summary report - annex

Summary Report - Annex

Taking Stock of USAID’s Past and Ongoing Activities under the

East Africa Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy (2011-2015) and

Work Completed from 2016 to 2018

This publication was produced on November 2018.

This publication was produced by the Institute for People, Innovation and Change in Organizations – Eastern Africa (PICO-Eastern Africa), now

known as Emerge Centre for Innovations – Africa (ECI-Africa)

Cover photo credit: Africa Lead

ANNEX - USAID EAST AFRICA FEED THE FUTURE STOCK-TAKE REPORT | 2

Contents

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Annex 1 - Survey Instruments ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Annex 1a: Analytical Framework for the Literature Review ...................................................................................... 9

Annex 1b: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for key Informant Interviews ........................................................... 11

Annex 1c: Semi-Structured Questionnaire to Guide Focused Group Discussions ........................................... 13

Annex 1d: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for the Online Survey ........................................................................ 14

Annex 2 - Analysis and Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Annex 2A: Resilience ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

1. Background and Context Analysis .................................................................................................................... 19

2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

4. Challenges and Gaps ............................................................................................................................................ 25

5. Opportunities Going Forward ........................................................................................................................... 25

Annex 2B: Nutrition .......................................................................................................................................................... 27


2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 35



Annex 2C: Technology Development and Deployment .......................................................................................... 37


2. Interventions .......................................................................................................................................................... 38

3. Achievements ......................................................................................................................................................... 39



Annex 2D: Cross-Cutting Issues .................................................................................................................................... 45

Cross Cutting Issues Underpinning Programming ...................................................................................................... 45

1. Summary of perspectives by Regional stakeholders – What Worked Well and What Did Not ..... 45

2. Identified Critical Cross-Cutting issues ........................................................................................................... 46


Annex 3 - Summary of USAID’S Key Implementing Partners ...................................................................................... 54

1. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) ................................................................ 54

2. East African Community (EAC) ........................................................................................................................ 54

3. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) ............................................................................. 55

4. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA) ........................................................................................................................ 55


5. Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA) ........................................................................................................................................... 56

6. East Africa Trade and Investment Hub (EATIH) ........................................................................................... 56

7. East Africa Grain Council (EAGC) ................................................................................................................... 56

8. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) ........................................................... 57

9. Africa Lead II .......................................................................................................................................................... 57

10. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (RESAKSS) ........................................... 58

11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) .............................................................................. 58

12. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) 58

13. The African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) .................................... 59

References ................................................................................................................................................................................. 60


Acronyms ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance

ACTESA Alliance for Commodity Trade in East and Southern Africa

AfDP African Development Bank

AGOA African Growth and Opportunity Act

AIIM African Institution Innovation Mechanism

AMU Arab Maghreb Union

APPOs Administrative Personnel Processing Office

AR4D Agricultural Research for Development

ARIS Animal Resource Information System

ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ATTC Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization

AUC African Union Commission

AU-IBAR African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources

BDS Business Development Services

BFFS Belgian Fund for Food Security

BFS Bureau for Food Security

BR Biennial Review

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CBC COMESA Business Council

CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia

CCRP Collaborative Crop Research Program

CEMAC Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa

CEWARN Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism

CFAs Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agents

CFTA Continental Free Trade Area

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

C-MRF COMESA Mutual Recognition Framework

COMBIP COMESA Biotechnology Initiative Program

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

COMPETE Competitiveness and Trade Expansion

COMSHIP COMESA Seed Harmonization Implementation Plan

CPPs Country Programming Paper

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EABC East African Business Council

EAC East Africa Community

EAFF Eastern Africa Farmers Federation

EAGC Eastern Africa Grain Council


EAPIC East African Phytosanitary Information Committee

EATIH East Africa Trade Investment Hub

EBA World Bank’s Enabling the Business of Agriculture

ECCAS Economic Community of Central African States

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

ECRABREN Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network

ECSA- HC East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community

EDRASAIA Early Detection Reporting and Surveillance-Avian Influenza in Africa

EU European Union

FAW Fall Army Worm

FEWs Famine Early Warning Systems Network

FGDs Focused Group Discussions

FSVC Financial Service Volunteer Corp

FTF Feed the Future

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GFSS Global Food Security Strategy

GIS Geographic Information System

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

GM Genetic Modification

HoRN Horn of Africa Resilience Network

ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

ICPAC IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre

ICPALD IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas Development and Livestock Development

ICT Information, Communication and Technology

IDDRSI Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

IPM Integrated Pest Management

ISO International Organization for Standardization

JSR Joint Stakeholders Review

KALRO Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization

KEPSA Kenya Private Sector Alliance

KEVEVAPI Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute

KFW German Development Bank

KIIs Key Informant Interviews

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MA Mutual Accountability

MCMV Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus

MDMV Maize Dwarf Mosaic Virus

MERCOSUR Southern Common Market (South America)

MLN Maize Lethal Necrosis


NARIs National Agricultural Research Institutes

NASECO Nalweyo Seed Company Ltd.

NEALCO North Eastern Africa Livestock council

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development

NEPDP North Eastern Pastoral Development Programme

NPCA NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency

NPPOs National Plant Protection Organizations

OEGI Office of Economic Growth and Integration

OFSP Orange-fleshed Sweet Potato

OFSP Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato

OIE World Organization for Animal Health

PACA Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa

PCU Project Coordination Unit

PICO- EA People, Innovation and Change in Organizations in Eastern Africa

PRA Pest Risk Assessment

PREG Partnership for Resilience and Economic Growth

PREPARED Planning for Resilience in East Africa through Policy, Adaptation, Research, and Economic Development

RATIN the Regional Agricultural Trade Information Network

RAU Resilience Analysis Unit

RCMRD Regional Center for Mapping Resources for Development

RECs Regional Economic Communities

RELPA Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in Pastoral

ReSAKSS. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System

RFP Request for Proposals

RIGOs Regional Intergovernmental Organizations

RPG Regionally Public Good

RPP Regional Programming Paper

SADC Southern African Development Community

SCMV Sugarcane Mosaic Virus

SFP Supplementary Feeding Program

SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

SMP Standard Methods and Procedures

SMP-AH Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health

SMP-AH Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

SWIFT Single Window Information System

TADs Transboundary Animal Diseases

TBT Technical Barriers to Trade

TIMPs Technologies, Innovations and Management Practices

TMEA Trade Mark East Africa


UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

US United States

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USAID/KEA USAID Kenya and East Africa

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

VCs Value Chains

VSLA Village Saving and Loaning Associations

WAEMU West African Economic and Monetary Union

WCO World Customs Organization

WDI World Development Indicators

WTO World Trade Organization


Introduction

The USAID Kenya/East Africa Office of Economic Growth and Integration (USAID/KEA OEGI) is in the

process of developing the East Africa Regional GFSS Plan, implemented through Feed the Future, to guide its

programs for the next five years. To inform the development of the East Africa Regional GFSS Plan,

USAID/KEA commissioned a stock-take to review the progress of previous and ongoing activities in the

region, with a focus on the status of investments, achievements to date (including the period 2016 to 2018),

challenges and gaps, and opportunities for investments going forward. The major thematic areas covered

were: Trade and Markets, Resilience, Nutrition, and Technology development and deployment. The

assessment also reviewed the cross-cutting issues which underpin performance and impacts – quality and

appropriateness of partnerships, inclusivity, regionality content of the portfolio, sustainability, stakeholder

capacity strengthening, and resourcing and reporting cycles. The stock-take was primarily informed by in-

depth desk reviews, stakeholder consultations (with a heavy focus on USAID implementing partners and

regional as well as national beneficiaries) conducted through questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews

(KII), focus group discussions (FGD) and a validation workshop following the preparation of an initial draft

report.

Key Components of the Annex

The results of the stock-take are presented in two parts: 1) A SUMMARY REPORT of the stock-take (a

separate document) which presents a synopsis of each of the thematic areas – Trade and Markets,

Resilience, Nutrition, and Technology Development & Deployment – covering, for each, Interventions

undertaken, Achievements, Challenges and Gaps, and investment Opportunities going forward; and 2) A

comprehensive ANNEX to the stock-take report (this document, an important companion document to

the SUMMARY REPORT) which presents detailed stock-take process and results: Survey instruments used,

major stakeholder categories (implementing partners) interviewed, analysis and findings for the thematic

areas (except Trade and Markets which is presented in detail in the Summary Report).


Annex 1 - Survey Instruments

The survey tools were used to guide the data collection process. They were used to capture the views of

the various actors who had been or are still involved in the implementation of specific USAID/KEA OEGI

funded projects such as managers of beneficiary institutions, members of USAID funded projects Steering

Committees, consultants who worked on USAID funded projects among others.

The specific tools used were:

An analytical framework for the literature review

Semi-structured questionnaire for the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

Semi- structure questionnaire for the Focused Group Discussions (FGDs)

Semi- structured questionnaire for the online survey

Annex 1A: Analytical Framework for the Literature Review

Topic Issues to Cover

Thematic Areas

Trade and Markets Focused commodities/VCs

Policies affecting trade (trade facilitation)

Customs/border efficiency

SPS

VC/trade financing

Quality testing capacity issues

Quantitative data on trade (trade flows), informal trade

Access to requisite Technologies e.g. ICT

Access to

Technologies,

Knowledge and

Inputs

Technology (e.g. cop variety or animal breed) development

Movement of agricultural commodities (e.g. grain and seeds) (Harmonization of

policies, certification)

Technology transfer and scaling

Research/Innovation prioritization

(Aflatoxin-Aflasafe, Fowl Army Worm, Maize Necrosis Virus)

Private Sector and

Nutrition Commodities (with nutrition focus) + AR4D

Dissemination and scaling

Food safety e.g. Aflatoxin, SPS issues

Nutrition programs e.g. SFPs

Commercialization (including processing) of nutritionally enhanced foods

(NEFs) -e.g. QPM - i.e. structure trading systems.

Private Sector: e.g. Support to COMESA Business Council; others?

Resilience Early warning systems and seasonal forecasting e.g. FEWS

Insurance products (Index Based livestock insurance)

Crisis response (drought, floods etc.)

Building response capacity


Topic Issues to Cover

Food and cash aid

Partnerships coordination interventions e.g. “regional PREG”?

Food reserves

Regionality Definition vs. actual practice with specific thematic areas

Subsidiarity principle

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Sustainability

Regional analysis (of country lessons) and collective (regional) learning

Inclusivity Wealth categories – rich vs poor

Youth and women

Big (e.g. MNCs) vs emerging (small businesses)

Country and local ownership

Coverage of “all” target countries) or just a “subset”.

Elite capture- Are issues relevant for the majority receiving the bulk of

investment – or is the focus on the ‘influential elite’?

Partnerships Appropriate collaborations (with governments, other development partners,

implementing partners, private sector)

Comparative advantage

Leveraging of resources

Synergy/competition

Choice of partners, partnership arrangements & implications

Portfolio Mix/Balance To what extent is the portfolio balance reflecting needs on the ground and

comparative advantage

Sequencing of project focus towards self-reliance

Sustainability To what extent is this built into program design and execution – and are we

seeing signs of it in (some) mature projects/programs?

Conclusion and Recommendations

Optimizing Portfolio

and Implementation

Arrangements


Annex 1B: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews

Area of Study Interview Questions

Project(s)

Characteristics

1. Which project(s) funded by USAID under the framework of USAID/EA Feed

the Future 2011-2015 Strategy have you been involved in or are familiar with?

2. When was/were the project(s) implemented?

3. What was/is the geographical coverage in terms of countries?

Achievements of the

Collaborative Project

1. What were/are the objectives of the projects(s) and to what extent has each

of these objectives been achieved?

2. What example(s) of behavioural change constitute “impacts” of the

intervention, and how can these/this be attributed to the USAID intervention?

3. What were/are the planned intermediate results for each project and to what

extent has each of the results been achieved?

4. What were/are the activities designed for achieving the results and

objective(s)?

5. In your opinion were the activities and implementation arrangements

appropriate for achieving the project(s) objective(s)?

Partnership

Arrangements and

Effectiveness of the

Process of

Collaboration

1. What were the agreed arrangements for partnerships during the project(s)

development and implementation?

2. In the course of the project development and implementation, what may have

gone well and should be strengthened /scaled in the future?

3. What could have been better and should be dropped or improved?

4. In working with USAID, what has been the strengths and opportunities of

your collaboration?

5. What has/have been the challenge(s) in the collaboration and what could have

been better and should be improved?

6. To what extent have /are the institutional arrangements and partnerships led

to successful implementation of the project? How could the efficiency be

improved?

7. What are/were the major gaps in the project implementation and how should

they be addressed?

8. What are the key lessons learnt during the project(s) implementation?

Relevance and

Responsiveness of the

Intervention to the

Needs of

Stakeholders

1. To what extent are USAID’s intervention focus and activities specifically

addressing the challenges and opportunities relevant and responding to the

needs of its stakeholders?

2. Are there specific project content, arrangements, management and

governance elements that have influenced the results?

3. In general, what is USAID doing well in terms of program(s) content, focus

and implementation processes?

4. What aspects of project content should have been dropped and what

desirable content(s) should have been added?

USAID’s Roles and

Approaches in

Regional Integration

1. What should USAID do to deepen regional integration? What has

been/should be USAID Regional Role?

2. How can USAID enhance partnership with the RECs (COMESA, EAC, IGAD)

to deepen regional integration?


Area of Study Interview Questions

3. How can USAID strengthen partnership with other regional

organisations/institutions to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the

implementation of its projects and programmes?

4. How can USAID Regional Programme facilitate access to food, quality seed

etc. and how can they do it better?

5. How can USAID facilitate the improvement and harmonization of standards

to enhance regional integration?

6. Is there any evidence to show that harmonisation of policies facilitates

integration of trade?

USAID’s Achievement

in Regional

Integration

1. To what extent has USAID integrated the use of technologies and innovations

in ensuring efficiency of its delivery?

2. To what extent are sustainability mechanisms built into the design and

activities of USAID funded projects?

3. To what extent does USAID coordinate its interventions with other donors

and relevant institutions to build synergies and complementarity and leverage

funding to improve efficiency?

4. To what extent are USAID interventions at regional level harmonised with its

interventions at national level? What is the process for that harmonisation?

5. To what extent is the USAID approach to enhance food security through

facilitating regional trade is efficient? Is there any evidence of success?

Going Forward 1. Considering the current USAID portfolio, what should be the priorities for

future collaboration in the following areas:

2. Markets and trade

3. Technology development and dissemination

4. Enhancing partnership with the private sector to improve nutrition

5. Strengthening resilience and livelihoods


Annex 1C: Semi-Structured Questionnaire to Guide Focused Group Discussions

This guide was intended for discussions with groups of actors from the same institution who have had

experience implementing or overseeing implementation of all or various USAID Strategic Results Areas such

as USAID Kenya and East Africa Mission staff, staff of Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and those

from other agricultural research and development institutions.

1. Considering the Strategic Results areas of the East Africa Feed the Future Multi Year Strategy 2011-

2015 namely, increasing trade of staple foods in the region, improving access to inputs and

technologies, ensuring food security and nutrition, improving resilience, supporting strategic

partnerships with African regional institutions and promoting regional services to achieve trade flow

coordination, what can be considered as major successes in the course of the implementation?

2. What are the major gaps in the Strategy implementation and how should they be addressed?

3. In the course of projects development and implementation, what has gone well that should be

strengthened and scaled in the future?

4. What could have been better and should be improved or dropped altogether?

5. In working with USAID/partner institutions, what has been the strength of the collaboration?

6. What has/have been the challenges in building partnership with other institutions and could those

challenges be addressed?

7. Considering your experience, are there specific examples of project content, arrangements,

management and governance elements that enhanced the success of USAID-funded projects?

8. What are the key lessons learnt in the course of development, implementation and coordination of

USAID-funded projects?

9. What should be USAID’s role in regional integration?

10. What should USAID do to deepen regional integration?

11. How can USAID enhance partnership with the RECs (COMESA, EAC, IGAD ) to deepen regional

integration?

12. How can USAID strengthen partnership with other regional organisations/institutions to enhance

the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of its projects and programmes?

13. How can USAID Regional Programme facilitate access to food, quality seed etc. and how can they do

it better?

14. How can USAID facilitate the improvement of standards to enhance regional integration?

15. Is there any evidence to show that harmonisation of policies facilitates integration of trade?

16. To what extent has USAID integrated the use of technologies and innovations in ensuring efficiency

of its delivery?

17. To what extent are sustainability mechanisms built into the design and activities of USAID funded

projects?

18. To what extent does USAID coordinate its interventions with other donors and relevant institutions

to build synergies and complementarity and leverage funding to improve efficiency?

19. To what extent are USAID interventions at regional level harmonised with its interventions at

national level? What is the process for that harmonisation?

20. To what extent is the USAID approach to enhance food security through facilitating regional trade

efficient? Is there any evidence of success?


21. Considering the current USAID portfolio, what should be the priorities for future collaboration in

the following areas: Markets and trade, technology development and dissemination, enhancing

partnership with the private sector to improve nutrition and strengthening livelihoods resilience?

Annex 1D: Semi-Structured Questionnaire for the Online Survey

This instrument was administered online to capture the views of the various stakeholders whom we were not able to have a conversation with.

A. Respondent Information and General Perceptions on Performance

1. Identifying information – contact info (anonymity by choice)

i. Optional contact information (name, organization, email, country etc.)

ii. In what capacity have you or your organization been involved in USAID regional projects?

a) Implementing Partner (grantee/sub-grantee)

b) Evaluator of past or current project

c) National target institution

d) Former mission staff

e) Current mission staff

f) Others? Specify…

2. Please select the stakeholder category option that best describes your organization

a) Farmer organization

b) National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)

c) Civil Society Organization (CSO)

d) Government ministry

e) University or other tertiary education institution

f) CGIAR and other International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC)

g) Regional Agricultural Research Institution

h) Private Sector (e.g. trade and business organizations)

i) Development Partner (Donor Institution)

j) Regional Economic Community (REC)/Regional Inter-Governmental Organization (RIGO))

k) Continental organization/agency (e.g. AUC, NEPAD, etc.)

l) Other (please specify)

3. Have you been involved in a USAID Feed the Future project? YES/NO

4. If YES to QUESTION 3, please list the USAID programs you have been involved in or participated?

5. Of the USAID projects you are familiar with, please comment on their overall performance in terms

of efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired goals and outcomes?

6. USAID work in the region attempts to improve trade, develop markets, enhance food security and

nutrition, develop & disseminate technology, build resilience among other things. Based on the

USAID regional activities and projects that you are familiar with; please share your perspectives on

the general effectiveness of the regional program in addressing these priorities of the region.

(Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree Strongly disagree, N/A). What is the reason for your answer?


a) USAID regional projects are generally well designed and implemented.

b) USAID regional programming is not entirely cohesive, the individual projects and activities

that make up the program are disjointed and disparate

c) USAID regional projects are well integrated and harmonized with projects developed at

national level by USAID country offices (i.e. bilateral missions)

7. Of the projects you are familiar with, what implementation strategies and approaches influenced

achievement of results or lack thereof?

8. In your opinion – based on what you know and projects you have interacted with - what are the

THREE BIGGEST achievements of USAID regional work?

9. In your opinion – based on what you know and projects you have interacted with - what are the

THREE BIGGEST challenges that constrain these interventions from being more effective?

10. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what should USAID

change/stop doing to improve partnerships?

11. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what should USAID

continue doing to strengthen PARTNERSHIPS?

12. Based on your experience working with USAID regional projects to date, what NEW PRACTICE

OR APPROACH should USAID INTRODUCE to strengthen PARTNERSHIPS?

13. USAID work in the region focuses on the following thematic areas: Trade and markets; Access to

technologies and inputs; Food Security, Nutrition; and Resilience. In your opinion, what other areas

should USAID programs focus on?

14. In your opinion, what aspect of USAID regional work should be STOPPED or phased out and why?

15. In general, is USAID/KEA OEGI work in the region (through its programs, projects and activities)

relevant to the needs and priorities of the region (Very relevant, Neutral, Very irrelevant, Somewhat

relevant, Somewhat irrelevant, I don't know)

16. What can USAID do to improve the relevance of its programmes? Please share any advice or

comments

17. Please indicate which of the following USAID/KEA OEGI thematic areas you have interacted with or

are most familiar with (Trade and markets , Resilience, Access to technologies and inputs, Nutrition, None

of the above). If you've chosen none of the above, please describe in brief the area you have been

involved in and your experiences.

B. Trade and Markets

18. USAID has invested in several regional (and bilateral) projects focused on market development,

trade facilitation and related areas. In your view what are the main constraints to regional markets

and trade development? (Highly constraining, Moderately constraining, Not Constraining at all, N/A)

a) A constant clash between regional free trade and national protectionism

b) Weak capacity of national institutions to facilitate trade

c) Lack of information

d) Limited finance

e) Other specify….1

19. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place in each of the following areas in regional

trade and market development (very important, somewhat important, not important, don’t know/no

answer)


a) Border and customs efficiency

b) Trade finance

c) Trade information management

d) Business development support for companies

e) SME development

f) ICT and other automated systems

g) Standards, SPS and related

h) Others specify

20. In your opinion, what have been the THREE most effective USAID Regional Program interventions in

trade and markets over the last 8 years (since 2011)

21. Please explain your choice for the THREE projects above?

22. Please rate the effectiveness of RECs/RIGO’s as partners in regional trade development work

(Extremely effective, Not so effective, Very effective, Not at all effective, Somewhat effective)

23. How can the regional trade work with RIGO's be made more effective? Please offer a comment.

24. Are local companies/ institutions appropriately involved in USAID Regional programs on trade and

markets? YES/NO – please explain your answer

25. Please suggest HOW local companies might be more effectively involved in USAID programs

26. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions to help improve USAID work in the region?

YES/NO (if YES - please add your comment)

C. Access to Technologies and Inputs

27. USAID has invested in several regional (and bilateral) projects focused on Agricultural R&D, input

supply systems and the dissemination and scaling of technologies. In your view what are the most

important areas agricultural R&D efforts? (Very important, Somewhat important, Not important, I don't

know)

a) Building capacity of RARI’s (research facilities)

b) Supporting scaling/diffusion/dissemination of ready Technologies, Innovations and

Management Practices

c) Supporting research prioritization efforts

d) Investing in better coordination of technology development

e) Supporting increased availability of seeds and other inputs

f) Financing for research

g) Other specify….


research and development over the last 8 years (since 2011).

29. Who would be the most effective partners for USAID regional programming in delivering

technological solutions and inputs to farmers? (Highly appropriate, Moderately appropriate, Not

appropriate,N/A)

a) Regional Agricultural research institutions (ASARECA etc)

b) RIGO’s (EAC, COMESA)

c) National Governments


d) Private Sector

e) Please explain your answers above (optional)

30. In your opinion, what should be the research priorities for USAID regional funding? Rank in terms of broad research areas: (Highest priority, Moderate priority, Low priority, Not important, N/A). Explain your choice (optional)

a) Policy research

b) Crop and livestock breeding and genetics

c) Market and delivery systems research

d) Regional resilience including climate change adaptation

e) Food safety including aflatoxin management

f) Management of diseases and pests: FAW, MLN etc

g) Other specify



D. Nutrition

32. Based on your knowledge, in what MAJOR and specific ways is USAID programming in the region

impacting on nutrition?

33. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place in each of the following areas (Very important,

Somewhat important, Not important, I don't know)

a) Bio-fortification

b) Food safety and quality

c) Dietary diversity (inc. through trade)

d) Nutrition education

e) Other (please specify)


nutrition over the last 8 years (since 2011)?

35. Who would make the most appropriate and effective partners for USAID regional programming on

nutrition?


YES/NO

37. (if YES - please add your comment)

E. Resilience

38. Is the current understanding of resilience within the regional program robust and relevant? Please

comment (Yes, No, Somehow). Please explain your answer

39. In your view, what risks (or shocks) should the USAID regional resilience program seek to address?

40. Please rate the level of importance USAID should place on each of the following areas in regional

Resilience (Very Important, Somewhat Important, Not Important, I don't know)

a) Natural Resource Management (NRM)


b) Humanitarian assistance (food aid and related)

c) Livelihoods support and basic social services

d) Pastoral disaster risk management, preparedness and response

e) Research, knowledge management and technology transfer

f) Conflict prevention, resolution and peace building

g) Increased sustainable productivity through climate smart approaches

h) Others please specify

41. What recent (since 2011) USAID resilience projects have been most successful in your view (and

why)?

42. In your view, does USAID regional programme reflect a wholesome coverage of issues relevant for

resilience? YES/NO (If no, what aspects are missing?)

43. Are local institutions appropriately involved in USAID Regional programs on resilience (YES/NO)

Please explain your answer

44. Which institutions/organizations should USAID work with to ensure optimum delivery in this area?

45. What aspects of Resilience should be given investment priority in region going forward?




Annex 2 - Analysis and Findings

Annex 2 contains the analysis and finding from the stock take on nutrition, technology development and

deployment, resilience and the cross-cutting issues underpinning programming from the desk review and the

validation workshop.

Annex 2A: Resilience

1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ANALYSIS

USAID defines “Resilience to recurrent crisis” as the ability of people, households, communities, countries and

systems to mitigate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner to reduce chronic vulnerability and

facilitate inclusive growth.

Persistent and widespread drought is a recurrent feature in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) of East

Africa. More than 90% of Agriculture in ASALs is rain-fed and there is a direct link between drought and

food insecurity. In 2010/2011, the Greater Horn of Africa region was hit by a severe drought that affected an

estimated 13 million people, causing famine in some parts of the East African region. The huge devastation

caused by this 2010/2011, and later by the 2015/2016 drought, are a testimony that traditional coping

mechanisms are no longer working and the traditional responses of providing humanitarian assistance and

food aid are inefficient in terms of building the capacity of the vulnerable populations to adapt and recover

from shocks and stresses. The magnitude of suffering pinpoints to the ineffectiveness of drought response

approaches put in place over the last decades and which were predominantly relying on food aid. This

underpins the need to find more sustainable solutions. Indeed, it is also clear that worsening climatic

variability in drought-prone areas are challenging the traditional survival skills of resident communities in

these harsh environments. Over the last decade alone, international donors have spent around 90 billion US

$ in 9 countries of the Greater Horn of Africa, accounting for almost 50 percent of all humanitarian

assistance in the world.

The misery resulting from these crises has led to a switch of mind-set in the donor community and by

governments in the region. It became evident that interventions to respond to, and recover from, crisis

situations should strengthen medium and long-term resilience to disasters, covering multiple dimensions of

shocks, while also ensuring that drought does not result into another humanitarian crisis.

USAID’s Response

Contributing to finding lasting solutions to recurrent crises became a major priority for USAID which

committed itself to helping build the resilience of vulnerable communities in disaster-prone areas by

increasing their ability to manage crises – but without compromising their future well-being. For USAID,

improving resilience of people is about creating opportunities and options so that they can make choices

about their livelihoods and their lives. It is also about ensuring that communities in disaster-prone areas

become less vulnerable through adoption of practices that increase their chances to cope and recover from

climatic and other shocks that negatively affect their livelihoods. People are more resilient when they are

systems in place that continue to operate despite shocks and stresses, implying that – at that point -

communities have acquired the ability to withstand and bounce back from shocks.

USAID's strategy in building resilience helps share and shift the responsibility for managing risk, investing in

resilience, and responding to shocks when they do occur from donors to governments, communities, and

the private sector. The overriding aim is to reduce costs of recurrent crises, including the unsustainable

costs of responding to large-scale humanitarian emergencies in the same places every few years.

It has become clear that, in building resilience, the approach should integrate multiple components such as

community involvement, access to finance, market integration, and asset strategies, as well as a long-term

commitment to improving the ability to minimize exposure to shocks and, where possible, to recover

quickly when exposed. It has also become clear that building resilience involves supporting individuals,

households, and communities as they make proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood


strategies based on their conditions and strengthening the enabling environment and systems in which

households and communities are embedded.

2. INTERVENTIONS

Under Feed the Future, USAID East Africa has developed strategic partnerships with the Regional Economic

Communities (RECs) including the East African Community (EAC), the Common Market for Eastern and

Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) to strengthen

East Africa’s Economic and Food Security. Programs to build resilience of communities to adverse effects of

climate change and climate variability and to improve the region’s ability to respond to shocks and counter

extremist groups that seek to destabilize global markets and undermine security were mainly implemented

in the framework of the partnerships with IGAD. The largest part of USAID supported resilience building

programs and activities are implemented under the USAID-IGAD Regional Development Objective

Agreement Grant (RDOAG) because IGAD accounts more than 60% of its land mass under Arid and Semi-

Arid Lands (ASALs) which are exposed to frequent droughts and other climatic and conflict related shocks.

These investments have been informed by the past experiences (summarized in section 1 above).

Besides activities carried out through partnerships with the RECs, USAID EA is also coordinating other

resilience-building activities planned at regional level under the Horn of Africa Resilience Network (HoRN)

and implemented by specialised agencies mainly in IGAD member countries under the USAID bilateral

missions.

2.1. USAID EA Activities under IGAD

USAID partnership started in 2006 focusing on supporting IGAD to strengthen regional security, improve

climate prediction and analysis, and promote resilience and economic development. The current agreement

under the RDOAG was signed in 2016. Programs and projects funded under Feed the Future to build

resilience in the framework of the new RDOAG include:

1. Direct support to IGAD’s Secretariat to help the institution manage regional resilience building

programs, improve its procurement procedures, financial accountability and governance;

2. Funding projects implemented by the IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development

(ICPALD) including:

The “Developing standard methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH) project

implemented by AU-IBAR and completed in 2017.

The Strengthening Sanitary and Phytosanitary capacity of IGAD Member States to promote

livestock trade project. This is a second phase of the SMP-AH project focusing also on

harmonising sanitary standards related to livestock diseases. The project started in April 2018.

The Improving Food Security in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands: Strengthening Feed and Fodder

availability focusing on livestock corridors project which also started in April 2018.

3. Supporting the IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre (ICPAC) for the implementation of

the project on “Developing decision support tools for early warning and building resilience” in

support of the PREPARED project as well as in support of current IGAD and EAC activities to

strengthen food security through an informed planning of crop and livestock production.

4. Support the development and implementation of the “IGAD Disaster Resilience and Sustainability

Initiative -IDDRSI” (Box 1).

5. Supporting the “IGAD Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism – CEWARN) activities for

conflicts prevention and mitigation.


Box 1: IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Strategy

Following the severe drought that devastated the region in 2010/2011, the decision to end drought

emergences was taken by IGAD and East African Community (EAC) Heads of State and Government at a

Summit convened in September 2011 in Nairobi. The Summit made a commitment to address the effects

of recurring droughts on vulnerable communities in the IGAD region and called for increased commitment

by affected countries and Development Partners to support investments in sustainable development especially in

the Arid and Semiarid Lands (ASALs). The Nairobi Summit urged all countries to work together as a region

and all concerned to do things differently, working concertedly and holistically, combining relief and

development interventions, aimed at building resilience to future shocks. This culminated into the

IDDRSI as the strategy aimed at addressing the effects of drought and related shocks in the IGAD region in a

sustainable and holistic manner. The preparation of the IDDRSI Strategy was an inclusive and participatory

process that involved IGAD Secretariat and IGAD specialized institutions as well as public and non-state

actors in member states. The Strategy was further informed by consultations with other stakeholders

commonly affected by drought or involved in responding to its effects, including the CGIAR and UN

agencies and development partners. The process of developing the Strategy was guided by the IGAD

Strategy 2011 – 2015 which envisions a region with communities free from vulnerabilities to drought

emergencies. The strategy proposes operational and institutional implementation arrangements and a

result-based monitoring and evaluation system to track the progress of projects activities in the

implementation of the initiative. The Strategy identifies 7 priority intervention areas:

a. Ensuring equitable access and sustainable use of natural resources, while improving

environmental management;

b. Enhancing market access, facilitating trade and availing versatile financial services;

c. Providing equitable access to livelihood support and basic social services;

d. Improving disaster risk management capabilities and preparedness for effective response;

e. Enhancing the generation and use of research, knowledge, technology and innovations in the

IGAD region;

f. Promoting conflict prevention and resolution, and peace building;

g. Strengthening coordination mechanisms and institutional arrangements for more organized,

collaborative and synergistic action.

The strategy, by design, recognizes that while drought-prone communities face common challenges and

are often interconnected through shared natural resources and regional trade and trans-boundary human

and animal movements, individual IGAD member states may have their own specificities and areas of

emphasis.

2.2. Activities Coordinated by the USAID East Africa Regional Office

These activities are coordinated by “The Horn of Africa Resilience Network (HoRN)” which was

established in 2012 to support the USAID EA Mission in its commitment to building resilient communities

and economies in East Africa. The Network includes national governments and regional institutions such as

IGAD and development partners. Its objective is to strengthen regional and cross-border collaboration to

improve evidence-based learning to promote resilient and democratic societies.

From 2012 to 2016, the HoRN developed the Regional Resilience Framework to guide resilience

investments and to serve as a common reference for resilience programming throughout the region. Building

on 4 years of experience, the HoRN developed in 2016 a new regional framework (see Box 2), the

‘Regional Resilience Framework 2.0’ which identified three objectives to achieve the above outcome –

that is: (i) Expanded and Viable Economic Opportunities; (ii) Strengthened Institutions, Systems and

Governance; and (iii) Improved and Sustained Human Capital.


Box 2: The Horn of Africa Resilience Network Vision, Outcome and Focus

The HoRN vision is “People, households and communities in the Horn of Africa drylands escape poverty and

chronic vulnerability and are resilient in the face of recurrent shocks and stresses”. The outcome is “increased

resilience of chronically vulnerable individuals, households, communities and systems”.

The HoRN Regional Resilience Framework is used for the development and implementation of resilience

building programs and projects by the USAID missions in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia Somalia and South

Sudan.

A regional coordination unit located at the USAID EA offices has the responsibility of documenting the

knowledge accumulated from projects implemented in participating countries for sharing with all

stakeholders. Annual meetings are organized to share the experiences.

Building on the recognition that building resilience needs to be addressed through a multi-sectoral approach,

the Regional Resilience Framework 2.0 established a model of multi-sectoral, integrated and inclusive

systems strengthening approach including improving access to finance, enhancing market access, livelihoods

diversification, smart crop and livestock production and environmental management, developing social

capital including education and health and enhancing access to water and sanitation for human consumption

and crop (irrigation) and livestock production. The approach is that systems should be merged and

strengthened simultaneously as they act in synergy, not in isolation.

3. ACHIEVEMENTS

3.1. USAID-RECs Partnership

Significant achievements from the USAID partnership with IGAD are summarized below:

a) Achievement from the ICPALD led project:

Eleven Standard Methods and Procedures (SMPs) for control of cross-border livestock diseases; 16

Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for diagnosis of livestock diseases and 26

epidemiological diseases investigation SOPs developed and disseminated from the AU-IBAR implemented

SMP-AH project. The SMP outlined for each of nine priority diseases the surveillance, controlling and

diagnostic steps to manage/control the disease. National policies to prevent and control outbreaks of

livestock diseases harmonized in nine East African Countries including Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Staff of laboratories and vaccines institutes of IGAD

member countries trained on laboratory SOPs and laboratory equipment and consumables provided by

the project. One thousand doses of the Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) produced by the

Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute (KEVEVAPI) through the project support and a reginal

network for quarantines where technicians screen live animals for diseases prior to traders moving them

to the export markets established. Livestock trade related policies between IGAD member countries

developed and implemented. Live animals export from Berbera and Bosaso to the Middle East increased,

reaching 2 to 3.5 million head of cattle per annum. Three bilateral (Ethiopia and Kenya; Ethiopia and

Somalia; Ethiopia and Djibouti) and one multilateral (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and South Sudan)

agreements for control of livestock diseased across borders signed.

b) Achievements from IDDRSI implementation:

A Regional Strategy, a Regional Programming Paper (RPP) and all IGAD Countries Country Programming

Papers (CPPs) for the implementation of the IGAD Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Project

(IDDRSI) developed and one billion US $ dollar mobilised from other donors for the implementation of

the CPPS during the first phase (2013-2017) of IDDRSI. An interlinked coordination mechanism at

regional and national levels established, operationalised and tools for sharing information developed. They

include (i) the IGAD Info based on country information and (ii) the Di-Monitoring, a web-based tool to

monitor project implementation. IGAD Member States experts trained by the Project Coordination Unit

(PCU) to collect data and information from the different resilience interventions and upload them into

their respective country portals. A consensus established between the Governments and the donor


community on the implementation of IDDRSI. Establishment of the Resilience Analysis Unit (RAU) under

the PCU focusing at understanding vulnerability, resilience analysis and measurement. RAU assesses the

impact of resilience investment, determining whether or not the intended objectives of the investment

are achieved.

Achievements from the IDDRSI country programs indicate in Kenya that the country is making significant

progress towards ending droughts emergencies. This is reflected by the fact that since 2013, the country

managed all drought episodes without international appeal except in 2017 where an exceptionally severe

drought affected the entire East Africa region. The dependency on humanitarian assistance was

significantly reduced from US $ 459.4 million in 2014 to US $ 379.8 million in 2016. In Ethiopia, the

budget allocated to resilience building increased significantly but a drought induced by El-Nino in 2015

caused a humanitarian crisis that results into the government and donors providing humanitarian

assistance to 10.2 million people, indicating that although the situation has improved, humanitarian

assistance is still an integral part of the response under severe crises. The drought was the worse in the

last 50 years. In Uganda, the impact of reducing economic vulnerability through increased investment in

resilience reduction mechanisms is considered to be still very modest.

c) Achievement from ICPAC activities: include strengthened capacity of national meteorological services to

use the decision support tools developed disseminated to provide forecasts for agricultural and

livestock production.

d) Achievement from activities carried out by CEWARN: include twenty- six projects to counter violence from

extremist groups developed and implemented in Somalia, Northern Kenya, South Sudan and Karamoja

Cluster; the CEWARN conflict reporting system redesigned to be able to report more than 15 types of

conflicts; Construction and management of six peace dividend facilities including a maternity ward,

watering holes, a community peace hall and a livestock market in conflict zones; and peace actors

including women, youth, elders, security officials and political leaders trained in conflict resolution.

3.2. Achievements from Activities Coordinated by the USAID East Africa Regional Office

The stock-take selected three projects implemented in the framework of the HoRN Regional Resilience

Framework. These were: (i) The Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME) in

Ethiopia; (ii) The Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands – Accelerated Growth (REGAL-AG) in Kenya; and

(iii) The Resilience through Enhanced Adaptation, Action Learning and Partnership (REAAP) project in Ethiopia as an

illustration of some significant achievements. Although the three projects were funded by bilateral USAID

missions, they were developed based on priorities and approaches defined in the Regional Resilience

Framework. Documented achievements are relevant for multiple countries and demonstrative of approaches

which can be contextualized and applied across the region through more intentional cross-learning. The

projects used the integrated inclusive approach as defined in the HoRN Regional Resilience Framework 2.0.

The achievements are summarized below:

a. The Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement and Market Expansion (PRIME), Ethiopia. PRIME (2012-2017)

was developed and implemented in the Somalia, Oromia and Afar regions where chronic poverty was

the norm as families struggled with repeated incidences of drought. The goal of PRIME was to improve

household income and enhance resilience to climate change. The project concentrated its activities in

five key areas, including: (i) livestock productivity and competitiveness; (ii) natural resources

management and climate change adaptation; (iii) human nutrition; (iv) alternative livelihoods and financial

access; and (v) learning management.

The project used the integrated inclusive approach as defined in the HoRN Regional Resilience

Framework 2.0, merging and strengthening the financial, markets, health, agriculture and environment

systems to act in synergy. These interventions resulted in an estimated 4% increase in income of

households after the 5- year project implementation and during the Ethiopia two worst droughts in half

a century (2015-2017) where most families suffered a 30% decline in food security, PRIME targeted

households only suffered a 4% decline. During the droughts, PRIME responded by integrating its

emergency response activities with its systems-focused development programs. The successes from the


project indicate that “integrated long-term investment in systems-strengthening can break the cycle of

poverty and improve household, businesses and community resilience to shocks and stresses long into

the future.

b. The Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands – Accelerated Growth (REGAL-AG), Kenya

The purpose of the REGAL-AG (2012-2018) was (and is) to grow the economy of Northern Kenya to

enable pastoral communities to endure the effects of climate change and natural disasters. The project

fosters improved livestock productivity to create employment opportunities and increase pastoralists’

income and prosperity through expanding end-market opportunities and catalysing commercial

investment in the livestock sector. The project is implemented in five drought-prone counties of northern

Kenya including Garissa, Isiolo, Marsabit, Turkana and Wajir. Activities of the project include construction

of 20 livestock markets, awarding 36 grants to support business development to buy-down risks and

facilitate the establishment of viable livestock related businesses (animal feeds, milk processing, chicken

production and processing etc.) and scaling up pasture production. Achievements from the 5-year project

implementation include 24597 rural households benefited from up-grades in 12 livestock markets

infrastructures investments; 2616 individuals were trained in agricultural production and food security; 31

microenterprises and 17 small enterprises received business support services in record keeping, branding

and brand marketing, market penetration and finance management. US $ 1,187,637 were leveraged as

private sector investment of which US$ 731500 was credit from financial institutions to support

investments in the livestock sector.

c. The Resilience through Enhanced Adaptation, Action Learning and Partnership (REAAP) Project, Ethiopia.

The goal of REAAP (2014-2017) was to encourage almost half a million people from drought-prone

districts of Oromia State in Ethiopia to implement risk-reducing actions to improve their resilience to

climate change. The activities included organising 300,000 people into communities involved in collective

actions including reducing risk by promoting community internal saving and lending; engagement in health

and nutrition interventions; sharing seasonal weather forecasting information between 3,000 households

during meetings to make better informed decision on investment into climate- smart agriculture and

livestock production; involvement in natural resources management, including planting trees to

rehabilitate environment and hillside terracing to reduce erosion; enhancing access to safe water for

domestic use and crop and livestock production, and enhancing the quality of nutrition and health.

Achievements from the project include mobilization of 59,000 US $ through the savings at community

level used to buy food, livestock and initiate petty trade during droughts; 1,200 hectares put under

climate-smart agriculture technologies; 31 miles of hill terracing; water supply systems rehabilitated and

digging wells which benefited 650 people; construction of 23 ponds which benefited 16,000 people and

livestock; more than 1,000 people benefiting from food cooking demonstrations and 145 health experts

trained to improve rural health through improvement of children feeding practices.

Some of the key lessons can help guide future resilience building programming. They include specific project

content, arrangements and governance elements that influence results. They can be summarised as follows:

i. Involving communities organised into strong organisations in early warning and community-based

development of interventions for disaster management is a common characteristic of successful

projects.

ii. Long-term investment in integrated systems-strengthening can break the cycle of poverty and improve

household, businesses and communities’ resilience to shocks under normal circumstances as well as

during periods of shocks and stresses.

iii. Strengthening market access and linkages for households and communities play a key role in building

resilient individuals and societies.

iv. During disaster crises, integrating emergency response activities such as humanitarian assistance with

the integrated systems-focused development programs result into increased capacity to withstand the

effects of disasters and stresses.


4. CHALLENGES AND GAPS

Persistent and widespread drought is a recurrent feature in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) s of East

Africa. The drought and the harsh environment exacerbated by climate change phenomena, war and conflicts

has created situations of chronic vulnerability, extreme poverty, persistent food insecurity and human

suffering. The extent of devastation currently caused by droughts clearly shows that traditional coping

mechanisms and responses are no longer working in terms of building capacity of vulnerable populations to

adapt and recover from crises. The challenge is to find new ways and innovative approaches to build the

capacity of communities to cope with and recover from frequent shocks and stresses.

5. OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD

The shared vision on resilience across the USAID/KEA OEGI and the Regional Intergovernmental

Organizations (COMESA, EAC, IGAD) is of “Ending the need for foreign assistance” to achieve self-

reliance by building resilience of households, communities and systems so that they are able to cope and

recover from shocks and stresses. Identified opportunities by stakeholders are summarized below.

(a) Joint Programming at Regional and National levels.

There is an opportunity for strengthening resilience at regional and national levels, building on the existing

Regional Resilience Framework 2.0 developed under the Horn of Africa Resilience Network and the IDDRSI

Framework. The specific recommendations to harness this opportunity include:

i. Using the USAID definition of Resilience, adopt the IDDRSI conceptual model for resilience planning,

focusing on disaster-prone areas and broadening the causes of disasters (multi-risk) to include

livestock diseases, food deficits, prices volatility, insecurity and conflicts which are generally

exacerbated by drought.

ii. Using a participatory approach to develop a Regional Multi-Risk Framework and Implementation Plan,

defining the priorities and objectives of multi-sectoral collaborative efforts to build resilience.

iii. Building on the IDDRSI National Committees for Building Resilience to develop contextualized

country specific plans for multi-risk resilience addressing the priorities and objectives agreed upon in

the Regional Implementation Plan.

(b) Building Resilience Response and Recovery Capacity.

Current USAID supported resilience building programs and projects are implemented at identified clusters

and sites in IGAD member countries where models for regional approaches for drought management are

being developed and up-scaled in similar environments. There is an opportunity to develop in the same

clusters and sites multi-risk disaster management models to build resilience to the multiple causes of

disasters.

Recommendations from stakeholders to tap on that opportunity include:

i. Use the IDDRSI clusters to identify hotspots for implementation of the country specific plans for

building multi-risk resilience. The plans will consist of community-based multi-sectoral interventions,

combining community-based early warning based on climate predictions to promote climate-smart

crop and livestock production; natural resources management; improving access to finance; livelihoods

diversification; promoting social capital, including access to health and education services; improving

access to sanitation services and water resources for human consumption and crop and livestock

production, and incorporating conflict resolution mechanisms into the overall community-based multi-

risk disaster management. The Early warning should also be used to predict food balances and provide

cross-border information on climate prediction for crop-livestock production planning. Country plans

will be used to leverage funds from other donors for their implementation.


ii. Develop and promote recovery strategies and plans, including restocking and development of climate-

smart crop and livestock production.

iii. Support technologies for efficient water utilization including ground water mapping, identification of

water access points and how they can be utilized for human consumption and crop and livestock

production; and improve management of shared water bodies.

(c) Strengthen Resilience Management Institutions at National and Regional Levels.

Ensuring that multi-risk disaster resilience building programs and activities are coordinated at regional

and national levels is crucial, considering the many and diverse actors involved in disaster resilience

activities. They include government and non-governmental institutions, regional institutions, donors, and

private sector actors – working at both national and regional levels. Strong coordination is therefore

required to avoid duplications, build synergies and complementarities, enhance cost-effectiveness and

most importantly strengthen mutual learning at regional and national levels. For this to happen, it is

important that institutions involved in the coordination at national and regional level establish explicit

linkages to ensure that synergies are captured, and efficiency and effectiveness achieved.

Stakeholder recommendations to USAID to ensure that strong institutions are in place to manage

the future programme include:

i. Strengthen institutional arrangements to ensure strong governance and coordination of the Resilience

Building Initiatives at the regional and national levels.

ii. Ensure strong linkages between activities carried out at the country level by the bilateral missions

with regional activities carried out at regional level under IGAD, East African Community and the

HoRN.

Table 1: Summary of Opportunities and Specific Recommendations to Build Resilience of Systems

and Communities in East Africa:

Opportunity Area Recommendation

1. Resilience Programming Using the USAID definition of resilience, adopt and adapt the IDDRISI

conceptual model for resilience planning, focusing on disaster-prone

areas and with broad coverage beyond drought - i.e. including other

shocks such as crop and livestock pest & disease epidemics, food

deficits, food price volatility, insecurity and conflicts.

Build on the IDDRSI National Committees for Building Resilience to

develop contextualized country specific plans for multi-risk resilience -

addressing the priorities and objectives agreed upon in the Regional

Implementation Plan.

Use a participatory approach to develop a Regional multi-risk

Framework and Implementation Plan, defining the priorities and

objectives of multi-sectoral collaborative efforts to build resilience.

Strengthen the evidence-based learning through research and monitor

outcomes from the learning sites. Build a knowledge management

system for sharing lessons at regional level.

2. Building Resilience

Response and Recovery

Capacity

Use the IDDRSI clusters (above) to identify hotspots for

implementation of the country specific plans for building multi-risk

resilience. The plans will consist of multi-sectoral interventions

combining community-based early warning based on climate

predictions and incorporating crop production, natural resources



management, access to finance, income diversification, enhancing

market access and promoting social capital - including access to health

and education services. Country plans will be used to leverage funds

from other donors for their implementation.

Develop and promote recovery strategies and plans, including

restocking and development of climate smart crop and livestock

production.

Support technologies for efficient water utilization including ground

water mapping, identification of water access points and how they can

be utilized for human consumption and crop and livestock production;

and improve management of shared water bodies.

3. Strengthen Resilience

Management

Institutions at National

and Regional Levels

Strengthen institutional arrangements to ensure strong governance and

coordination of the Resilience Building Initiatives at the regional and

national levels

Ensure strong linkages between activities carried out at the country

level by the bilateral missions with activities carried out at regional

level under IGAD, East African Community and USAID Regional

Mission

Annex 2B: Nutrition


Work on Improving Nutrition Under the 2011-2015 Strategy

Research has shown that smallholder-based agricultural development does reduce the prevalence of malnutrition,

particularly stunting, in developing economies. Nutrition education and health-based interventions are more effective

when they complement increased agricultural productivity, more cropping, and increased household incomes. Increased

flows of staple foods from surplus to deficit areas and lower food prices as a result of more efficient production and

marketing systems are expected to have measurable impact on food security and nutritional status throughout the

region. [FTF Strategy]

Although the definition of food security includes aspects of nutrition security, in most cases, the application

of the term food security does not include nutrition security. The World Bank defines nutrition security as

‘the ongoing access to the basic elements of good nutrition, i.e. a balanced diet, safe environment, clean

water, and adequate health care (preventive and curative) for all people, and the knowledge needed to care

for and ensure a healthy and active life for all household members’ (McDermott et al, 2013). Thus, nutrition

security goes beyond the traditional food security by considering access to essential nutrients, not just

calories and also addresses food safety.

Status of Nutrition in the EA Region

More than 25 percent of the world's children under the age of 5 years suffer from undernutrition. This

includes 155 million children who are stunted due to chronic undernutrition and other limiting factors

during the most vulnerable years of a child's life. It also includes 52 million children who are affected by

wasting, a result of severe illness and undernourishment and a major cause of mortality. Undernutrition

leaves children vulnerable to disease, impoverishes families, diminishes community resilience, and reduces

critical human capital and capacity, thereby causing long-term detriment to national economies and social

development. Global prevalence of undernourishment 2005 to 2017 is summarized in Table 1. Of note is

the fact that prevalence is consistently higher in Africa than any other region of the world, and that this is

arising from the high prevalence in SSA. Moreover, eastern Africa has the highest prevalence of


undernourishment among all sub-regions of Africa – making it, by extension, the most

undernourished sub-region in the world!

Table 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment in the World (%), 2005–2017

2005 2010 2012 2014 2016 2017*

AFRICA 21.2 19.1 18.6 18.3 19.7 20.4

Northern Africa 6.2 5 8.3 8.1 8.5 8.5

Northern Africa (excluding Sudan) 6.2 5 4.8 4.6 5 5

Sub-Saharan Africa 24.3 21.7 21 20.7 22.3 23.2

Eastern Africa 34.3 31.3 30.9 30.2 31.6 31.4

Middle Africa 32.4 27.8 26 24.2 25.7 26.1

Southern Africa 6.5 7.1 6.9 7.4 8.2 8.4

Western Africa 12.3 10.4 10.4 10.7 12.8 15.1

Asia 17.3 13.6 12.9 12 11.5 11.4

Latin America and the Caribbean 9.1 6.8 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.1

North America and Europe < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5

*Projected values

Source: FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World

2018.

Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

Across a range of metrics, progress remains slow in Africa: for example, global data (2000 – 2016) by

UNICEF/WHO/World Bank indicates that stunting has declined twice as quickly in Asia and Latin America

and the Caribbean as it had in Africa, and that Africa is the only continent in which the number of stunted

children had risen between 2000 and 2016. The trends in two nutrition indicators (undernourishment, and

stunting) for EA region are summarized in Figures 1 and 2 which show that, although there are notable

exceptions, the region has made visible, albeit variable, gains in its efforts to address malnutrition during the

period 1991 and 2015. In Zambia, undernourishment at the general population level showed a consistently

increasing trend. But the trend has been clearly progressively decreasing, albeit at variable rates, in all the EA

(EAC plus Ethiopia) countries since 2000. In addition, except for Burundi, the rest of the countries showed

decline (albeit small) in height for age (stunting) among under-fives during the same period. However,

undernourished population shows mixed results in the region.

There was no data on prevalence of undernourishment for Somalia. However, stunting rate among children

in Somalia was low in the 1990s and remained lower than that in all the EA countries, with minimal change,

during the period. The other countries showed notable improvements in status of nutrition. The overall

improvement was partly driven by economic growth that led to increase in per capita incomes by almost all

countries in the region. Despite this improving trend, none of the countries in the region exhibits stunting

rates better than world threshold of 20 percent. Moreover, in terms of prevalence of undernourishment,

the region is generally below the average for the African continent. In addition, the performance of Ethiopia,

Burundi and DRC with respect to stunting of children under 5 also remained worse than the African average

over this period, but the rate of improvement of Ethiopia in these metrics over this period was higher than

all the other countries.


Figure 1: Prevalence of Undernourishment (% of population)

*[EAC + Ethiopia]

Source: Graph based on ReSAKSS data (http://www.resakss.org/)

Figure 2: Prevalence of Stunting, Height for Age (% of children under 5)

*[EAC + Ethiopia]

Source: Graph based on ReSAKSS data (http://www.resakss.org/)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

en

tage o

f p

op

ula

tio

n

Africa

Ethiopia

Kenya

Rwanda

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

Average (EA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

% o

f ch

ild

ren

un

der

5

Africa

Burundi

Ethiopia

Kenya

Rwanda

Somalia

Tanzania

Uganda

Zambia

DRC

Average(EA)

http://www.resakss.org/

http://www.resakss.org/


Despite these modest gains in nutrition status in the region, the populations suffering from malnutrition are

still worrying. Overall, the improvements are too slow, and trivial in the face of confounding factors.

Respondents interviewed during this stock-take expressed mixed reactions to the data from the reviews.

Widespread poverty and illnesses, lack of coherent social protection legislations, and, unpredictability of

public support and transfers to households in need of food relief - especially during emergencies, are

considered to still compound the nutritional challenge in some (usually marginal) parts of all EA countries. In

addition, there is an increasing prevalence in the region of life style related/non-communicable diseases such

as cancer, diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). Others include retrogressive stereotypes which

exclude certain (marginalized and vulnerable) groups from mainstream economic activities and gainful

employment, thus reducing their access to, and utilization of, food.

2. INTERVENTIONS

Feed the Future is an agricultural growth strategy with clearly articulated nutritional objectives. Increased

flows of staple foods from surplus to deficit areas combined with lower food prices resulting from more

efficient production and marketing systems is being promoted to have measurable impact on food security

and nutritional status in the region. Four categories— grains, roots, and tubers, legumes and nuts,

animal-sourced foods (dairy, eggs, and flesh meats from mostly small animals and

aquaculture), and foods from horticulture (fruits and vegetables)—are identified in the FTF

Strategy to capture the food groups used to measure minimum acceptable diet (MAD) for children ages 6 to

23 months and women’s dietary diversity (Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, USAID 2018). Table 2 below

presents the value chains the stock-take was able to identify from various FTF project documents covering

the period 2011 to 2018 and indicates a wide coverage with maize featuring in all EA countries, and legumes

(especially beans), livestock and fruits featuring in most country lists

Table 2: Value Chains Identified from FTF Documents

Country Value Chains

Ethiopia Maize, wheat, vegetable, pulses, sesame/chickpea, meat and live animals, dairy,

honey, coffee.

Kenya Maize, cassava, millet/sorghum, sweet/Irish potato, vegetable, banana, mango,

passion fruit, beans, legume, cowpea, groundnuts, green grams, pigeon peas,

dairy, livestock, flowers.

Rwanda Maize, beans, livestock, pineapple, cassava, rice, coffee, pyrethrum, dairy.

Tanzania Maize, rice, horticulture, vegetables, flowers, spices.

Uganda Maize, beans, coffee, and some subdistrict–specific crops and livestock.

Zambia Maize, horticulture, groundnut, soy, sunflower.

Under the nutrition theme, the USAID EA Regional Strategy (2011-2015) identified four broad activity areas

which aimed to synergize agriculture, trade, and nutrition objectives in collaboration with USAID/EA’s

Regional Health and HIV Office (RHH). The priority areas focused on the critical “one thousand days” for

pregnant and lactating women and children under two years of age. The areas were: a) fortification and bio-

fortification; b) food quality and safety; c) dietary diversity; and d) institutional capacity. Operationally, many

of these areas are embedded within the focus and support areas of the strategy, contributing to increased

availability of, access to, and utilization of food. Thus, trade and markets, and improved technologies,

knowledge and input, all contribute in different ways to the nutrition objectives and outcomes.

In relation to dietary diversity specifically, key USAID regional priorities are “… to promote increased

consumption of heme iron, vitamin A and zinc, coupled with reductions in the consumption of sugar,

saturated fats and simple carbohydrates”. The Strategy includes: development and dissemination of model

policies through regional organizations to promote a transition to more diverse and nutritious diets, based


on analysis of nutritionally-linked economic impacts. Awareness was to be built about the relationships

between household food security, nutrition, stunting and obesity. Support to the horticulture value chain,

making fruits and vegetables rich in micronutrients and fibre more widely available and accessible, was to

complement these policy-level programs.

USAID and Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture

The term ‘nutrition-sensitive agriculture’ has emerged in the recent past as an appropriate way to define

agriculture investments intentionally designed to also improve nutrition (Box 1). Investments require

deliberate and appropriate forethought and planning to yield impact on nutritional status and consequently

good health and wellbeing. Several pathways have been identified showing how nutrition-sensitive agriculture

interventions can more directly impact nutrition and food security. The pathways include: Agricultural Income

– to facilitate food purchase and for health care and education expenditures; Food Production – through

reduced food prices, home consumption, and processing and storage; and Women’s Empowerment – through

women’s decision-making in the household, women’s time use and the impact on their ability to care for

themselves and their children, women’s workload and the impact on maternal energy use, and women’s

control of income, participation in markets, and resource allocation.

The stock-take examined four strategies that are implicitly being applied in USAID programming in the

region which reflect nutrient-sensitive agriculture approach: Trade focus; Production and value-chain

development focus; fortification and bio-fortification; and food safety. Nutrition education while very

important is driven primarily by USAID bilateral missions. The same is true for women empowerment which

was examined across all the four. The two are not, therefor, analyzed further in this report.

Box 1. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture and Nutrient-Rich Foods

1. A commodity is defined as nutrient-rich if it meets any of the following criteria*:

Is bio-fortified

Is a legume, nut, or some seeds such as sesame, sunflower, pumpkin seeds, wheat germ, or

sprouted legume seeds

Is an animal source food, including dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), fish, eggs, organ meats,

meat, flesh foods, and other miscellaneous small animal protein (e.g., grubs, insects)

Is a dark yellow or orange-fleshed root or tuber

Is a fruit or vegetable that meets the threshold for being a "high source" of one or more

micronutrients on a per 100 calorie and per 100-gram basis

2. In addition, value chain approaches deliberately designed to be nutrition sensitive

*See: USAID’s Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy (2014-2025), Technical Guidance Brief (2015) https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-

health/nutrition/nutrition-sensitive-agriculture-nutrient-rich-value-chains

2.1 Making Trade Work for Nutrition

Increased trade is well recognized by FTF as an important means to avail access to food – specifically staple

commodities and nutritious foods. Although it is not possible to quantify the contribution of USAID

investments to this, trade figures (see trade section) show that both intra-African exports and imports

(including for nutrition-rich commodities) have generally increased in the EA region, especially during the

2005 to 2015 period. USAID has also been keen to assess the extent to which trade is contributing to

nutrition. One example is work on the fruits and fresh vegetables (FFV) production and marketing systems

in the EA region (Box 2). This work sought to assess the extent to which trade-related interventions could

enhance FFV consumption in the region. The hypothesis was that as regional markets become increasingly

integrated, FFV should become more widely available throughout the year, helping stabilize prices and

making these products more affordable to consumers. Reliable access to larger regional markets should also

https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-health/nutrition/nutrition-sensitive-agriculture-nutrient-rich-value-chains

https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global-health/nutrition/nutrition-sensitive-agriculture-nutrient-rich-value-chains


encourage farmers to diversify production for sale, potentially increasing household incomes. Year-round

availability of a range of FFV should encourage increased trade in FFV and would have a direct impact on

reducing malnutrition.

Box 2. Trade Interventions to Improve Nutrition – Fruits and Fresh Vegetables (FFV)

Through a USAID/EA funded assignment, the East Africa Trade Hub conducted two studies looking at

the FFV sector and identified several challenges and recommended interventions. Recommendations

centered on improving data and information collection and analysis, identifying key public and private

partners to lead efforts to enhance FFV trade, supporting efforts to build capacities of regional and

national level FFV trade associations, improving wholesale market efficiencies through better cooperation

among value chain actors and developing nutritional awareness campaigns to encourage more FFV

consumption. The specific key recommendations included:

Improve the region’s capacity to collect and analyze FFV trade flow, price and market information

Develop interventions to address wholesale market inefficiencies

Improve the FFV policy and enabling environment

Promote consumer awareness campaigns on the nutritional benefits of eating FFV

2.2 Making Value Chains Work for Nutrition

Adopting value-chain concepts has enormous potential to help increase both the supply of nutritious foods

to the poor and their demand for those foods. First, value-chain analysis can be used to assess why foods

are, or are not, available in specific communities, why foods cost what they do, and how the nutrient quality

of foods changes from production throughout the chain. Once problems are identified, value chain

approaches can be used to design and implement solutions to increase the availability, affordability, and

quality of nutritious foods. Value-chain analysis can also be used to address acceptability and demand

constraints. It can be used, for example, to identify what kind of “value” needs to be added to products to

increase consumer acceptability and demand, as well as to determine if adding nutritional value alters the

way the consumers “value” the products or their “willingness to pay” (Hawkes and Ruel, 2011; Box 3).

Although quantitative data was not collected in the stock-take, consultations with stakeholders revealed

that, in addition to nutrition-focused projects, choice of value chains in USAID projects in the region is

consistently guided by a nutrition objective.

Box 3. How to Apply Value-Chain Concepts to Achieving Nutrition Goals

Start with explicit nutrition goals. While there is not a single “value-chain-for-nutrition” approach,

all value-chain approaches to nutrition should focus on a clearly stated, outcome-oriented nutrition goal.

[USAID EA Strategy and programming have explicit nutrition objectives]

Create and capture value for nutrition. Although value-chain approaches to nutrition do need to

consider economic value for actors in the chain—a necessary component of any value-chain approach—

they should also consider the value for nutrition. Increases in economic value for vulnerable value-chain

actors can be associated with increased value for nutrition, even if this is not their original intention

[The deliberate choice of nutrient-rich commodities in the USAID portfolio speaks to this]

Add value not only for nutrition but also for actors along the value chain. Solutions for

nutrition that do not work for actors within the value chain are not value-chain solutions. Rather,

nutrition-oriented activities should become a solution to the problems faced by these actors as well, thus

adding value for both consumers and actors along the value chain

(http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2013/06/ValueChainsForNutrition.pdf)

Source: Hawkes and Ruel (2011)

http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2013/06/ValueChainsForNutrition.pdf


2.3 Making Bio-Fortification and Fortification Work for Nutrition

Bio-fortification is a process by which crops are bred in a way that increases their nutritional value. Breeding

nutritious crops is much cheaper than adding micronutrients to already processed foods. Lack of essential

micronutrients such as iodine, iron, zinc and vitamin A in diets, often referred to as the ‘hidden hunger’ -

because the symptoms of deficiency often manifest only when they become severe - is a threat to millions of

African lives. In the 2011-2015 Strategy, USAID committed to promoting the consumption of bio-fortified

crops. Specifically, lessons learned from pilot programs to evaluate the consumer acceptability of orange-

fleshed sweet potatoes (OFSP) and iron-fortified lentils, were to be made available; an ongoing project in

Rwanda was also identified for support. Based on the results of these experiences, a plan was to be

developed to scale up the availability and use of bio-fortified commodities across the region.

The story of the OFSP in Uganda (Box 4) is an example of currently available bio-fortified varieties of 13

crops, including Vitamin A sweet potato, cassava, and maize, iron-rich beans and pearl millet, and zinc-rich

wheat and rice, which have been released in 30 countries around the world. Peer-reviewed clinical trials

have demonstrated that bio-fortified foods have a positive impact in health and nutritional status, including:

reduction in the prevalence of diarrhea among children under three; reversal of iron deficiency in children

and women; improved cognitive and physical performance in women and children; and improved night vision

in children.

Working with its partners, especially HarvestPlus, USAID has made significant contribution to the

development and deployment of several bio-fortified commodities which are making major contributions to

human nutrition in and outside of Africa. In the EA region, Uganda (beans and sweet potato), Zambia (maize,

sweet potato, and cassava), and Rwanda (beans) are among countries that have benefited from the bio-

fortification work and scaling of the resulting products; many of these projects have received support from

USAID ( both EA/OEGI and BFS).

Box 4. USAID Support to Scaling of Bio-Fortified Sweet Potato in Uganda

Vitamin A deficiency is a significant health concern across SSA, affecting 43 million children under age 5,

and contributing to high rates of blindness, disease and premature death in children and pregnant

women. In Uganda it affects 38 percent of children aged 6 months to 59 months and 36 percent of

women aged 15 to 49 years, according to the 2011 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey. Lack of

vitamin A also impedes children’s growth, increases their vulnerability to disease, and contributes to

poor immune function and maternal mortality. Orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) is an important

source of beta-carotene, the pre-cursor to vitamin A.

OFSP was introduced in Uganda in 2007 by HarvestPlus project of the Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In 2012, HarvestPlus and the USAID introduced the new

sweet potato variety. OFSP has now been adopted by over 55,000 Ugandan farming households, with up

to 237,000 households expected to be planting and eating this year (2018). A total of six varieties have

been released and currently (2018) being used in Uganda. The project provided enriched sweet potato

plants to breed with the local white or yellow variety to more than 10,000 farming households.

In addition to addressing vitamin A deficiencies, the OFSP is as sweet as the indigenous white sweet

potato, and has high and fast-maturing yields.

Agricultural extension staff work closely with farmers’ groups and other parties to ensure

widespread OFSP availability and sustainability.

People are interested in growing OFSP mainly for home consumption.

Schools around Uganda that grow potatoes in their gardens as a main crop are increasingly adopting

the OFSP.

HarvestPlus provides information and training to farmers on how to conserve the potato vines from

season to season.

Nutrition training is also offered to the farmers. Families learn how to prepare the potatoes, which

contribute to the nutritional needs of young children and pregnant and breastfeeding women, as a


Box 4. USAID Support to Scaling of Bio-Fortified Sweet Potato in Uganda

component of a balanced diet.

With support from USAID, HarvestPlus is proactively working to link OFSP farmers to markets.

Food fortification: The USAID (2011-2015) Strategy stated that the East, Central and Southern Africa Health

Community (ECSA) was to work with partners to support the implementation of regionally harmonized

fortification, safety, and quality standards for salt, sugar, oils and grain-based products, and to address

technical and other non-tariff barriers to trade in fortified commodities, as well as policy and regulatory

barriers faced by the private sector for the regional distribution of fortified foods. ECSA has worked with

technical committees in the EAC and COMESA to advocate for the cross-sectoral implementation of

harmonized policies and standards. Alliances of partners working at the regional and national levels have

been formed to increase likelihood that fortified foods reach vulnerable households. Guidelines and manuals

on fortification have been developed and policies formulated.

2.4 Food Quality and Safety

USAID’s Regional Strategy 2011-2015 commitment to food quality and safety is well embedded in strategies

for reducing barriers to trade within East Africa: a focus on improving efficiency and transparency of cross-

border transactions, harmonizing safety and quality standards and reducing the time and cost of doing

business in the region. However, there is also a more direct strategy and accompanying investments focusing

on aflatoxin control and management. Thus, the USAID EA investments in food quality and safety can be

categorized into two broad areas:

Aflatoxin: At a broader level, Feed the Future has committed to a comprehensive program of aflatoxin

(Box 5) control measures in collaboration with partners including USDA, the International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA), and the Center for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among others, leveraging funding from other development partners,

especially the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, especially for work done through CGIAR Centres (e.g.

ILRI-BecA) and PACA:

The development of the PACA as an institutional arrangement to further define continental programming

needed across the health, agriculture, and trade sectors to control aflatoxin

Scaling up of “Aflasafe” initiative (led by IITA) to promote biological control of aflatoxin, especially for small

producers (see Technology Development and Deployment section of this report)

Distribution of knowledge and best practices to organizations providing technical assistance to address

aflatoxin challenges along the value chain through improved post-harvest handling and storage at the

household, village and warehousing levels.

Strengthening the “whole of government” approach: USAID/EA also committed to working closely with the

CDC to disseminate the results of their research assessing the correlation between chronic exposures to

aflatoxin and stunting.

Box 5. Aflatoxin Challenge

Aflatoxin contamination is a growing threat to trade, food and health security in SSA, where smallholder

farmers are challenged by food production and now climate variability. Aflatoxin is a naturally occurring

mycotoxin that grows on grains and legumes, is endemic throughout the region. The region (SSA) is

losing more than 450 million dollars annually in trade revenue of major staples, particularly maize, and

groundnuts as a result of aflatoxin contamination. Linked to suppressed immunity, liver cancer in humans

and stunting in children, the health bill attributable to aflatoxin-contaminated food runs into billions of

dollars in a continent already over-burdened with health challenges. Contamination occurs across the


production, postharvest and primary processing steps in the value chain. Acute exposure results in

mortality rates of 25 to 40 percent, while chronic exposure of lower levels causes impaired immune

function, growth retardation and liver disease (Gong et al, 2002a; b). Aflatoxin poses the greatest risk to

populations (such as in EA region) consuming maize as their staple food as well as groundnuts, and also

affects livestock. Moreover, the estimated annual loss to African food exporters of cereals, dried fruit

and nuts from attempting to meet EU aflatoxin standards is roughly $670 million (Otsuki et al. 2001)

Harmonization of safety and quality standards as part of the SPS interventions (see Trade and

Markets section).

3. ACHIEVEMENTS

The proposed indicators in the Strategy toward “Increased Access, Availability, and Utilization of African-

grown staple foods in Regionally Integrated Markets on the Northern and Central Corridors” are outlined

explicitly in the Results Framework of the 2011-2015 Strategy, and targets are set for indicators measuring

the percent change in the volume and value of intra-regional trade in: targeted agricultural commodities;

fortified foods; and agricultural inputs. The stock-take found that most projects – even those not classified as

‘nutrition projects’ recognized nutrition as an important consideration in programming, with many making

explicit statements on nutrition and taking relevant action during implementation. However, the feedback

was generally qualitative. Examples of concrete achievements include:

Harmonization of standards for 22 staple foods to liberalize and increase regional trade; relevant for

small traders who facilitate movement of local staples was the introduction of simplified certificate of

origin to allow duty-free cross border shipment of EAC-origin goods worth less than $2,000,

allowing small farmers and traders to increase trade – thus, availing food in deficit areas

Progress made with scaling of bio-fortified crops – e.g. OFSP in Uganda and iron-bio-fortified beans

in Rwanda. Released varieties are both nutrient-rich and higher yielding than conventional varieties.

Intentional inclusion of nutrition-rich foods as priority value chains in the trade portfolio, and

analytical work (e.g. by EA Trade Hub on Fresh Vegetables and Fruits) to improve understanding of

how value chains of nutrition-critical commodities can be improved.

‘Proof of concept’ of Aflasafe technology and roll out of the commercialization process. Field-testing

of Aflasafe™ has produced extremely positive results: Aflatoxin contamination of maize and

groundnut was consistently reduced by between 80 and 90%, and even as high as 99%. This increases

crop values by at least 5% while addressing this serious food safety issue.

Progress with SPS in EAC and COMESA with implications for nutrition include:

Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) conducted to review phytosanitary import conditions and establish

a systems approach for risk mitigation in food staples and horticultural products in COMESA

countries. This has opened export possibilities – e.g. Kenya avocado exports to South Africa

opened in 2018

Establishment of the East African Phytosanitary Information Committee (EAPIC) Pest Database

system

Development of regional sampling protocols for aflatoxin monitoring

Increases in the adoption and adaptation of standards and regulations in the East Africa region

East, Central and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC) developed 17 food fortification

and inspection manuals for staple foods, and control manuals for salt, oil, sugar, maize flour and

wheat flour. By 2013, significant progress had been achieved throughout the ECSA region, for

example:


Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania mandated the fortification of all or some of the staple foods

(wheat, vegetable oil, sugar and maize flour)

Uganda passed legislation in 2011 requiring mandatory fortification of vegetable oil (with vitamin

A), wheat flour and maize flour (with iron, folic acid, zinc, vitamin A, niacin and other B

vitamins).

25 flour millers and six oil industries in Kenya signed Memoranda of Understanding with the

government to comply with East African standards.


1. See SPS implementation challenges in the Trade and Markets section

2. Documented direct evidence of the impact of food borne illnesses on nutrition, health systems and

economies is needed to encourage countries (public and private sectors) to invest in national food

safety systems

3. More investment is needed to develop affordable drying and food preservation technologies that

small-scale rural farmers can use on farm to reduce food spoilage and to improve the shelf-life of

their produce, especially highly perishable foods such as fruits and vegetables.

4. Fortification of commercially produced maize flour (by major millers) is not serving the needs of the

majority of rural families who depend on flour produced from local posho-mills. There is need to

adapt and scale available fortification formula and protocols for local use.

5. Food safety awareness and capacity in the region still remains low despite its health and nutrition

impacts

5. Opportunities Going Forward

Table 3 presents a summary of opportunities identified based on the stock-take. These are potential

investment areas based on analysis of challenges experienced and gaps identified by implementing partners

and other stakeholders in the region.

Table 3: Summary of Opportunities and Recommendations for Nutrition Investments Going Forward


Making local &

regional value chains

work for nutrition

Ensure that choice of priority value chains (see trade section) include nutrient-rich

commodities – and establish nutrition outcomes/targets for regional VC and

analyze systemic issues that undermine nutrition

Map available affordable effective drying and food preservation technologies and

make these accessible to rural smallholders in the region; make additional

investments to address gaps

Promoting food

safety policy and

interventions that

increase resilience,

enhance nutrition

and ensure safe trade

Put in place value chain monitoring systems (sampling and testing) for prioritized

food safety hazards - e.g. mycotoxins, pesticide residues, heavy metal residues,

microbiological hazards, and facilitate mutual recognition by EA member states

Facilitate development and promotion of mitigation options for prioritized

hazards - such as Aflasafe for aflatoxin control

Strengthen institutional competencies of agencies responsible for food safety –

e.g. through virtual learning platforms – to enhance compliance; explore linkage

with existing learning platforms such as the Food Safety Innovation Lab and MSU

food safety knowledge platform



Promote aggregation of high-quality goods that can be purchased for trade

regionally or internationally – e.g. Kumwe in Rwanda which dries maize on the

cob to reduce aflatoxin to nearly zero

Design and operationalize storage facilities and aggregation centers (see trade)

with a deliberate focus on impact of postharvest handling on food safety and

nutrition

Facilitate training of extension personnel in the region to have critical awareness

and capacity to be able to provide ‘post-harvest extension’ relevant for food safety

Bio-fortification Create awareness about biofortified food commodities and address seed trade

challenges that constrain regional movement, dissemination and scaling of

regionally prioritized bio-fortified commodities

Continue support for bio-fortification research focused on priority EA staples

Fortification of foods Support interventions to achieve full compliance with existing fortification

standards for priority value chains - wheat flour, vegetable oil, sugar, and maize

flour – and ensure compliance by small millers

Scale up and disseminate guidelines for fortifying locally milled flour

Establish a regionally-owned Laboratory Certification of foods compliant to bio-

fortification standards of export markets

Annex 2C: Technology Development and Deployment


In spite of their invaluable contribution to economic growth, farmers in developing countries often lack the

technologies, skills and other resources to respond to agricultural development challenges. Agricultural

research and development (AR4D) helps generate new technologies and improved policies, which are key

drivers of growth in agricultural productivity and resilience. The role of technology in agriculture is three-

fold: producing more and higher-quality food for the growing population; enhancing nutritional value and

safety of food to improve consumers’ health and wellbeing; and contributing to agricultural sustainability and

efficiency by reducing resource use in agriculture (DuPont, 2012). Improved agricultural productivity is a key

objective of the USAID East Africa (USAID/EA) regional mission’s Feed the Future (FTF) Strategy.

Recognizing the challenge that most agricultural research activities in developing countries are focused

on problems at national and local levels, the USAID/EA is committed to a regional collective approach

in which they support regional activities that complement and add value in three key results areas, i.e.

technology and knowledge creation through agricultural research for development (or AR4D),

diffusion of technologies and knowledge to end-users, and the development of regional alliances for

effective management of seed and SPS policy matters. It is a provision within the strategy that

agricultural research activities are carried out collaboratively and in partnership with expert and user

organizations at national, regional and international levels. The research activities are interlinked with

comprehensive programs in human and institutional capacity building.

This report summarizes stock-take findings on agricultural technology development, diffusion and scaling up,

including human and institutional capacity building, in the following focus areas that USAID/EA supported

through the FTF strategy: (1) Cereal diseases and pests that affect the major value chains, focusing on

Aflatoxin, Maize Lethal Necrosis and Fall Armyworm; and (2) Seed technologies with respect to traits

development and scaling up and commercialization of seeds of varieties with specific desirable traits. For

each focus area the report summarizes past and ongoing intervention efforts by USAID/EA, achievements


realized to date in terms of technology development, scaling, diffusion and availability including capacity

strengthening; challenges and gaps; and opportunities for future intervention.

2. INTERVENTIONS

1. Aflatoxin: Aflatoxin is a toxin produced by a fungus, Aspergillus flavus which attacks and multiplies

on maize grain, milk, meat and eggs and is a leading food and feed safety risk in maize in East Africa.

In high doses the toxin poses serious threats to both human and livestock health. Apart from

impacting on public health, aflatoxin presents challenge to trade due to movement restrictions.

Interventions of the USAID/EA started with the Low-cost Diagnostic Test-kit piloted in 2013 under

Diagnostics for All Program, and the Aflatoxin USAID program which produced a biocontrol

product called Aflasafe that has proved capable of reducing aflatoxin in crops by up to 99%. Later the

USAID/EA and USDA-FAS committed funds to design, construct and equip the modular

manufacturing plant in Kenya (2014-2016). Thereafter the Aflasafe Technology Transfer and

Commercialization (ATTC) project (2015-2019) is being funded by BMGF (USD 10m) and

USAID/EA (USD 5m) and other leveraged funding such as the World Bank AgResults Aflasafe

project, and is being implemented by IITA (Lead) in collaboration with NARS of respective African

countries, other IARCs and regional research organizations.

2. Fall Armyworm: Fall Armyworm (FAW), an invasive crop pest native to the Americas, was first

confirmed in Africa in 2016 (CABI, 2017) and has since been found in over 30 African countries

including East Africa. In its larval life stage as a moth, FAW (Spodoptera frugiperda) spreads quickly

across large geographic areas and can persist throughout the year, causing severe food security and

economic losses through grain damage, trade restrictions and excessive pesticide applications that

lead to environmental damages (Day et al., 2017). The CGIAR and other international and national

research organizations lead by CIMMYT, and with the support of various donor agencies have

developed technologies focusing on different approaches to the management of FAW in Africa that

need scaling for wide application. The main interventions by the USAID/EA under the Feed the

Future initiative has been a response to the challenge of enhancing access to the technologies

developed by the CGIAR and other R&D organizations. Jointly with the Office of US Foreign

Disaster Assistance and in partnership with CIMMYT and the CGIAR program on maize (CCRP),

the USAID/EA supported the production of comprehensive integrated pest management (IPM) guide

– ‘Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management’ (Feed the Future, 2018) to help

scientists, plant protection organizations, extension agencies, research institutions, and governments

working with farmers tackle the pest. USAID also supported a convening of a regional stakeholders’

workshop for the EAC on combating the FAW; the workshop was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 17 –

18 September 2018 and was facilitated by Africa Lead (Kihagi J, 2018). The main objectives of the

workshop were to: take stock of the status of FAW management efforts and practices in the region;

identify critical challenges and limitations in existing FAW action plans; identify priority strategic

actions to enhance FAW interventions within the EAC; and define the critical role (niche) and value

add for EAC on FAW management in the region.

3. Maize Lethal Necrosis: Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) is a viral disease of maize crop caused by a

combination of two viruses, the main one being the Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus (MCMV),

transmitted by insects and contaminated water. It was identified in East Africa (Kenya) in 2011 (and

later in Tanzania, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda, Burundi and Ethiopia). It attacks maize in farms in large

scale causing rotting and also affects trade in maize staples due to movement restrictions. USAID/EA

interventions for the control of MLN started with 5-year MLN Diagnostics and Prevention of Seed

Transmission project (2015-2019) jointly supported by the CGIAR’s Collaborative Crop Research

Program (CCRP), with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) leading

the collaborative effort. The current USAID/EA support focuses on integrated MLN Management

and is pulling together national, regional and international partners to prevent the spread of MLN-

causing MCMV, support seed companies to produce MCMV-free commercial seed, spread improved

farming practices for disease control and create a ‘community of practice’ for disease diagnosis and

management in East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) where the disease is


presently prevalent and in the three of major commercial maize seed exporting countries in sub-

Saharan (Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe). USAID and USDA have also supported several MLN

activities in Kenya by supporting a project in which CIMMYT teamed up with the Kenya Agricultural

and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO).

4. Seed technologies: USAID/EA’s interventions in seed technology development and deployment

have been mainly through ASARECA and the RECs. They include: (1) Support to ASARECA as the

key partner for regional collective action in resolving food security problems through AR4D was

through multi-donor institutional funding, hence the intervention targeted all the planned AR4D and

other activities of ASARECA. The ASARECA Operational Plan (ASARECA, 2014) reveals that the

AR4D-related activities aimed to: (i) enhance the AR4D capacities of NARs through infrastructure

development and building of partnerships, (ii) increase the number of stakeholders applying new and

improved technologies, innovation and management practices (TIMPs), (iii) increase stakeholders’

access to knowledge and information on TIMPs, and (iv) increased number stakeholders trained to

enhance their skills in agricultures and nutrition (2) Support to COMESA: Under the Integrated

Partnership Assistance Agreement (IPAA) between USAID/EA and COMESA the initiatives that

promoted technology development and deployment include the CAADP Initiative implemented in

partnership with FAO, GIZ and NCPA; the ACTESA Seed Initiative; the ACTESA Biotechnology

Initiative and thee ACTESA Fertilizer initiative. (3) Support to EAC aimed to increase regional

economic growth and integration through development and harmonization of standards for seed

technologies.

3. ACHIEVEMENTS

1. Aflatoxin: The following have been achieved under USAID/EA support in collaboration with other

funders: (1) Aflasafe Ke01TM has been developed and registered in Kenya under KALRO as per the

technology transfer and licensing agreement while effort to register Aflasafe in the other targeted

Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, countries; (2) the Kenyan Aflasafe factory has been constructed

(completed 2017) and launched (2018), and is operational; (3) capacity building has been conducted

in Kenya to enhance Aflasafe technology diffusion; e.g. technical and sales staff have been trained to

support the promotion and adoption of Aflasafe by the private sector in Kenya, while 1,200

extension officers have been trained to support farmers on Aflasafe application; (4) Aflasafe

commercialization strategy has been developed for Tanzania and a feasibility study undertaken which

is being used to attract and mobilize partners; and (5) lessons learned from the operation of the

Kenya plant are supporting operational improvements in Kenya and approaches to

commercialization of Aflasafe in other countries.

2. Fall Armyworm: Following the production of the Fall Armyworm in Africa – A Guide for Integrated

Pest Management the USAID/EA support has achieved the following: (1) sensitization of stakeholders

on the importance of managing FAW and the status of development of technologies for FWA

control; (2) commitment by EAC Secretariat, partner states, and development partners to prioritize

the development of an EAC regional action plan on FAW to harmonize protocols, methodologies,

and policies applicable to FAW management and control, with a target realization deadline of March

2019; (3) commitment to the strengthening of coordination, networking, and information sharing in

the region (4) Technologies for control of fall armyworm have been compiled and made available as

a learning tool effective January 2018 focusing on low-cost technologies and practices that suit

smallholder farmers, and developed in a collaborative and science-based approach that meets the

internally agreed principles on food security (FAO, 2009); (5) following in the steps of FAO’s

FAMEWS, USAID/EA supported the production of animated videos for identifying FAW infestation

in maize; (6) the USAID/EA has also been instrumental in instituting FAW Germplasm Screening, as

has been implemented in Kiboko, Kenya; (7) institutional and human capacities have been built

through technical training that ensures sustainability and/or improvement of the technologies, as well

as the possibility of developing alternatives ones; and (8) the USAID, in partnership with CABI has

supported the production of country-specific Pest Management Decision Guides (PMDGs).


3. Maize Lethal Necrosis: Achievements realized so far include the following: (1) 15 maize hybrids

tolerant to maize lethal necrosis (MLN) developed by 2015, 3 varieties having been released, with

one variety (Bazuka) already commercialized by Nalweyo Seed Company (NASECO) in Uganda; (2)

science-based MLN phytosanitary standards have been developed and a Phytosanitary Community of

Practice established with membership representing important categories of stakeholders in research,

production and trade; (3) An effective surveillance and monitoring system, with improved

surveillance protocols and MLN-free seed checklists, optimized immune strips for MCMV virus,

information portal (MLN.CIMMYT.ORG) and Emergency Response Plan for MLN surveillance have

been established, shared and put to use by NPPOs; (4) Spread of MLN from endemic countries has

been completely contained; (5) Technology diffusion has been enhanced through sensitization and

capacity building for RECs, and training on production and dissemination of MLN-free seeds for seed

producers, extension officers, lab technicians and APPO staff; (6) Integrated pest management (IPM)

manual on MLN has been developed with a comprehensive protocol on how to produce MLN-free

product; and (7) Scaling up and commercialization of technologies is being boosted through

extensive private sector involvement.

4. Seed technologies: A performance report (ASARECA, 2014) on progress towards realization of

2014 targets of ASARECA’s Operational Plan-01 reveals the following achievements to which

USAID/EA made a contribution: (1) Concept developed, with IFPRI partnership, that guides

prioritization of technologies of cross-border and upscaling importance; (2) Facilitated the

production and scaling of 2,436 tons of quality pre-basic, basic and certified seeds of selected

commodities (e.g. Quality Protein Maize, African Indigenous Vegetables, lavender, snap & climbing

beans, etc.); (3) supported technology diffusion that enabled 1.45 million farmers and other primary

sector producers, including individual processors, rural entrepreneurs, managers and traders, natural

resource managers, among others, who applied new and improved technologies, innovations and

management practices (TIMPs); (4) Facilitated the development of 409 different demand-driven

gender-responsive TIMPs and a further 498 TIMPs availed for uptake by targeted stakeholders within

the ASARECA-member countries; (5) Undertook capacity strengthening for NARS that benefitted

over 80,000 individuals in short and long term training and over 470 assorted infrastructures

developed; and (6) Over 800 different information packages were produced and made available to

partners.


1. Aflatoxin: The target of the ATTC project was to have Aflasafe manufacturing fully commercialized

in four East African countries but this was achieved only in Kenya. Even then, the Kenyan plant is not

yet commercialized as it is owned by the Kenya Government through KALRO and the business is

operated jointly by KALRO and IITA with support from the USAID/EA and is experiencing

operational challenges. More importantly, the plant does not have a sustainable arrangement as a

commercial business (options: KALRO to sell or lease to a private partner, or run it professionally

as a commercial enterprise). Lessons learnt by IITA from the Kenyan case include the need to

mobilize and support the private sector (rather than governments) to establish Aflasafe plants, and

the need to register products in other countries so as not to lose innovation or intellectual property

rights. Other challenges facing the Aflasafe program include: development of a regional product

(since Aflasafe products are country-specific since they are developed for local fungus strains); low

awareness about aflatoxin/Aflasafe by private sector, hence , efforts to mobilize them to engage in

the business do not yield positive results; mobilizing and supporting private sector at country level

to invest in aflatoxin business requires involvement of USAID country missions; there is need to

support other East African countries that were identified to set up their Aflasafe plants; and RECs

need improve standards and monitor implementation of harmonized SPS standards and regulations

with respect to aflatoxin control.

2. Aflatoxin is known to have such high stability and potency that make it a major problem at all steps

of the value chain, including harvest, transport, and storage and processing, hence control

interventions must target stages of the value chain. A recent study (CTA, 2018) also showed that


aflatoxin contamination levels in African countries continue to exceed international levels and that

East Africa remains the prime target for aflatoxin control. The postharvest management techniques

currently being used - and they include Aflastop‘s Storage and Drying, Cultivate Africa’s Future

Storage Method, sorting options, detoxification/decontamination and use of adsorbents/binders –

have proven too expensive and too technical for the majority of stakeholders (farmers, traders,

consumers) to use, hence low-cost pre-harvest control methods should be developed. The biology

of the fungus is not yet well understood and has not been fully applied in the development of its

control strategies, while the fungi strains are country-specific and the biocontrol technologies

developed in one country may not work elsewhere. More elaborate basic research is, therefore,

required to inform new control technologies. Finally, awareness of aflatoxin and the associated risks

among African consumers and value chain actors (farmers, traders and seed companies), especially

among the uneducated, is extremely low, which makes awareness building a key component of

future interventions.

3. Fall Armyworm: Overall, the FAW Guide for Africa project assembled effective technologies for

integrated management of Fall Armyworm, linked up various stakeholders for future collaboration

among R&D institutions and Universities in the US and organizations in Africa at International,

regional, and national levels, and built institutional and individual capacities on research and

management of FAW. Assembling and making the FAW management technologies easily accessible

and the linkages created were major achievements. However, the responses so far still leave gaps

that would need further investment: (1)FAW scouting by farming communities and effective

monitoring at country and regional levels are still limited in terms of technology and knowledge; (2)

responses to FAW invasion are still based on application of pesticides, as proven approaches to

prevent and avoid the invasions are limited and need researching (3) some technologies presented in

the FAW Guide, such as breeding for resistance and biological control approaches, are still in

development stages and would require further research and validation, and this includes even

pesticide use for there are still no specific recommendations; (4) pesticide use and applicator training

are still under the control of individual national governments, thus there is need for a more regional

approach to FAW management strategies and regulations and streamlining them with new

management technologies that are coming up; (5) scaling up the different technologies and diffusing

them to reach farmers still needs investment; and (6) adaptation of pests to control measures is a

common occurrence that would always require monitoring and change of management strategies,

hence continued basic and applied research to develop alternative technologies remains necessary.

4. Maize Lethal Necrosis: It is reported that in 2014 Kenya lost 23 percent of her maize production

to MLN; about 2.1 million metric tons worth USD 188 million. Thus, MLN threat remains and there

is urgent need to intensify inter-institutional action on MLN disease surveillance and monitoring in

MLN-affected countries in eastern Africa, where the actions seem not to have worked effectively.

Phytosanitary measures that should be intensified to prevent entry of the disease into

countries/regions which are free from the disease include increased surveillance, seed movement

restriction from endemic areas, sharing information and stepping up collaboration among countries.

Also, there is need to strengthen the national plant protection systems to effectively detect, monitor

and contain the spread of MLN particularly through seed, and including concrete steps to coordinate

with the commercial maize seed sector to produce and commercialize MLN-free seed to the

farmers. On the side of technology development there are still serious gaps and concerns about the

management of MLN. For example, not much research had been done on epidemiology of MLN to

inform strategy development for control of infection. MLN is caused by two viruses which must

infect the cereal at the same time to be pathogenic and depending on maize genotype, age of

infection and environmental conditions. There is need to understand the development of MLN-

resistance in maize which can be exploited for screening. Being a relatively new disease there is

urgent need to develop local capacity at institutional and individual levels for research and for

strengthening SPS techniques and frameworks. MLN is a regional problem due to rapid spread of the

disease across borders. It is, therefore, important that research and technical guidance are

coordinated through partnership at regional level and this could be achieved through enhanced

partnership with a more strengthened ASARECA.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Policy

research

Breeding

and

genetics

Market

and

delivery

systems

Regional

resilience

Food

safety

Diseases

and pests

High priority Medium priority Low priority

5. Seed Technologies: For ASARECA, hurdles that affect cross-border movement and authorization

for release of new varieties or other technologies still constitute barriers that limit the impact of

proven research products. There is also need for harmonized standards or procedures by which

technologies of different categories are validated. It is further felt that the collaborative approach to

research requires harmonized intellectual property rights to enhance partnership among scientists.

In COMESA it was noted that seed harmonization needs greater private sector outreach to make

the activity more self-financing. The mid-term evaluation of USAID/EA support to EAC revealed

several challenges relating to technology development, availability and use. The overall challenge,

which seemed a common concern in the funding arrangement with other partners, was that the

programming approach was not RBM-based but, rather, an activity-based assistance agreement

updated with yearly amendment letters. In the case of ASARECA a clear evidence of this challenge is

contained in the 2014 report of the synopsis of project performance where attribution of the

achievements to USAID/EA could only be determined based on their funding as a proportion of the

total ASARECA funding. Another important challenge was the low levels of involvement of USAID

bilateral missions in programming. The two RECs have also noted that the approach lacked focus on

capacity development through technical training; instead, there was provision of USAID-paid staff

whose salaries took most of the support funds.

5. OPPORTUNITIES GOING FORWARD

The bases for selecting the investment

opportunities and intervention approaches

recommended under each project area discussed

in this section were the findings of the

stakeholder survey which are presented

briefly. Figure 1 shows the priority areas of

agricultural research for development

recommended by stakeholders for USAID

funding. The highest preference goes to

management of diseases and pests while the

lowest priority area is crop and livestock

breeding and genetics. These findings reaffirms

the focus of this stock-take on technologies

for management of crop diseases and pests as

well as management of TADs but also justifies

concern for aspects of breeding for improved

seed varieties and formulation of SPS

standards and regulations which are discussed

here below as priority investment opportunities.

Figure 2 Shows the survey

findings on the importance of

different stages and activities in

technology development and

deployment for investment.

Scaling and dissemination of

technology, increasing availability

of seeds and other inputs,

building capacity of NARIS and

financing research rank high in

that order of priority. Improving

the coordination of technology

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Building capacity of NARIs

Scaling and dissemination of

technologies and management practices

Supporting research prioritization

effort

Improving coordination of technology

development

Increasing availability of seeds and

other inputs

Financing for research

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Figure 2: Importance of Different Stages of Technology

Development and Deployment for Investment

Figure 1: Priority Areas of A4RD Recommended for

Investment


development and research prioritization process were also seen as important.

The importance of different types of partnership in agricultural technology development and deployment was

assessed through a stakeholder survey. Figure 3 illustrates the prioritization of four such partnerships for

technology delivery, with private sector being exceptionally important. Others are national governments

including the NARIs, the regional intergovernmental organizations (RIGOs), and regional research institutes,

such as ASARECA. It is understood

that the importance of these

partnerships may vary with the step of

the technology delivery process, e.g.

private sector may be more important

at the level of technology

commercialization, but their

involvement at the level of technology

design is equally important for ensuring

that the technology meets the needs of

the end-user. A summary of the

identified priority opportunities is

presented in Table 1 while the details

are discussed here below.

The stock-take has identified six

opportunity areas, each with a number

of priority investments as follows:

Speeding up Commercialization of Aflasafe

Effectiveness of Aflasafe as a biocontrol agent for aflatoxin has been proven beyond doubt, while its low cost

and safety compared to pesticides and postharvest control methods make it superior. The success of the

pilot plant in Kenya and acceptability of the product across borders as is implied by its registration in other

countries of the region are indications of its viability. Therefore, the Regional Mission should speed up

commercialization of Aflasafe in the four selected East African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and

Burundi) and, with lessons from Kenya’s experiences, promote Aflasafe uptake and use by farmers

throughout the region. The logical order of interventions would be to follow the order of country priorities

identified by the Aflasafe Technology Transfer and Commercialization (ATTC) project 2015-2019: (i) Track-

1 priority country (Kenya): Support transition of the modular Aflasafe Ke01 plant at Katumani towards a PPP

enterprise between KALRO and a competitively selected private company and follow held resolve issues

arising from Aflasafe distribution and use. This should be supported with enhanced awareness building for

demand creation to attract private companies and financial and technical support for transition process; (ii)

Other Track-1 priority countries (Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi): Speed up identification of winning enterprises

with financial and technical support for the search processes and for establishment and operationalization of

Aflasafe plants; (iii) Track-2 East African countries (Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan): Continue Aflasafe

registration efforts - informed by lessons learned from private sector take over in Kenya and on-going roll-

outs in the other Track-1 countries across SSA.

Scaling up Application of Technologies for Management of Fall Armyworm (FAW)

The Fall Armyworm (FAW) Guide for Africa, which was developed through the support of the USAID/EA

regional mission, has many such technologies which are yet to be exploited. This stock-take identified a

major investment opportunity: (i) Support RECs and other regional A4RD bodies (especially ASARECA) to

closely monitor and track FAW using Early Warning Systems, and to identify best FAW management

practices and lessons from other countries and regions and to scale up these technologies throughout the

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Regional research institutes

RIGOs

National governments

Private sector

Highly appropriate Moderately appropriate Not appropriate N/A

Figure 3: Prioritization of Partnerships for Delivering

Technology Solutions


region. In doing so, the USAID regional mission should plan to also benefit from and build on

recommendations of the regional stakeholder workshop scheduled to be held in Addis Ababa during the

month of October 2018.

Enhanced Support for Maize Lethal Necrosis (MLN) Control

Maize lethal necrosis (MLN) remains a great opportunity for investment as it affects the most popular staple

in most countries in SSA. Three groups of priority interventions have been identified, all of which call for

increased engagement with the private sector in scaling up and commercializing the technologies. The

USAID regional mission should focus on the following high priorities: (1) Increase support for

commercialization of MLN diagnostic technologies and production of MLN-free seeds for farmers, starting

with the 15 MLN-resistant/tolerant maize varieties already identified. (2) Leverage on MLN-resistant/tolerant

varieties to sensitize countries to speed up domestication of policies relevant for seed movement in the

region.

Putting Research into use Through Demand-Based Programming and Capacity Strengthening

There is need to improve the programming approach so as to link technology development with user needs.

This calls for increased regional collaboration and engagement of implementing and beneficiary partners in

prioritization of agricultural technology development, release and scaling. The stock-take identified four

priority investments under this opportunity area. These are: (1) Support investments that conserve

indigenous germplasm with inherent adaptive tributes - e.g. disease and drought resistance - and facilitate

their exploitation in crop and livestock improvement programs in the region. (2) Invest in strengthening

institutional capacities in the region to be able to screen, adapt, adopt and apply promising technologies in

response to major disease outbreaks and seed problems. (3) Establish a regional information system to

provide early warning and platform for information sharing on crop and livestock pests and diseases. (4)

Establish forums and mechanisms that bring together researchers, private sector, consumers, governments

and donor partners for dialogue on priority setting in technology development and scaling.

Table 1: Summary of Opportunity Areas and Recommendations for Technology Investment


1. Speeding up

commercialization of

Aflasafe in the EAC

member states

Fast-track the commercialization process of Aflasafe in East Africa in line

with the country priorities identified by the Aflasafe Technology

Transfer and Commercialization (ATTC) project 2015-2019

2. Scaling up application of

technologies for

management of Fall

Armyworm (FAW)

Support the development and implementation of effective FAW

scouting, monitoring and management in FAW-affected countries

3. Enhanced support for

Maize Lethal Necrosis

(MLN) control

Support for commercialization of MLN diagnostic technologies and

scaling up production of MLN-free/resistant/tolerant seeds for farmers

starting with the 15 MLN-resistant/tolerant maize varieties already

identified

Leverage on MLN – specifically resistant/tolerant varieties - to sensitize

countries to speed up domestication of policies relevant for seed

movement in the region.

6. Putting research into

use through demand-

based programming and

capacity strengthening

Support investments that conserve indigenous germplasm with inherent

adaptive tributes - e.g. disease and drought resistance - and facilitate

their exploitation in crop and livestock improvement programs in the

region.



Establish forums and mechanisms that bring together researchers,

private sector, consumers, governments and donor partners for dialogue

on priority setting in technology development and scaling

Invest in strengthening institutional capacities in the region to be able to

screen, adapt, adopt and apply promising technologies in response to major

disease outbreaks and seed problems.

Annex 2D: Cross-Cutting Issues

Cross Cutting Issues Underpinning Programming

Cross-cutting issues as covered by the stock-take focused on dimensions of programming which relate to

the WHO (is engaged) and the HOW (they are engaged). Specifically, the stock-take sought to document

the way and extent to which these (programming approaches) affect relevance of outcomes, efficiency of

working, effectiveness of delivery and overall sustainability of the outcomes and impacts of USAID

investments.

1. Summary of Perspectives by Regional Stakeholders – What Worked Well and What Did

Not

The summary in the table below is of actual comments as received from stakeholders. Some of these came

from multiple stakeholders/groups. So, this is not an evaluative table. It simply takes stock of these

perspectives.


Table 1: A Summary of Perspectives by USAID Regional Stakeholders

What is Working What is Not Working Well

Projects are generally well designed

and implemented

Training and exposing country

governments to regulatory laws,

changes, etc.

Capacity building of stakeholders -

especially national government staff

In-depth studies on local/regional

issues

Improved capacity of local

institutions to develop, implement

and evaluate development projects

aligned with national priorities

Convening important actors around

an issue

Effective planning with clear

milestones

Collaboration in the planning

process

Creating networking and

information sharing forums/meetings

Continuation of funding in some

areas

Working with other regional

donors, and other development

partners

Tension/competition between USAID regional

and bilateral programs

Poor /lack of information sharing between

regional and bilateral missions

Inadequate involvement of the private sector

General collaboration and partnership among

partners

Implementing Partners rarely aware of each

other’s efforts

Programs funded/implemented on annual basis

Some projects are implemented in ways that

are not suitable for sustainability

Most projects do not support institutional

development, which undermines their capacity

to deliver on the projects

Bureaucratic procedures in USAID system

Delays in disbursement of funds and yearly

funding prevent medium to long term planning

Too little flexibility in responding to realities on

the ground and matters arising during

implementations.

Rigid indicators not allowing learning and

adaptive implementation

Technical capacity e.g. within the contractors.

Unclear subject-matter boundaries between

some projects (activities) that implement

similar.

The stakeholder feedback summarized above formed important basis for further analysis of key aspects of

programming – especially focusing on issues of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability as

implied by the feedback and results of the review. The resulting areas – a total of 7 - covered are:

Regionality, Political Economy, Inclusivity, Sustainability, Partnerships, and Capacities of key stakeholders,

Funding and reporting cycles. The issues under each are summarized briefly below.

2. Identified Critical Cross-Cutting Issues

Regionality

A regional public good is one that: Has application in, or generates shared benefits for, multiple countries of

a region and consumption by one country does not potentially reduce its availability for consumption by

another country. USAID regional portfolio should focus on those issues that no single country can address

on its own, or those whose resolution by multiple countries is more efficient, effective and sustainable than

if done by a single country. The Regional Mission should pay close attention to identification and delivery of

clear ‘regional value-add’. To achieve this, regular, quality conversations with Bilateral Missions should be an

important driver in design and execution. It is important to bear in mind that some regional goods may be at


odds with national interests and sovereignty, and these need to be negotiated carefully. Regionality can also

be undermined by overlapping country membership of RECs that sometimes works at cross-purposes.

Examples: Certain types of research (e.g. on pests and diseases) may be relevant in, and for, broad

geographies or agro-ecological conditions astride borders; there are also interventions which are generic

and not confined to national boundaries; resolution of regional trade issues is an example – requires actions

by, and delivers benefits to, multiple countries. The Regional approach has advantages: efficient use of

resources, holistic approach which, if done correctly, can be more effective in delivering on the changes

pursued.

Specific examples and actions:

Regional programs should be designed closely with bilateral missions, ensuring that regional and

national dimensions and roles are clear. The whole process should be joint, consultative, and based

on mutual priorities.

Map out USAID interventions within the countries and regions in order to identify where projects

are being implemented and coordinate with other development partners to align more closely on

project objectives, intended outcomes and implementation arrangements that exploit synergies and

avoid duplication. This would also help implementing partners determine the most efficient and

effective ways to work.

Modalities for coordinated management should be clearly stated, and progress reviewed annually as

part of the Annual Review and Learning event. Strengthen the current Regional Conference so that

it has a more intentional focus on sharing, learning and JOINT planning aimed at strengthening

synergies between Regional and Bilateral programs.

Strengthen the engagement of the RECs at all levels possible:

Involve RECs in the complementary programmes – as much as possible

Conduct midterm reviews with RECs – as used to happen

Establish a regular Regional Convening on agriculture- involving RECs and responsible Ministers

(Agriculture AND Trade), with each such meeting focusing on a specific challenge framed so

that outcome leads to a clear way forward.

Focus on issues or problems that transcend borders, and which require shared action and, which,

when addressed deliver shared benefits or win-win outcomes (to multiple member states).

Be guided by need to obtain shared responsibility and ownership.

Political Economy Issues

There is no doubt that a combination of politics and economics influences decisions and lack of decisions by

countries on issues national, regional and global. Political economy has been used to refer to policy advice

that economists offer to government officials based on an analysis of the economy – but tempered by

political considerations. Discourses and resulting decisions relating to the state, markets, social class, culture,

citizens, and globalization are influenced in significant measure by this intersection between politics and

economics.


Some issues relating to inclusivity (see below) and recommended actions may be consequences of

political economy – and hence are relevant here.

Understanding and being able to unpack the crucial role of political factors in determining

positions - and policies (explicit and implicit) - that have implications for the success and overall

performance of USAID programs and programming is critical, and the Regional Mission needs

to be intentional in how it addresses such specific issues – e.g. through investments in


improving the capacity and understanding of those in critical positions, negotiations and

mediations where (historical) mistrust overshadows or replaces economic logic, etc.

When issues are identified, organize targeted convenings involving the parties concerned - with

clear action points which are actively followed up

The Mission should also be self-aware and critical of how political economy plays out in its own

programming decisions and positions. They should be more deliberate in addressing this.

Inclusivity

Broad-based agriculture sector growth necessitates that investments be inclusive: enabling wider

participation of the majority of farmers, particularly women and other economically and socially marginalized

groups, who are at the greatest risk of food insecurity, and who stand to benefit the most from agriculture

sector growth. Enabling such participation requires identifying a broad range of small-scale producers, and

actors along critical value chains, and recognizing their diversity, and targeting interventions according to

their specific capacities and needs. Several inclusivity issues were suggested or implied from conversations

with stakeholders during the stock-take. They include need to:

Be deliberate in engaging local institutions (including private sector) in program implementation - e.g.

through mentorship and broader capacity strengthening achieved through tangible roles in

projects/programs. This should contribute also to longer term sustainability

Take deliberate actions to include women, youth and other marginalized social groups, and ensure

that program deliverables address the needs of these traditionally marginalized groups

Pay attention to needs of the poor in design and execution – and being conscious of the risk and

danger of ‘elite capture’

Ensure that the program portfolio is delivering not only on the needs of a select subset of countries

(e.g. ‘those in which it is easy to work’ or ‘those already making progress’).

Pay attention to commodities (crops and livestock) and value chains that are important to minority

and vulnerable groups.


Inclusion of youth and women is explicit in the USAID FTF Strategy, but in practice is not well

mainstreamed yet in all dimensions of programming – that is, strong involvement of these groups and

intentional focus on relevance (for these groups) of products delivered by interventions – e.g.

capacity development, financial services, etc. Activities must go beyond gender disaggregation into

more robust focus on differential needs, interventions and outcomes.

There is often a default to work with the larger private sector stakeholders. Noting, however that

countries are at different levels on private sector presence and level of development, for example –

and that this will determine which countries get involved in what, and how.

There was the question: Is USAID intentional in building capacity at the outset for ownership and

inclusion in its programs? How can capacity strengthening within the region be done more

deliberately from design stages?

Sustainability

Program sustainability is defined as ‘having the human, financial, technological, and organizational resources

to provide services to meet needs and attain results towards the mission on an on-going basis and requiring

the organizational and programmatic infrastructure to carry out core functions independent of individuals or

one-time opportunities. Sustainability is thus a measure of the continuation of benefits from a development

intervention after major development assistance has been completed.



Who determines the agenda: Use authentic processes to identify programming priorities, keeping in

mind that strong personalities together with ‘elite capture’ syndrome is always at play. Regional

convenings deliberately designed and run to hear ALL critical VOICES is a good way to achieve this

(i.e. inclusive and bottom-up approach). For regional actions that eventually require community-level

uptake/participation, work with bilateral missions to get authentic voices at these levels from the

start and through participatory implementation that ensures local ownership. Otherwise programs

will be mis-aligned in terms of intended deliverables and/or approach to achieving them.

Local content: The FTF Strategy is quite explicit in its commitment to engaging local institutions.

Stakeholders’ feedback is that, while USAID programming clearly focuses on local producers (and is

making some efforts to include women and youth) local content is generally missing in terms of

implementing partner institutions (private sector and civil society). This is not only a missed

opportunity for strengthening capacity and confidence among local institutions but is also

compromising sustainability of current programs.

Regionality: Clarity in programming in what is regional vs what is national helps to determine – from

the onset – likelihood of sustainability. Doing for countries (at regional level) what should be done

with them in programming from the start means that there will be no ownership.

Programming is sustainable when there is shared responsibility, ownership and appreciation of

benefits to all parties who must be involved for success

Inclusivity: Programs that are inclusive in design and implementation (e.g. engaging the right (local)

partners, target beneficiaries, etc. and ensuring they see the benefits and that they get the capacity

they need to drive the interventions), thus ensuring ownership, have higher likelihood of being

sustainable.

Partnerships: to ensure that there are shared goals, investments, and resources. When there is

assured capacity (in all forms) for continuity.

Evidence informing programs: Ensure that the evidence being used is unbiased (intentionally or

accidentally) – that is, representativeness of marginal groups, marginal areas, etc. This includes use of

disaggregated data (e.g. gender, commodities, etc.)

Exit strategy from the start: Make it a requirement that all projects have a well-articulated exit strategy

designed to ensure sustainability.

Performance management – ensure greater accountability and transparency in programming

Be more intentional and strategic in engaging NGOs, ensuring that the chosen institutions have high

likelihood to strengthen and not compromise sustainability – based on how they engage local

institutions and readiness to stay around to take projects/programs to tipping points.

Partnerships

Appropriateness of partners: the extent to which the chosen partners are consistently those with

comparative advantage – i.e. those best placed to do these functions (in relation to delivery

effectiveness and efficiency, as well as inclusion and sustainability considerations)

Partnership arrangements: nature and quality of the partnerships involved - optimization of synergies

among partners and effectiveness and efficiency of processes, mutual learning, credit-sharing, etc.

Win-win arrangements in which partners know ‘what is in it for them’ and understand that the

partnership facilitates delivery of these benefits.

Partnership modalities with inbuilt sustainability elements.


RECs remain the most relevant public sector partner for USAID regional programming. This is

because RECS have the convening power at regional level and can mobilize relevant stakeholders –

public and private sector, as well as civil society. They also provide regulatory and policy framework

and mandate (for partners) to engage and address the regional issues relating to food security.

However, lack of capacity constrains their ability to cause transformative change. Currently, support

to RECs is done through embedded USAID-funded positions at the Secretariats. This is not

sustainable in its current form. A different approach is needed (see “capacities of stakeholders”

below).


The stock-take found that some partners were implementing similar things, leading to subtle turf

wars. Consequently, different partners claimed to have achieved the same things – e.g. EATIH &

Trademark EA – which have both worked on trade facilitation, policy, border efficiencies etc.

Some partners received resources from multiple donors/sources (e.g. Trademark, ASARECA) for

the same area/deliverable, thus making it difficult to disentangle outcomes to which USAID

investments had contributed or fully supported. The need for USAID to coordinate better with

other regional development partners was raised as a major issue

Partnership should be driven by objectives: For example, convening, capacity building,

commercialization, etc. Ensure projects are aligned with the partner’s strategic objectives – this

involves engaging partners (including private sector) right from the program design stage to identify

in time potential challenges and solutions as well as possible areas of cooperation.

Explicit determination and discussion - from the start - of goals, win-win content, roles and

responsibilities are critical to making partnerships work. On-going quality, open communication is

crucial

Political Goodwill— is a problem sometimes (e.g. slow progress with SPS Protocol in some

countries) — meanwhile other countries are implementing. Political Will does rely on the

benefits/usefulness to each country— for example, Tanzania adopted right away the Mutual

Recognition Framework and work permits but being slow with the SPS Protocol. Understanding

what is underlying these is important. This requires quality conversation/communication to get at the

interests that are underneath the position.

Note that understanding and managing ‘Political Will’ requires leverage and LEADERSHIP from high

levels in partner institutions.

Encouraging of the Coalition of the Willing

Alignment, quality coordination, joint programming and on-going open communication are critical

elements of quality of partnerships. And quality of partnerships really matters! Clear and transparent

determination of comparative advantage of roles matter a lot (e.g. research partners are different

from the RECs). In addition, partnership requires real benefits to each party (the “what is in it for me”

consideration); it should be a win-win, and this requires specificity. Importantly quality leadership

by all parties as part of overall coordination is crucial!

Facilitate implementing partners to jointly plan activities: There is need for a regional FTF plan, or at

least the coordination of national plans in a way that allows for: elimination of duplication of efforts;

capitalizing on the core competencies of implementing partners and programs; and optimizing the

use of resources. This would require thematic discussions that go beyond an annual meeting and will

require the engagement of the most senior staff of the Regional Mission and the Country Mission

Directors.

Work with and through existing players with credible influence and presence in East Africa

Integrate partnerships into the project design and develop indicators to track this


Develop a culture of regular communication with partners to address issues as they emerge, and

facilitate experience sharing and learning platforms for all partners

Work more closely with the large regional off-takers - e.g. Olam, AFGRI, Unga, ETG, Cargil and see

how they could engage more effectively to improve markets using their buying power. Link these to

WRS programmes, new modes of finance, collateral management, etc.

Capacities of Key Stakeholders

Stakeholders were asked to consider what strategies USAID Regional Mission need to put in place to

achieve capacity strengthening of RECs and other crucial implementing partners in ways that ensure

sustainability beyond USAID support.


Work with RECs - and through them member states - to develop a sustainable staffing strategy.

USAID could commit to initial support over a specified period (mutually determined for each such

position), but with clear targets for the Secretariat to take over such priority (non-project) staffing

positions – to be mainstreamed into RECs Secretariat payroll. This should be included in the

partnership agreements between USAID and RECs. This challenge requires engagement at higher

level with countries – e.g. at Ministerial Conferences – and is an example of where Bilateral and

Regional Missions need to work very closely together.

Be intentional about sustainability, applying a lens that deliberately considers local (Regional/African)

content of the partners being engaged – and the likelihood that these partners can effectively

facilitate ownership, build local capacity and practice while also being able to deliver desired results.

In identifying partners for specific roles, look out for institutions that may not necessarily be BIG and

VISIBLE now, but have potential to deliver and grow in these roles; work with such institutions to

develop an institutional arrangement and implementation plan that includes a strong mentorship,

with clear targets. This could include (if needed) posting of USAID-supported experts into such

institutions - for predetermined periods of time.

Build the capacity of local partners to become more effective change agents – this goes beyond

short-term engagements in projects, to include medium- to long-term mentorships of both value

chain actors and service providers.

Develop more direct relationships with local partners not necessarily going through intermediary

organizations

Facilitate project implementation support through provision of technical assistance in specific project

areas, organizing for capacity building of partners, conducting joint project reviews, and regional level

planning

Encourage, support, and reward those Implementing Partners who identify, leverage, and strengthen

capacities of local organizations.

Funding and Reporting Cycles

Stakeholders were asked to suggest what should be done to move towards funding and reporting cycles that

reduce ‘dead time’ that partners have experienced. ‘Dead time’ is said to result from: a) too much reporting,

including impromptu demands on grantees (which eat up time for implementation); b) short cycles of

funding (e.g. annual funding cycles), and c) unpredictability as well as irregularity of disbursements of funds.


Adopt results-based management (RBM) approach to programming and establish realistic M&E plans

and reporting time frame that provides for adequate time to have worthwhile results to report!


Consider a combination of detailed and light reporting – pre-determined beforehand and spread

across the project period, and inbuilt into implementation cycles.

Adhere to agreed disbursement timelines – unless delays are caused by grantee performance (e.g.

delayed reporting or inability to achieve agreed targets)

Move away from short-term towards long-term funding (3-5 years) to ensure continuity of

programmes towards sustainability

For projects/interventions that clearly require multiple years, avoid arrangements in which the

grantee or service provider has no certainty as to whether and when the next tranche will be

disbursed. This is a costly arrangement due to increased transaction costs, dead time and often

results into “recycled deliverables”

Refrain from using intermittent, short-term service contracts for interventions that require long-

term sustained efforts to reach critical tipping points, and for which ‘start and stop approach’ is

inefficient in resource use and ineffective in delivering desired outcomes.

Share relevant reports, especially those from USAID

3. Opportunities Going Forward

Table 1 summarizes priority potential intervention areas which USAID should consider going forward to

improve its programming in the region.

Table 2. Opportunities and Recommendations on Cross-Cutting Programmatic Issues

Opportunity Recommendation

Regionality Regional programs should be designed in close collaboration with bilateral missions,

ensuring that regional and national dimensions and roles are clear and non-

contradictory. The whole process should be joint, consultative, and based on

mutually agreed roles and implementation plans. Modalities for coordination should

be clearly stated, and progress reviewed annually as part of an Annual Review and

Learning event.

Political

economy

Develop mechanisms for targeted high level interventions in the form of

negotiations or mediations based on deep understanding of underlying issues that

undermine specific regional agendas -e.g. inaction or slow action by specific member

states on agreed policy or other regional instruments.

Establish a regular Regional Convening on agriculture - involving RECs and

responsible Ministers (Agriculture AND Trade), with each such meeting focusing on

a specific (political economy) challenge framed so that outcome leads to a clear way

forward.

Inclusivity Continue emphasis on youth and women inclusion, but go beyond numbers (gender

disaggregation) to more robust focus on differential needs, interventions and

outcomes for these and other traditionally marginalized groups.

Be deliberate in increasing engagement of local institutions (including but not limited

to private sector) in program implementation - e.g. appropriate mentorship and

through tangible roles in projects/programs – not just as beneficiaries but also as

implementing partners (strongly linked to sustainability).

Sustainability Put in place authentic stakeholder engagement processes for identifying regional

program priorities, keeping in mind that possibility of ‘elite capture’ is real. The

process should also ensure that the evidence being used is unbiased (intentionally or

accidentally) – i.e., it has representativeness of marginal groups, marginal areas, etc.


Opportunity Recommendation

For regional interventions that eventually require national and community-level

uptake/participation, work with bilateral missions to get authentic voices at these

levels from the start and through participatory implementation that ensures local

ownership.

Strengthen local content of programs through strategic engagement of local

institutions (private sector and civil society) as implementing partners. USAID

should proactively identify potential partners (institutions that may not necessarily

be BIG and VISIBLE now but have potential to deliver and grow in these roles). This

provides opportunity for strengthening capacity (see inclusivity above), but also for

enhancing sustainability.

Ensure that exit strategy is consistently built into program design as a matter of

practice.

Partnerships Take deliberate steps to improve quality of partnership between bilateral missions

and regional mission (see also regionality). Steps need to be formalized and not left to

happen by chance.

Where there are overlaps in program coverage by multiple implementing partners,

create modalities for joint planning and on-going cross-talk (regular convenings

involving these implementers) to enhance synergies and efficiency, and to avoid

duplication and turf-wars

Capacities of key

stakeholders

Work with RECs - and through them member states - to develop a sustainable

staffing strategy. USAID could commit to initial support over a specified period

(mutually determined for each such position), and with REC commitment to

mainstreaming these into RECs Secretariat payroll at the end of USAID support.

This should be included in the partnership agreements between USAID and RECs.

Funding and

reporting cycles Adopt results-based management (RBM) approach to programming and establish

realistic M&E plans and reporting time frame that provides for adequate time to

have worthwhile results to report

Consider a combination of detailed and light reporting – pre-determined beforehand

and spread across the project period, and inbuilt into implementation cycles.

Adhere to agreed disbursement timelines – unless delays are caused by grantee

performance

Refrain from using intermittent, short-term service contracts for interventions that

require long-term sustained efforts to reach critical tipping points, and for which

‘start and stop approach’ is inefficient and ineffective in delivering desired outcomes.


Annex 3 - Summary of USAID’S Key Implementing

Partners

Partnership with various categories of stakeholders is fundamental in achieving meaningful results, especially

when the investment has to cover an extended geographical area and deliver a wide range of outcomes.

Great partnership should leverage resources into a common pool, synergize efforts and build on the

strengths of each stakeholder. Over the years USAID regional mission for East Africa has partnered with

various regional and international bodies to develop and harmonize policies that create an enabling

environment to facilitate trade, ensure food safety, increase regional resilience, enhance technology

development and deployment to tackle regional problems and promote harmonious relations among the

countries in the region. Some of the key USAID implementing partners are summarized below, with a focus

on the specific areas they have worked on supported by USAID investments. It must be pointed out that

USAID works with a large number of partners, and this list is not comprehensive.

1. Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)

COMESA, formed in 1994, is a regional organization of 21 African Member States with an aim to achieve

sustainable economic and social progress particularly in trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport,

communication and information, technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture, environment and

natural resources.

COMESA and USAID have maintained a strong partnership since 1998 through the integrated partnership

assistance agreements (IPAA). USAID provides assistance to COMESA in the following areas: trade and

investment, agriculture, conflict mitigation, administration, governance & institutional strengthening. USAID

works with two COMESA agencies: Alliance for Common Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa (ACTESA)

an initiatives to improve regional integration, harmonize policies and increase competitiveness for staple

foods and markets, and the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) to increase access to electricity for all East

Africans in the region.

In 2016, USAID and COMESA entered into a new $77 million Regional Development Objective Grant

Agreement (RDOAG), a five-year partnership agreement to collaborate on development objectives as

prioritized in COMESA’s Medium-Term Strategic Plan (2016-2020). The agreement focuses on shared

objectives of sustainable economic integration across the region and strengthening COMESA’s leadership

and continuous learning. Support to COMESA is provided through direct grants and technical assistance

provided by USAID/EA regional implementing partners such as Africa Lead II.

Select activities to date which have been supported by USAID include implementation of COMSHIP,

development and coordination of CAADP, implemented Trade for Peace activities seeking to increase cross-

border trade and build awareness of the role of trade in peace building, governance and poverty reduction,

developed SPS policies through the ACTESA Seed and Biotechnology Initiatives, and supported COMESA

Business Council (CBC).

2. East African Community (EAC)

East African Community (EAC) is a regional intergovernmental organization with six partner states

consisting of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. It was established in 1967,

collapsed in 1977 and was revived in 2000. The organization aims to strengthen the ties between the

members through a common market, a common customs tariff and provide a range of public services to

achieve balanced economic growth within the region.

USAID has partnered with EAC since 2005, directly supporting the Lake Victoria Basin Commission on the

Trans-boundary Water for Biodiversity Initiative in the Mara River Basin. USAID supports EAC efforts in

improving the quality of life of the people of East Africa through supporting value-added production,

enhanced food security, trade and investment.


Like with COMESA, a $194 million RDOAG was signed between USAID and EAC in 2016. The five-year

agreement focuses on shared objectives of sustainable economic integration across the region and

strengthening EAC countries in trade and investment, environment, agriculture and health.

Some key activities or projects that have been implemented under the partnership between USAID and EAC

include: implementation of customs unions by harmonizing the Customs Procedures and Customs Valuation

Methods to guide adherence to international best practices; enacted the EAC Single Customs Territory

(SCT) (2014); adoption of the web-based RADDEx 2.0 system allowing centralized sharing of customs-

clearance information; established Joint Border Committees to improve coordination between government

agencies and the private sector at 16 key border posts; the completion of the CAADP compact, results

framework, and investment plan (2016); development of EAC Animal Feed Standards EAC SPS Bill and

Measures (2013); the EAC Aflatoxin Prevention and Control Strategy and Action Plan (2015), FNSP (2014)

and EAC Harmonized Regulatory Framework and Procedures for Fertilizer Marketing (2014).

3. Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) established in 1996 is an economic organization with

eight member states including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya. IGAD’s

mission is to assist and complement member-state efforts to increase cooperation to: (1) achieve food

security and environmental protection; (2) promote and maintain peace and security; (3) manage

humanitarian affairs; and (4) support economic cooperation and integration.

IGAD and USAID have partnered since 2006. They also signed a RDOAG worth $17 million in June, 2016.

The five year agreement focuses on shared development priorities to promote sustainable economic

integration across the region; improve systems to respond to development risks, such as those related to

climate change, drought and violent extremism; and strengthen IGAD’s organizational leadership. Direct

funding to IGAD to date is $23,035,630, including about $11.3 million in direct funding to support activities

in conflict mitigation, climate change and resilience.

USAID has and continues to support four initiatives under IGAD - as prioritized in IGAD’s new five-year

strategy (2016-2020) including: (i) the IGAD Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism

(CEWARN) helping to counter violent extremism and strengthen cross-border conflict management in the

Horn of Africa. Conflict Early Warning and Response Units (CEWERU) are in the six IGAD member states;

(ii) the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) works with member

states to prepare for drought and other extreme weather events. USAID provides support for two main

activities: Building a knowledge-management system; and providing IGAD Secretariat support in

administration, finance and procurement; (iii) the IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Center

(ICPAC) integrates climate science and research into the region’s economic policies. USAID is building

ICPAC capacity as an integral part of USAID’s Planning for Resiliency in East Africa through Policy,

Adaptation, Research and Economic Development Program (PREPARED); and (iv) the IGAD Centre for

Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) which implementing all activities under Agriculture

and Livestock Development.

4. Trade Mark East Africa (TMEA)

Trade and Markets East Africa (Trade Mark East Africa – TMEA) is a not-for profit company limited by

guarantees established in 2010 to support the growth of trade, both regionally and internationally in East

Africa. TMEA provides both technical and monetary support to the EAC, national governments, the private

sector and civil society organizations. TMEA works to improve the ease of trading through streamlining port,

transit, customs and border operations in order to enhance trade.

In 2012, Trade Mark East Africa signed a trade partnership agreement with USAID aimed at promoting

exports to current and new markets including the United States, supporting East African Community’s

(EAC) progress on regional trade integration. Specific targets were to increase intra-regional trade by 25

percent and exports to the rest of the world by 10 percent by 2016.


It is important to note that TMEA is funded by various donors thereby it is hard to attribute the particular

contribution of USAID’s Feed the Future program. However some of the projects that have been

implemented through USAID and other donor support include the One Stop Border Program, constructing

13 One Stop Borders along the central and northern trade corridors, at a cost of approximately US$7

million each aimed at reducing barriers to transit and moving to single border crossings; implemented the

Mombasa Port Resilient Infrastructure Program; and the Single Window Information System for Trade

(SWIFT).

5. Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative

Assistance (ACDI/VOCA)

Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance

(ACDI/VOCA) is an economic development organization founded in 1963. It aims to foster broad-based

economic growth, raise living standards, and create vibrant communities through catalyzing investment,

climate smart agriculture, empowerment & resilience, institutional strengthening and market systems.

ACDI/VOCA has implemented various projects under the Global Feed the Future strategy worldwide.

In Eastern Africa, ACDI/VOCA partnered with USAID/EA to improve market linkages and build the capacity

of African institutions between 2010 and 2016.

The projects implemented were: East Africa Market Linkages Initiative Project (MLI) for $1.9 million, a multi-

country project that worked alongside partners such as ACTESA to integrate smallholder farmers into more

efficient national and regional markets from 2010 to 2012; and the African Institution Innovation Mechanism

(AIIM-Assist) from 2012-2016 aimed at providing technical and operational capacity building for African

agricultural institutions. AIIM-Assist built the capacity of organizations such as East Africa Farmers

Federation, AgMark and supported 5 other organizations selected by Kenya Plant health inspectorate Service

(KEPHIS).

6. East Africa Trade and Investment Hub (EATIH)

The East Africa Trade and Investment Hub simply referred to as the Hub is USAID program on its third

phase being implemented from 2014 to 2019. It has previously been known as East African Trade Hub

(EATH) and as Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program (COMPETE Africa). The Hub partners with

East African and United States (U.S.) businesses to attract investment and boost trade in East Africa to

transform the regions’ private sector into vibrant global trading partners. The Hub accomplishes this by

promoting two-way trade between U.S and EA under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),

deepening regional integration, increasing competitiveness of select value chains and promoting the use of

global technology to drive growth of trade. The hub covers East African Community countries as well as

Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mauritius.

USAID to date has invested $64 million into the Hub. Some of the key activities overseen by the Hub

include supporting EAC to adopt nine harmonized grain standards resulting in improved grain quality;

provided training to the EAC on the World Trade Organization’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)

notification systems; providing trainings to firms on AGOA benefits and sector-specific technical export

requirements; supported the development or revision of five national AGOA strategies aim at eliminating

barriers preventing businesses from exploiting AGOA; and supports countries’ compliance with intra-

regional and international trade agreements such U.S.-EAC Cooperation Agreement on Trade Facilitation,

Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and SPS and the EAC Common Market Protocol.

7. East Africa Grain Council (EAGC)

East Africa Grain Council (EAGC) is a regional private sector membership, not-for-profit organization

founded in 2006 and registered as a company limited by guarantee. EAGC covers 10 countries in Eastern

Africa region i.e. Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Ethiopia and South

Sudan.


EAGC works to promote structured trading system (STS) through the warehouse receipting systems (WRS)

and Regional Grain Trading platform (G-Soko), providing market information systems through the Regional

Agricultural Trade Intelligence Network (RATIN- (www.ratin.net), evidence-based policy advocacy and

training and capacity building through the Eastern Africa Grain Institute (EAGI).

Projects implemented by the EAGC under the FTF 2011-2015 Multi-Year Strategy include: Development of

the COMESA CAADP Compact – EAGC signed the Compact on behalf of the Private Sector; facilitated the

work of the Technical Committees at national level for standards harmonization; implementation of the

Standards harmonization project; the Trade Balance Sheet project aimed at providing information on food

surplus and food deficit areas to IGAD and EAC member States to facilitate movement of food commodities

from surplus areas to deficit areas; and operationalization of the Regional Agricultural Trade Information

Network (RATIN) under USAID’S COMPETE project.

8. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)

A member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, known by its Spanish acronym, CIMMYT, is a non-profit research

and training organization, formed in 1966 with more than 400 partners in over 100 countries world-wide.

CIMMYT works throughout the developing world to improve livelihoods and foster more productive,

sustainable maize and wheat farming. In Africa, CIMMYT works in breeding drought tolerance and low-

fertility soils maize, insect and pest resistance maize, foliar diseases and parasitic weeds; sustainably

intensifying production in maize and wheat-based systems; and investigating opportunities to reduce

micronutrient and protein malnutrition among women and young children.

In 2015 CIMMYT received a grant of $17.8 million from USAID for a three year period up to 2018 to

implement the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Seed Scaling (DTMASS) project. DTMASS aims to

produce and deploy affordable and improved drought-tolerant, stress-resilient and high-yielding maize

varieties for 1.8 million smallholder farmers in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia

by the end of the project. USAID also funded the Maize Lethal Necrosis Diagnostics and Prevention of Seed

Transmission project from 2015-2019 to coordinate regional efforts to strengthen response to the rapid

emergence and spread of MLN.

9. Africa Lead II

Africa Lead II is a five-year Cooperative Agreement between the Bureau for Food Security (BFS) at the U.S.

Agency for International Development (USAID) and a DAI-led Consortium. Africa Lead II is Feed the

Future’s primary capacity building program in sub Saharan Africa serving as a catalyst and connector for

learning and innovations in individual leadership behavior, institutional performance and policy process.

Africa Lead II works in three strategic areas: improving institutional capacity; strengthening management of

policy change and alignment processes and; enhancing capacity and engagement of non-state actors, including

the private sector. Other core members of the DAI led consortium include Winrock International, Training

Resources Group, Inc. (TRG), and Management Systems International (MSI).

Some of the project Africa Lead has overseen and supported include: The advancement of agricultural

transformation in alignment with the African Union Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme (CAADP); development of IGAD Implementation Letter; Supporting USAID’s Fall Army Worm

(FAW) Task Force stakeholder engagement; and in collaboration with COMESA and ACTESA, Africa Lead

has supported activities to harmonize seed law and regulation. The program also supports activities of both

the bilateral and the regional mission which align with their feed the future objectives.

http://www.ratin.net/


10. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (RESAKSS)

ReSAKSS is an Africa-wide network established for supporting implementation of the Comprehensive Africa

Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). ReSAKSS is facilitated by the International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI) in partnership with the Africa-based CGIAR centers, the NEPAD Planning and

Coordinating Agency (NPCA), the African Union Commission (AUC), and the Regional Economic

Communities (RECs). ReSAKSS offers high-quality analyses and knowledge products to improve

policymaking, track progress, document success, and derive lessons for the implementation of the CAADP

agenda and other agricultural and rural development policies and programs in Africa.

Since 2015, ReSAKSS has received $1 million per year from USAID. Other funding partners include the

Department for International Development (DFID), Swedish International Development Cooperation

Agency (SIDA), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Some of the activities carried out by ReSAKSS

to date include mapping livestock value chains in the IGAD region, identifying the status and trends of public

agricultural expenditures in COMESA, EAC and IGAD and exploiting opportunities in intra-regional trade in

food staples in COMESA region among others.

11. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) is a non-profit institution, and member of the

CGIAR. It generates agricultural innovations to meet Africa’s most pressing challenges so as improve

livelihoods, enhance food and nutrition security, increase employment and preserve natural resource

integrity. IITA works with various partners within the thirty five sub-Saharan countries where it operates.

In 2015, USAID East Africa Regional Mission contributing $5 million, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (on the

behalf of the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA)) contributing $10 million, and USDA-FAS

funded the first aflatoxin biocontrol modular plant & second factory in Africa under the Technology Transfer

and Commercialization Project (ATTC) 2015-2020. The plant was jointly built and owned by Kenya

Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) & IITA. IITA & USDA-ARS provided technical

support & turnkey construction. Construction, installation, pre-certification and commissioning have been

completed, commercialization and creating/driving market demand is ongoing

IITA has also provided technical support to EAC in the development of EAC Strategy and Action Plan on

Aflatoxin Prevention and Control, trained country experts and produced 11 evidence-based technical papers

that informed the regional strategy. IITA has also participated in the development of 9 policy briefs on what

countries need to do to control Aflatoxin in support of the development of country plans.

12. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

(ASARECA)

ASARECA is a not-for-profit sub-regional organization of the National Agricultural Research Systems

(NARS) consisting of 11 member countries, namely: Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. ASARECA works

with scientists, agricultural extension officers and strategic partners from member countries, as well as

regional and international A4RD institutions to catalyze and promote cross-border collaboration in

agricultural research that leads to effective and efficient impact across the region. This is achieved through

sharing and promoting knowledge as well as coming up with innovative solutions to agricultural challenges.

USAID has supported ASARECA since 1994. From 2002- 2011, through a two 5-year Cooperative

Agreements, USAID provided ASARECA with a total of $20 million. The funds supported the organization’s

Secretariat activities - governance, developing capacity in administration and finance, program management

and partnerships, and the development of policy guidelines for ASARECA. Five new units were established

to support programs as well as targeted research and technology dissemination activities. Seven new

programs were launched. The research portfolio included research into staple crops, non-staple crops,

livestock and fisheries, agro-biodiversity and biotechnology, natural resource management and forestry,

policy analysis and advocacy, up-scaling and knowledge management.


With support from USAID, ASARECA was able to: Provide support to the planning and implementation of

CAADP Pillar IV in partnership with FAO, GIZ and NCPA; support implementation of four biotechnology

projects – i.e. the Marker-assisted breeding of the Stay-Green trait of Sorghum to enhance terminal drought

tolerance in Eastern Africa through the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II; support the

participation of PAAP in EAC and COMESA work on harmonizing staple crops standards to enhance trade

in EAC and COMESA countries; support Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network (ECRABREN)

on research on new bean varieties; among others.

13. The African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR)

AU-IBAR has a mission to provide leadership in the development of animal resources for Africa through

supporting and empowering AU Member States and Regional Economic Communities to coordinate and

harmonize disease control policies, strategies and legal frameworks.

USAID has funded various projects implemented by AU-IBAR, including: the Pastoral Livelihoods Programme

(PLP); Animal Resource Information System (ARIS); North Eastern Pastoral Development Programme

(NEPDP); Early Detection Reporting and Surveillance-Avian Influenza in Africa (EDRASAIA); and Standard

Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH).

Under Feed the Future Programme, USAID provided $7.75m to AU-IBAR to implement the SMP-AH

project from March 2012-March 2017. The aim of the project was to standardize procedures for detection

of, and response to, specified trade‐significant TADs, in line with OIE standards, so that the animal and

human health status of the importing countries is protected. The project covers IGAD member states which

include Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, the Sudan, South Sudan and Uganda.

The key activities under SMP-AH project included: supporting the participating countries to develop and

implement Standards Methods and Procedures, adapted to the Greater Horn of Africa region, for control of

trade-related transboundary animal diseases (TADs) in line with OIE standards; supporting capacity building

in disease surveillance to mitigate the risk of introduction of diseases to importing countries, live animals

from the region, destined for export are held in quarantine stations prior to export; and supporting the

North Eastern Africa Livestock council (NEALCO).


References

Africa Lead II.

https://www.africaleadftf.org/.

Africa Lead year two annual report (2015).

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/AFRICA-LEAD-ANNUAL-REPORT-OCT-

2015.pdf

ASARECA (2014) Impact Evaluation of ASARECA Operational Plan 1 and Development Objectives and

Documentation of Lessons Learned. Final Report (by: Kate Wellard, May Sengendo, Haroon Sseguya,

Sheba Ndagire, Stephen Mugarura and William Otim-Nape; Natural Resources Institute, University Of

Greenwich with Africa Innovations Institute). ASARECA, February 2014.

Brief on Aflasafe Modular Manufacturing Plant at KALRO-Katumani, Kenya.

CABI (2017) Fall armyworm impacts and implications: Evidence note, September 2017. CABI, 144pp.

CIMMYT (2015) Distribution and impact of maize lethal necrosis in Kenya: Brief on a working paper. May

2015.

COMESA briefer_ September (2017).

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/01_COMESA_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf

COMESA Mid Term Strategic Plan (2016-2020). Lusaka Zambia.

http://www.comesa.int

CTA (2018). Improving the Evidence Base on Aflatoxin Contamination and Exposure in Africa: Strengthening

the Agriculture-Nutrition Nexus, by Sheila Okoth. The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural

Cooperation (CTA) Working Paper 16/13, November 2018.

Day et al. (2017) Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa. In: Outlooks on Pest Management –

October (2017). DOI:10.1564/v28_oct_02.

DuPont (2012). Role of Technology in Agriculture.

http://foodsecurity.dupont.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DuPont-Agriculture-Committee-The-

Role-of-Technology-in-Agriculture.pdf

EAC (2016). Annual Report. East Africa Report to the People.

EAC briefer September (2017).

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/02_EAC_fact_sheet_Sept_2017.pdf

East Africa Regional Livestock trade Stakeholders Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya February 22-23, (2017).

East African Community Development Strategy 2011-2016. Deepening and Accelerating Integration. EAC,

Arusha, (2011). https://www.eac.int

FAO (2009). Draft Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security, World Summit on Food Security,

Rome, 16-18 November, (2009). FAO, WSFS 2009/2.

https://www.africaleadftf.org/

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/AFRICA-LEAD-ANNUAL-REPORT-OCT-2015.pdf

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/AFRICA-LEAD-ANNUAL-REPORT-OCT-2015.pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/01_COMESA_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf

http://www.comesa.int/

http://foodsecurity.dupont.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DuPont-Agriculture-Committee-The-Role-of-Technology-in-Agriculture.pdf

http://foodsecurity.dupont.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DuPont-Agriculture-Committee-The-Role-of-Technology-in-Agriculture.pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/02_EAC_fact_sheet_Sept_2017.pdf

https://www.eac.int/


Feed the Future (2016). Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II) annual

report: Annual report project year 3 / fiscal year 2016.

Feed the Future (2018). Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition.

Editors: Prasanna, B. M., Huesing, J. E., Eddy, R., & Peschke, V. M. USAID/CIMMYT/CGIAR, January

2018.

https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/fall-armyworm-africa-guide-integrated-pest-management-first-

edition.

Feed the Future (2017): Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead II) Annual

Report (2017).

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/AfricaLeadAnnualReportFY17PublicFINAL.pd

f.

Feed the Future: Building Capacity for African Agricultural Transformation (Africa Lead ii) annual report:

October (2013) - September (2014). https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Africa-

Lead-II_Annual Report_FY14_12.09.14_final.pdf

Gong Y, Cardwell K, Wild C, et al. (2002a). Dietary Aflatoxin Exposure and Impaired Growth in Young

Children from Benin and Togo: Cross Sectional Study. British Medical Journal, Clinical Research

Edition, July 6.

Gong YY, Egal S, Hounsa A, Turner PC, Hall AJ, Cardwell KF, et al. (2002b). Determinants of aflatoxin

exposure in young children from Benin and Togo, West Africa: the critical role of weaning. Int J

Epidemiol. 32:556–562. [PubMed].

Hawkes. C., and Ruel, M.T. (2011). Value Chains for Nutrition. In: Leveraging agriculture for improving

nutrition and health, 2020 Conference Report, (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research

Institute, 2011.

Hutchins, S.H. and P.J. Gehring (1993) Perspective on the Value, Regulation, and Objective Utilization of Pest

Control Technology. Amer. Entomol. 39: 12-15.

IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Ethiopia. http://www.resilience.igad.int.

IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Kenya. http://www.resilience.igad.int.

IDDRSI Country Progress Summary Report, Uganda. http://www.resilience.igad.int.

IGAD (2016) Mid Term Review of the 1st Phase, (2013-2017) of the Implementation of the Igad Drought

Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Strategy.

IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI). The IDDRSI Strategy. IGAD,

Djibouti, (2013).

Union, A. (2014). Malabo declaration on accelerated agricultural growth and transformation for shared

prosperity and improved livelihoods. Doc. assembly/au/2 (xxiii). Malabo, Guinea Bissau: African Union.

Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and

Improved Livelihood.

https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/fall-armyworm-africa-guide-integrated-pest-management-first-edition



https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/AfricaLeadAnnualReportFY17PublicFINAL.pdf

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/AfricaLeadAnnualReportFY17PublicFINAL.pdf

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Africa-Lead-II_Annual

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Africa-Lead-II_Annual

http://www.resilience.igad.int/




McDermott, J., Aït-Aïssa, M., Morel, J., & Rapando, N. (2013). Agriculture and household nutrition security:

Development practice and research needs. Food Security, 5, 667–678.

ReSAKSS. https://www.ilri.org/RegionalStrategic.

UNICEF/WHO/World Bank (2017). Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition. UNICEF / WHO / World Bank

Group Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates Key findings of the 2017 edition [https://data.unicef.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/06/JME-2017_brochure_June-25.pdf].

USAID (2011). Evaluation of USAID/East Africa Support to The Association For Strengthening Agricultural

Research In Eastern And Central Africa (ASARECA) August 2011 Report.

USAID (2015). Evaluation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Trade Policy Constraints within the Maize and

Livestock/Animal-Sources Products Value Chains in East Africa.

USAID (2016). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID Support for the East African Community (EAC).

USAID Nairobi.

USAID (2016). Synthesis of Evaluations Related to Feed the Future Learning Agenda. USAID, Nairobi.

USAID (2017), IGAD briefer -September 2017.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/03_IGAD_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf.

USAID (2018). Hub Factsheet_September 2018.

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AL-FY16-Annual-Report_public.pdf.

USAID (2018). Mid Term Performance Evaluation of USAID Support for the East Africa Community (EAC).

USAID, Nairobi.

USAID/East Africa Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy, (2011-2015).

USAID/East Africa Resilience Learning Project. Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-

AH) project. External Evaluation Report (2016) USAID, Nairobi.

https://www.ilri.org/RegionalStrategic

https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/JME-2017_brochure_June-25.pdf

https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/JME-2017_brochure_June-25.pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/03_IGAD_briefer_Sept_2017.pdf

https://www.africaleadftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AL-FY16-Annual-Report_public.pdf