine whether costs declared by the Beneficiaries and the revenue of the

Action are real, accurately recorded and eligible.



the EU.








The Communication and Visibility Manual for European Union External Action shall be used

to establish the Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action and the appropriate

contractual obligations.

21 / 103

ANNEX 3





1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number “Fortified Food”


Total cost Total estimated cost: EUR 5,500,000

Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 5,500,000

Aid method /

Management mode and

type of financing

Project Approach

Direct management - procurement of services

DAC-code 12240 Sector Basic Nutrition

2. RATIONALE AND CONTEXT20


The proposed intervention aims at contributing to the eradication of under-nutrition

among vulnerable populations, by enhancing resilience through food fortification.

Working with local producers and products will allow reaching the most vulnerable

strata of the population. The programme of food fortification is divided into 2

interlinked components:

i) technical assistance (TA) component, to be launched by end 2014 and lasting for

the whole duration of the intervention; and

ii) pilot projects component, based upon expressions of interest from EU Delegations

and supported by the TA to be launched by 2016

The present action document covers the TA component only. Specific objective of the

TA component is that the Institutional and technical capacities of beneficiary countries

related to food fortification are strengthened through institutional and technical

support on specific subjects such as legal issues, economic analysis, evidence based

policy guidance on nutrition, etc.

The geographic coverage of the action will be worldwide, with specific focus on sub-

Saharan Africa (SSA).

2.2. Context



About 842 million people worldwide are chronically undernourished and more than 3 million

children die every year due to under-nutrition. It is estimated that about 11% of GDP is lost to

under-nutrition every year. Under-nutrition reduces a nation’s economic advancement by at

least 8% due to direct productivity, poorer cognition and reduced schooling related losses.

20

For the sake of clarity, the following definitions are adopted in the present document: Intervention: the whole

programme of food fortification; Components: 1) TA and 2) pilot projects respectively; Action: implementing

document for each component.

22 / 103

Good nutrition is acknowledged as the cornerstone for survival, health and development (Cf.

Lancet review – 2009 and 2013- and the impact of fortification). Because many families in

developing countries have poverty-related challenges in accessing balanced diet necessary for

good nutrition, governments and other stakeholders have recognised the need to improve

nutritional quality and diversity of available foods among other strategies.

Deficiencies of essential vitamins and minerals are widespread and have substantial adverse

effects on child survival and development21

. Deficiencies of vitamin A and zinc negatively

affect child health and survival, and deficiencies of iodine and iron, together with stunting,

contribute to children not reaching their developmental potential. Iron and calcium

deficiencies contribute substantially to maternal deaths: anaemia is suspected to lead to 23%

of total maternal deaths, while calcium deficiency increases the risk of preeclampsia,

responsible for 19% of total maternal deaths.

Continued investment in nutrition-specific interventions and delivery strategies to reach poor

segments of the population at greatest risk can make a substantial difference. Lancet 2013

published a simulation22

on ten proven nutrition-specific interventions aimed at scaling-up to

90% of the population in 34 high nutrition burden countries. The simulation shows that over

900,000 lives could be saved with a global investment of US$ 9.6 billion per year, out of

which US$ 3.7 billion for micronutrient interventions, US$0.9 billion for educational

interventions, US$ 2.6 billion for management of severe acute malnutrition and US$ 2.3

billion for provision of food to pregnant women and children between 6 and 23 months in

poor households. The overall cost per discounted life-year saved is US$ 370. Under the

scenario modelled in the simulation, micronutrient supplementation alone could save an

average of 145,000 lives (216,000 in the best scenario).

2.2.1.2. EU development policy

There is a growing global interest in tackling under-nutrition and the EU is increasing its

support in this area. The 2010 EU Food Security Policy constitutes the overall policy

framework on food and nutrition security, complemented by recent, more detailed policies

and strategies. In concrete terms, the EU supports developing countries in increasing the

availability of food, providing households with better access to food; improving the quality of

food and ensuring adequate intake; and preventing and managing crises. An implementation

plan to operationalise the 2010 EU Policy and enhance coordination, coherence and

accountability of EU Member States’ action in food and nutrition security has been adopted in

2013.

In 2012 Commissioner Piebalgs committed to support partner countries in reducing stunting

in 7 million children by 2025 and at the 2013 G8 Nutrition for Growth high-level event the

Commission pledged to devote € 3.5 billion in 2014-2020 to reach this goal. This was a major

step to ensure credible and accountable development aid because for the first time the EU set

the target it wants to achieve before pledging financial support. To this end, an EU

Communication23

, to enhance maternal and child nutrition has been adopted by Council in

2013, with a particular focus on reducing chronic under-nutrition, and an Action Plan which

details how the EU will reach its target will be adopted by mid-2014. Both these documents

represent the framework and guiding principles for the proposed action. More than forty

countries have chosen nutrition as a target for intervention in their 2014-2020 National

Indicative Programme.

21

Black RE, et alii: Maternal and child under-nutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income

countries. Lancet 2013. 22

Bhutta ZA, et alii: Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be

done and at what cost? Lancet 2013. 23

COM(2013)141 “Enhancing maternal and child nutrition in external assistance: an EU policy framework”

23 / 103

The Council adopted in October 2012 the EC Communication on resilience24

, in which food

and nutrition security is identified as one of the key aspects. Access to and availability of food

(including micronutrient rich food) are key elements for reducing vulnerability and enhancing

resilience in poor and destitute populations.


Food fortification is the practice of deliberately increasing the content of an essential

micronutrient, (vitamins, minerals, amino-acids, etc.) in a food, so as to improve the

nutritional quality of the food and provide a public health benefit with minimal risk to

health25

. Food fortification was identified by the WHO and FAO as one of four strategies to

reduce the prevalence of nutrient deficiencies at the global level. In Sub-Saharan Africa

(SSA) food fortification has been initially done voluntarily by some food manufacturers;

however, in the recent past countries are increasingly passing legislation that makes it

mandatory for food manufacturers to fortify certain foods. At present, 79 countries worldwide

(19 of which in SSA) have officially adopted mandatory food fortification for at least one

product26

. Several countries in East, Central and Southern Africa have not yet adopted

mandatory food fortification laws in spite of their high malnutrition index.

More detailed and comprehensive information on nutrition policies and programmes

encompassing food fortification in the world are given in the WHO’s “Global Nutrition

Policy Review27

”. WHO highlighted that 122 out of the 123 countries that responded

indicated that they had policies, strategies, action plans, programmes or regulations that were

relevant to nutrition. However, these policies are often partial and not properly supported by

implementation documents and consistent budget, and seldom harmonised with those of

neighbouring countries.

The present action will be supported by the thematic programme Global Public Goods and

Challenges (GPGC) under the component "Generating and exchanging knowledge and

fostering innovation”. Indeed the pilot nature of the proposed actions fits with all three

components28

of the GPGC’s strategic area “Food and nutrition security and sustainable

agriculture”. Moreover, the present action aims at providing EU Delegations and the

Commission with empiric and evidence based examples of suitable actions on food

fortification that could be further replicated.

2.3. Lessons learnt

Food fortification has been practiced since eighty years in industrialised countries particularly

to restore nutrients lost during food processing. This has played a crucial role in eradicating

diseases associated with deficiency of some micronutrients particularly the B vitamins.

Deficiencies of other micronutrients including vitamins A and D, iron and iodine have also

been successfully controlled in some industrialised countries through food fortification. On a

related side, interesting experiences on bio-fortified food have been recently carried out in

Nigeria and Uganda on vitamin A bio-fortified potatoes (orange sweet potatoes), zinc

enriched rice in Bangladesh and iron-rich millet or maize in India. These activities can make

the object of accompanying measures to those foreseen in the proposed intervention.

24

COM(2012)586 “The EU approach to resilience: learning from food security crises” 25

Allen L., et alii. Guidelines on food fortification with micronutrients. Geneva: WHO, 2006. 26

Source Food Fortification Initiative - FFI (http://www.ffinetwork.org/why_fortify/) 27

WHO, 2013. Global nutrition policy review: What does it take to scale up nutrition action? Geneva,

Switzerland. (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/84408/1/9789241505529_eng.pdf?ua=1) 28

Component 1: Generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering innovation; Component 2:

Strengthening and promoting governance and capacity at the global, continental, regional and national level, for

all relevant stakeholders; Component 3: Supporting the poor and food and nutrition insecure to react to crises

and strengthen resilience.

http://www.ffinetwork.org/why_fortify/

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/84408/1/9789241505529_eng.pdf?ua=1

24 / 103

Salt fortification with iodine has had huge accomplishment in reduction of iodine deficiency

globally, with many countries now practicing universal salt iodization. Such success has led

to increased interest and introduction of fortification to other products including cereal

products, margarine, sugar, condiments and infant foods with specific micronutrients.

Application of mass food fortification has been appreciated as is a quick, cost-effective and

safe means of reaching large populations that are at risk of micronutrient deficiency without a

change in the eating patterns of the populations. Targeted fortification has also been shown to

improve nutritional status of population subgroups with special needs.


Due to the many underlying factors of under-nutrition, many programs that aim to encourage

breastfeeding for infants and children, increase variety and access to food, improve health

conditions and care, and implement supplementation in needed contexts are complementary

actions. According to WHO Food fortification cannot replace diet diversification: "In the

long-term, measures for the prevention and control of micronutrient deficiencies should be

based on diet diversification and consumer education about how to choose foods that provide

a balanced diet, including the necessary vitamins and minerals."

It is only a coordinated approach between complementary activities that will help reducing

stunting, as it is highlighted and promoted in the EU Nutrition Action Plan and the SUN

movement.

The SUN Movement29

-supported by the EU and 8 Member States- works to bring together

people from different sectors to foster for high level political commitment on nutrition at

country, donors and partners level. Food fortification is among the high impact policies for

reduction of under-nutrition as recommended within the framework of the SUN Movement.

The Nutrition Action Plan, operationalizing the EU Communication on nutrition covers

external assistance to address the main causes of under-nutrition by focusing on three strategic

priority: i) Enhance mobilisation and political commitment for nutrition; ii) Scale up actions

at country level; and iii) Strengthening the expertise and the knowledge-base. The

intervention of food fortification is part of the implementation of the Nutrition Action Plan,

interlinked with other nutrition sensitive intervention.

The International Council for Iodine Deficiency Disorders (ICCIDD) Global Network

specifically focusses on iodine deficiency. The network aims to eliminate Iodine Deficiency

Disorders and assists countries to achieve this goal. It supports national and global iodine

programs and focusses on universal salt iodization30

.

The Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative (AGIR) is a platform funded by the EC that

focusses on the Sahel region aiming to secure a sustainable solution to food insecurity31

. The

initiative has a nutrition component and can potentially work in tandem with a food

fortification program for increased impact.

The United Nations, through its special agencies including UNICEF, WFP, WHO, FAO

implements programs that contribute to reduction in malnutrition among a number of target

groups and special circumstances.

Organisations such as “Micro-nutriment Initiative”, “Food Fortification Initiative” (FFI) or

“Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition” (GAIN) supporting public-private partnerships to

increase access to missing nutrients in diets.

29

http://scalingupnutrition.org The SUN movement covers 50 countries worldwide, 33 of which in SSA 30

http://www.iccidd.org 31

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/resilience/agir_en.htm

http://scalingupnutrition.org/

http://www.iccidd.org/

25 / 103

Research organisations and investigation centres undertaking policy and applied research in

food and nutrition security and in particular in food and bio fortification. It is worth to

mention the collaboration the Commission is currently having with CGIAR / IFPRI on several

subjects including food and nutrition security.

The Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on science, technology and innovation within the

context of the Joint Africa EU Strategy (JAES), which has selected food and nutrition security

and sustainable agriculture as its first theme.

Research and innovation projects financed under FP7 and Horizon 2020.


The food crisis that started in 2007/2008 has sparked a rethink of global food security and put

it at the top of the global development agenda. The EU has positioned itself as a credible

donor and currently is the biggest development actor in food and nutrition security. The EU

coordinates globally with other major donors both directly and in international for a such as

the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, G20, Committee of World Food

Security (CFS), Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and

the Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) movement.

Several donors and international organisations are actively involved in funding and

implementing Food Fortification actions. The SUN movement and more specifically the

Nutrition Action Plan, represent the most appropriate framework for coordination. During the

inception of the programme the role of each donor and implementing partner will be better

disclosed thanks to the mapping exercise.


The present action represents the inception (TA component) of the whole intervention on food

fortification. The action deals specifically with the provision of technical assistance and is

aimed at supporting the intervention during its global duration. A further component dealing

with pilot food fortification projects will be launched once the mapping exercises including

bibliography and on-site reviews are completed and the expressions of interest from EU

Delegations are received. Attention will be paid to ensure that the two components of the

program will overlap. The overlap is necessary to the TA to provide specific support and

monitoring to the implementation of the pilot field activities

3.1. Objectives

The general objective of the program is to contribute in the eradication of under-

nutrition among vulnerable populations, by enhancing resilience through food

fortification, i.e. strengthening the production, diffusion and consumption of

accessible technologically viable and culturally acceptable fortified food, compliant

with national and international standards and involving the private sector by

reinforcing the public/private partnership.

The specific objective of the present component is that the Institutional and technical

capacities of beneficiary countries related to food fortification are strengthened

through institutional and technical support on specific subjects such as legal issues,

economic analysis, evidence based policy guidance on nutrition, etc.


The technical assistance component will last for the whole duration of the

intervention, divided into two parts: the first including a better understanding of the

Food fortification sector, the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system, the

26 / 103

provision of support including evidence based guidance to beneficiary countries and

the settlement of the basis for the expression of interest from EU Delegation for the

pilot projects’ component; the second part, overlapping the second phase of the global

program on food fortification to be funded by the AAP 2016, aims at accompanying

and supporting the implementation of pilot food fortification projects through

backstopping and technical support to stakeholders. Potentially, most of the 62

countries that choose food and nutrition security or sustainable agriculture as focal

sector and in particular the 40 countries that choose nutrition as a focal area of

intervention, could be directly involved in the programme.

The expected results of the technical assistance component are:

1. Food fortification is promoted as a global approach and good practices capitalized and

shared with international partners.

2. Technical and institutional assistance including evidence based policy guidance is at

disposal of and used by beneficiary countries for the formulation of policies and

programs related to food fortification

3. Support is provided on identification, formulation, monitoring and evaluation of pilot

projects related to food fortification

General indicators referring to global and specific objectives are directly linked to the

nutrition indicators identified in the EU result framework exercise, namely i) Prevalence of

stunting (moderate and severe) in children aged below five years, for the general objective

and ii) Number of women and children under 5 benefiting from nutrition related programme

with EU support for the specific objectives. These indicators will be reviewed and updated

following the adoption of the post MDG strategy. The stunting baselines will be aligned, as

far as possible, to the ones discussed in the context of the implementation of the Nutrition

Action Plan.

Specific indicators for the TA component include:

A mapping of actors and programs dealing with food fortification worldwide is carried

out and public.

A sound monitoring and evaluation system of the program available

Number of countries receiving technical assistance on food fortification.

Number of countries incorporating food fortification approach into the national

policies for stunting reduction.

Number of countries allocating national budget’s financial resources to the

development of food fortification programs.

Number of women and children under 5 benefiting from food fortification and other

nutrition related program with EU support

The TA provided to beneficiary country has been positively assessed on a mutual

performance dialogue base.

Main activities will aim at the achievement of the respective results and will encompass:

1.1.Draft, discuss and agree the methodology of a mapping exercise;

1.2.Carry out a mapping of actors and programs dealing with food fortification

worldwide, including the private sector32

, taking into account the relevant policy

context – whether at global or national level.

32

The analysis/mapping will include the mechanisms that different actors are using in the field of food

fortification, including PPPs. The analysis will identify best practices under these mechanisms that can

be taken into account when identifying the selection criteria for the pilot projects

27 / 103

1.3.Collate an inventory of actors and programs dealing with food fortification

worldwide, including taking into account current evidence and knowledge

applicable to the policy context.

1.4.Undertake specific studies if deemed necessary, based on requests from

beneficiaries and/or outcomes of the mapping exercise

1.5.Establish a sound monitoring and evaluation system

1.6.Main features of the food fortification sector including legal framework,

production, distribution and consumption trends are better known. Possibilities to

use blending mechanisms to develop local production of fortified products are also

explored.

1.7.Carry out an awareness campaign and implement a capacity development program

on food fortification addressing both Commission and beneficiary countries.

2.1. Identify selection criteria and support DEVCO to invite EU Delegations to

express interest in food fortification pilot initiatives;

2.2. planning, in close collaboration with EU Delegations and beneficiary countries, of

a TA support on the basis of a capacity need assessment based on agreed expected

outputs and outcomes, including evidence based policy guidance.

2.3. Carry out, in close collaboration with EU Delegations and beneficiary countries,

of a needs assessment, based on agreed expected outputs and outcomes to identify

the gaps to fill and the implemented procedures to apply to launch/strengthen a

food fortification evidence based approach.

2.4. Identify the food purchase patterns of the most vulnerable households, risks and

challenges to access fortified food from commercial sources and identify

alternatives, to allow access of the most vulnerable individuals and households to

fortified food, to be tested through pilot projects.

3.1.Support DEVCO in the reception and assessment of the expressions of interest

from EU Delegations, in agreement with national governments, to implement pilot

food fortification activities;

3.2.Screen and select pilot initiatives location;

3.3.Provide backstopping, support, guidance, monitoring and evaluation to pilot

projects.

3.4.Support EU Delegations and beneficiary countries in the tendering and awarding

process, as well as provide backstopping and technical support during

implementation;

3.5.Set-up, run and regularly review the M&E plan, in collaboration with EU services.

3.6.Define a communication strategy on food fortification approach.

3.7.Capitalisation upon and sharing of pilot experiences on food fortification.


Assumptions: The beneficiary Government has to set up an appropriate legal

framework and secure relevant accompanying measures. Government officers and

technicians have necessary capacity and skills or are willing and available to improve

their skills to properly deal with food fortification. Whereas this capacity is not

adequate, it will be strengthened and improved through the TA component.

Severity of deficiencies and safety: food fortification programs are not recommended

in instances where micronutrient deficiencies are too severe.

The TA team and the Commission have the capacity to respond adequately to the

requests coming from EU Delegations and beneficiary countries.

28 / 103

Risks: Access to fortified food: The added cost of fortified foods and the attitudes of

the target population could represent a risk to accessibility. The cost increase is linked

to the cost of additional technology and added vitamin and mineral premix. However,

food fortification is generally cheap and it is therefore expected that the price increase

will be very limited and will not lead to significant reduction of affordability and

access. The fact of working with local producers and products will also minimise this

risk and will allow reaching the most vulnerable strata of the population. Subsidies

and social transfers can also represent a valid mitigation measure.

Targeting of project’s beneficiaries: food fortification should be addressed to those

strata of the population in effective need. The baseline study in phase one will help

minimising this risk. Further actions funded by the Commission and/or other donors

could be proposed in order to complement the present action and address those

beneficiaries that cannot be attended through the proposed action

Limited capacity of local providers to satisfy the demand in terms of quality and

quantity. The choice to focus on the most vulnerable and destitute strata of the

population encompasses the need to support small scale food producers and

processors. Apart from the private sector group of SUN which normally interacts with

medium large scale producers, the proposed action will study the best options to reach

lower strata of the population including the establishment of ad-hoc mechanisms and

investing facilities.


The proposed program aims to improve nutrition for vulnerable populations in SSA.

Nutrition is a vital determinant of health, cognitive development, individual

productivity and national development. Well-nourished individuals and citizenry

therefore have greater chance and capacity later in life to establish themselves better

and be able to agitate against abuse and oppression both at individual and national

levels. Such capacity is beneficial for advancement of democracy, good governance

and human rights in general.

In many instances in SSA, women take the greatest brunt of hunger due to cultural and

economic disposition. Moreover, in resource poor settings, women and children are

more nutritionally vulnerable as a consequence of their physiological needs. Due to

these facts, the proposed program though targeting the entire population at risk of

micronutrient deficiencies, will be most beneficial to women and children and hence

promote gender equality and fulfil children right to provision.

People living with HIV and AIDS are especially vulnerable to malnutrition due to

their more demanding metabolic needs. Their need for balanced diet is thus more

acute. Apart from enhancing cognitive development of children and hence capacity to

make better choices to stay negative with regard to HIV, the proposed program would

contribute to better nutritional health for those already living with HIV and AIDS.

3.5. Stakeholders

The target and ultimate beneficiaries of the programme are populations in rural and urban

areas who are affected by or at risk of micronutrient deficiencies, in particular pregnant

women and children below two year of age.

Direct stakeholders of the present action are national governments through their relevant

ministries (agriculture, health, education or special programmes), the private sector (food

processors, suppliers, etc.) and non-governmental organisations, research institutions and

private organisations involved in the mitigation of food and nutrition insecurity.

29 / 103

In particular, national governments will play key roles in sensitization, enhancing nation-wide

outreach and entrenching relevant policy framework to ensure sustainability of the program.

Research organisations including universities will provide technical information about

specific nutrients of interest in a particular geographical region and provide guidance on the

needed considerations for fortification as well as their industrial application.

The technical assistance will also be an element of cohesion and harmonisation by conducting

the mapping exercise, analyse the data collected and collated, facilitate links between

stakeholders and finally by promoting the importance of food fortification at national and

regional level through the support to pilot projects implemented by beneficiary countries.



In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with

any partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012.



described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is 60 months from the date of entry into

force of the financing agreement or, where none is concluded, from the adoption of this






4.3.3 Procurement (direct management)

Subject in generic terms, if

possible

Type

(works,

supplies,

services)

Indicative

number of

contracts

Indicative

launch of

the

procedure

Technical Assistance Services 1 Q1 2015






Module Amount in

EUR (‘000)

Third party

contribution

4.3.3. – Procurement (direct management) 5,500 N.A.

4.7. – Evaluation and audit33

PM N.A.

4.8. – Communication and visibility34

PM N.A.

Totals 5,500 N.A.

33

To be funded through support measures 34

To be provided by the contractor of the point 4.3.3.

30 / 103


A comprehensive internal monitoring system in line with the overall monitoring and

evaluation systems used for development cooperation actions will be established at the

beginning of the programme. The system will rely on a set of smart indicators, supported by a

clear baseline, annual milestone and end of the programme targets which will be assessed

annually (annual review). Moreover, the intervention on food fortification will be included in

the monitoring plan of the Nutrition Action Plan.


The Action will undergo a mid-term review as well as a final evaluation, carried out by

independent experts funded through the support measures. The proposed action will be

subject to verification in accordance with the relevant provisions of the PRAG.



the EU.



implementation.

The measures shall be implemented by the contractors, grant beneficiaries and entrusted

entities. Appropriate contractual obligations shall be included in, respectively, financing

agreements, procurement and grant contracts, and delegation agreements.




Moreover, a broader, strategic “political visibility” of the EU in the countries where the field

activities will be implemented should be ensured by the present program. Responsibilities for

this broader visibility should be agreed upon between the EU institutions and the

implementing partners of the program.

31 / 103

ANNEX 4

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2014

and Annual Action Programme 2015 part I for Food and Nutrition Security and

Sustainable Agriculture under the Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic

programme


1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Integrated Biological Control Applied Research Programme

(IBCARP)

CRIS number: DCI-FOOD/2014/346739


Total amount of EU budget contribution for an amount of

EUR 12,000,000.

This action is co-financed by:

- DFID for an amount of EUR 223,860

- McKnight Foundation for an amount of EUR 30,593

- CGIAR for an amount of EUR 222,691

- SCRPID for an amount of EUR 31,092

- Biovision Foundation for an amount of EUR 35,043

- DAAD for an amount of EUR 319,367

- Icipe for an amount of EUR 2,138,446

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of

financing

Project Approach

Grant – direct award to icipe “African Insect Science for Food

and Health”

DAC-code 31182 Sector Agricultural research



Increasing cereal and livestock productivity has great impact on food security, economic

growth, poverty alleviation and arresting environmental degradation. The proposed action

seeks to provide a comprehensive package that integrates weed, pest and soil fertility

management in cereal crops, livestock fodder production, and animal health while improving

agricultural system resilience in African mixed farming systems. This four year research

project will contribute to increasing production, productivity, incomes and nutrition among

poor smallholder agro-pastoral households and nomadic pastoralist communities. The

biological approach/focus of this approach will ensure environmental sustainability.

Integrated Biological Control Applied Research Programme (IBCARP) addresses the results

‘ensuring the success of global initiatives in research and innovation’, and ‘exploring new

strategic directions to put research into use and achieve impact’ of the first component of the

food and nutrition security theme of the GPGC multi-annual indicative programme. It also

contributes to targets related to ecosystem restoration and advisory services that are proposed

in Corporate Results Framework prepared by Commission services.

32 / 103

2.2. Context

2.2.1. Regional context


In sub-Saharan Africa mixed crop-livestock farming systems, cereals are the main staple food

and cash crop for millions of resource-poor smallholder farmers. On the other hand, livestock

provide the main source of nutrition and opportunities for income generation. However

productivity is low, often resulting in high incidences of food and nutritional insecurity,

poverty and poor livelihoods.

The target countries of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa have some of the world’s

highest concentration of poor people with the average annual per capita income being less

than €290. Most of the region’s 250 million poor people live in rural areas, where in some

areas poverty is increasing or deepening. The rural population is inter alia subjected to poor

agriculture and livestock production systems, and lack of access to markets.

Food production has been falling behind population growth in the past 2 decades. Since

agricultural productivity is the major source of personal income in rural Africa, the lag in

productivity has resulted in doubling of people living on less than $1 per day, to about 46% of

the population, and a greater increase in the number of people who are food insecure. Rural

poverty is projected to worsen in the coming years due to continued population growth,

growing pressures on limited land and water supplies, and climate change. Smallholder

agriculture registers low productivity with staple cereal crops yielding less than 1 t/ha.

Significant losses in crop yields occur due to insect pests, diseases, parasitic weeds (mainly

striga), and poor soils. The soils are poor in organic matter from continuous cropping and

poor farming practices, in need of an agronomic innovation that continuously improves soil

health. There is progressive depletion of nutrients, particularly of nitrogen and soil organic

carbon. Similarly, productivity of smallholder livestock farmers is constrained by lack of

sustainable quality fodder, and a multitude of animal diseases that include tick-borne diseases,

tsetse-transmitted trypanosomosis (both animal and human sleeping sickness), gastrointestinal

parasitism and those caused by biting insects.

Camel trypanosomiasis is extremely debilitating and a major cause of morbidity of up to 30%

and mortality of around 3% in camels. (There are also numerous serious problems in the

management of the disease related to widespread drug resistance, poor diagnosis, high

treatment costs, and poor availability of drugs in areas where the problem exists. In practice,

many animals simply die when they become infected.

Insect pests (stemborers) and parasitic striga weeds severely constrain cereal production in

these systems, and together can cause up to 100% yield losses, causing losses estimated to be

more than US$7 to 11 billion in SSA annually, and affecting livelihoods of more that 250

Million rural poor in East Africa. There is need to extend research on icipe’s novel Push-pull

technology to deal with biotic constraints that limit cereal and livestock productivity in the

African mixed farming systems.

Tsetse flies, the vectors of nagana (African Animal Trypanosomosis - AAT), and sleeping

sickness (Human African Trypanosomosis - HAT), are unique to Africa and occur in 36 sub-

Saharan African (SSA) countries where at least half of the population characteristically

suffers from food insecurity. The overall negative economic impact of AAT on agriculture

and livestock sectors is estimated at $ 4.75 billion per annum. Particularly affected are the

pastoral and agro-pastoral communities numbering about 260 million people, who are among

the poorest in Africa. Less discernible, but equally important, are the socio-cultural and food

insecurity dimensions for people whose livestock mean their health, wealth and social status.

The AAT risk clearly contributes substantially to rural poverty. HAT continues to be a public

health problem in several SSA countries with approximately 70 million people at risk. The

33 / 103

soils, the main resource base, are equally poor, with over 65% of arable soils in the region

being acutely degraded, and there is increasing abandonment of farmland. Over 60% of the

population in the target countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia) subsist on less than €15/

month, while population pressure on land in these target countries is high (110-250 people /

sq. km with average landholdings of 0.8-1.6 ha) needing intensification of cereal and

livestock production.

The production constraints are expected to increase during the next decades as agriculture

intensifies to meet the extra food demand from a growing population and as a result of climate

change.

2.2.1.2. National and regional development policies

The action is in line with the policies adopted by partner governments of Ethiopia (Growth

and Transformation Plan), Kenya (Agricultural Sector Development Strategy) and Tanzania

(Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan), which are in turn aligned with the European

Union’s (EU) thematic programme on food security, overall agriculture strategy CAADP, and

IGAD’s Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) strategy.


National agricultural policies of East African governments unanimously place agriculture as

the main driver of development, addressing mainly the development of the rural sector, rural

unemployment and poverty, and chronic food insecurity. The policies propose to tackle these

through productivity enhancement of smallholder farmers and pastoralists, strengthening

market systems, improving participation and engagement of the private sector, development

and adoption of productivity-increasing technologies, as well as services that are better to the

needs of smallholder farmers and more relevant to market opportunities. The policies

recognize that sustained agricultural growth is critical to uplifting the living standards of the

rural poor as well as generating rapid economic growth.

However, in spite of the importance of the agricultural sector, farming in the target countries

is predominantly small scale, rain-fed and poorly mechanized, requiring low-input, low-cost

technologies that improve productivity through scientific management of factors of

production. icipe’s push-pull and tsetse repellent technologies fit in the national policies as

they are agro-ecologically appropriate, and sustainable.

This action is part of the first component (generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering

innovation) of the food and nutrition security theme of the GPGC multi-annual indicative

programme. It generates public goods and promotes adoption of new knowledge and

technologies, supporting two of the three results of this component: the success of regional

initiatives in research and innovation, and exploring new strategic directions to put research

into use and achieve impact. It is also consistent with the Commission approach to research

and innovation for sustainable agriculture and food and nutrition security, providing support

to the regional programmes of ICIPE, focusing on adaptive research that can be put directly

into use, and working across the themes of sustainable agriculture and resilience.

2.3. Lessons learnt

Control of vectors of surra is a neglected area and there is no specific knowledge of the actual

vectors and no vector control technologies available. The disease prevalence data is not

current, diagnosis is poor and resistance to drugs is widespread and growing. The situation is

thus similar to what existed for vectors of trypanosomiasis about three decades ago. We need

to borrow from icipe’s success in developing technologies for control of tsetse flies and

develop similar technologies for vectors of surra. This has to involve strategic basic research

(as proposed in the action) to adaptive research and finally technology development and

34 / 103

transfer through strategic partnerships. Camel herders would also prefer a mobile technology

like the repellent collars.

Within the research, development and application of the push-pull technology, icipe’s

experience shows that stakeholder participation in technology development is critical to its

eventual acceptance and uptake; and that farmers need technologies that are adapted to their

farming conditions, multi-functional with multiple benefits, and addresses more than a single

constraint. An independent EU results-oriented mission (29th

October – 9th

November 2011)

highly rated the project on “Adaptation and Dissemination of the ‘Push-Pull’ Technology

(ADOPT): a conservation agriculture approach for smallholder cereal-livestock production

in drier areas to withstand climate change35

” , and concluded that the technology was

extremely relevant as it addressed key problems of the target communities.

From the tsetse fly repellent technology research and development, icipe and partners have

learnt that managing African Animal Trypanosomiasis (AAT) requires a prioritized and

integrated approach as part of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD). An

independent EU results-oriented mission (7-11th

November 2011) rated the project highly. It

was also recommended that integrated use of repellent technology with other approaches

should be promoted for sustainable control of trypanosomiasis.


Linkages with broad based national and regional programmes e.g. the African Conservation

Tillage Network using lessons learned under the ABACO36

project (DCI-FOOD 2010/230-

178). IGAD-ICPALD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development - Centre for Pastoral

Areas and Livestock Development) with whom icipe has already signed an MoU. ), the AU-

Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC) initiative of

eradicating the tsetse and trypanosomiasis, and the private sector will improve

complementarities to ensure successful scaling up of the icipe technologies. This directly

complements EU’s 'Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience’ (SHARE) programme by

improving crop and livestock productivity and resilience as well as livelihood opportunities of

agro-pastoral communities in the dry areas of East Africa, with potential for further scaling up

in the Horn of Africa.

icipe also works with International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) such as

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), continental/regional initiatives and

continental and sub-regional organisations such as FARA, ASARECA, and the AU to develop

regional capacity and integrate research results into regional policy frameworks on rural

agriculture. The proposed action relating to tsetse repellent technology undertaken in

partnership with Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI) and KARI-

Trypanosomiasis Research Centre (TRC) and Camel Health Research will build upon and

integrate results gained from the EU-funded project on the validation and initiation of

diffusion of tsetse repellent technology among the resource limited livestock farmers in SSA

(DCI-FOOD/2009/200240), and from continental initiatives, for example the NEPAD-

CAADP pillars on crop and livestock development. This action will create synergy and

complementarity with other continental animal health interventions, like AU – InterAfrican

35 Under EU’s FSTP-RT Priority 1, the specific objective of the ADOPT project was to improve cereal and livestock

productivity in dry areas of Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania by reducing key constraints in their productivity and adaptation a

successful Push-pull technology (www.push-pull.net) to climate change. 36 The “Agroecology-based aggradation-conservation agriculture (ABACO): Targeting innovations to combat soil

degradation and food insecurity in semi-arid Africa” was funded by the European Union. ABACO, identified as a need by a

number of partners working on CA in Africa, including international research centres, and the African Conservation Tillage

(ACT) network, aimed at establishing site-specific co-innovation platforms that rely on agro-ecology principles and

aggradative measures to restore soil productivity in semi-arid regions of sub-Saharan Africa

http://www.push-pull.net/

35 / 103

Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) and AU-PATTEC to consolidate the integrated

approach in controlling animal diseases for sustainable agriculture development. Disaster risk

reduction strategies in the dry lands of the horn of Africa and other arid and semi-arid lands

(ASALs) also have a major component for livestock health.

There may also be complementarity with the Africa-EU High-Level Policy Dialogue on

science, technology and innovation within the context of the Joint Africa EU Strategy (JAES),

which has selected food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture as its first theme,

and with research and innovation projects financed under the Seventh Framework Programme

(FP7) and Horizon 2020.

2.5. Donor Coordination

icipe will ensue cutting-edge knowledge of the issues addressed by the Action is efficiently

harnessed from its previous research results and efforts by different organizations to avoid

duplication of efforts and delays in the uptake of best practices. The present Action by

working in close partnership with Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and Sub-

Regional Organisations (SROs) aims at improving donor coordination efforts. icipe will

mobilize other development partners with complementary mandates and activities in the target

areas for consolidated efforts towards impact. icipe will manage the donor portfolio and

ensure effective coordination of efforts and synergies through effective communication and

participation in development partners’ regional meetings.


3.1. Objectives

Goal: To contribute to increasing production, productivity, incomes and nutrition among

poor smallholder agro-pastoral households and nomadic pastoralist communities, while

ensuring environmental sustainability.

Purpose: Sustainably increased use of new low-cost science-based technologies and

strategies addressing cereal and livestock production constraints (surra, striga parasitic weeds,

stemborer insect pests, and trypanosomiasis) by smallholder cereal-livestock farmers and

nomadic pastoralists.


Result 1: Proven low cost, low environmental impact surra control technologies and

strategies developed for camel diseases vectors.

Icipe shall develop bait and repellent technologies for control of vectors of surra disease in

arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) of sub-Saharan Africa. At the end of the project, innovative

technologies for control of surra and its vectors, along with improved parasite diagnostic and

camel husbandry practices in a holistic package will be available for use by at least 10,000

households in the nomadic and pastoral communities.

Result 2: Climate resilient push-pull pest and weed control technology, scaled up

through target-specific dissemination and impact pathways, partnerships and private-sector

involvement.

Particularly, the research part will lead to development and implementation of a more

drought-resilient push-pull technology for drier agro-ecologies that will enable at least

additional 30,000 farm households; while the scaling up part will test the adaptive solutions

developed with private sector, government extension services and CSO partners to other agro

ecological zone in Uganda and Tanzania. In total over 300,000 people in the target areas

should attain food and nutritional sufficiency, together with improved soil health, integration

of cereal and livestock production, and women empowerment.

36 / 103

Result 3: Up-scaled and adapted tsetse repellent technology ready for roll-out to African

countries.

In result three, the tsetse repellent collars will be commercially available for use against the

vectors of animal trypanosomiasis and sleeping sickness. The expanded pilot use of the

technology will directly improve livelihoods of 10,000 households in Kenya alone, with

capacity development of value-chain actors.

For the three results above, it is expected at the end of the project that the research results and

standard adaptive technologies developed will be made available to all development projects

in Kenya and in Africa through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research, affiliated governments, development partners and private sector.


Successful implementation of the action is contingent upon the following assumptions:

Research partners are committed and have capacity to contribute to research,

adaptation and scaling up of developed tsetse control and climate-resilient Push-pull

technologies

Governments continue to support agriculture and poverty reduction as priorities, while

policies and investments become complimentary to improve cereal and livestock

production, and marketing

Regional ASAL development policies support technological developments


The proposed action components directly address the cross-cutting issues of climate

change, gender and social equity, environmental sustainability, soil, nutrient and water

management, and HIV/AIDs as envisaged in the European Consensus on

Development document. The action mitigates against climate change to improve

cereal and livestock productivity.

3.5. Stakeholders

The Action targets at least 10,000 households (test camel keeper population) in the

nomadic and pastoral communities, in the Horn of African countries where camels are

predominant livestock species, 10,000 pastoralists in the two agro-ecological zones of

Kenya for the Tsetse control, and 30,000 smallholder farmers in the adaptive solution

test zones of the climate-adapted push-pull.

The Action also targets the associated research institutions, implementers of

agricultural programmes, private sector players such as seed producers, agro-stockists,

product merchants and entrepreneurs, governments at both national and local (county)

levels.

In Kenya, the county governments to whom pest and vector control has been devolved

do not have the capacity to implement such research projects in terms of staff and

knowhow. Therefore, local county staff will be trained so that a critical mass of staff is

produced that will ensure sustainability and continuity beyond the action period.




37 / 103

partner country referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012



described in sections 3.2. and 4.3. will be carried out, is forty-eight (48) months from the date

of entry into force of the financing agreement or, where none is concluded, from the adoption

of this Action Document, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising

officer in the relevant agreements. The European Parliament and the relevant Committee shall

be informed of the extension of the operational implementation period within one month of

that extension being granted.


4.3.1. Grant: direct award (direct management)

(e) Objectives of the grant, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and

expected results

The objectives of this grant are specified in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

To contribute to increasing production, productivity, incomes and nutrition among poor

smallholder agro-pastoral households and nomadic pastoralist communities, while ensuring

environmental sustainability.

Result 1: Proven low cost, low environmental impact surra control technologies and

strategies developed for camel diseases vectors.

Result 2: Climate resilient push-pull pest and weed control technology, scaled up

through target-specific dissemination and impact pathways, partnerships and private-sector

involvement.

Result 3: Up-scaled and adapted tsetse repellent technology ready for roll-out to African

countries.

(f) Justification of a direct grant


grant without a call for proposals is justified as the action has specific characteristics requiring

technical competences and high degree of specialisation.

(c) Eligibility conditions

N/A

(d) Essential selection and award criteria

The selection criteria are: 1) proven experience in research for the development of bio control

technologies and integrated pest management 2) specific experience in developing and

applying such technologies in East Africa and in the Horn of Africa. The award criteria are

relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the GPGC; design, effectiveness,

feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.

(e) Maximum rate of co-financing

The maximum possible rate of co-financing for this grant is 85%

ICIPE is the primary implementing institution and will manage the entire grant itself. ICIPE

has capacity to manage and execute large grants. The Centre’s finance department has

adequate competence and financial systems in place to administer such large grants. ICIPE

deals with various international donors and as per 31st December 2013, it was managing

grants of nearly 30 million US dollars.

38 / 103

Other donor contributions will be managed as independent grants by ICIPE and the Centre

will ensure that their contribution to achieving the objectives of the Action is

guaranteed. Contributions from the other donors will thus be earmarked for specific

complementary activities to the Action. Independent grant management will facilitate

reporting to the respective donors and the EU.

(f) Indicative trimester to contact the potential direct grant beneficiary

4th

trimester of 2014

4.4 Scope and geographical eligibility for procurement and grants





Module EU

Contribution

Third party

contribution

4.3.1. Direct grant with Icipe (direct management) 12,000,000

Result 1: Camel health 3,896,481 1,000,713

Result 2: Push-pull 4,152,981 1,125,225

Result 3: tsetse repellent technology 3,398,647 875,154

Evaluation and audit 42,782 N.A

Communication and visibility 131,333 N.A

Contingencies 377,776 N.A

Total 12,000,000 3,001,092


In order to ensure that project activities are well aligned for impact, a Performance

Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) system will be developed and will include:

A logical framework

An ex-ante baseline.

Plan for process monitoring.

A feedback and review plan.

Further, inter alia, the project Steering Committee will be charged with the responsibility of

commenting on and making recommendations with regard to the process monitoring plan.


Mid and end of programme Evaluations will be undertaken.

A mid-term Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) exercise will be undertaken.

Annual meetings of the Action’s steering committee will be held.

The Steering Committee will meet bi-annually to review progress against the project

indicators and to direct the plans for evaluations.

Financial evaluations (audit): Financial reporting / audits will be undertaken and annual

financial audit reports will be published in accordance with standard international financial

reporting practice.

39 / 103



the EU. This action shall contain communication and visibility measures which shall be

based on a specific Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action, to be elaborated before

the start of implementation and supported with the budget indicated in section 4.5 above.








icipe will ensure that adequate visibility is operationalised, using the EC Guidelines

(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/visibility/index_en.htm), and further a communication

strategy will be developed.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/visibility/index_en.htm

40 / 103

ANNEX 5




Component 2: Strengthening and promoting governance and capacity at the global,


1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Evidence based approach for sustainable management of tuna

resources in the Atlantic - Atlantic Ocean Tuna Tagging

Programme (AOTTP)


Total cost Total estimated cost: EUR 15 200 000

Total estimated amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 13

680 000

Indicatively this action will be co-financed by other ICCAT

contracting parties and development partners for 10% of the

total estimated cost.

Aid method /

Management mode and

type of financing

Project Approach

Direct management - Grant – direct award

Direct management-procurement of services

DAC-code 31310 Sector Fisheries policy and

administrative management



The overall objective of the Atlantic Tuna Tagging Programme (AOTTP) is to

contribute to food security and economic growth of the developing Atlantic coastal

states by ensuring sustainable management of tropical tuna resources in the Atlantic

Ocean. The specific objective of this programme is to provide evidence based

scientific advices to developing costal states, and other Contracting Parties to the

International Commission for the Conservations of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), to

support the adoption of effective Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs).

Tuna fisheries are of major importance for coastal states of the Atlantic Ocean. They are

contributing to local economies through their own fisheries sector, fishing agreements with

Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs), and port services for foreign fishing vessels, local

fish processing industry as well as to the food and nutrition security of these countries.

Tuna species have a very large geographic distribution, which covers Exclusive Economic

Zones (EEZs) as well as international waters and they can undertake large migration across

oceans for reproduction or feeding. As such they are recognized as highly migratory species,

and their management cannot be done at a national level like some other fish stocks. Regional

Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) have been created in all oceans to manage

highly migratory species at a regional level and gather coastal states as well as DWFNs. The

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is responsible for

41 / 103

the sustainable management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent

seas.

In recent years, scientists have expressed concerns about a possible over-exploitation of

tropical tuna stocks in the Atlantic. All stock assessments are uncertain as important

biological parameters, are missing. To improve the sustainability of tropical tuna resources in

the Atlantic Ocean it is crucial that reliable data is made available to ICCAT. For that reason,

ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) recommended in 2010 the

establishment of a large scale research programme, based on tagging methodology to estimate

the key-parameters of population dynamic, to reduce stock assessment uncertainties and to

gauge the effectiveness of different fisheries management options.

A tagging programme is based on the tagging and release of a large number of tuna in a wide

area and on recoveries of these tagged tuna by fishermen, or other operators such as

stevedores or cannery workers, during fishing or processing operations. Such a program is

implemented in cooperation with coastal States, fishermen and other stakeholders as well as

with scientists. Part of the AOTTP programme will consist in training scientists from

developing coastal states and strengthening scientific capacity in these countries.

2.2. Context



Tuna fisheries are of major importance for coastal states of the Atlantic Ocean, and in

particular for ACP countries from Africa and the Caribbean. Tuna are contributing in

different ways to their economy and food security, through:

the employment and revenue generated on board of industrial national and foreign

fishing vessels, as well as by the artisanal fleets,

the employment and revenue generated on land: i) supply services to the fishing

vessels and ii) processing industry,

the revenue from fishing agreements and licenses,

the exports that contribute to the commercial balance,

the contribution to food security through the local availability of tuna products;

the contribution to nutrition security through the consumption of valuable fish

proteins, fatty acids and micronutrients.

The sustainability of tuna fisheries is therefore of primary importance for these countries.

In 2012, the total catch of the three main species of tropical tuna (i.e. Yellowfin tuna, Bigeye

tuna and Skipjack tuna) in the Atlantic Ocean was of 412,723 tons, of which almost 54% was

made by developing costal countries of the Atlantic or Mediterranean Sea. This proportion

may be underestimated due to under-reporting. For some countries, tuna catches represent a

significant part of overall catches (e.g. more than 30% in Ghana, some 20% in Venezuela).

2.2.1.2. Development policy

The multi-annual indicative programme (2014-2017) on Global Public Good and

Challenges (GPGC) refers to fisheries in two of its programmes (i.e. environmental

sustainability and food security) highlighting the importance of sustainable management of

fisheries in developing countries. In particular, GPGC shall contribute to improve governance

on food and nutrition security (including fisheries) by supporting evidence-based policy

making, institution strengthening and capacity building.

The AU Joint conference of Ministers of Agriculture, Rural development, Fisheries and

Aquaculture held in Addis Ababa in April 2014 endorsed the AU Policy Framework and

Reform Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa and emphasised "the role of research

42 / 103

and science in transforming fisheries and aquaculture production and productivity to exploit

its full potential".

Six countries, i.e. Brazil, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Belize and Venezuela have

formally expressed their interest to the AOTTP and asked support from EU development

funds. In addition, the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation Among African States

Bordering the Atlantic Ocean (ATLAFCO), which represents all the Atlantic coastal African

countries has also expressed interest in the AOTTP and solicited the EU for support.


Established in 1966 by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tunas, the ICCAT is the Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) responsible

for the management of tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. The

ICCAT currently counts 49 Contracting Parties, coastal countries of the Atlantic, Distant

Waters Fishing Nations (DWFNs) and inter-governmental economic integration

organizations. The EU has been a Contracting Party of the ICCAT since 1997.

Recommendations adopted by the ICCAT are binding and applicable to all Contracting

Parties – including EU Member States. ICCAT recommendations shall be based on the best

available science and the ICCAT can therefore undertake the range of work required for the

study and management of tunas and tuna-like fishes in the Atlantic.

In recent years, scientists have expressed concerns about a possible over-exploitation of

tuna stocks in the Atlantic. Tropical tuna catches in the Atlantic Ocean have rapidly

increased to reach a peak in 1990, 1991 and 1994 for yellowfin, skipjack and bigeye tuna,

respectively. As stocks reached full exploitation, management measures were introduced to

maintain catch at levels which ensure sustainable exploitation of the resource. In the most

recent years, catches are showing an increasing trend, in particular for skipjack and concerns

were raised for yellowfin tuna during the 2011 assessment.

Other species of small tropical tunas, mainly neritic, are also caught in important quantities in

the Atlantic. These catches are largely made by artisanal fleets and are particularly important

to the local economies and for food and nutrition security of coastal populations of riparian

developing countries around the Atlantic Ocean. However, very limited information that

would contribute to their stock assessments is available for these species.

To avoid a possible decrease of the size of the tropical tuna stocks, ICCAT contracting

parties shall take appropriate management measures, based on a strong scientific

advice. Experiences in RFMOs have shown that contracting parties are often reluctant to take

management measures that would be detrimental to their fleets on the short terms, unless there

is a strong scientific advice calling for urgent action (cf. Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean

Sea). The problem is that, currently most tuna assessments in the Atlantic rely almost

exclusively on fishery dependent data, i.e. catch, effort, size frequency. While fisheries

statistics are available for most fleets operating in the Atlantic, they are not sufficient for

stock assessment analysis. Today stock assessment are impelled as some important

parameters, such as growth or natural mortality, are missing or are largely unknown, and

therefore the uncertainty associated to their results is high.

These problems are reinforced by the fact that scientific capacities in most of the coastal

developing countries are weak. Scientists from these countries have difficulties in

participating in the scientific process in ICCAT.

2.3. Lessons learnt

The EU has financed the implementation of similar large-scale tuna tagging

programmes in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The results of these programmes are

being used routinely by RFMOs for stock assessments, in order to develop scientific

43 / 103

advice and adopt conservation and management measures. The lessons from tuna

tagging programmes in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean (as identified in evaluations)

have been taken into account in the design of the AOTTP programme.


The action will complement the following interventions:

EU actions:

During the last few years, ACP coastal countries in the Atlantic (both in the Caribbean

and in Africa) have benefited from the ACP FISH 2 programme. This programme had

5 components including one on "reinforced national and regional research strategies

and initiatives".

In 2013, the EU decided to support the Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources of

the African Union (AU-IBAR) in the implementation of the pan-African strategy for

Fisheries and Aquaculture. This overarching programme aims at enhancing the

contribution of fisheries resources to food security and economic growth in Africa.

The specific objective of this action is to improve institutional and policy environment

for sustainable management and utilization of fisheries resources in Africa.

Four other projects financed by the EU are currently under implementation in Western Africa:

1) The West African Marine Ecoregion (WAMER) programme started in 2011. It is designed

to address governance and policies governing marine resources and poverty alleviation in the

West African Eco region. The programme is managed by the UNDP in partnership with

WWF and APTE. 2) The Fish trade project implemented by WorldFish, AU-IBAR and NPCA

will strengthen capacity for regional trade in fish and fish products for increased food security

and poverty alleviation in Sub-Sahara Africa. 3) The ADUPES project provides support to

sustainable fisheries management in Senegal. 4) The ECOFISH project aims at ensuring the

Development of ecological sustainable hake, horse mackerel and sardinella fisheries in

Angola, Namibia and South Africa.

At the current stage of the programming, no coastal state in the Atlantic has identified

fisheries as a focal sector in National Indicative Programmes but local fisheries projects could

be financed under "agriculture / food security" items. Fisheries could be covered by future

regional programmes considering that management issues are mostly trans-boundary. In that

case, specific emphasis could be put on control policy and fight against IUU in the Gulf of

Guinea – these actions would fully complement the AOTTP initiative and contribute to good

management of tuna stocks by ensuring effective control of tuna fleets.

Other donors:

The Global Environment Facility has recently started the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

(ABNJ) Program, which promotes efficient and sustainable management of fisheries

resources and biodiversity conservation in the ABNJ. This project is implemented with a wide

range of private and public partners, including the FAO, the World Bank, the United Nations

Environment Programme, the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations, the

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, the South Indian Ocean Fisheries

Agreement, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the World Wildlife Fund, and

the Global Oceans Forum. The first project of the ABNJ program, which counts 4 projects, is

the Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in the ABNJ,

with the objectives of promoting sustainable fishing practices; reducing illegal, unreported

and unregulated (IUU) fishing; and reducing by-catch and other adverse ecosystem impacts

on biodiversity. This Program is not focused on the Atlantic Ocean.


A feasibility study has been carried out by the ICCAT and will be discussed in ICCAT

working groups. The ICCAT Commission (composed of all contracting parties) will endorse

44 / 103

the programme at its 19th Special Meeting in November 2014. This process will ensure large

publicity of the programme as 49 countries are currently members of ICCAT – including:

most of the coastal states in the Atlantic Ocean;

the European Union (representing its 28 Member States);

key donors in the field of fisheries such as the China, Iceland, Japan, Norway

and United States.

According to an agreement signed between ICCAT and the FAO, the latter is also fully

associated to the work of the ICCAT.

Contracting parties will be invited to co-finance the programme. Donor coordination will be

ensured by the ICCAT secretariat.


3.1. Objectives

The overall objective of the Atlantic Tuna Tagging Programme (AOTTP) is to

contribute to food security and economic growth of the Atlantic developing coastal

states by ensuring sustainable management of tropical tuna resources in the Atlantic

Ocean. The specific objective of this programme is to provide evidence based

scientific advices to developing costal states, and other Contracting Parties, to support

the adoption of effective Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) in the

framework of the International Commission for the Conservations of Atlantic Tunas

(ICCAT).


Result 1: Tag-recapture and associated data for the three main tropical tuna and on neritic tuna

species in the Atlantic are stored in a database at the ICCAT Secretariat.

Activity 1.1. Tagging of tunas. Tagging teams will be deployed on board fishing

vessels to conduct tagging operation with the objectives of tagging some 120 000

tropical tunas, mainly from the 3 mains species, i.e. yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack.

Pole-and-line vessels from different regions of the Atlantic Ocean will be chartered for

a total of some 180 tagging days over a 30 month period. Additional tagging will be

conducted with artisanal and sport fishermen of the Caribbean targeting large

yellowfin and bigeye.

Activity 1.2 Awareness campaigns and recovery schemes. It is essential to ensure that

the maximum number of recaptured tagged tuna are reported to the programme with

the necessary associated information. This will be done through the development of

large awareness and recovery campaigns in the different coastal States of the Atlantic

Ocean, as well as in other countries fishing or processing tuna from the Atlantic. The

awareness and recovery campaigns are implemented through several media and shall

inform potential tag finders of the procedure to follow to report a recapture. In

addition, in the different countries, tag recovery scheme will be developed in order to

ensure that tags and associated recovery information are reported swiftly to the

programme.

Activity 1.3 Recovery of tags and transmission to ICCAT secretariat. Recovery teams

will be trained and deployed for the whole duration of the programme in the ports of

Abidjan, Tema and Dakar, where a large proportion of the tropical tuna catch is

unloaded. In addition, a large network of recovery officers will be set up in other

regions.

45 / 103

Result 2: Missing parameters supporting stock assessments are estimated on the basis of data

collected through the programme and integrated stock assessments of yellowfin,

bigeye and skipjack are available.

Activity 2.1. Otolith readings. For growth study, otoliths will be sampled to be read by

experienced scientists/technicians. Otoliths grow like trees with annuli deposited every

day, and therefore can allow a precise estimation of the age of the fish by counting the

number of annuli of an otolith. Large numbers of otoliths would need to be read for

growth analysis. The programme will contract readers to undertake those readings. In

addition, readings shall be compared between different teams to estimate the bias that

can be associated to the reading methodology.

Activity 2.2. Tagging data analysis. The AOTTP will generate a large data set

comprised of conventional tagging and recapture data, otolith readings, tag seeding

data, data from popup satellite tags. Their analysis will allow estimating the missing

parameters for stock assessments, and eventually obtaining estimates of the

exploitation rates. Experienced scientists will undertake the analyses.

Activity 2.3 Information of stakeholders. To summarise and publicise the results of the

programme and its contribution towards sustainable management of the tuna resources in the

Atlantic Ocean, a Final symposium will be organized within the last months of the

programme. It will gather scientists from coastal states and all stakeholders concerned.

Result 3: Scientists from developing Contracting Parties of ICCAT are trained in tagging, data

collection and tagging data/stock assessments analysis.

Activity 3.1. Training in tagging techniques and data collection. During the tagging

cruises, scientists from developing coastal states will be invited to participate in the

tagging activities on board the chartered vessels. They will be trained to tagging

techniques and the associated data collection, and will fully participate to the tagging

operations. This will allow scientists from the region to develop and undertake other

tagging programmes for stock managed nationally if necessary.

Activity 3.2. Training on data collection and sampling at recovery. The success of

awareness campaigns and tag schemes will largely rely on tag recovery officers in

coastal countries who will be trained by the programme in data collection and

sampling at recovery. The training will include biological sampling on the recaptured

fish, collection of morphometric and recapture data, as well as data validation and

reporting to the programme.

Activity 3.3. Training in data analysis. To reinforce the capacity of the coastal states

participating to the programme, the AOTTP will organized several training workshops

dedicated to tagging data analysis and interpretation of stock assessment results.

Different techniques of analysis as well as practical work will be conducted using the

tagging data collected during the AOTTP. This will allow scientists from developing

coastal states to analyse data but also to better understand and participate to the

scientific activities of the ICCAT and to the development of the scientific advice.


Political risks:

- Cooperation of fishers, fishing operators, stevedores and processors: in general the

tagged tuna are recovered by fishers during fishing operations, by stevedores during

unloading or transhipping of the catch or works in processing plants. The programme

will need to ensure the full cooperation of these stakeholders as well as of the

companies that are employing them.

Cooperation of fishers and other stakeholders should be ensured through recovery

schemes and procedures designed in collaboration with them.

46 / 103

Technical risks:

- Access to logbook data should be ensured, with the proper confidentiality rules, in order

to link recovery with a data and position of recapture.

Access to logbook data, in particular for the purse seine fleets, should be ensured,

prior to the start of the programme through agreements with those fishing nations.

Confidentiality rules and access procedures should be clearly defined.

Financial risks:

- Significant increase of fuel or tuna prices could impact greatly the implementation of

the programme, by increasing the price of vessel chartering.


By generating more scientific data, reducing uncertainty in stock assessments and

reinforcing the scientific advice at the basis of the ICCAT conservation and

management measures, the AOTTP will contribute to the development of evidence

based management measures, thus ensuring the sustainability to the tuna resources of

the Atlantic Ocean. Having scientists trained in tagging technics and tagging data

analysis will also contribute to enhance scientific capacity and improve management

of local fish stocks.

While fishers are usually men, women play major roles in post-harvest activities. By

ensuring the sustainability of tuna fisheries, the AOTTP programme will contribute to

securing women jobs in coastal states. In addition, the training and involvement of an

equitable number of men and women scientists and technicians will be encouraged

during the implementation of the programme.

3.5. Stakeholders

The main beneficiaries of the AOTTP will be the coastal states of the Atlantic Ocean.

The different stakeholders of the programme will be:

- Fishing communities and fishing operators exploiting tuna resources;

- Member States of ICCAT and fisheries departments;

- Scientists of the developing coastal states and ICCAT SCRS;

- ICCAT secretariat.



In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with a

specific partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012.









47 / 103


4.3.1. Grant: direct award (direct management)

(a) Objectives of the grant, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and

expected results

The overall action (specific objective mentioned in section 3.1 and expected results listed in

section 3.2) will be achieved through a grant to ICCAT.

In order to carry out the Action, the organisation will have to conclude implementation

contracts with contractors. Therefore, sub-contracting, exceptionally, will not be restricted to

the limited portion of the Action.

(b) Justification of a direct grant

Under the responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the grant may be awarded

without a call for proposals to the ICCAT.


grant without a call for proposals is justified by the fact that ICCAT is in a legal monopoly

situation in conformity with article 190.1 (c) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)

N° 1268/2012. ICCAT is the only intergovernmental organisation that has the mandate to

adopt conservation and management measures for tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic

Ocean (cf. the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement specifying the role of RFMOs). ICCAT is

gathers the coastal states and fishing nations active in the Atlantic Ocean whose consent and

cooperation is needed to implement any tagging programme (cf. access to territorial waters

and EEZs and collaboration of national authorities / stakeholders in the collection of tags).

ICCAT is responsible for the study of the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes and has a

unique expertise on tropical tunas as its SCRS and working groups are composed of the most

competent tuna fisheries scientists, coming from the different contracting parties – ensuring

peer review and legitimacy of the results.


Even in a direct grant, the beneficiary and his proposal have to be assessed against selection

and award criteria best communicated to him upon invitation to submit a proposal.

The essential selection criteria are financial and operational capacity of the applicant.

The essential award criteria are relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the

GPGC; design, effectiveness, feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.


The maximum possible rate of co-financing for this grant is 90%.

The maximum possible rate of co-financing may be up to 100 % in accordance with Articles

192 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 if full funding is essential for the action to be

carried out. The essentiality of full funding will be justified by the responsible authorising

officer in the award decision, in respect of the principles of equal treatment and sound

financial management.

(e) Indicative trimester to contact the potential direct grant beneficiary

Fourth trimester of 2014

4.3.2. Procurement (direct management)

Subject Type (works,

supplies,

services)

Indicative

number of

contracts

Indicative trimester

of launch of the

procedure

48 / 103

Evaluation and audit Services 1 4th

2015







thousands

Third party

contribution

(indicative)

4.3.1 Direct grant to ICCAT (direct management) 13 480 1 520

Result 1 11 100

Result 2 505

Result 3 1 575

Incl. Communication and visibility 300 N.A.

4.3.2 Procurement – direct management 200

Total 15 200

Other ICCAT contracting parties and donors may provide additional in kind contribution,

notably through vessel chartering.


The indicators specified in the logical framework will be used for measuring the performance

of the programme and should be reported in the progress reports and form part of the review

of technical and financial implementation progress by the Programme Steering Committee.

A Steering Committee will be set up in order to control the results of the programme but also

to give it orientations for its activities. The Steering Committee will be composed inter alia of

the Executive secretary of ICCAT - or its Deputy, the SCRS Chair, the Coordinator of the

tropical tuna working group, experts in tagging and tropical tuna stock assessments and the

European Commission. The Steering Committee will meet at least once a year to assess the

achievement of the results (based on an annual assessment of milestones compared to baseline

and final target for each indicator) and endorse the work programme for the following years.


An independent mid-term evaluation will take place during the third year of operations as

well as a final review upon completion.

Audits will be carried out by ICCAT as part of their annual audits. Moreover, the EU can

decide the audit of any part of the project deemed necessary. In addition, verifications and

monitoring missions may be carried out by the Commission.



the EU. This action shall contain communication and visibility measures which shall be

based on a specific Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action, to be elaborated before

the start of implementation and supported with the budget indicated in section 4.5 above.

49 / 103








50 / 103

ANNEX 6






1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Food Security Impact, Resilience Sustainability and

Transformation (FIRST): Support to partner countries to

improve food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture

(FNSSA) policy frameworks

CRIS number:2014/037-586

Total cost Total estimated cost: EUR 40 million

Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 30 million for

an amount of EUR 20,337,527 from the general budget of the

European Union for 2014 and for an amount of EUR

9,662,473 from the general budget of the European Union for

the financial year 2015 subject to the availability of

appropriations following the adoption of the relevant budget.

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of

financing

Project Approach

Indirect management with Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)

DAC-code 31110 Sector Agricultural policy and

administrative management



The main purpose of the project is strengthen the enabling environment for food and nutrition

security and sustainable agriculture in selected priority countries/regional organisations, with

a particular focus on:

(i) sectoral and cross-sectoral policy and programme frameworks for FNSSA, with a

particular focus on the contribution that sustainable agriculture can make to food and

nutrition security (FNS) now and in the future;

(ii) human and organizational capacities for FNSSA;

(iii) inclusive and evidence-based governance and stakeholder coordination mechanisms

for FNSSA.

These actions will lead in particular to increase impact and effectiveness of EU assistance in

the field of FNSSA

The support will be provided through policy assistance to be implemented by FAO in close

collaboration with European Union Delegations (EUD) and other development partners.

FIRST will provide technical assistance and capacity development support to relevant

national government institutions (main focus) and regional organizations (where relevant)

involved in supporting FNSSA policy and governance work in priority in countries and

51 / 103

regions where FNSSA have been selected as focal sector of EU development cooperation in

the period 2014-2020.

FIRST will provide added value to the nearly EUR 8 billion of EU funds that will be

dedicated to improve FNSSA at country level during 2014-2020 period through anticipated

improvements in the enabling environment for FNSSA (in particular in terms of evidence-

based and inclusive policy dialogue and stakeholder coordination). The programme

investment represents 0.05% of the total EC support to this area.

2.2. Context



Currently 842 million people still suffer from chronic hunger. The human, social and

economic costs to society at large are enormous in terms of lost productivity, health,

wellbeing, decreased learning ability and reduced fulfilment of human potential. These

problems persist in spite of significant progress made in areas such as economic development,

science and technology, and food production. What is needed is much stronger commitment,

more purposeful and concerted action across sectors and stakeholders, and greater

accountability.

Under the pressures of 30 percent increase in the global population, rapid urbanization,

changing diets, intensifying competition for increasingly scarce land, water and energy

resources, and the existential threat of climate change, there is an urgent need to support a

transition to sustainable food and agriculture which ensures world food security, provides

economic opportunity and protects the ecosystem services on which agriculture depends

2.2.1.2. National/Regional development policy

The food price crisis in 2007-2008 and the subsequent period of high food prices volatility has

led to the rise of FNSSA on the agendas of political leaders in many countries and in regional,

sub-regional and global institutions (such as EU37

, the G20 and the G8). The reform of the

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) underlines the importance of food security in the

global and regional development agendas. It also sparked a series of initiatives, including the

L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI) launched at the 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila,

where the G8 committed to “a coordinated, comprehensive strategy focused on sustainable

agriculture development". Since then, sustainable agriculture and food security have been an

important part of the G8 agenda, for example with the launch of the New Alliance on Food

Security and Nutrition at the Camp David Summit in 2012 or the UN Secretary General called

upon leaders gathered at the Rio+20 Summit to take up the “Zero Hunger Challenge.

In the nutrition domain, the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement was launched in 2010 to

galvanize support from governments, donors, UN agencies, civil society, academia, research

institution and the private sector to tackle malnutrition. Since then, fifty countries have

committed to put nutrition at the core of their policies and investments. At the pre-G8 event

on Nutrition for Growth in June 2013 donors and other stakeholders pledged over USD 19

billion for nutrition-sensitive development, including USD 4 Billion from EU with a

particular focus on the role of the agricultural sector.

As a response to this global context and in consideration to the priorities of the

Communication " Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change

37

The EU has positioned itself as a committed donor and has swiftly responded to the food price crisis with the adoption of the Food

Facility, aiming to bridge the gap between emergency response and long-term development

52 / 103

EU retains agriculture and/or food and nutrition security as aid focal sector in about 60

countries for the 2014-2020 Aid programming period. The EU has also been a strong

supporter of global governance of FNS, including in the CFS context, and an active player in

the G8 and SUN framework38

. EU is also part of international conventions on climate change,

on biological diversity and on combat desertification. EU is committed to dedicate 20% of its

aid to these areas.


Promoting a cross-sectoral approach towards addressing issues of FNSSA. Few countries

have so far adopted truly coherent cross-sectoral policy, investment and governance

frameworks for food and nutrition security, despite the growing recognition that the

sustainable eradication of food and nutrition insecurity requires concerted actions across

sectors. Similarly, there is need for sharpening the focus of sectoral programmes, policies and

investment plans on producing more tangible outcomes in terms of food and nutrition security

and sustainable agriculture.

Developing capacities for FNSSA policy and governance. In many instances there is much

scope for making considerable progress in the FNSSA domain through the adoption of an

improved institutional set-up and the strengthening of available human and organizational

capacities of (sub-) regional, national and/or decentralized institutions responsible for the

design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, investments and actions.

Enhancing the contribution of food and agricultural systems to combating malnutrition.

Eradicating malnutrition requires strengthening political commitment and improving

knowledge, policy and program coordination, and stakeholders’ capacity to address the basic

causes of poor nutrition.

Addressing the role of gender in FNSSA: Women continue to face a disproportional

disadvantage by virtue of their limited representation in decision-making processes. It is

necessary to involve women in policy and planning to enhance their role as agricultural

producers, as well as primary care-takers of their families and stewards of natural resources.

Appropriate policy actions, based on accurate information and analysis, should therefore be

developed to help close the “gender gap".

Value added to use "Global Public Goods and Challenges" programme: EU will support

FIRST through its Food Security-Sustainable Agriculture (FS-SA) programme, part of

“Global Public Goods and Challenges” 2014-2020 Programme, in particular through its


continental, regional level. Enhancing governance and capacity should contribute to more

effective continental, regional and national policies and approaches on food and nutrition

security (result 2) and should contribute to improve effectiveness and participation of relevant

stakeholders (public and non-public actors) for food and nutrition security policy making and

governance (result 4).

FAO’s comparative advantage: FAO has the mandate and has been requested by its member

countries to support its members with technical assistance and policy support in the FNSSA

domain. FAO is also widely recognized as a neutral provider of technical assistance and

policy support with presence at country, regional and global levels. FAO has the advantage of

being engaged simultaneously in policy dialogue and action at global, regional and national

38

During the Hunger Conference in London in August 2012, Commissioner Piebalgs committed to support partner countries in reducing

stunting in children under 5 by at least 7 million by 2025. This corresponds to 10% of the World Health Assembly global target of

reducing stunting by 40% by 2025. The EU Communication "Enhancing Maternal and Child Nutrition in External Assistance", adopted in March 2013, sets out the policy framework to reach this target

53 / 103

levels. It therefore has the ability to create and exploit synergies across all levels, feeding

lessons learned from the national level into its normative work and in global policy dialogue,

promote sharing of experiences across countries and regions.

2.3. Lessons learnt

The proposed programme intends to shift the current focus of collaboration between FAO and

the EU away from execution of projects towards one of FAO’s core functions which relates to

the provision of policy support to its member countries in the FNSSA domain. At country

level, from 2007 to 2013, about 165 contracts, representing €725M of EU funds were made

available to FAO for implementation of programmes and projects in 46 countries.

Through its focus on strengthening the enabling environment for FNSSA, FIRST also intends

to address one of the shortcomings of the EU Food Facility in terms of sustainability. While

the EU Food Facility successfully triggered a positive food supply response at local level, the

sustainability of the results was undermined in the absence of actions by partner countries to

strengthen their own long-term support to agriculture and food security.


The EU increased support in FNSSA will generate programmes which are by nature

complementary to FIRST and will beneficiate from its action.

One of the fundamental deliverables under FIRST will be to ensure that the evidence and

analyses generated by the “Resilience Oriented Information System Initiative” is used to

inform policy dialogue and frameworks at country level, in particular with respect to the

resilience, food security and nutrition situation and trends, i.e. integrated Phase Classification

(IPC) mapping.

FIRST will also allow to build on some of the outcomes of the EU-FAO Improved Global

Governance Programme 2012-2015, including through the mainstreaming into national

policies of CFS-endorsed initiatives and decisions such as the Voluntary Guidelines on the

Governance of the Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forestry in the context of National Food

Security(VGGTs), the CFS Principles for Responsible Agricultural investment (CFS RAI),

the CFS Agenda for Action on Addressing Food insecurity in protracted crises (AforA).

The Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative in Sahel (AGIR), supporting the Horn of Africa's

Resilience (SHARE) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

(CAADP) are global initiatives in Africa, supported by the EU at regional level. They imply

coordination at national level which would be enhanced by the present programme.


One result of FIRST is a better coordination of the policy dialogue between national

stakeholders, between governments and donors, and among them. With this programme,

donor coordination will be improved as it could beneficiate from current FAO implication in

coordination in many countries as technical 'arm' supporting the ministry of agriculture and

rotating donor chair. EUD and FAO representation will ensure a coordinated role of

supervision of the programme in countries/region and EUD will be particularly involved in

the evaluation of FIRST.


3.1. Objectives

The global objectives of FIRST are (i) agriculture sustainability,(ii) agriculture growth, (iii)

resilience in crisis prone countries and, (iv) enhancing nutrition. They are FNSSA policy EU

54 / 103

priorities also shared by FAO. Adaptation to climate change is a transversal objective of the

action. Pursuing these global objectives will also have a positive impact on effectiveness of

external assistance, in particular of EU assistance in the field of FNSSA, and will strengthen

FAO in its core function of supporting policy making at country and regional level and in its

institutional reform.

The project purpose is to contribute to a national (and regional) enabling environment for

FNSSA by providing Technical assistance and capacity development support at national (and

regional) level.


R1 On policy: Improved capacities of governments and stakeholders for developing and

implementing and monitoring sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, programmes and related

instruments for FNSSA

R2 On capacity: Improved capacities for human resource and organizational development in

the FNSSA domain.

R3 On Coordination: Improved capacities of governments and stakeholders for strategic

coordination and governance across sectors and stakeholders for FNSSA

FIRST will primarily focus on the provision of policy assistance and capacity development

support at country level. However, support may also be given to regional organizations

involved in relevant regional/continental policy processes that have concrete relevance to

national FNSSA policies.

The provision of technical assistance under the programme will in first instance be driven by

the demand of the selected EU priority countries and (sub)-regional organisations. Depending

on demand and needs, below is a non-exhaustive list of possible areas of work where FIRST

may facilitate technical assistance and capacity development support, including:

(i) Carrying out joint analyses and creating a common understanding of the nature

and extent to which the existing portfolio of policies and investment programmes

generates positive outcomes in terms of food and nutrition security and sustainable

agriculture, and identifying options for overcoming inconsistencies and/or

bottlenecks in order to improve impact overall;

(ii) Identifying areas where there are institutional, organizational and/or human

resource capacity gaps and outlining options for addressing these in order to

translate political commitment towards food and nutrition security and sustainable

agriculture into more effective actions and concrete results;

(iii) Developing a common results and accountability framework for food and

nutrition security and sustainable agriculture, owned by the concerned sectors and

development partners in an effort to align their actions to country priorities and

goals in terms of food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture and create

a tool for monitoring progress and sharing lessons learned;

(iv) Facilitating evidence-based and inclusive policy dialogue and stakeholder

coordination;

(v) Leveraging the potential of regional organisations for supporting country-level

FNSSA policy processes, sharing of lessons learned and good practices across

countries and stimulate collaboration and dialogue on cross-border issues that

impact of food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture;

55 / 103

(vi) In line with the priorities spelled out in the national policies for FNSSA,

promoting more investment and improving resource allocation for food and

nutrition security and sustainable agriculture involving governments and their

partners.


The programme Management and Coordination Unit will establish and maintain a risk log and

ensure regular risk monitoring and reporting to all concerned parties.

Risk of double substitution: There is a risk for the EUD in delegating the sector dialogue to

FIRST expert39

party and a risk of the FAO filling the gaps in the policy framework but

without a clear ownership of the partners. The first one will be avoided in the sense that FAO

will never represent one donor in the dialogue with national/regional authorities and the

second by the complete analysis of the sector situation and country capacity needs assessment

before any posting of experts.

Capacity development and coordination issues in a country could exceed the capacity of the

expert. To mitigate this risk regional based experts could ensure a more specialized ad

thematic support, together with short term specific missions.

Failed or weak FAO technical assistance may happen and be recognised by

Government/regional organisations, EU and FAO. In this case, the programme will replace

the expert through a concerted procedure. More generally in case of disagreement,

alternatives will be explored and joint ad hoc decisions will be taken to reach or adapt the

programme objective for the country.

Risk of capture whereby time of policy experts is diverted away from the FNSSA policy and

governance work towards other tasks, this could be mitigated by a detailed work plan and

performance monitoring evaluation.


Cross-cutting issues related to gender, governance, climate change, knowledge sharing, will

be mainstreamed in the work to be carried out through FIRST with all stakeholders in line

with existing EC and FAO policies and practices regarding these issues.

In particular, the expertise provide through the programme will strengthen the

national/regional policy focus on poorest and vulnerable smallholders, small scale production

for local and regional needs, fair and equitable trade strategies, local adaptation to climate

change, protection of genetic variety in farming, integration of traditional and scientific

knowledge, wherever necessary.

3.5. Stakeholders

The main stakeholders are national ministries and organizations concerned with FNSSA,

farmers and other civil society organizations, private sector organizations, as well as

development agencies and relevant regional organizations that support policy dialogue and

action on FNSSA in the selected countries.

The ultimate beneficiaries will be those population groups that are engaged in the food and

agricultural sectors and those that are affected by or at risk of food insecurity and

malnutrition. They will benefit from a more effective and coordinated policy framework for

FNSSA.

39 in particular in EUD that did not have FNSSA as EU focal cooperation sector in the past and do not yet count with enough human

resources.

56 / 103

The EU, inter alia through FIRST, EUD together with FAO field offices have a critical role to

assess the in country demand for PAM before expert posting.

FAO will hold primary responsibility for the implementation of the programme in close

consultation and collaboration with the EU (Headquarters and EU Delegations) and the

Governments of selected countries as well as the relevant regional organizations.



described in sections 3.2. and 4.3 will be carried out, is 60 months from the date of entry into









partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012









4.3. Implementation and management components and modules

The programme is demand driven: if interested by the programme, the partner countries will

have a prominent role to define its activities.

Pre-selection of countries: EU will launch a call for expression of interests to the EUD in the

about 60 priority countries (in July-August 2014) to determine the countries where FIRST

may provide assistance to strengthen the existing political commitment and add value to

ongoing efforts in the FNSSA policy and governance domain. The expression of interest will

be based on a dialogue between the EU Delegation, the FAO Country Office (also consulted

from FAO on the interest to count on FIRST) and the relevant Government Ministries. The

expression of interest will give evidence of a genuine request for FIRST support and will be

accompanied by a rapid assessment of the commitment and gaps in capacity in the FNSSA

policy and governance domain. For countries which express their interest, EUD and FAO

Representation will draft a joint response, coordinated with member states and other donors.

Selection of countries: Based on a review of the expression of interest from various countries,

FAO and EU will jointly prepare a list of countries selected to receive FIRST support. Criteria

will be: degree of need, political commitments towards FNSSA, potential for leveraging

resources for FNSSA.

57 / 103

Identification and mobilization of technical assistance: The programme will to a large extent

rely on the deployment of medium-term expertise (i.e. for two to three years) in selected

countries. The medium-term expertise will be reinforced through the mobilization of short-

term expertise in more specialized areas depending on specific country needs and context.

The experts will have a small budget to be funded from FIRST to cover various expenditures.

The budget and terms of reference of the experts for each country will be reviewed and agreed

upon by DEVCO and FAO Headquarters based on the country proposals. Partner country is

part of the expert selection process and will communicate its agreement with the final choice.

Establishment of the FIRST management and coordination mechanism: FAO will embed the

programme management and coordination mechanism within the existing management and

coordination structure that was created around its renewed Strategic Framework and within

the structure of its current Medium Term Plan and Programme of Work and Budget. FIRST

will count also of (sub)-regional hubs support.

Implementation: FAO will implement the programme in close consultation and collaboration

with relevant EU Delegations and national stakeholders in the concerned EU priority

countries. EUD will be fully involved in progress monitoring and reporting at country level,

as will EU Headquarters in terms of the regional and global level implementation and results.

At regional level: FIRST may also assist selected (sub)-regional organizations, the selection

of which will need to focus on organizations that can provide quick, efficient and effective

added value to country level policy work in terms of:(i) economies of scale for providing

expertise to multiple countries in the (sub-) region in particular in technically specialized

areas, i.e. nutrition, resilience, agriculture, food security; (ii) a multiplier effect to other

countries in the (sub-)region not directly involved in FIRST, (iii) sustainability in terms of

continued TA beyond the FIRST duration.

4.3.1. Indirect management with Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)

This action with the objective of strengthening the enabling environment for food and

nutrition security and sustainable agriculture in selected priority countries/regional

organisations will be implemented in indirect management with FAO in accordance with

Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.FAO is an entrusted entity that is

currently undergoing the ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation

(EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In anticipation of the results of this review, the responsible

authorising officer deems that, based on a preliminary evaluation and on the long-standing

and problem-free cooperation with this entity, it can be entrusted with budget-implementation

tasks under indirect management. This implementation is justified because FAO will carry out

budget implementation tasks, including: procurement of goods and contracting of partners for

the implementation of services.






Module EU Amount in €

thousands

Third party contribution

in € thousands, FAO

Indirect management with FAO 30,000 10,000

Included – Evaluation and audit 180

Included – Communication and visibility 105

58 / 103

Total 30,000 10,000


The internal monitoring system of the programme will be based on EU and FAO

methodologies which work on the basis of overall logical frameworks, smart indicators,

baseline values and annual milestones and end of programme targets. Annual reviews will be

jointly carried out by FAO and DEVCO.


The Programme will undergo a mid-term review as well as a final evaluation, carried out by

independent experts. The proposed action will be subject to verification in accordance with

the relevant provisions of delegation agreement.



the EU.








The EU-UN Visibility Manual for European Union External Action shall be used to establish

the Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action and the appropriate contractual

obligations.

59 / 103

ANNEX 7



Agriculture under the Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic programme.



1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number INFORMED (Information for Nutrition Food Security Resilience

Decision Making) CRIS number: 2014 / 037-516


Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 25 million

This action is co-financed in parallel by:

- DFID for an amount of EUR 4.3 million;

- UN for an amount of EUR 3,9 million;

- Germany for an amount of EUR 1.9 million;

- FAO for an amount of EUR 3.8 million;

Aid method /

Management

mode and type

of financing

Project Approach

Indirect management with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Indirect management with United Nations Development Program

(UNDP)

DAC-code 52010 Sector



The action aims at strengthening the most common and largely used food and nutrition

security assessment tool and creating a reliable resilience measurement index. These tools will

assist governments and technical & financial partners to take appropriate and timely decision.

The government capacity building and knowledge sharing are at the core of the program.

2.2. Context

2.2.1. Economic and social situation and poverty analysis

Food crises typologies evolved, in recent years, from catastrophic, short term events to more

structural, long-term and protracted situations produced by multiple contributing factors,

including climate change. As a consequence, food and nutrition early warning information

systems need to evolve to incorporate and interpret the dualism between acute and chronic

nature of food crises.

Countries involved into this program are the world's most vulnerable regions to food crises,

including natural disasters, long term depletion of natural resources and climate change.

Intervention in those countries is coherent with the Communication on Resilience40

, its Action

Plan41

, and is in line with the European Union (EU) priority of strengthening resilience to

food crises.

2.2.2. Development policy

Major efforts have been made and are currently ongoing for improving the availability and

quality of statistical data in dedicated information systems and tools for supporting the

decision making process. Improving the quality of information, as well as establishing new

methods for standardized and consensus based analysis directly facilitate evidence-based

40

COM(2012)586 41

SWD(2013) 227 final

60 / 103

decision making. However, despite technical and methodological improvements, large gaps

remain in coverage and quality of agricultural monitoring and food and nutrition security data.

National and international efforts as well as collaboration and synergies between partners are

more than ever required for providing the best possible basis for decision making.


Several food and nutrition security information systems have been developed to support and

advise policy makers to design the appropriate responses to food crises. The development of

these tools is frequently “nationally based” and depending on the capacity and the

coordination of local institutions, government bodies and international organizations, their

effectiveness and efficiency are not always granted. Additionally, improving food and

nutrition security information and their analysis to support the policy decision making process

is in line with: i) the component 2 point 342

and 443

of the Multi Annual Indicative programme

2014-2020 of the Global Public Goods and Challenges (GPGC), component Food Security

and Sustainable Agriculture (FS-SA) and ii) SHARE and AGIR44

initiatives that show the

EU and partner countries strong commitment in improving the resilience of most vulnerable

people.

The Central American Integration System (SICA) region has identified food and nutrition

security as a regional priority since the 90s and this commitment has been renewed during the

Extraordinary Summit of Heads of State and Governments of SICA member countries, held in

Managua, Nicaragua in August 2012.

2.3. Lessons learnt

Adequate food security information plays an important role to prevent and tackle food

insecurity. However, information systems are often externally driven, uncoordinated,

fragmented and lack in long term perspective and structure.

Building consensus on the food and nutrition security situation requires a common and

universally accepted analytical methodology and terminology. Thematic platform to

enhance coordination such as the global Food Security Information Network (FSIN)45

are

necessary to achieve this common understanding.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)46

as well as the resilience

measurement tool (Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis – RIMA)47

developed by

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) proved to be useful tools

for building effective multi-stakeholder action and inter-agency collaboration.

42

Better access to information and services for food and nutrition security 43

Improved effectiveness and participation of relevant stakeholders (public and non-public actors) for food and

nutrition security policy making and governance 44

Support horn of Africa Resilience initiative (SHARE) and Global Alliance for the Resilience Initiative in the

Sahel (AGIR) 45

FSIN has been established by FAO, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), World Food

Program (WFP) in 2012. The FSIN facilitates joint capacity development efforts in strengthening food and

nutrition security information systems. Second, the programme is playing a strategic leadership role on

resilience measurement, again in collaboration with WFP and other strategic partners through the FSIN. It has

also been recognized the strong connections between FSIN and regional and country-level initiatives and

identified as a new, cutting-edge activities incorporated into the EU funded Global Programme. 46

The IPC is a global, multi-partner, innovative initiative to inform food security policy and programming. It

provides a common scale for classifying the severity and causes of food insecurity thus improving the rigour,

transparency, relevance, and comparability of food security analysis for decision makers. 47

The RIMA measures resilience at household level by understanding key factors that contributes to resilience.

It therefore, explains the interaction between shocks and their effects on households, with resilience accounting

for the difference in outcomes between two similar households exposed to the same shock.

61 / 103

Effective action towards food security requires strong individual and institutional

capacities at all levels, as well as good quality of information, disaggregated information

that allows targeting specific groups and regions for more effective decision making.

Concerning Central America, the specific experience of the Regional Program on

Statistics and Indicators in Food and Nutrition Security (PRESISAN) and PRESISAN II

shows the importance of a regional approach for the strengthening of food and nutrition

information systems to improve synergies and positive exchanges between countries

including the cross-fertilisation at different levels (local, national, regional). Strengthening

of human resources is also recognized as a key strategy for more sustainable interventions.


Supporting food security information systems for improved decision-making has been a key

area of collaboration between the Commission, the FAO and the SICA in the last decade.

The new action will also build on existing collaboration on food security analysis and policy

between the European Commission and National Planning and Coordinating Agency/

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (NPCA/CAADP) initiated

under the afore-mentioned European Commission/FAO Global Programme so as to pave the

way for the establishment of long term partnership with NPCA in this area of work. The

activities to be supported by the proposed action will be consistent with FAO’s Strategic

Framework 2010-19 and Medium-Term Plan 2010-13 and related Strategic Objectives and

Organizational Results.

In the last 5 years, 15 e-learning training modules have been developed in the context of

FAO-EU cooperation and they have been used by over 170,000 professionals. Institutional

partnerships have been established with several Universities (e.g. University of Cataluña and

Africa Open University) and Regional institutions such as NPCA, Permanent Interstates

Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) and Southern African Development

Community (SADC), also thanks to the support received from other donors such as Germany.

Such wealth of technical materials and technical collaborations will serve as a solid basis for

the implementation of the capacity development axis of the proposed action.

Several ongoing initiatives will be connected to this program: i) Food Security Portal (of

IFPRI), ii) Global Food Security Information Network, FSIN, iii) Improve Global

Governance for Hunger Reduction Programme (implemented by FAO), iv) Platform on

Agricultural Risk Management (PARM), v) West African Food Reserve Program (under the

control of the Economic Community of West African States ECOWAS). The development of

the acute IPC in West Africa (named “CHB: Cadre Harmonisé Bonifié”) is already funded

under the information system component of this program, vi) Technical and Scientific

Support to Agriculture and Food and Nutrition Security (Administrative Arrangement

DEVCO-Joint Research Centre - JRC), vii) 1st phase of the support to the Resilience Analysis

Unit (RAU)48

in the Horn of Africa (HoA) managed by the Intergovernmental Authority on

Development of the HoA (IGAD) with support of FAO and partners (UNDP, UNICEF and

WFP) and funded by the Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection Office (ECHO) (mixed-

methods approach will be adopted) from which the present program will take over, viii)

GPGC FS-SA “Building resilience through crisis prevention and post-crisis response

strategy” for which the present program will provide evidence for funds allocation, ix) GPGC

FS-SA “Policy for Progress” initiative implemented in collaboration with FAO and to which

the present program will be closely link to ensure synergies in terms of technical support to be

provided to partner countries.

48

Complementarity to support RAU program is particularly important at this stage given the regional priority

that should be given to Horn of Africa, justified by the funds allocation already attributed to West Africa

through the Regional Food Reserve program.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm

62 / 103

Specifically for Central America:

i) Regional Programme on Food and Nutrition Security in Central America (PRESANCA II)

(EU), ii) Central America Regional Programme for Food and Nutrition Security Information

Systems (EU), iii) Feed the Future (of the US Governmental Agency on external aid -

USAID, the Regional Unit for Technical Assistance – RUTA and IFPRI), iv) Regional

Initiative for Climate Change (of the USAID), v) Estimation of Weather Hazards Impacts

Assessment for Central America (M-FEWS), vi) Climate resilience and food security in C.A

(CDKN, ACH, IISD- ends 2014).


The global action is co-funded by FAO, Department for International Development (DFID),

the United Nations (UN), Germany and Switzerland with possible additional funds provided

by USAID and Canada. The FAO has the responsibility for the coordination of the activities

as well as for the design of a single global program including the implementation at country

level. Donors are also called to participate to the coordination at two levels: i) strategic and ii)

technical.

IPC coordination is ensured by the Global Steering Committee in which FAO plays a leading

role along with WFP and other partners different partners including Non-Governmental

Organisations (NGOs), EU, the SADC, CILSS, IGAD, Famine Early Warning Systems

Network (FEWSNET), the Food Security Cluster (FSC) and the EU through the Joint

Research Centre. A technical advisory group and an IPC community' of practitioners and

partners are also consulted on IPC technical issues.

The RIMA tool, originally developed by FAO, is currently being jointly utilised and

improved upon by several stakeholders such as IGAD, WFP and the United Nations

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and it is complemented by other tools of a more qualitative

nature (mixed methods).

Finally, a growing role in technical coordination is attributed to the FSIN, a community of

practice launched in October 2012 by FAO, IFPRI, and WFP to enable developing countries

together with international partners to build sustainable food and nutrition information

systems and to build consensus on technical issues concerning food security analysis. . The

FSIN has in fact endeavoured a number of initiatives to enhance coordination in the areas of

food security related analyses. In particularly it has established a technical working group on

resilience measurement involving different partners, including: the European Commission

(through the JRC), NGOs, UN agencies (UNICEF, WFP, IFAD, FAO), IFPRI, World Bank,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IGAD, CILSS, and

researchers from several universities.


3.1. Objectives

General. I) Increase the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises and contribute to the

reduction of food insecurity and malnutrition. II) Increase countries climate change adaptation

capabilities. III) Contribute to reduce malnutrition and stunting of children and adults.

Specific. Improved availability of regular, timely and early warning information as well as

evidence-based analysis regarding the food security, nutrition and resilience situation for

decision-making


Result 1: Data systems for long and short term trend analysis of food crisis situations

are improved and integrated. Key indicators: i) Number of threat monitoring

mechanisms/services provided to enhance delivery of early warnings and monitoring of food

63 / 103

security and nutrition; ii) Number of countries that improved food security and nutrition

monitoring through improved data collection on food security and nutrition at household

level.

Activity clusters 1: Action plans to enhance countries capacities in data collection and

analysis are drafted and implemented through country level Community of Practices’ (CoP)

networking

Activity clusters 2: Longer term datasets (e.g. household surveys) and indicators are

complementary and more responsive to feed food security and nutrition analytical needs and

decision making products.

Activity clusters 3: Food crisis related analytical tools are integrated into a single global and

country based food and nutrition security decision making product with two components (a.

State of food and Nutrition security b. monitoring traditional and emerging threats)

Result 2: Food Security Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) process strengthened and

largely applied at country level. Key indicators: Number of countries that improved

vulnerability mapping and analysis by applying IPC; Number of countries that improved

monitoring of food security and nutrition by applying IPC.

Activity clusters 1: Increased global quality of the IPC tool through technical development,

quality and compliance.

Activity clusters 2: Enhanced country-level capacities to implement the IPC, through IPC

capacity building and professionalization

Activity clusters 3: The IPC methodology is applied in a number of countries to have clear

long term food and nutrition security tendency analysis assembled by country and region.

Result 3: Resilience programming improved through the application of common

methodology to measure resilience, and enhanced knowledge sharing mechanisms. Key

Indicators i) Number of countries that improved resilience analysis applying the RIMA; ii)

Number of organizations applying resilience best practices for risk prevention and mitigation.

Activity clusters 1: Global level efforts to feed programme and policy process through

knowledge sharing tools and lessons learning.

Activity clusters 2: Support to Regional Analysis Unit and Platform is consolidated.

Activity clusters 3: Specific Country support is provided.

In Central America, more attention will be put in the development of the result 1 (support to

data collection systems).


The Action is designed on the following risks and assumptions:

The Action assumes that food security continues to be a priority at global, regional and

national levels. FAO with the support of the proposed Action will intensify its advocacy

for the potential of investment in agriculture and food security for sustainable growth

strategies in developing countries;

Commitment to use information and knowledge for improved decision making among

different actors at global, regional and national levels is also assumed. FAO will

document and demonstrate the impact of better information on the success of development

interventions.

Existing risks that may affect the participation and commitment of regional, national and

municipal institutions will be countered through participative processes at different levels.

Different FNS approaches and views in the region regarding the use of information

systems for decision-making purposes. This programme aims to harmonise and respect all

FNS views in order to improve decision-making through the use of technological tools.

64 / 103

Advances in Central American regional integration at sector level.


The RIMA will provide gender-sensitive vulnerability analysis and policy advice, while IPC

will include gender sensitive indicators in the analysis wherever possible (e.g. food

consumption, and nutrition). The livelihoods approaches clearly identify also in the gender

component some key vulnerability aspects. Gender analysis is mainstreamed throughout the

methodologies and guidance material already developed to ensure an adequate understanding

among all stakeholders of how gender issues may impact on the success of development

interventions and related policies.

Climate change - adaptation and mitigation - good governance - food crises government - and

capacity development are cross-cutting issues that will be addressed across all three results. In

fact, improved food and nutrition policies, based on scientific evidence and analysis, will

allow better management of natural resources, better targeting of food and nutrition policies,

improving capacities of poor and food insecure people to adapt to climate change and to

contribute to its mitigation, reducing their exposure to food crises.

Furthermore, both the IPC and the RIMA model provide overview of the environmental

issues and their impact on vulnerability. Those analyses will contribute to better understand

how the environmental issues (e.g. degradation, overexploitation, desertification, etc.) have

implication on food and nutrition security, thus providing analytical elements for the design of

mitigation and adaptation approaches.

3.5. Stakeholders

The stakeholders will be international, regional and national organizations and governments

that will lead the analysis and use the outputs/outcomes produced by the proposed action for

policy design purpose, while contributing to their development. In particular, national

statistical institutions, different ministries (plan, agriculture, livestock, infrastructure, social

protection, etc.) will be directly involved in and will beneficiate of the analysis. An explicit

appetite for the adoption of the decision making support tools described in the action has been

expressed by several countries that could be involved in the program, on the basis of an

explicit demand from the beneficiary institution (sub-national, national or regional).

The FAO is leading the methodological conceptualisation of the resilience measurement

approach and, at the same time, is supporting the IPC. Moreover, the FAO has a clear

mandate and reconnaissance for its role of technical leader of the resilience building process

and food security related information systems.

Other stakeholders will be the community of donors cofounding the program, the technical

coordination partners involved in the IPC and the RIMA and the World Bank for the process

of harmonisation of households based analysis.



In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with a

specific partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012.



described will be carried out, is 60 months from the date of entry into force of the financing

agreement or, where none is concluded, from the adoption of this Action Document, subject

to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the relevant

65 / 103

agreements. The European Parliament and the relevant Committee shall be informed of the

extension of the operational implementation period within one month of that extension being

granted.


The program consists of two components: component (a) covers the Central American region

and will be implemented by UNDP; component (b) covers the rest of the world and will be

implemented by FAO. For both components participating countries/regions will be selected

on the basis of:

1. The launch of a call for expression of interests to the EU Delegations (EUD) in about 60

priority countries (in July-August 2014) to determine the countries where INFORMED may

operate. The call for expression of interest will be followed at country level by a dialogue

between the EU Delegation, the FAO Country Office (UNDP-SICA for Central America) and

the relevant Government Ministries to decide on the relevance of the programme for the

individual country/region and the expected level of commitment from the various partners.

2. In interested countries, the EU Delegation, together with country/regional authorities and

local representation of the FAO will analyse the situation in detail and propose terms of

reference (ToR) for the support needed. The ToR should respond to the specific issues and

opportunities in the country/region concerned and be agreed upon with the institution to be

supported. A formal government request is expected.

3. EU Headquarters in relation with FAO headquarters (and UNDP-SICA for Central

America) will prioritise the requests and organise the support49

.Particular attention will be

paid to ongoing initiatives and countries differences. The program approach will be adapted to

the countries specificities consequently (looking at the complementarity).

4.3.1 Component a: Indirect management with United Nations Development Program

(UNDP)

This action with the objective of improving the resilience information systems may be

implemented in indirect management with UNDP in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. This implementation is justified because UNDP is

involved since several years in assisting SICA in developing food and nutrition information

systems for all the member countries and has already received support for this important

objective from the EU Budget through the Food Security Thematic Program (PRESANCA

and PRESISAN). This current action is thus inscribed in the same track.

The entrusted entity, UNDP, would carry out budget implementation tasks, including:

procurement of goods and services, contracting of partners for the implementation of the

programme in Central American countries.

UNDP is currently undergoing the ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In anticipation of the results of this review, the

responsible authorising officer deems that, based on a preliminary evaluation and on the long-

standing and problem-free cooperation with these entities, they can be entrusted with budget-


49

IPC: the tool development is different from one country to another (details in the website:

http://www.ipcinfo.org/) . These specificities will be taken into account, knowing that the available envelop

should allow to have almost a total coverage (of the 60 countries)

RIMA: this tool is at a pilot phase development. Priority will be given to the Sahel and HoA countries.

(As per footnote 7, a gap of EUR 1.5 million has been already identified to the support of the RAU in the Horn

of Africa. Given the geographical priority attributed to the HoA, through a transparent procedure, this action

should allocate to the RAU program the necessary resources to ensure its continuity).

66 / 103

4.3.2 Component b: Indirect management with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

This action with the objective of improving the resilience information systems may be

implemented in indirect management with FAO in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.

FAO has been chosen for its recognized comparative advantages in providing global public

goods in the area of food security information and for its recognized capacities in fostering

governance initiatives in the areas of food security (e.g. Committee on Food Security - CFS

and FSC) as well as inter-agency joint initiatives (e.g. the IPC).

The entrusted entity, FAO, would carry out budget implementation tasks, including:


programme in many different countries. In addition, the indirect management is justified

because: i) the program will be co-funded by several organisations (FAO, DFID, UN,

Germany, Switzerland, and possibly others) and, ii) the multi-level nature of the program

(global activities plus implementation at regional and national level) involving several

institutions (National and regional institutions, EU Delegations and other services, FAO

regional, Sub-regional and Country Representation, FAO Headquarters etc.) would be very

difficult to be managed through a grant.

FAO is currently undergoing the ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In anticipation of the results of this review, the


standing and problem-free cooperation with these entities, they can be entrusted with budget-







Amount in EUR

thousands

Third party

contribution

(indicative, where

known)

4.3.1 Indirect management with United Nations

Development Program (UNDP)

- evaluation and audit (100)

- communication and visibility (50)

- contingencies (50)

5,000

4.3.2 Indirect management with Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO)

- evaluation and audit (500)

- communication and visibility (350)

- contingencies (250)

20,000 13,900

TOTAL 25,000 13,900

TOTAL estimated cost of the action 38,900

67 / 103


The proposed action will be closely monitored and reported to the European Commission but

also in the context of the broader, integrated Programme of Work and Budget of FAO, which

this action will be part of, and on the basis of key indicators listed in the log frame matrix.

A performance assessment matrix that takes into consideration all the above and that

identifies yearly benchmarks towards the achievement of the stated results will be prepared

during the Inception Phase and included in the Inception Report. The matrix will allow the

Steering Committee to critically assess implementation performance and suggest possible re-

orientation of activities. It will be updated every six months and attached to the six monthly

progress reports. IPC and RIMA are already coordinated by existing steering committees. The

program will continue to support these existing structures.



independent experts. The proposed action will be subject to verification in accordance with

the relevant provisions of delegation agreement..



the EU.








The EU-UN Joint Visibility Guidelines shall be used to establish the Communication and

Visibility Plan of the Action and the appropriate contractual obligations.

68 / 103

ANNEX 8






1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Technical Assistance for National Evaluation Platforms for

Nutrition (NEPN)

CRIS number: 2014/37644

Total cost Total estimated cost: EUR 3,5 M

Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 3,5 M

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of financing

Project Approach

Direct management – procurement of services

DAC-code 12240 Sector Basic nutrition



Over the last five years, international attention on nutrition has increased in an unprecedented

manner. The resulting political and financial commitments - domestic as well as international

– have created a strong demand for timely, reliable and relevant information.

In order to strengthen the capacity of countries to make use of nutrition information to its full

potential, existing national information systems can be organised into a “National Evaluation

Platform for Nutrition” (NEPN). A NEPN is based on a surveillance system and is based on a

continuous observational design, with the district as the unit of analysis. The innovative

NEPN approach offers a strong opportunity to strengthen the capacity of countries with a

heavy undernutrition burden to manage, analyse, interpret and use information to inform

policy, programme and resource allocations towards nutrition action. This information

concerns the monitoring of changes in undernutrition indicators as well as information

concerning nutrition country investments and the association between the two.

The NEPN initiative is divided into two 2 closely interweaved components:

i) a technical assistance (TA) component to support the NEPN at country level , to be

launched by the last quarter of 2014 and lasting for the whole duration of the

intervention; and

ii) the establishment of the NEPN themselves in each country, based on expressions of

interest from EU Delegations and supported by the TA. This component will be

launched by the second half of 2015

The present action document covers the TA component only. This TA will take the form of a

NEPN network Support Unit with the specific objective of providing technical assistance to

countries with a high burden of undernutrition and EU Delegations to design, establish and

coordinate the country National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition.

69 / 103

2.2. Context



The World Health Organization considers that poor nutrition is the single most important

threat to the world’s health. In many developing countries it is an underlying cause of about

45%50

of all child deaths and 20% of maternal mortality every year51

.

In 2013, 842 million people were undernourished, the equivalent of 12% of the world

population, with 100 million children under the age of five underweight, 162 million children

under five stunted, 52 million children wasted, and undernutrition was causing the deaths of

an estimated 3.1 million children every year1. In 2014, an estimated two billion people

worldwide suffer from micronutrient deficiencies52

2.2.1.2. Elements on the nutrition global agenda

In its report on nutrition “Maternal, infant and young children nutrition: draft comprehensive

implementation plan”, the World Health Organization established 6 global targets to be

reached by all countries in 2025, notably on stunting, exclusive breastfeeding, maternal

anaemia, low birth weight and wasting53

. These were endorsed by the European Council4.

The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, launched in 2010, has brought together

government authorities from countries with high burden of malnutrition and a global coalition

of partners. It calls for intensive efforts to scale up nutrition over the period 2013–2015

through such a strategy. With about 51 members, partners in the movement have committed

themselves to work together to mobilize resources, provide technical support, perform high-

level advocacy and develop innovative partnerships. The Nutrition for Growth Compact and

resulting Accountability Framework, the EU pledge for reducing stunting as well as the Zero

Hunger campaign also reflect an increased attention and momentum for nutrition54

.

2.2.1.3. EU policy towards nutrition

The EU policy framework for development is set out in the Commission’s proposal for an

Agenda for Change55

and the succeeding Council Conclusions of May 201256

. The EU's

approach towards food security and humanitarian food assistance in third countries has been

further refined in the Communications on the EU's Food Security and Humanitarian Food

Assistance Policies57

and Council Conclusions of May 201058

.

This policy framework was complemented by the Communication59

, “Enhancing Maternal

and Child Nutrition in External Assistance: an EU Policy Framework”; and the Commission

working plan “Boosting food and nutrition security through EU action: implementing our

commitments”60

. The Commission is also developing, at the request of the Council, an Action

Plan setting out how the Commission will deliver on its stunting target.

50

Black et al., The Lancet series, 2013 51

Black et al., Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences, The Lancet, 2008 52

FAO, State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2013; UNICEF, WHO & World Bank, Levels & Trends in Child

Malnutrition: Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates, 2012; UNICEF, Levels & Trends in Child Mortality, 2011. 53

65th World Health Assembly, 26 April 2013 54

http://goo.gl/4csLgN, http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/ , http://goo.gl/7DaCgO 55

COM(2011)637 56

Doc. 9369/12 57

COM(2010)127 and COM(2010)126 58

Doc. 9597/10 59

3241st Foreign Affairs Council meeting Brussels, 28 May 2013, CM 2757/13 60

SWD(2013)104, March 2013

http://goo.gl/4csLgN

http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/

http://goo.gl/7DaCgO

70 / 103

Commission commitments towards undernutrition are ambitious. They notably include

reducing, by 2025, the number of children under five who are stunted by 7 million. Also in

alignment with the WHA Global Target, the Commission will contribute through its overall

strategy to reduce and maintain the children wasting to less than 5%61

. In humanitarian crisis,

when mortality rates or the prevalence of wasting exceeds the critical levels62

, the EU should

also intervene in order to reduce the mortality toll of undernutrition.

This initiative falls under component 1 “Generating and exchanging knowledge and fostering

innovation” of the Multi-annual Indicative programme 2014-2020 GPCC-FSSA, as it will

contribute to strengthen the global accountability framework for nutrition, national

information on undernutrition status and the cost-effectiveness of nutrition interventions. It

will nonetheless also contribute to component 2 “Strengthening and promoting governance

and capacity at the global, continental, regional and national level, for all relevant

stakeholders” as it will create the enabling environment to ensure an evidence based country

dialogue around national nutrition targets and will strengthen capacities in fragile countries.

2.2.2. Main identified challenges

Defining clear country objectives and a specific architecture to each NEPN

Ensuring nutrition related information is coherent, despite the various information

sources (from different sectors and, at different levels within sectors

Optimizing the use of information and evidence to shape both policy and pro-nutrition

narratives / Strengthening nutrition-relevant capacity to support policy change

An action supporting national priorities first, with a view to meet international

requirements.

These four challenges point to the need for increased country-level investment in information

in nutrition, especially over the long term.

2.3. Lessons learnt

National Evaluation Platforms are recent innovations. The Lancet63

had already documented

that evaluation of large-scale programmes and initiatives aimed at improvement of health in

countries of low and middle income needs a new approach. The latter should promote country

ownership, transparency, and donor coordination while providing a rigorous comparison of

the cost-effectiveness of different scale-up approaches64

.

The EU has placed a strong emphasis in promoting improved information systems for

nutrition, increasing the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of nutrition sensitive

interventions and strengthening the accountability framework for nutrition. All these elements

are enshrined in the EU Communication “Enhancing Maternal and Child Nutrition in External

Assistance: an EU Policy Framework”. As a result the EU engaged in through consultation

with international partners around the NEPN initiative and organised two key partner

meetings in Geneva (5 March 2013) and Brussels (27 March 2014). The NEPN initiative has

thus become the EU flagship programme in the area of nutrition. It will be implemented in

close collaboration with DFID and the SUN Secretariat.

61

WHO, Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly, A65/11, 2012 62

Under 5 mortality rate >2/10000/day; GAM>15% or GAM>10% with aggravating factors.

(Commission Staff Working Document on 'addressing undernutrition in emergencies') 63 Morris, S.S., Cogill, B. and Uauy,R for the Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study Group. Maternal and Child

Undernutrition 5. Effective international action against undernutrition: why has it proven so difficult and what can be done

to accelerate progress? Lancet Series. 2008. 64

Measuring impact in the Millennium Development Goal era and beyond: a new approach to large-scale effectiveness

evaluations - Cesar G Victora, Robert E Black, J Ties Boerma, Jennifer Bryce, The Lancet 2011

71 / 103


The EU has a long-standing commitment on food security and nutrition. The EU pledged to

spend an unprecedented €3.5 billion between 2014-2020 on improving nutrition in some of

the world's poorest countries65

.

The EU is also a major actor in responding to extreme regional food crises, such as those in

the Horn of Africa and in the Sahel, through the SHARE (Support Horn of Africa Resilience)

and AGIR (the Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative) programmes respectively.

The Council of the EU expressed its support to longer term programmes to improve food and

nutrition security and enhance resilience66

.

The Institute for International Programs at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health (IIP) is currently in the preparatory phase of a 39-month project, implemented with

financial support from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD), to develop

and launch National Evaluation Platforms in four African countries: Malawi, Niger, Tanzania

and Mozambique (2013-2016). These will focus on evaluating the impact of maternal and

child health programmes.

The EU also supports the SUN Movement Secretariat, which is a critical pivot in both

national and international efforts to reduce undernutrition (EU support period: 2012-2015,

with a grant of EUR 5M).

The NEPN initiative will contribute to strengthen the monitoring of all nutrition projects at

country level including the EU funded global initiative to support for food fortification (under

the GPGCh AAP 2014).

The present Action is part of the EUR 23.4M earmarked by the EU to support National

Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition in at least 17 countries. DFID has expressed interest in co-

funding the second component to support the establishment of NEPN at country level.


Reporting on the world’s nutrition situation has been a key function of the Standing

Committee on Nutrition (SCN), with publications every three to five years since 1987. The

Sixth Report "Progress in Nutrition"67

aims to communicate to policy and decision makers the

future perspectives of the world food and nutrition situation through 2015, the implications

that these hold for achieving international development goals and realizing the right to

adequate food. He SCN has been thoroughly consulted for the preparation of this proposal in

a number of occasions and invited to the two consultation meetings held in Geneva on the 5 of

March 2013 and Brussels on the 27 March 2014.

The governments of the UK and Malawi are leading an initiative to prepare an annual Global

Report on Nutrition, with the aim to bring the crisis of malnutrition to the attention of people

around the world. It will present the scale and consequences of undernutrition, as well as

solutions being taken from case studies in different countries. The report is expected to build

momentum for action on nutrition and empower nutrition advocates at all levels to make the

argument for a scale up in resources, and effective allocation of those resources. The NEPNs

could be an important source of information to feed the global report and the EU and DFID

are working closely to further explore this association.

The SUN Movement, through its support to governments, has seen that whilst nutrition-

specific interventions (mainly through the health sector) may be relatively easy to coordinate

65

Making malnutrition history – Press Release - Brussels, 7 June 2013 66

Council of the European Union, 9328/13, 28/05/2013 27

UNSCN, 2010 http://www.unscn.org/files/Publications/RWNS6/html/

72 / 103

between donors, nutrition-sensitive approaches that are cross-sectoral present greater

challenges to monitor. In part response to this, the SUN Donor Network has developed a

common approach for the tracking of resources aimed at nutrition, in order to build

consistency across donors and strengthen their accountability. The SUN Movement secretariat

has been closely involved in the preparation of this proposal and as explained further down

will play a key role in providing guidance to the NEPN.


3.1. Objectives

The Overall Objective is to contribute to the global reduction of stunting (chronic

undernutriton) in alignment with the Wold Health Assembly 2025 targets.

The Specific Objective is to provide technical assistance (TA) to countries with a high

burden of undernutrition and EU Delegations to design, establish and coordinate the country

National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition (NEPN). This TA will be provided through a

NEPN network Support Unit


The National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition will allow countries to:

i) strengthen their multi-sectorial (food security, health, etc..) monitoring of nutrition,

ii) to increase their capacity to monitor the scaling of nutrition investments

iii) to increase the knowledge on the cost-effectiveness of nutrition interventions by

analyzing associations between investment and undernutriton reduction.

These three elements will provide governments with the necessary evidence to support

decision-making, policy processes and dialogue. At the heart of a NEPN is a live country

database, which, once set up, is continuously updated and analysed, in order to feed back into

country programmes and priorities. Such a database would be established in each country.

Technical assistance for the design and establishment of these NEPN will be provided through

a NEPN network Support Unit. The current action document, and annexed draft ToRs, define

the role of this TA for the NEPN network Support Unit, which will be mobilised through

service contract.

NEPN are innovative and country-led. Therefore, the development and implementation of

technical assistance packages (including the deployment of short term expertise) will vary

across the countries. The technical assistance to be provided by the NEPN network Support

Unit has been foreseen to implement the activities below, and will be provided subject to the

willingness and the readiness of the country to demonstrate the necessary political

commitment towards the adoption of a NEPN approach.

Result Area 1: National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition are designed in at least 17

countries, using objectives formulated at national level and through participatory

processes.

The NEPN network Support Unit will support the finalization of a detailed NEPN

implementation plan for each partner country, and in close collaboration with EU

Delegations, leading to the formulation of an EU Action Document for a NEPN Country

Support Project.The following activities are needed to achieve this goal:

1.1: Comprehensive review of the institutional and technical context related to

nutrition and its monitoring and evaluation. This will result in a country assessment of

nutrition surveillance capacities.

73 / 103

1.2.: Support to the definition of the NEPN country objectives

1.3.: Definition of the organisational arrangements of the NEPN in close collaboration

with country actors, including the EU Delegations.

1.4.: Finalisation of NEPN implementation plans

Result Area 2: NEPN structures in partner countries receive timely and pertinent

technical assistance to ensure their performance and expected outputs.

National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition being country-specific, each NEPN will be the

subject of a separate Action, with its own modalities led by a Country Support Project team.

The NEPN network Support Unit will have the capacity to bring complementary support and

advice at central level to the established Platforms. It may provide technical assistance to the

following activities:

2.1.: Providing guidance on the development of central information management

systems

The NEPN will be based upon a central information management systems containing,

quality information on contextual factors, nutrition-relevant activities and results. It will

be updated on a continuous basis as and when new data becomes available.

2.2.: Ensure data quality reviews are carried out for all NEPN

2.3.: Develop national capacities over NEPN maintenance.

The NEPN network Support Unit will have the capacity to provide overall guidance on

the maintenance of NEPNs, notably through the regular follow-up of the country

progresses and the preparation of technical guidelines.

2.4: Provide guidance and assistance for NEPN adaptation to the evolving context

and needs

Activities within Activity 2.4 should guide how the Platforms can improve over time,

through feedback mechanisms that will help updating the NEPN and develop its work

with national and sub-national stakeholders.

Result Area 3: Coordination of the NEPN initiative

This Result Area relates to the core functions of the NEPN network Support Unit and will

comprise two main activities:

3.1.: Ensuring the coordination within the NEPN country network and sharing

best practices (through regular coordination meetings for national focal points,

seminars and a specific web site to update on developments and progress)

3.2.: Coordinating and communicating with key nutrition partners such as the

Scaling up Nutrition Movement secretariat and international networks (SUN

donor network, SUN UN network, etc..).

Result Area 4: NEPNs are supported in the analysis of nutrition related information and

in its sharing with global initiatives seeking to increase accountability in nutrition

The success of this Result Area will largely depend on the openness of countries to share their

information on nutrition status.

4.1.: Ensure that nutrition reviews are carried out regularly at country level

4.2.: Iinformation sharing and dissemination of findings at international level

74 / 103


Given its innovative nature, this initiative has a high reliance on political willingness at

country level, which may vary considerably. General risks can potentially be reduced by the

following mitigation measures, but in a context where country ownership is key, control and

responsibility of partner Governments are high and a degree of risk will remain. Also, due to

their nature and being mostly country related, a risk review should be done at country level

during the first phases of the Action (RA2).

Main identified risks (and Result Area) Level Proposed mitigation measures

The time taken to establish NEPNs is

longer than planned (RA2). This impedes

NEPN progress and perceptions of its

added value, notably for cost

effectiveness analyses or policy updates.

M Ensure government commitment to the

national platform.

Prepare realistic implementation plans,

taking both national capacities and

objectives into account.

Countries do not maintain or update the

system in the medium-to-long term

(RA2).

M Early identification of the potential

benefits of the NEPN at country level.

Advocacy for sound nutrition planning.

Poor data quality seriously limits the

value of analyses (RA3).

H Establish clear data standards and

clearly communicating those standards

to relevant partners and stakeholders.

Individual projects are not well-

connected with nutrition related policies

and plans (RA2, RA3).

Field based organisations are not well

connected with the main stakeholders of

the NEPN structure, making policy

analysis (RA3).

H Develop local processes to integrate

activities and their findings into a

functional analytical framework.

Information on the content of the

relevant Policies and Plans are shared

and stakeholders know how to

integrate relevant data and indicators in

their M&E system.

Governments do not agree with

data/analysis being shared with any body

outside the country, other than existing

institutions (e.g.: WHO) (RA4).

M Cross-country learning through the

exchange of information on good

practices can be used as incentives to

share information.


Nutrition is by definition cross-cutting and has furthermore direct linkages on major cross-

cutting issues that affect developmental processes. Gender equality, for instance, has key

implications in nutrition efforts. Women are severely impacted by undernutrition notably

during pregnancy and as mothers, but are also key drivers of positive change in the fight

against food and nutrition insecurity, decision making about food production, consumption

and the use of assets at household level.

3.5. Stakeholders

The successful implementation of the National Evaluation Platforms for Nutrition implies that

participating countries show a strong ownership over the Action, and political commitment of

the respective countries is an identified necessary prerequisite for entering the NEPN

programme.

Important stakeholders will be central ministries (e.g.: Finance, Plan, Budget), line ministries

and notably the ministries of Health, Agriculture, Social Protection, Water and Environment;

statistical agencies, research institutions involved in nutrition related activities, the private

sector and civil society.

75 / 103

An international Steering Committee will be created helping to raise the political profile of

the support towards NEPN. It will also be important in the agenda setting and in giving

overall guidance, which will benefit the country teams through the NEPN network Support

Unit. The NEPN network Support Unit will establish close working relationships with the

members of the Steering Committee, through regular meetings and routine information

exchange. The Steering Committee will demonstrate a high level political commitment at

international level over the present Action and will comprise at least the EU, the Secretary of

the SUN Movement. Other main international stakeholders will be invited to join, such as the

WHO; other Donors working in related areas, such as DFID; international agencies and

research institutions involved in nutrition such as: UNICEF, IFPRI; and regional

organisations closely following with nutrition related activities.




partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012].










4.3.1. Procurement (direct management)

Subject in generic terms, if possible Type (works,

supplies,

services)

Indicative

number of

contracts

Indicative trimester

of launch of the

procedure

Technical Assistance Services 1 4th

Trim. 2014







thousands

Third party

contribution

4.3.3. – Procurement (direct management) 3 500 N.A.

4.8. – Communication and visibility 068

N.A.

Contingencies 0 N.A.

Totals 3 500 0

68

Included in 4.3.3.

76 / 103


A comprehensive internal monitoring system in line with the overall monitoring and

evaluation systems used for development cooperation actions will be established at the

beginning of the programme. The system will rely on a set of smart indicators, supported by a

clear baseline, annual milestone and end of the programme targets which will be assessed

annually (annual review). Moreover, the intervention will be included in the monitoring plan

of the Nutrition Action Plan.

The monitoring of the activity of the NEPN network Support Unit will also be the

responsibility of the Steering Committee on the basis of indicators set out in the Logical

Framework and on Key Performance Indicators to be agreed at project inception.

The NEPN network Support Unit will also monitor the activities developed under the Country

NEPN through more detailed indicators developed with the partner countries.

It is expected that isolating and measuring the impact of the present Action towards policies

and programmes that will be influenced through the use and analysis of information from the

NEPN will be difficult. Therefore, narrative case-studies and examples will be used in

demonstrating influence and impact through concrete examples.



independent experts contracted by the EU in accordance with EC rules and procedures on

specifically established terms of reference and funded through the support measures. The mid-

term evaluation would be indicatively launched on Trimester 8 and the final verification

mission is to be launched by Trimester 16.

Results oriented monitoring missions and annual reviews to measure the external impact

monitoring and alignment with EU policy may also be carried out by independent consultants

recruited directly by the Commission in accordance with EC rules and procedures on

specifically established terms of reference The proposed action will be subject to verification

in accordance with the relevant provisions of the PRAG.



the EU.







contracts, and delegation agreements. The Communication and Visibility Manual for

European Union External Action shall be used to establish the Communication and Visibility

Plan of the Action and the appropriate contractual obligations.

77 / 103

ANNEX 9

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2014 and Annual

Action Programme 2015 part I for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture under

the Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic programme

Component 2: Strengthening and promoting governance and capacity at the global, continental,

regional and national level, for all relevant stakeholders

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number ASEAN FARMERS ORGANISATIONS SUPPORT

PROGRAMME

CRIS number: DCI-FOOD/2014/037-539


EU budget contribution: EUR 15 million from the general

budget of the European Union for 2014.

This action is co-financed in joint co-financing by:

- IFAD grant for an amount of EUR 0.5 million

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of

financing

Project Approach

Indirect management with IFAD

DAC-code 31194 Sector Agriculture cooperatives /

farmers’ organisations



The overall objective of the “ASEAN Farmers' Organisations' Support Programme (AFOSP)” is to

improve the livelihoods and food security of smallholder farmers and rural producers in ASEAN

countries through strengthened capacity of farmers and their organizations to influence national

government and ASEAN policies impacting on the livelihoods of poor producers, and to provide

effective services to members.

To achieve this, it will pursue activities in three areas: i) strengthening the roles and functions of

Farmers’ Organisations (FOs) in policy processes and services to members, including policy

dialogue with regional, sub-regional and national levels. ii) promoting the interests of rural

smallholders and addressing their concerns in policy processes, iii) providing effective pro-poor

services through FOs. The first area includes broadening of policy dialogue between farmers and

rural organisations and ASEAN level institutions, including ASEAN Secretariat (ASEC), Sectoral

Working Groups and Senior Official Meetings, as well as the ASEAN Foundation.

The specific objective is that ASEAN FOs evolve into stable, performing, accountable

organisations capable of providing effective and sustainable services to their members and of

influencing policy and corporate processes on agriculture and food security issues at local, national,

ASEAN regional and global levels.

This programme to support FOs in ASEAN is consistent with the EU and ASEAN policies and

complements many EU initiatives in the region Its beneficiaries include several million of small

farmers across South East Asia.

78 / 103

2.2. Context

2.2.1. ASEAN context

2.2.1.1. Socio-economic and poverty analysis

The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) currently consists of 10 countries: Brunei

Darusalaam, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines Cambodia, Laos PDR Myanmar

and Vietnam. The last four of these, usually abbreviated to “CLMV”, are grouped for various

policy purposes in a category of less developed and newer Member States, with Vietnam making

fast progress in the last decade.

Although ASEAN has made substantial progress over the last few decades poverty and hunger still

remain widespread in several Member States (e.g. Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar as well as in

Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam), with enormous regional and intra-national disparities. The

challenge of meeting the food security needs of the 64.5 million undernourished people in the

region remains. Moreover, new challenges threaten the sustainability of the past gains. Climate

change is intensifying uncertainties in agricultural production and increasing the incidence of crop

failures. While land and water grabbing made possible by the unregulated private-sector

investments in the sector or urban development are uprooting small agricultural producers all

around South East Asia, and depriving them of their source of food and livelihood.

The focus of the proposed project is to support DCI ASEAN eligible countries with special

attention on Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (Least developed countries and lower middle

income countries)

2.2.1.2. Regional development policy

The 2008 ASEAN Charter provides for the legal framework that enables the process of regional

integration through the creation of the ASEAN Community by end 2015. ASEAN is evolving into

a more rules based organization, slowly but steadily. this includes harmonization of policies across

many areas.

One of the main components of the ASEAN Community is the ASEAN Economic Community

(AEC). which aims at the creation of a single regional market by 31/12/2015, where goods, services

and investments should freely flow among the 10 member-countries. The expressed goal behind the

creation of the AEC is sustainable and equitable development. But for millions of people in this part

of the world, the true value and test of any regional development plan rests on its ability to address

hunger and poverty through equitable and sustainable growth.


ASEAN’s agricultural labour force is made up of around 73 million farmers –with large numbers in

Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and Myanmar and its arable land makes up just

15.6% of its total land area. Agriculture remains a significant sector of the economy in the whole

ASEAN region and continues to be a key factor for sustainable development and poverty

alleviation. However, the agricultural sector is undergoing rapid transformation with implications

for food security in the region: 1) South East Asia is currently a major exporter of food

commodities, with important differences between countries; however given population projections

and economic growth imports are likely to increase in the next two decades, resulting in high

commodity prices. 2) Agriculture’s share of GDP has fallen, with a decreasing percent of the rural

population working in agriculture. 3) Farms are getting smaller as a result of population growth due

to inheritance-based fragmentation and land loss 4) Decline or stagnation in yields for grains and

oilseeds, and 5) South East Asian farmers are getting older. 6) Land and water resources in the

region are already under significant stress: water erosion is a dominant feature in degraded soils in

South East Asia followed by chemical deterioration, affecting the sloping parts of the Lower

79 / 103

Mekong region, the Philippines, and Indonesia. 7) climate change further aggravate the situation

and 8) agricultural development should also be made compatible with maintaining the region’s

important forests.

Not surprisingly, therefore, at the 21th

ASEAN Summit held in Cambodia in 2012, ASEAN leaders

declared that “food security remains a major challenge for ASEAN and the world as a whole, at a

time of high commodity prices and economic uncertainty”. Many of the challenges require regional

solutions, and ASEAN is in a position to develop and implement region-wide responses. It has

already developed platforms and frameworks for such solutions, including the ASEAN Integrated

Food Security Framework (AIFS), the ASEAN Climate Change Initiative (ACCI) and the ASEAN

Multi-Sectoral Framework on Climate Change - Agriculture and Forestry toward Food Security

(AFCC), which can serve as the springboard in providing common solutions.

Against this background, the last two decades have witnessed an important development of FOs in

South East Asia (regional groups are emerging among which the Asian Farmers Association –

AFA bringing together 13 FOs from 10 Asian countries including from 7 ASEAN Members States),

with an enhanced structuring of national FOs into regional and global networks. Many of these

national/regional/continental FOs are now members of global movements representing farmers such

as La Via Campesina (164 FOs from 79 countries, 200 million farmers), World Farmers'

Organisation (57 FOs from 57 countries) and the Intercontinental Network of Organic FOs

(INOFO).

These FO’s are clearly demanding greater attention from the authorities in terms of advocacy,

participation and policy formulation for pro poor rural development and smallholder agriculture.

There is a growing pressure in ASEAN to open its platforms to engagement and inputs from civil

society and various stakeholders, particularly FOs. It is important that ASEAN enhances and

broadens these platforms to tackle and adopt strategic regional responses to the many challenges.

More needs to be done to revisit its policies to integrate the interests and concerns of smallholder

agriculture producers in the policy making process.

2.3. Lessons learnt

The EU Food Facility in South East Asia

The EU Food Facility (FF) was designed as a short term instrument following the 2008 world food

crisis. The short term interventions (including the NGO projects) did not allow for as much impact

as could have been achieved with a longer implementation period. Input distribution interventions

enjoyed a better impact when combined with strengthening extension services to farmers and

improving market access. Seed production systems give results in the medium to long term only. To

achieve good results, better cooperation between research institutions, extension services, seed

producing farmers, traders and individual farmers is necessary and seeds have to be tested under

farm conditions. As a result of the FF the new EU programme 2014 – 2020 Global Goods and

Challenges will focus on agriculture and food security, including in ASEAN. Strong and well

organised FOs are essential to achieve these objectives.

Other initiatives related to agriculture in South East Asia:

Bilateral and often multi-donors’ interventions to support agriculture and fisheries in Cambodia,

Lao PDR and Myanmar at the bilateral level with EU assistance 2007-2013 has shown the

importance of strengthening small holders’associations to achieve better and more sustainable

results. The three ASEAN Least Developed Countries will continue to benefit from EU support at

national level for food security, rural development and agriculture intervention as a focus of EU

assistance 2014-2020 for which strengthened FOs are a guarantee for an increased sustainability of

interventions.

Being two regional organisations, the EU and ASEAN, are natural partners and experience sharing

is at the centre of their partnership renewed in 2012 through the Brunei ASEAN-EU Action Plan.

80 / 103

Twinning operations between European and South East Asia’s FOs through the second proposed

component of the programme fully support this priority.

The programme will build on the experience with IFAD’s Medium Term Cooperation Programme

(MTCP) in Asia that involves capacity building among Asian Farmers Organisations, in priority for

the ones in ASEAN. The design of the proposed programme was undertaken in 2012-2013 through

a bottom-up process, with FOs consulted at sub-regional level.


AFOSP is complementary to a number of EU-funded projects and initiatives including ASEAN

Regional Integration Support by the EU (ARISE) supporting the building of the ASEAN single

market and production base; Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI) –supporting a

wide range of policy dialogue and knowledge development in the areas of Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management, Science and Technology, Information and Communication Technology, Climate

Change, Energy and Human Rights, among others. The 2012 Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action

to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Partnership is the basis for the programming of 2014-2020

EU assistance.

The SWITCH-Asia programme will continue promoting the adoption of Sustainable Consumption

and Production (SCP) mainly among Small and Medium sized Enterprises and consumer groups in

South East Asia.

Under the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) climate change adaptation, with emphaisis on

agriculture, is supported in CLM as well as through the Mekong River Commission.

Projects in support to Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities (CSO-LA) are funded by

the EU in all ASEAN developing countries including for building capacities sometimes for rural

development activities.

Another EU initiative is the negotiation of the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) on Forest

Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) the ASEAN developing countries; one VPA has

been concluded with Indonesia. The VPAs are designed to be complementary to the Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) initiative.

Five ASEAN Member States (CLMV plus Philippines) will continue benefiting from important EU

bilateral assistance in 2014-2020. In Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar support to agriculture,

food security / nutrition and rural development will continue to be a focal area of bilateral EU

assistance, building on previous experiences. This is the case currently of the Livelihoods and Food

Security Trust Fund –LIFT- in Myanmar, the Northern Uplands Development Programme in Laos,

the Promotion of Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in the Agricultural Sector - Fisheries and

Livestock- in Cambodia, etc.). In Cambodia, Lao PDR and Myanmar countries, it is essential that

AFOSP complements the new important bilateral EU intervention foreseen in 2014-2020 that will

focus on: Improving climate-resilient food and nutition security among rural households; Improving

business envornment for agriculture, forestry and fisheries and support value-chains and wealth

creation in rural areas;

It is important that a programme like AFOSP also supports FOs in countries that will not benefit

from bilateral EU development assistance from 2014, but where many development challenges

remain particularly at rural level in countries such as Indonesia and Thailand, as well also in

densely populated countries like Vietnam and the Philippines where provision of renewable

energies to rural communities will be a focal area of EU funding rather than agriculture.

Clear linkages and complementarity can be established between AFOSP and many national and

regional EU-funded actions in ASEAN as well as other programmes funded by EU Members States

(Germany, UK, France, Sweden, etc.), the World Bank, Japan, US, ADB and UN agencies.

81 / 103


As both components of the AFOSP will be managed by IFAD (flow of funds through IFAD to

AGRICORD for component 2), with IFAD as one of the co-funders, donor coordination will take

place mainly between EU and IFAD; but also with the Swiss development Cooperation (SDC) and

the Dutch Government (DGIS). Being responsible for the ASEAN support frameworks, the EUD

in Jakarta will ensure coordination and r complimentary with other EU programmes within

ASEAN. IFAD will be responsible for coordination between AFOSP and IFAD programmes in the

region.


3.1. Objectives

The overall objective of the “ASEAN Farmers' Organisations' Support Programme (AFOSP)” is to

improve the livelihoods and food security situation of smallholder farmers and rural producers in

ASEAN countries.

The specific objective is that ASEAN FOs evolve into stable, performing, accountable

organisations capable of providing effective and sustainable services to their members and of

influencing policy and corporate processes on agriculture and food security issues at local, national,

ASEAN regional and global levels.


The results to be achieved are:

Expected Result 1: FOs institutional and organizational capacities are strengthened

Expected Result 2: FOs at different levels are able to influence regional, national and provincial

policies on smallholder priority subjects

Expected Result 3: FOs have improved their services to their members (entrepreneurial capacities

and participation in value chains)

The Programme consists of two components, both contributing to the achievement of the three

expected results above: Component 1: MTCP ASEAN and regional policy dialogue (Support to a

second phase of MTCP, with EU funding focusing on ASEAN countries only); Component 2:

Farmers' Fighting Poverty (FFP) ASEAN, with EU funding focusing on ASEAN countries only.

Component 1 : MTCP ASEAN and regional policy dialogue

This Component will scale up MTCP in Asia on ASEAN countries. It focuses on strengthening the

institutional capacities of national, sub-regional and regional FOs to ensure effective influence on

policy processes. It would primarily focus on those activities that can benefit all members’

platforms towards building common agenda for policy dialogue and joint action both for economic

and political actions. This component includes the provision of strategic funds to the ASEAN

Foundation specifically to promote policy dialogue and interaction between FOs and ASEAN level

institutions.

Specific expected results: Institutional and operational capacities of regional and national FO

platforms are effectively strengthened; Rural smallholders’ interests are promoted at ASEAN and

national levels thanks to the strengthened capacities of the FOs, so that their concerns are addressed

in related policy process. Regional and national FO networks are able to provide services to local

FOs to improve their position in value chains and actively participate in rural and agriculture

strategies and investment programmes.

Component 2 –Farmers Fighting Poverty in ASEAN countries (FFP ASEAN)

This componentwill support the partnership between AGRICORD and FOs through its existing

Farmers' Fighting Poverty (FFP) programme in Asia, with EU support focusing on ASEAN

82 / 103

countries. It focuses on tailoring support to the specific needs of individual FOs, below the platform

level, in terms of organizational strength and inclusiveness, institutional development, business

development (economic services), policy elaboration and advocacy.

The approach of this component is demand driven for specific initiatives and is based on the

relationships between AGRICORD Agencies and FOs.

A number of common strategic orientations will guide implementation of the above components:

- Focus on membership based farmers’ organisations. The exclusive focus is on membership

based FOs as key actors to achieve food security.

- Subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity will guide programme implementation and determine

the attribution of responsibilities in the implementation of activities in order to maximise

synergies and complementarities between the different levels of intervention.

- Synergies between the two components. be ensured, notably through a common monitoring

framework.

- Ensure ownership and flexibility. All programmed activities, systems or strategies are based on

FOs strategic plans while the programming exercise preserves flexibility in the course of

implementation.

- Empower FOs learning from the experience. Building on the experience of previous support to

FOs in the region, the programme will emphasize services to FO members and knowledge

management among the highly diversified national contexts in ASEAN.

- Participation and inclusiveness: Special emphasis on systematic inclusion of FOs from the

participating countries of women and young smallholder farmers.

- Partnership and networks building. Empowerment of the FOs to achieve sustainable

collaboration and dialogue within the network as well as with other partners and policy makers

at national, sub-regional and regional levels.

- Sustainability of the programme is ensured by the increased ownership of the FOs strengthened

at different levels, and their effectiveness in the policy consultations and in member services

responding to the challenging and fast-changing needs and the fact that FOs are in principle

self-sustainable organisations..


A number of risks can affect programme implementation, including:

Main risks Mitigation measure

Caution or unwillingness of national

governments’ to establish a constructive

dialogue with representatives of smallholder

farmers.

FOs are setting up national platforms were all

FOs can discuss and agree on key messages to

government.

Governments and international institutions do

not allow the necessary space for farmers’

organisations to implement their own

projects, and to get involved in development

and implementation of programmes.

This requires transparent documentation and

visibility of results obtained, in order to

maintain and increase the credibility of

participating FOs.

Rising expectations among stakeholders and

members.

programme formulation process clearly and

correctly communicates to national FOs

features of the programme and amount of

resources available to ensure transparency.

83 / 103

Main risks Mitigation measure

FOs are not able to attract, train and motivate

qualified and experienced staff, knowing the

severe competition with other institutions and

other CSOs, and the complexity of (political

and economic) challenges faced by farmers

and FOs.

Enhanced training of farmers representatives

notably young people and women.

Accountability of FOs are oriented towards

donors rather than membership base.

To limit the risk, the action ensures that FOs

develops economic activities to be able to

work not only with grants, involving financial

and business partners, etc.

Overlapping between the two component of

the programme: MTCP 2 and FFP/ASEAN.

The risk is minor since the two programmes

have differing focuses of action (national-

level policy dialogue for MTCP 2 and sub-

national and local levels economic activities

for FFP/ASEAN).

Channels of communication between the 2

actions’ stakeholders will be established so

that they can mutually inform each other

about programmes’ progress. Within

AgriCord, representative of AFA participates

in the General Assembly as well as in the FFP

Advisory Committee. AGRICORD will

participate in the steering committee of

MTCP 2.

The programme’s assumptions are that:

i) FOs remain independent and democratic organizations representing all farmers, in particular

smallholders; ii) Political and economic interests in agriculture and the recognition of its centrality

to development remain strong and allow a larger policy and economic space and opportunities for

FOs to participate in policy making, advocate for smallholder farming and be better positioned into

value chains; iii) At global level, instruments such as the Committee on Food Security (CFS) are

remaining important and inclusive fora to support food security and sustainable agrarian systems;

iv) Recognition of agriculture's centrality to development remain strong in ASEAN and allow space

and opportunities for FOs to participate in policy making, advocate for smallholder farming and be

better positioned into value chains; v) Involvement, motivation and dynamism of FOs remain high.

The farmers’ networking (North/South as well as South/South) and exchanges have a strong focus

on human resources (leaders and staff training), on new institutional arrangements, and on long-

term partnerships.vi) Involvement and commitments of the EU farmers’ organisations to listen to

the farmers’ organisations in developing countries, and to respond to their needs and priorities,

remains high and AGRICORD and its members are able to mobilise longer-term funding.


Four major cross-cutting issues are considered of relevance by the participating FOs and will be

promoted during the overall programme implementation.

i) Gender : Women producers and their organizations account for a significant proportion of FOs’

membership, and the FOs aim at increasing women farmers’ participation in organizational

activities. Women’s participation in all programme activities is ensured through a gender

mainstreaming strategy, including the key principles ofequal representation, equal voice, equal

benefits,and gender sensitive (disaggregated) monitoring and evaluation; ii) Youth: The design and

the implementation of the program takes cognizance of the important role youth can play in the

agriculture sector and in strengthening the role of FOs in particular, and the recommendations from

the special session on Youth of the 2012 global meeting of the Farmers’ Forum aiming to reflect on

how to facilitate access of rural youth to agriculture and agricultural related activities; iii)

Governance: Institutional development is expected to generate increased FOs’ responsiveness to

their members, increased ability to implement - in a transparent way - the mandates and strategies

adopted by their constituencies, and increased accountability to members through enhanced

84 / 103

communication and dialogue; iv) Environmental sustainability and climate change:As an

institutional development programme, AFOSP is not expected to generate any negative impacts on

the environment. However, it should contribute positively to the development of sustainable

environmental policies addressing the concerns of farmers notably on sustainable forest, land and

water management. In particular, issues related to climate resilience and adaption measures

requiring concerted approaches at national and regional level.

3.5. Stakeholder Analysis

The programme's primary stakeholders and beneficiaries are ASEAN FOs and their smallholder

members at regional, national and sub-national levels.

MTCP ASEAN: Regional, sub-regional and national FOs are the direct beneficiaries. The

programme will support 87 FOs representing approximately 15 million farmers in ASEAN

countries . The Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development AFA) will be the

regional implementing agency and will work closely together with La Via Campesina (LVA) AFA

is a regional alliance of peasant federations and organizations in twelve Asian countries established

in May 2002, currently with 11 million farmer members. AFA is registered in ASEAN, UN and

other relevant bodies. It has gained its sound experience and capacities in project management and

fund administration during the last 10 years while collaborating with donors and other partners in

implementing development projects related to farmers and their organizations. LVC is the

international movement which brings together millions of peasants, small and medium-size farmers,

landless people, women farmers, indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around

the world.

FFP ASEAN will primarily support FOs at local, district or province levels, many of them being

cooperatives, cooperative unions or organisations specialized in the production of specific

agricultural commodities. The total number of FOs to be supported by FFP/ASEAN will be defined

in the course of implementation. Both FOs from EU and from ASEAN member countries are

involved in FFP/ASEAN. Implementation of this component will be ensured by AGRICORD, a

network of agri-agencies and FOs in OECD countries, in Asia and in Africa. AGRICORD and its

Agri-Agencies (non-governmental organisations for development cooperation with structural links

to - and in most cases created by - the farmers' and rural members' organisations in their home

countries) bring experience and know-how from the overall programme FFP, operating since 2007.

Given the different levels of interventions, the two Actions are complementary and are covering the

whole range of FOs in ASEAN.

Other stakeholders include the relevant ASEAN bodies (directorates/divisions in ASEAN

Secretariat, Senior Official Meetings and their sectoral working groups, the ASEAN Foundation),

ministries of the ASEAN countries in charge of agriculture, fisheries and cooperatives whose policy

planning will receive increasing inputs from their national FOs, programme co-donors and

coordinators (IFAD, AgriCord), global/regional research (CGIAR), international development

agencies (FAO, WFP), and development banks with similar or complementary programmes (WB,

ADB).

The FOs beneficiaries are those who operate in rural and agricultural development with a firm

commitment to representing and promoting the interests of their smallholder farmer members. In

ASEAN alone, farmers associations to be supported and identified so far are as follow: Vietnam: 16

FOs (at central level and 11 provincial levels), representing 10 million farmers, Philippines: 24 FOs

representing about 2.8 million farmers, Indonesia: 12 FOs representing about 3 million farmers, Lao

PDR: 14 FOs representing 15,000 farmers, Cambodia: 21 FOs from 20 provinces representing

100,000 farmers. The programme will develop rapidly support to FOs in the other ASEAN

Members States, in priority Myanmar.

85 / 103




partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.



described in sections 3.2 and 4.3 will be carried out, is 60 months from the date of entry into force

of the financing agreement or, where none is concluded, from the adoption of this Action

Document, subject to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the

relevant agreements. The European Parliament and the relevant Committee shall be informed of the

extension of the operational implementation period within one month of that extension being

granted.


4.3.1 Indirect management with IFAD

This action with the objective of "making ASEAN Farmers Organisations evolve into stable,

performing, accountable organisations capable of providing effective and sustainable services to

their members and of influencing policy and corporate processes on agriculture and food security

issues at local, national, ASEAN regional and global levels" may be implemented in indirect

management with IFAD – International Fund for Agriculture Development in accordance with

Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, with the signature of two Delegation

Agreements. This implementation is justified because IFAD has a wide experience working with

Farmers Organisations worldwide and in Asia in particular and IFAD is successfully managing a

similar programme in Africa also funded with EU Budget.

The entrusted entity, IFAD, would perform budget implementation tasks needed for carrying out the

activities described in section 3.2 such as: launching calls for tenders and for proposals; definition

of eligibility, selection and award criteria; evaluation of tenders and proposals; award of grants and

contracts; concluding and managing contracts, carrying out payments, recovering moneys due etc.

All these tasks coupled with the management, steering and technical role of IFAD will ensure

achievement of the stated objectives and efficient use of resources.

The entrusted entity is currently undergoing the ex-ante assessment in accordance with Article

61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In anticipation of the results of this review, the


standing and problem-free cooperation with this entity, it can be entrusted with budget-



The geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for participating in procurement and

grant award procedures and in terms of origin of supplies purchased as established in the basic act

shall apply.


Component EU contribution

EUR thousands

Third party

contribution

EUR thousands

86 / 103

4.3.4 Indirect management with IFAD 15 000 500

4.3.4.1. MTCP ASEAN : grants to FOs 7 000 500

4.3.4.2. MTCP ASEAN: grant to ASEAN

Foundation

700

4.3.4.3. FFP ASEAN 7 000

4.7. – Evaluation and audit 100

4.8. – Communication and visibility 200

Contingencies 0

Total 15 500


Regular monitoring will be a continuous process as part of the Commission's and ASEAN

Secretariat responsibilities. An external monitoring team made up of independent consultants

recruited directly by the Commission on specifically established terms of reference will carry out

external monitoring and results' oriented (ROM) monitoring. Quarterly up-dates will be prepared by

the expert team to inform the project stakeholders of the progress made and planned activities. Six-

monthly interim progress reports will be produced with the assistance of the expert team and will

include a breakdown of progress and results on all sub-projects and their components, including

those in the implementation of specific activities at the regional and national levels. In addition,

reports will be prepared for each training event or workshop clearly indicating the number of people

trained as well as an assessment of results obtained. In addition, both IFAD and AgriCord have

their own detailed monitoring and evaluation systems in place, which are detailed in the relevant

IMDAs.

A Programme Steering Committee (PSC) shall be set up to oversee and validate the overall

direction of the programme, including appropriate representation from : EU Delegation Indonesia,

IFAD, AGRICORD, ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Foundation, AFA and possible other

stakeholders.


Provision is made for a mid-term review as well as audits to be carried out by independent

consultants recruited directly by the Commission in accordance with EU rules and procedures on

specifically established terms of reference. The evaluation will be conducted and contracted by the

Commission. Audit arrangements are integral part of the contractual arrangements with the selected

contractors.


Communication and visibility of the EU is a legal obligation for all external actions funded by the

EU.

This action shall contain communication and visibility measures which shall be based on a specific

Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action, to be elaborated before the start of


The measures shall be implemented either (a) by the Commission, and/or (b) by the partner country,

contractors, grant beneficiaries and entrusted entities. Appropriate contractual obligations shall be

included in, respectively, financing agreements, procurement and grant contracts, and delegation

agreements.

The Communication and Visibility Manual for European Union External Action shall be used to

establish the Communication and Visibility Plan of the Action and the appropriate contractual

obligations.

87 / 103

ANNEX10




Component 3: Supporting the poor and food and nutrition insecure to react to crises and

strengthen resilience

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Pro-Resilience Action (PRO-ACT): building resilience

through crisis prevention and post-crisis response strategy

CRIS: 2014/037-517

CRIS: 2012/023 -897


Total amount of EU budget contribution: EUR 70 million

Aid method /

Management mode

and type of

financing

Project Approach

Direct management: grants – call for proposal and grants –

direct award

Direct management: EU Trust Fund

Indirect management with FAO, WFP, OECD, Haiti

DAC-code 52010 Sector Food aid/Food security

programmes



The EU policy commitment69 taken in 2012 focusing on resilience building of vulnerable

communities by better targeting the root causes of food insecurity will be addressed both in

the geographical and thematic instruments of the new Multi-annual Financial Framework.

This includes component of the Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FSSA) thematic

instrument under the Global Public Goods and Challenges Programme (GPGC) of

“Supporting the poor and food insecure to react to crises and strengthen resilience”.

Given the overwhelming needs of populations and financial resources remain; an adopted

methodology guides the selection of countries which will receive support to ensure that

interventions are complementary between instruments and aim for high-impact aid. This

FSSA resilience building thematic mechanism, of an indicative allocation of 525 million €

(2014–2020), aims to ensure the complementary between instruments for high-impact aid. It

is based on the following criteria:

1. Evidenced based needs assessment (number of food insecure);

2. Nature of food and nutrition crisis;

3. Capacity assessment and complementarity between instruments;

4. Others factors of vulnerability, including political considerations;

In addition to country level interventions, an objective of capacity building is embedded to

ensure that lessons learned, and scaling up, from individual country level resilience building is

transferred at regional, national level and to other countries facing similar conditions.

The FSSA resilience building thematic mechanism:

Provides a catalytic bond between instruments (emergency, geographic, thematic) and

policies (DEVCO, ECHO, EEAS, DG AGRI, SANCO…) around resilience building

69

COM(2012)586 final “The EU approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises”

88 / 103

Based on an early diagnostic for a timely response, addresses post-crisis situations

through a food and nutrition security lens

Global, flexible and built as a successor to the Food Facility, is ready to address future

Commission Priorities (Member States, European Parliament…)

Supports monitoring, evaluation and visibility of EU policy commitments

The added value lies in the predictability (available funds every year) and flexibility in

addressing post-crisis situations by intervening in countries even under crisis declaration, by

mitigating the negative impact of food crises and by facilitating the scaling up of interventions

to geographic instruments. Moreover, the FSSA resilience building mechanism is based on an

overview of actual planned interventions by emergency and development instruments to

ensure better coherence in terms of intervention and impact.

Based on the common assessment by EU services, 4 main zones emerge from the 2014

exercise:

- the Sahel and Horn of Africa facing drought related chronic food insecurity, a

underlying resilience approach with AGIR and localised shocks (Mali in post conflict

situation, Senegal with value chain concerns on peanut and Chad impacted by

surrounding conflicts, Somalia)

- countries in Africa facing civil war with a focus on relief and preparation for the 2015

harvest season such as South Sudan and Central Africa Republic (CAR);

- countries neighbouring Syria (Lebanon) to mitigate the negative impact of the likely

upcoming food crisis

- Haiti, facing the withdrawal of emergency aid without substantial operations in relief

and rehabilitation

2.2. Context

2.2.1.1. Guiding principle to analyse the context

In 2014, the context was analysed with the following principles, for the estimated 65 million

people in acute food insecurity:

Enhance synergies and complementarities between humanitarian and development

interventions

Ownership of EU Delegations

Engagement and capacities at field level to resilience building

Alignment with the principle of concentration of the Agenda for Change

Finally, 2014 is a year of transition: ECHO shortage of funds has refocused the planned

interventions to life saving with little to no LRRD funding. The 11th

EDF has not been

adopted and while the Bridging Facility has been set up end 2013, the available funds amount

to about EUR 1 billion (about a quarter of the “standard” annual commitment levels) and

targets, as a priority, EU obligations, acute crisis while very limited funds remain available for

resilience building.

The adopted methodology builds the identification and selection of countries on a technical

analysis of the food security situation, completed by an assessment of EU response capacity

(ECHO, thematic and geographic instruments). Needs of populations remain overwhelming and

financial resources finite and the methodology provides a technical basis to identify countries: a

major qualitative step forward in support of sound decision making.

89 / 103

The annual exercise is a joint analysis by the thematic directorates together with the Joint

Research Centre, geographic directorates, ECHO services as well as partners such as the FAO.

1. Evidenced based needs assessment (number of food insecure);

The needs of a country and the severity of the crisis are primarily defined by an evidenced based

needs assessment of the number of affected people according to the phase of food insecurity, for

instance defined by the IPC classification70.

2. Nature of food and nutrition crisis;

Chronic food and nutrition insecurity is often synonymous of increased vulnerability to new food

crisis/shocks as it often leads to a progressive erosion of households’ capacity to prepare for, to

withstand and to bounce back after shocks or stressors.

The assessment identifies an occurrence of exogenous shocks (one time shock) as well as an

assessment of the existing situation of chronic food and nutrition insecurity.

3. Capacity assessment and complementarity between instruments;

The Capacity assessment of the EU response capacity evaluates complementary of the thematic

instrument vis-à-vis planned emergency and geographic interventions. This also embodies the

technical know-how, the availability of human resources and the capacity to respond to crisis at

field level to ensure the successful implementation of projects.

4. Others factors of vulnerability, including political considerations

The technical end evidenced based analysis may need to be supplemented by specific

considerations at country level including political considerations due to man-made crisis, natural

disasters or other unforeseen considerations.

2.2.1.2. National and specific context

• Mali: with a quarter of the population facing chronic food insecurity, the country is facing

political instability since 2012 with recent renewed fighting. In addition, an uneven rainy

season has particularly impacted the North.

• Senegal: after facing six food crises in the past decade, the recent shortage of rainfall led

to a significant fall in cereal production together with problems with the

commercialisation and marketing of peanut.

• Burundi is classified as a fragile country and has faced two distinct shocks in the past

months, namely floods at the beginning of the year and a premature halt of the rain in

April.

• Central African Republic: is facing a political, security and humanitarian crisis since 2013

with live conflicts causing an inability for part of the population (including in the North)

to sustain their food production.

• Chad is currently surrounded by conflict and volatile countries (in the Sahel with Mali, in

the South with Nigeria, and the rest of the country by the Central African Republic, South

Sudan, and Sudan). This has disrupted an already fragile country.

• South Sudan: is currently facing conflict affected areas in particular in the Greater Upper

Nile region with a risk of famine (extreme lack of food and other basic needs where

starvation, death, and destitution are evident).

• Somalia: has faced food shocks in the last 3 years with the most recent large scale crisis

end 2011. Recent delays in rainfall are increasingly affecting populations particularly

vulnerable considering past stress on food security.

70

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-about/en/

90 / 103

• Haiti: Prone to natural disasters (8 major disasters such as droughts and hurricanes in 20

years in addition to the 2010 earthquake), the country is facing the withdrawal of

emergency aid without substantial operations in relief and rehabilitation. The drought in

the North West is particularly affecting vulnerable populations

• Lebanon: since 2011, the Syrian civil war has affected neighbouring countries with

growing influx of refugees competing with the poorer host communities (1m refugees

impacting the 4m Lebanese population). Economic repercussions and the unstable security

situation generated by the Syrian conflict are severely and negatively impacting the

agriculture economy and its food production capacities in the most affected geographical

areas of northern and eastern Lebanon (Syrian border areas of Akkar, Baalbek and

Hermel).

In addition EUR 5 million are allocated to capacity building and sharing lessons learned

including support to the Club du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (the CSAO is based within

the OECD), catalyst and official Secretary of AGIR (Global Alliance for Resilience Initiative)

where the EU is the leader of the Technical and Financial Partners (TFPs). The expected

result is capacity building and improved know-how at regional, national and possibly local

level on effective resilience building initiatives and mechanisms.


EU's policies, in particular the Communication on resilience and the Resilience Action plan,

have committed the EU in a continued effort of sustaining focus on resilience building; the

programme ensure a follow through of the commitments made at country level. In addition,

resilience building is inherently multisectoral and agriculture alone cannot overcome the

structural causes of food insecurity; this calls for non-agricultural components to be

incorporated into food security interventions and at the same time, to ensure that improved

nutrition is an explicit objective of agricultural programmes.

2.3. Lessons learnt

The resilience approach, established by the Commission, aims to address the root causes of

vulnerability, among the most important of which are chronic food and nutrition insecurity.

The EU commission has demonstrated its ability to respond to food crisis using a mix of

available instruments (envelope B and thematic instruments). In addition, the Food Facility

has been highlighted as a good example of an adequate and prompt EU response to a global

shock. During the 2014-2020 period, the FSSA resilience building mechanism will continue

to address post-crisis situations with an objective to mitigate reallocation of funds within the

NIP, in order to address acute crisis away from long term interventions addressing root causes

of food insecurity.

Another lesson learned, is that capacity building has been instrumental in resilience initiatives

like AGIR through EU’s financial support to the Club du Sahel, secretariat of the Alliance.

This has ensured that the resilience agenda is translated at regional and national level by

supporting key institutions. These initiatives need replication and in some cases scaling up to

feed in the geographic instruments to successfully build more resilient food systems.

Advocacy, information management and sharing have components related to global goals and

their achievement imply interventions that are out of the scope of geographical financial

mechanisms and, thus relevant for the Global Public Goods and Challenges scope.


With this objective of breaking down barriers between the development and the humanitarian

approaches, the Commission has taken a first key step to integrate resilience building in the

2014-2020 programming exercise of the development cooperation with all countries in the

Sahel and in the Horn of Africa as well as in other countries facing chronic food and nutrition

91 / 103

insecurity. For instance, EUR 1.5billion in Western Africa (commitment by Commissioner

Andris Piebalgs April 2013) and about EUR 750 million in Eastern Africa will support

resilience building through geographic programmes.

In addition, ECHO’s agenda, when feasible, has also included a resilience building

component (e.g. livelihood building through social transfers) complementary to its life saving

mandate. However, the scope of intervention remains limited and faces the challenge of

remaining neutral while trying to work with partner countries.


A joint instruction letter on resilience signed by all Member States development services was

sent out to reinforce the common approach particularly at country level. Strong leadership at

national level both from partner countries and by the donor community is instrumental to

ensure a positive impact (AGIR in Western Africa, Resilience Champion in Haiti, Compact in

Somalia). Donor coordination is even more relevant in the absence of strong government

systems and the programs will reinforce already existing mechanisms.


3.1. Objectives

The global objectives are: resilience building in post-crisis situations and climate change

adaptation through a food and nutrition security lens. Moreover, the approach taken will treat

nutrition considerations as a central concern and, where relevant, undertake sustainable small

scale agricultural practices.

Objective 1: Respond to major post-crises scenarios promoting structural and resilient actions

aiming at improving the capacity to prepare for, to withstand and to bounce back after shocks

or stressors by improving the food and nutrition security situation of vulnerable population

groups and their capacity to sustainably produce and access food.

Objective 2: Capacity building and capitalisation on food crises prevention experiences by

investing in resilience building good practices, such as the AGIR and SHARE initiatives.


For Objective 1, the expected result is an enhanced capacity for the targeted population to

face future crisis namely by ensure sufficient access to food and a dietary balanced intake.

Main activities will be country-specific and may include:

Introduction and/or expansion of adapted agricultural production methods,

Small scale agriculture including input provision (seeds and fertiliser) to rebuild

livelihoods,

Strengthening of producer groups,

Small scale water systems like rainwater harvesting, local water pump, restoration of

degraded land,

Access to basic natural resources such as water and land,

Livelihood diversification and non-agricultural income generating opportunities,

Local storage facilities, food processing and other coping mechanisms in the lean

season,

Activities aiming at increasing access and availability of high-nutrient content food,

92 / 103

Nutrition sensitive programs and improving nutrition knowledge to enhance dietary

diversity,

Early warning or early response mechanisms,

Social transfers and promotion of the reestablishment of livelihoods.

For Objective 2, the expected result is improved know-how and capacity at regional, national

and possibly local level on effective resilience building initiatives and mechanisms.

Main Activities include:

Capacity building of partner owned resilience initiatives:

Support regional institutions and national institutions or implementing partners to

gather around resilience building at regional or national level for instance through

launching an evaluation of the Charter for Food Crisis Prevention and Management

(Charte PREGEC) in all Western African countries.

Capitalization of initiatives, good practices and sharing of lessons learned for example

by launching an impact assessment of AGIR or developing a durable monitoring and

capitalisation system for the Réseau de Prévention des Crises Alimentaires/RPCA.


The resilience agenda has mobilised numerous stakeholders around a common objective.

However this has also led to expanding the scope of resilience, now including vulnerability,

the urban vulnerable poor, linkage between security and development, disaster risk reduction

and climate change.

As a consequence a number of resilience branded initiative have come to light with an

increasingly difficulty to mobilise stakeholders on operational responses and results at field

level. The purpose of the programme is to build upon existing international resilience flagship

(AGIR and SHARE in particular) and drill deeper in the implementation of the initiatives:

focus on food and nutrition insecurity to build resilience. This focus, however, is not a silver

bullet to crisis prevention and post crisis response but given that food and nutrition security

has been identified as the first and most important factor of vulnerability to food crises, it will

support convergence in action of stakeholders.

Lack of appropriation at country level and an inability to consistently build exit strategies for

humanitarian interventions remain a risk to be mitigated. Scarcity of funds put further

emphasis on the need to ensure that the interventions target countries already committed to

building resilience building an LRRD strategy. The criteria based selection of countries used

with the FSSA resilience methodology will support the selection of countries where partner

countries are sensitised to the issue of resilience building (for instance these priorities are

reflected in their NIP).

After successive food and nutrition crisis, vulnerable households continue struggling to

recover from those shocks: successful rehabilitation of the means of subsistence of the poorest

households and improvement of the food and nutrition status thus remains highly dependent

on the impact of future shocks, in particular climatic shock such as droughts. Improved

coordination between humanitarian and development services for by a common identifying

the vulnerable populations becomes key to mitigate the negative impact of shocks.

Finally, projects can still be implemented even in volatile conditions (e.g. Somalia) by rooting

actions on community based organisations and through the experience and expertise

developed by international and local organisations and NGOs.

93 / 103


Many of the targeted vulnerable households will be female-headed. Gender considerations

will also play a role in the design of specific project interventions, notably in agriculture and

around nutrition.

Project activities are set in fragile ecosystems that face increasing population pressure,

particularly where additional population inflows occur. Adapted, sustainable production

methods will need to be promoted and well-managed, equitable access to natural resources

should be fostered.

Following recommendations of the EP, EU interventions should not support GMO inclusion

and support to agro-fuel production. Promotion of adaptation to climate change and planning

for likely effects of global warming and related phenomena, are particularly important when

rebuilding local agricultural systems while aiming at a sustainable improvement of their local

resilience. Climate change aspects will therefore be actively addressed in the foreseen country

activities, notably with the FAO and WFP.

3.5. Stakeholders

In order to ensure continued coordination and advocacy around the resilience agenda, the EU

will support the sustained momentum already developed with partner countries, regional

organisations the African Union, SUN secretariat, UN Agencies and civil society.

The programme will focus on the most vulnerable populations, facing recurrent crisis and

under food stress as the main beneficiaries. These mainly include small holder farmers as food

crisis are often located in drought-prone areas where most of the population depends directly

on agriculture and pastoralism.

All humanitarian and development partners are involved in this approach.



In order to implement this action, it is foreseen to conclude a financing agreement with the

partner countries Haiti, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012.






in the relevant agreements.


The programme takes place in 9 countries Mali, Senegal, Burundi, Central African Republic,

Chad, South Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, Lebanon and involves international organisations (FAO,

WFP and OECD).

In the paragraphs below it is specified for which country the module and components is

relevant. The global objective for all implementation components and modules is to improve

the food and nutrition security situation of vulnerable population groups. The specific

objective is to enhance the capacities of vulnerable groups to sustainably produce and access

food.

94 / 103

4.3.1. Grants (direct management): call for proposal (Mali, Senegal, South Sudan,

Lebanon) and direct award (Somalia)

(a) Objectives of the grants, fields of intervention, priorities of the year and

expected results

The global objective for all implementation components and modules is to improve the food

and nutrition security situation of vulnerable population groups. The specific objective is to

enhance the capacities of vulnerable groups to sustainably produce and access food. The

implementation of the programme will be carried out through national and international

NGOs.

Senegal: Due to limited funds, a number of relevant proposals by NGOs of the 2013 call

for proposals targeting food insecure populations were not financed71

. The new call will

cover the affected regions of Matam, Kédougou, Tambacounda (East) and Sedhiou, Kolda

and Ziguinchor (South) and the main results cover the decrease of the number of children

under 5 years old in a situation of food and nutrition insecurity (acute situation with

baseline in 2014).

South Sudan: the call for proposals FSTP 201372

has targeted the region of Greater Bahr

(North West). The objective of the 2014 call is to cover the three conflict affected states in

the Greater Upper Nile states (North East) by increasing the capacity to sustainably

produce food among the most vulnerable part of the 60% of the population classified as

food insecure (2014).

Lebanon: the call will target the most affected geographical areas of northern and eastern

Lebanon (Akkar, Baalbek and Hermel) through improved crop production (inputs such

seeds and post-harvest facilities) and support to income generating activities.

Somalia: direct grant to one of the two Resilience Consortia (BRICS and SomReP) that

are operating in the region and aim to increase people’s adaptive capacity to face food

crisis. Activities include vocational training, farmer/pastoral field schools, improved

access to agricultural inputs through seasonal cash transfer and cash for work programmes

in South Central Somalia (Baidoa, Bay Region, BeletWeyne, Hiraan Region, Mataban,

Hiraan Region, Afgooye, Lower Shabelle Region and Lower Juba Region). Under the

responsibility of the authorising officer by delegation, the recourse to an award of a grant

without a call for proposals is justified because the country is declared to be under crisis

situation in conformity with Article 190(2) RAP. Should Somalia no longer stand under

crisis situation during the time of the launch, a call for proposal will be launched instead.

(b) Eligibility conditions

All entities eligible under the DCI Regulation could be, in principle, eligible. Nevertheless EU

Delegations, managing each Call for Proposals and direct awards, may limit such eligibility

considering the particular objectives and specificities of each targeted country.


The essential selection criteria are financial and operational capacity of the applicant.

The essential award criteria are relevance of the proposed action to the objectives of the call;

design, effectiveness, feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of the action.

71

DCI-NSAPVD/2013/024-630 72

DCI-FOOD/2013/024-823

95 / 103


The maximum possible rate of co-financing for grants is 90%. The maximum possible rate of

co-financing may be up to 100% in accordance with Articles 192 of the Financial Regulation

and 109 of the Financial Regulation of the 10th EDF if full funding is essential for the action

to be carried out. The essentiality of full funding will be justified by the responsible

authorising officer in the award decision, in respect of the principles of equal treatment and

sound financial management.

(e) Indicative trimester

The launching of calls for proposals and to contact the potential direct grant beneficiary is

tentatively scheduled for the first half of 2015. Delegations are responsible for the preparation

and launching of their respective call.

4.3.2. Direct management EU Bêkou Trust Fund in the Central African Republic

In accordance with Article 187 of the Financial Regulations, the European Commission can

create and manage, with other donors, a Trust Fund. The funds allow pooling together funds

from different EU financial sources and instruments as well as funds from other donors.

The EU Bêkou Trust Fund is particularly geared towards interventions in crisis and post crisis

situations with weakened national administration in particular undermining the absorption

capacity of donor funds in the case of a sudden increase of funds. The Trust Fund for the

Central African Republic that pools together funds from EU, France and Germany is under

finalisation. Rules and procedures applying to the management and governance of the Trust

Fund will be detailed in the Constitutive Agreement to be signed with the donors.

The EU contribution of EU Bêkou Trust Fund is a case of direct management as per Article

33 point d) of the RAP. The subsequent decisions on the use of the funds of the Trust Fund

(launching procurement and grant procedures or, in the case of emergency and post-

emergency, by delegating implementation tasks to third entities) will be adopted by the Board

of the Trust Fund.

4.3.3. Indirect management with an international organisation: FAO and WFP for

objective 1 (Mali, Burundi, Chad, South Sudan, Lebanon and Senegal)

A part of this action with the objective to "Respond to major post-crises scenarios promoting

structural and resilient actions aiming at improving the capacity to prepare for, to withstand

and to bounce back after shocks or stressors" may be implemented in indirect management

with the FAO and WFP in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012. This implementation is justified because the international organisations have long

term experience both working with the country and with civil society.

The entrusted entity, FAO, would carry out budget implementation tasks, including:


activities in the mentioned countries. This includes launching calls for tenders and for

proposals; definition of eligibility, selection and award criteria; evaluation of tenders and

proposals; award of grants and contracts; concluding and managing contracts, carrying out

payments, recovering moneys due etc.

The entrusted entity, WFP, would carry out budget implementation tasks, including:


activities in the mentioned countries. This includes launching calls for tenders and for

proposals, in particular with civil society partners/NGOs working in remote areas; definition

of eligibility, selection and award criteria; evaluation of tenders and proposals; award of

grants and contracts; concluding and managing contracts, carrying out payments, recovering

moneys due etc.

96 / 103

Both FAO and WFP will operate in crisis and post-crisis situations with an imbedded degree

of uncertainty; both entities, equipped with their management, steering and technical

expertise, will ensure the identification of the most appropriate partner for the implementation

of activities, ensure achievement of the stated objectives and efficient use of resources.

The entrusted entities would, in:

Mali: delegation agreements with FAO/WFP to rebuild, protect and improve livelihoods

in the North of the country. Results will include an increase in agricultural production

(including livestock and fisheries), in food consumption, the improvement of technical

support provided by the decentralised state services, and the nutritional status of the

beneficiaries. A comprehensive approach building on the comparative advantages of the

two organisations will ensure close collaboration (ex. using same logical framework), as

well as the continuation of an existing LRRD project (cash transfers component)

implemented by ECHO. EU DEL will ensure that the two organisations will make full use

of the technical capacities of the civil society partners that are operating in the field.

Burundi: delegation agreement with FAO/WFP on the introduction and/or expansion of

adapted agricultural production methods, and small scale agriculture including input

provision (seeds and fertiliser) to rebuild livelihoods.

Chad: delegation agreement with WFP/ FAO to support local fortified food production in

particular of highly nutritious food.

South Sudan: delegation agreement with FAO/WFP focusing on reinforcing community

resilience and proven coping strategies by building the capacity of smallholder farmers to

improve crop productivity, value and nutrition using local inputs and facilitate access to

markets.

Lebanon: delegation agreement with WFP/FAO including support of food distribution via

e-vouchers to food insecure populations, provision of agriculture inputs and development

of vegetable, poultry and dairy sector production

Senegal: delegation agreement with WFP/FAO in preparation of an upcoming multi-

sector budget support, the project will include support to existing inter-sectoral

coordination mechanisms (Conseil National de Sécurité Alimentaire du Sénégal) as well

as possible support to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Public Works.

4.3.4. Indirect management with an international organisation: the OECD/CSAO

for objective 2

A part of this action with the objective of improving know-how and capacity at regional,

national and possibly local level on effective resilience building initiatives and mechanisms in

Western Africa will be implemented in indirect management with the OECD and in particular

with its Club du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. This implementation is justified because the

international organisation is the appointed secretary by donors, partner countries and the

donors for AGIR where the EU is the leader of the Technical and Financial Partners (PTF).

The entrusted entity, the OECD / Club du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, would carry out

budget implementation tasks, for the implementation of the activities described in point 3.2

including: procurement of services, contracting of partners, awarding of grants and contracts;

concluding and managing contracts, carrying out payments, and recovering moneys due etc.

As the appointed secretary of AGIR, the entrusted entity would continue its advocacy and

mobilisation of the Western Africa regional organisations, the partner countries and the

technical and financial partners. The entity will also procure services, including to mobilise

97 / 103

short term technical assistance and expertise to carry out studies. This assistance has been

requested by the Western Africa regional organisations (ECOWAS, WAEMU and the CILSS)

to facilitate the implementation of the AGIR process. The technical assistance will be closely

linked to the implementation of the 11th

EDF, in particular for countries and in the Western

Africa Regional Indicative Programme that have food security and sustainable agriculture as a

focal sector.

The entrusted entities, FAO and WFP and OECD, are currently undergoing the ex-ante

assessment in accordance with Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. In

anticipation of the results of this review, the responsible authorising officer deems that, based

on a preliminary evaluation and on the long-standing and problem-free cooperation with these

entities, they can be entrusted with budget-implementation tasks under indirect management.

4.3.5. Indirect management with the partner country (Haiti)

A part of this action with the objective to "Respond to major post-crises scenarios promoting

structural and resilient actions aiming at improving the capacity to prepare for, to withstand

and to bounce back after shocks or stressors" may be implemented in indirect management

with Haiti in accordance with Article 58(1)(c)(i) of the Regulation (EU, Euratom) No

966/2012 according to the following modalities:

Haiti: extension of the ongoing financing agreement Food Security Thematic

Programme73

in indirect management with the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources

and Rural Development that includes capacity building as well as support and expansion

of adapted agricultural production

The partner countries will act as the contracting authority for the procurement and grant

procedures. The Commission will control ex ante all the procurement and grant procedures. In

accordance with Article 262(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, the partner

countries shall apply procurement rules of Chapter 3 of Title IV of Part Two of Regulation

(EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. These rules, as well as rules on grant procedures in accordance

with Article 193 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, will be laid down in the

financing agreement concluded with the partner countries.


Subject to the following, the geographical eligibility in terms of place of establishment for

participating in procurement and grant award procedures and in terms of origin of supplies

purchased as established in the basic act shall apply.



Third party

contribution

(indicative, where

known)

Grants: call for proposal (direct management)

Senegal 3,000,000 330,000


South Sudan 5,000,000 550,000


Lebanon 2,000,000 220,000

73

DCI-FOOD/2012/23897

98 / 103


Third party

contribution

(indicative, where

known)

Grant: direct award (direct management) Somalia 10,000,000 1,100,000

EU Trust Fund (direct management) in the Central

African Republic 10,000,000

74

Indirect management with the FAO/WFP in Mali 10,000,000 -

Indirect management with the FAO/WFP in

Burundi 5,000,000

-

Indirect management with the WFP in Chad 5,000,000 -

Indirect management with the FAO/WFP in South

Sudan 5,000,000

-

Indirect management with the FAO/WFP in

Lebanon 3,000,000

-

Indirect management with the FAO country

Senegal 2,000,000

Indirect management with the OECD 5,000,000

Indirect management with the partner country Haiti 5,000,000

TOTAL 70,000,000 2,220,000


At the beginning of each project a comprehensive internal monitoring system in line with the

overall monitoring and evaluation systems used for development cooperation actions will be

established. The system will rely on a set of smart indicators, supported by a clear baseline,

annual milestone and end of the programme targets which will be assessed annually (annual

review).

Whenever possible, linkages with the EU results framework indicators related to systemic

resilience to food crisis, food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture will be sought.


Evaluation and audits activities will be covered by the budget under the grant contracts to be

awarded under the calls, the grants, the delegation agreements and the financial agreements. If

needed the support measures will be used for ad hoc evaluation and audit activities.



the EU.



implementation. The measures shall be implemented either (a) by the Commission, and/or (b)

by the partner country, contractors, grant beneficiaries and entrusted entities. Appropriate

contractual obligations shall be included in, respectively, financing agreements, procurement

and grant contracts, and delegation agreements.



74

Tentatively France EUR 10,000,000 and Germany EUR 10,000,000 and the Netherlands

99 / 103

contractual obligations. In case of agreement with FAO and WFP, EU-UN Joint Visibility

Guidelines will apply.

of 103

ANNEX 11

of the Commission Implementing Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2014

and Annual Action Programme 2015 part I for Food and Nutrition Security and

Sustainable Agriculture under the Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic

programme

1. IDENTIFICATION

Title/Number Support measures

CRIS number: DCI-FOOD 2014/37-642


Total amount of contribution: EUR 1,000,000 from the general

budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015,

subject to the availability of appropriations following the

adoption of the relevant budget.

Aid method /

Method of

implementation

Project Approach / Direct centralised management

procurements of services and grants

DAC-code 52010 Sector Food Security



This action fiche covers the expenditures of activities related to the preparation,

follow up, monitoring, evaluation and audit activities related to the implementation

of the Food Security & Sustainable Agriculture (FSSA) strategic area of the Global

Goods and Challenges thematic programme and to the achievement of its objectives.

The overall objective is to contribute to the achievement of FSSA’s objective and

specific results by providing support to EU delegations and Headquarter (HQ)

services as well as beneficiary countries to design and deliver evidenced based, high

quality, value for money programmes and to engage in effective policy and political

dialogue.

2.2. Context

The Support Measures are designed to cover expenditures associated with the

preparation, follow up, monitoring, evaluation and audit activities related to the

implementation of the FSSA-GPGC thematic programme and to the achievement of

its objectives. Such measures (audits, evaluations, identifications, studies, meetings,

information sessions, special events for awareness-raising, publications, training

activities and any other administrative or technical assistance expenditure, including

interests for late payments, etc.) contribute to the sound management of the

programme, to the achievement of its expected results and objectives and to the

measurement, analysis and reporting on the impact.

2.3. Lessons learnt

Annual Action Programmes under the Food Security thematic programme in the

previous programming period (2007-2013) had a provision for support measures

which resulted in more than 150 contracts. These contracts allowed HQ and

delegations to perform studies to facilitate the design and alignment of programmes,

of 103

audits, evaluations and to improve technical competences in the four pillars of food

security (availability, access, nutrition and stability) necessary to design and deliver

evidenced based, high quality, value for money programmes and to engage in policy

and political dialogue.


Technical and study facilities set up at geographical levels, existing arrangements

covering monitoring and evaluation (ROM contracts, sectoral evaluation studies,

Court of Auditors reports, etc.) and training provision (aid delivery methods contract)

will be complementary to the support measures provided under this action.


The Support Measures are not directly subject - by their support nature - to donor

coordination.


3.1. Objectives

The overall objective is to contribute to the achievement of FSSA’s objective (to

improve food security for the poorest and most vulnerable, to help eradicate poverty

and hunger for current and future generations, and to better address under-nutrition

thereby reducing child mortality.) and specific results by providing support to EU

Delegations and Headquarter services as specified in Article 3 of the Common rules

and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for external action.


The Support Measures will be used as a framework to finance activities in the

following fields:

1. Risk based audits and evaluations. The objective is to reinforce auditing and

evaluation activities in order to ensure the proper and sound management of EU

funds as well as the assessment of the impact of actions financed by the Thematic

programme.

2. Technical support for the identification and formulation of new actions. The

objective is to provide support to EU Delegations and Headquarters in the design of

projects and programmes which requires a more in-depth analysis.

3. Studies and trainings, seminars, meetings and production of related publications.

The main objective of this type of activities is to support food security practitioners

involved in the implementation of the FSTP and in the achievements of its objectives

through for example, seminars, workshops, conferences, training courses, and on the

ground support to foster their understanding of causes of food insecurity as well as of

possible response strategies and good practices so to ensure delivery of high quality

results while increasing efficiency and effectiveness.


Given the specificity of this action there are no major risks and assumptions.


Cross cutting issues (gender, environment and climate change and governance) are at

the hearth of the FSSA. All measures made available through this action will help

analyse, deal with or address cross cutting issues.

of 103

3.5. Stakeholders

The action is designed to support the staff managing the EU cooperation programmes

addressing Food Security in the field and at HQ. The end beneficiaries are citizens of

the partner countries for whom these cooperation programmes are designed.

The main stakeholders are those requesting these support measures (HQs and

Delegation staff involved with programmes funded by the FSSA) as well as those

involved in their application (such as participants to studies, training courses,

workshop and conferences; specific project's stakeholders involved in the

identification and formulation phases, consultants, etc.).



In order to implement this action, it is not foreseen to conclude a financing

agreement with the partner country, referred to in Article 184(2)(b) of the Financial

Regulation.


The indicative operational implementation period of this action, during which the

activities described in sections 3.2 and 4.3 will be carried out, is 48 months, subject

to modifications to be agreed by the responsible authorising officer in the relevant

agreements.


Procurement -direct centralised management

Subject in generic terms, if possible Type Indicative

number of

contracts

Indicative

trimester of

launch of the

procedure

Risk based audits and evaluations services 20 from 04-

2014

Studies, trainings, seminars,

meetings and production of related

publications

services/

administrative

arrangement

3 from 04-

2014

4.4. Scope of geographical eligibility for procurement in direct centralised and

decentralised management

Subject to the following, the geographical eligibility in terms of place of

establishment for participating in procurement procedures and in terms of origin of

supplies and materials purchased as established in the basic act shall apply.


Module Amount in

EUR thousands

Third party

contribution(indicative,

where known)

Direct centralised management 1,000,000 N.A.

of 103


The monitoring of the implementation and further needs will be carried out through

periodic assessment of progress and delivery of results.


Where provided for in the applicable general conditions, certification of expenditure

will have to be submitted as part of the contracts implementing this Decision.

Evaluations of the results achieved by some of the projects financed under this

decision may be done by external experts hired by the European Commission as well

as external audits at the initiative of the Commission, if necessary.


Communication and information activities are an integral part of the action, aiming at

enhanced visibility and better understanding of EU-funded activities aiming at

combating hunger and malnutrition and at increasing food security of vulnerable and

fragile groups.

ex action title eu contribution (eur) · · 2015-03-13ex action title eu contribution (eur) i)...

Documents