n-glee landscape analysis · n-glee landscape analysis preliminary findings from 12 african ftf...
TRANSCRIPT
N-GLEE Landscape Analysis
Preliminary Findings from 12 African FTF Focus Countries
Background of Landscape Analysis
• Part of Nutrition Global Learning and Evidence Exchange (N-GLEE)
• Task: to review USAID-supported FTF programs and map current interventions and pathways linking agriculture and nutrition
• This presentation: – Methodology – Findings from Phase one – Deliverables
2
Methodology
• Desk review of FTF multi-year strategy and project documents
• Key informant interviews with FTF Point of Contact • Data collection and review tools • Pathways and Principles to guide analysis of
current programs and organize findings
3
Timeline
Technical consultations Document Collection LA team formed First country profile
Draft
Mission Interview
Initial Revision
12 African Country profiles
Aug 21 , Sep 6 Sep 5 , Sep 27 Sep 17
Sep 28
Oct 9
Oct 15
Dec 3 – Dec 4
4
Data Collection
Countries No. documents consulted No. people interviewed
Ethiopia 12 4
Ghana 5 1
Kenya 13 1
Liberia 10 5
Malawi 5 1
Mali 3 5
Mozambique 9 2
Rwanda 4 2
Senegal 11 1
Tanzania 7 1
Uganda 12 4
Zambia 7 2
TOTAL 98 23
5
Current Status of Key FTF Ag-Nutr Projects
Countries To be awarded <1yr implementation >1yr implementation
Ethiopia X X
Ghana X X
Kenya X X
Liberia X
Malawi X X
Mali X X
Mozambique X X
Rwanda X
Senegal X
Tanzania X
Uganda X X X
Zambia X X
6
Implementation Strategy Countries Flagship Co‐location Retro‐fitting
Ethiopia X X
Ghana X X?
Kenya X X X
Liberia X X
Malawi X
Mali X?
Mozambique X X
Rwanda X
Senegal X X
Tanzania X
Uganda X X
Zambia X
7
Implementation Strategy Summary
• 8 countries designed/awarded integrated projects. • 9 have co-location design
– Ethiopia has complete overlap b/w nutrition & value chain projects
– Kenya, Liberia, Senegal, Uganda have partial geographic overlap
– 3 projects in Tanzania have complete overlap in 3 districts
– Zambia has one province that all projects work
– Mozambique potentially has complete overlap
– Mali is unclear
• 2 countries retro-fitted pre-existing projects into FTF program
8
Size of FTF Program
Countries Main project ($ million) Total portfolio ($ million)
Ethiopia 50.2 360
Ghana 60
Kenya 35‐40 141.5‐155.5
Liberia 75‐80 197‐217
Malawi 24.6
Mali
Mozambique
Rwanda 13.4 13.4
Senegal 40 80
Tanzania 50 (value chain), 30 (nutrition)
Uganda 23 140
Zambia 24 141
9
10
FTF Value Chains
Countries Staple/ Roots
Horticulture Legume/ nuts
Animal source
Cash crop
(Bio‐) fortification
Indigenous/ local
Ethiopia X X X X X X
Ghana X X X
Kenya X X X X X (X)
Liberia X (X) X X X
Malawi X X X
Mali X X X
Mozambique X X
Rwanda X X X X
Senegal X (X) (X) X (X)
Tanzania X (X) X X
Uganda X (X) X (X) X (X)
Zambia X X X X
11
FTF Value Chains
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Staple / Roots
Horticulture Animal Source
Legume / Nuts
Cash Crop (Bio-) Fortification
Indigenous / Local
12
Factors in FTF Value Chain Selection
Countries Food security
Income Potential
Nutrition impact
Number of farmers
Gender Gov’t/ donor
Vulnerable population
Ethiopia X X X X
Ghana X X X X
Kenya X X (X)
Liberia X X X X
Malawi X X X
Mali (X) X X X
Mozambique X X X X
Rwanda X (X) X (X) X
Senegal X X (X) X
Tanzania X (X) X X
Uganda X X X X X
Zambia X X X
13
Factors in FTF Value Chain Selection
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Nutrition Income Gender Govt / Food Number of Vulnerable Impact Potenial Donor Security Farmers Population
14
Agriculture-Nutrition Pathways
• Own production food consumption • Income food purchase • Income healthcare purchase • Food prices food purchase • Women’s time use care capacity • Women’s workload maternal energy use • Women’s control of income resource allocation
Ref: Stuart Gillespie, Jody Harris, and Suneetha Kadiyala, The Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India, What Do We Know? IFPRI Discussion Paper 01187, June 2012
15
Explicit/Implicit Pathways
Countries Production‐ Income Income Price Women’s Women’s Women’s consumption ‐food ‐health ‐food time workload income
Ethiopia X X X X X X
Ghana X X (X)
Kenya X (X) (X) X X
Liberia X (X) X (X)
Malawi X (X) (X)
Mali X (X)
Mozambique X X (X)
Rwanda X X (X)
Senegal X (X) (X)
Tanzania (X) X (X)
Uganda X (X) (X) X X X
Zambia X X
16
Explicit/Implicit Pathways
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Prod. -Consum.
Income -Food
Women's Income
Price -Food
Women's Time
Women's Workload
Income -Health
17
Key Principles
Strengths
• Explicit nutrition objectives/Indicators
• Context assessment
• Targeting • Access to productive resources and markets • Improved post-harvest storage and processing
• Increase Household income
• Nutrition education – BCC • Gender • Stakeholder coordination
19
Challenges • Value chains – diversity and nutrient density
• Availability and Accessibility of diverse and high quality in local markets
• Intermediate steps
• Disconnect in targeting beneficiaries – Vulnerability – Gender – Geographic locations
• Women’s constraints/do not harm • BCC linkage to pathways or value chains • Purchase and consumption activities and decisions
20
Pr ationepar
p g
Behavior Change in FTF
Nutrition
Consumption
Preparation
Intra‐household Allocation
BCC
Storage/ processing
Production Market
Income
Purchase/ demand
21
Field-Identified Challenges
• Resources and capacities – staff, time, skills, data, information
• Unequal funding
• Coordination and communication – partners, projects, within the Mission
• Complex situation
22
Considerations
• More diverse and nutrient-dense value chains selected and implemented at scale
• Ensure better beneficiary overlap between value chains and direct nutrition activities
• Involving the most vulnerable in value chain activities
• Consumption and access barrier analysis
• BCC should be tied to the pathways and value chains
23
Considerations (cont’d)
• Indicators that measure intermediate steps need to be in place
• Gender interventions should consider time use, work load and women’s control of resources
• Guidelines and incentives for projects and Missions to coordinate
• Close collaboration with direct health and nutrition activities is a must! – Food safety and WASH/Hygiene
24
FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration
Output No. of people trained in child health and nutrition by US‐support programs No. of children under 5 reached by USG Nutrition Programs
No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A from US‐support programs
Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 201225
% of wasted children under 5 years of age *
Impact % of stunted children under 5 years of age *
% of underweight women *
% of underweight children under 5 years of age *
% of households with moderate or severe hunger *
Outcome % of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *
% of anemia among women of reproductive age *
No. of health facilities capable of managing acute undernutrition
% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *
% of children 6‐23 mo receiving a MAD *
Women’s dietary diversity *
% of national budget allocated to nutrition
% of stunted children under 5 years of age *% of wasted children under 5 years of age *% of underweight women ? % of underweight children under 5 years of age% of households with moderate or severe hunger *% of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *% of anemia among women of reproductive age *No. of health facilities to manage acute undernutrition% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *% of children 6‐23 receiving a MAD *Women’s dietary diversity *% of national budget allocated to nutritionNo. of people trained in child health and nutrition No. of children under 5 reached by USG‐Nutrition Programs
No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A
FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration
Impact
Outcome
Output
Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 201226
FTF Nutrition Indicators: Benefits of Integration
Agriculture (4)
% of households with moderate or severe hunger *
% of children 6‐23 receiving a MAD *
Women’s dietary diversity *
% of national budget allocated to nutrition
Nutrition (5)
% of exclusive breastfeeding of children under 6 mo *
No. of health facilities to manage acute undernutrition
No. of people trained in child health and nutrition
No. of children under 5 received Vitamin A
No. of children under 5 reached by USG‐nutrition programs
Integration (6)
% of stunted children under 5 years of age*
% of wasted children under 5 years of age*
% of underweight women *
% of underweight children under 5 years of age *
% of anemia among women of reproductive age *
% of anemia among children 6‐59 mo *
Feed the Future Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets Updated April 4, 2012 27
Strategy Nutrition Indicators
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Stunting Child MAD Maternal Hunger Child Anemia Women's Diet Anemia Diversity
28
Landscape Analysis Constraints
• Access to documents • Incomplete and out of date documents • Little information on actual implementation
• Definition of FTF ag-nutr program • Mission staff turn-over
29
Deliverables and Next Steps
• Country profiles and your feedback • Presentations – cross country findings
– Dec 10 – 12 African focus countries – Feb 4 – 7 Asian and LAC countries
• Final report combining findings from two phases of review and analysis on 19 FTF countries
• Best practice briefs – Senegal – African countries – Nepal(?) – Asian and LAC countries
30
Landscape Analysis Team
Document Review and Analysis Lidan Du Aaron Buchsbaum Alyssa Klein Jody Harris
Technical advisors Anna Herforth Anu Narayan Marie Ruel
31
Thank you !
32
Additional Slides
33
Value Chain Details – Full List Countries Staple
/roots Horticulture Legume
/nuts Animal source
Cash crop
(Bio‐) fortification
Indigenous Context ‐specific
Ethiopia Maize, wheat, vegetable, pulses, sesame/chickpea, meat and live animal, dairy, honey, coffee
Ghana Maize, rice, soy, fish
Kenya Maize, cassava, millet/sorghum, sweet/Irish potato, vegetable, banana, mango, passion fruit, beans, legume, cowpea, groundnuts, green grams, pigeon peas, dairy, livestock, flowers
Liberia Rice, cassava, other roots and tubers, vegetables, horticulture, poultry, goats, cocoa
Malawi Rice, beans, groundnuts, pigeon peas, soy, fish, dairy
Mali Sorghum/millet, rice, vegetable, livestock/dairy
Mozambique Fresh fruits, pulses, oilseeds, cashew
Rwanda Maize, beans, livestock (potentially pineapple, cassava, rice, coffee, pyrethrum, dairy)
Senegal Maize, millet/sorghum, rice (some horticulture, native food and iron‐rich seeds; maybe livestock)
Tanzania Maize, rice, horticulture, vegetables, flowers and spices
Uganda Maize, bean, coffee, & sub‐district‐specific plants and livestock
Zambia Maize, horticulture, groundnut, soy, sunflower
34
Value Chains Summary
• Staple/roots are selected in all but one country (Mozambique): – maize (8), rice (6), millet/sorghum (3), cassava (2),
roots/tuber/sweet potato (2), wheat (1) • Horticulture including fruits and vegetables: (6+3)
• Legume/nuts/seeds: (8)
• Fish, dairy, meat: (7+2)
• Cash crops - flower, spices, vegetable, coffee/cocoa: (6)
• Fortification of staple flour and bio-fortification: (3)
• Native and local foods for home consumption and smaller scale value chains: (4)
35
Indicators
Required: o Prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of stunted children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of wasted children under 5 years of age o Prevalence of underweight women
Required-If-Applicable: o Prevalence of households with moderate to severe hunger o Women’s dietary diversity o Percent of children 6 to 23 months old that received a minimum acceptable diet o Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months o Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age
REF: http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_monitoringevalfaqs_feb2012.pdf
36
37
38