Response to Mid-Term Evaluation - Swaziland Agricultural Development Programme
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Response to Mid-Term Evaluation - Swaziland Agricultural Development Programme

  • 1,321 views
Uploaded on

Presentation made by Julien De Meyer, Agriculture Research Officer in FAO and Lead Technical officer of the Swaziland Agriculture Development Programme (SADP) on the results of the mid-term......

Presentation made by Julien De Meyer, Agriculture Research Officer in FAO and Lead Technical officer of the Swaziland Agriculture Development Programme (SADP) on the results of the mid-term evaluation. SADP was established in 2009 to revitalize agriculture and contribute to the creation of a vibrant commercial agricultural sector in Swaziland.
The presentation is based on a research master thesis and addresses SADP main issues and challenges, actions taken, results from a stakeholders survey and lessons learnt.

The SADP is a 5-years programme with funding from the European Union (EU) and FAO. It is implemented by the Government of Swaziland and FAO with a focus on improving smallholder crop and livestock production, research and extension service delivery and smallholder market-oriented agro-business development, the SADP fosters sustainable food security for rural households and contributes to increased equitable economic growth and development.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,321
On Slideshare
1,320
From Embeds
1
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 1

http://users.unjobs.org 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Response to Mid-Term EvaluationSwaziland Agricultural Development Programme (SADP) Julien de Meyer, Agricultural Research Officer (OEKR) Based on the research for an M. Sc thesis by Shen Yueming
  • 2. Outline1. Background2. What are SADP issues and challenges? What actions have been taken?3. Results from a stakeholders survey4. Lessons learnt
  • 3. Background• The 14 Million Euro Swaziland Agriculture Development Programme (SADP) is funded by the EU and FAO• Implementation period of 5 years: Jan. 2009 (signature) – Dec. 2013 (Effectively, activities on the ground only started when the full team was mobilized in October 2009)• Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) in June 2011.• MTE noted issues in the design and implementation of SADP and made 16 recommendations for improvement.
  • 4. What are SADP issues and challenges?What actions have been taken?General Design Management & Operation Delivery
  • 5. EU-fundingFAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government PS—PSC FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing budget holding PS—PTC TAT Other CTA NPD MOA MOA ministries, Heads NGOs and of Dept. stake- holders Technical advisors Focal Points Production Research & Service Marketing
  • 6. Issues – General Design1. Rapid design: Resulted in issues of buy-in & and lack of shared vision between MOA and SADP2. Ambitious: Large program with very diverse activities – Policy, Institutions strengthening, Individual capacities and infrastructure.3. Wrong assumptions: Nationally executed project overestimated institutional capacity and execution capability in MOA4. Institutional arrangement: Lack of clear definition of leadership, responsibilities and lines of reporting and communication (lead to Management issues)
  • 7. Issues – Management & Operation• Tri-partite leadership FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing• SADP compete with priorities in daily PS—PTC budget holding work of MOA staff• Focal points report to Heads of Departments not involved in SADP TAT• Misunderstanding of FAO advisory roles and performance issues. CTA NPD MOA• Institutional issues exacerbated by Heads practical shortcomings: of Dept. - Leadership issues - Inadequate team building - Lack of experience in FAO operation procedures Technical advisors Focal Points - Technical support service need underestimated - Capacity constraints within MOA
  • 8. Issues - Delivery• Significantly delayed, just over 30% of SADP funds have been spent and capital intensive activities (Dams, Investment Fund) are in final planning stage• Low delivery rate is a consequence of inception delay and worsened by management and operation issues.• Difficult to accelerate delivery due to original design issues – governance, focus and coherence• The MTE indicated a tray of pending areas which needed urgent catching-up and advised criteria for prioritization• Quality of service providers
  • 9. Actions - General Design• Prioritisation: 2011-2013 Operational Plan & 2011-2012 Fast Track Plan and development of Procurement Plan• Optimise Institutional Set-up : The SADP institutional arrangement rationalized, new institutional set up designed and approved by the Steering Committee – Development of a National Implementation Team (NIT) – Position of NPD redefined and creation of a "two-legged system" – Establishment of an Operations Officer (P3) position – HODs roles in SADP redefined – Redefine and simplify indicators for program activities• No full redesign: All elements of redesign implemented
  • 10. EU-funding FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Government PS—PSC FAOR Zimbabwe (SFS) – MOA – implementing budget holding PS—PTC TAT NITFAO Technical Task Other ministries, NGOs and stake- CTA NPD Heads holders Force Operation of Dept. Officer Technical advisors Focal Points Production Research & Service Marketing
  • 11. Actions - Management & Operation• SADP support and leadership structure: Change of leadership and role of advisers redefined and enhanced• Operations: Standard Operating Procedures, Specific training on FAO operations, delegation of authority to the CTA and Operations and Budgeting monitoring system adopted• FAO technical backstopping: Frequent missions with reporting and recommendations provided in country at the end of each mission, regular meeting of the Task force• Programme staff Performance: Revised ToRs for most positions, allowance provided for field activities, Team building and brainstorming workshops• Change Perception: Communication and Visibility Plan developed and implemented; changing negative perception about the project
  • 12. Actions - Delivery• Prioritizing process finalized with 35 priority outputs for SADP rationalized according to three categories: (i) Service deliveryinstitution, (ii) Nutrition, production and marketing and (iii) Infrastructure• Accelerated progress on pending activities not limited on those highlighted in MTE and in the movie, the CTA will present further on this issue: – Partners contracted; – Demonstration plots, Food and Nutrition Gardens; – Policies and Strategies developed in Research, Extension and Farmers Organization; – Infrastructure work
  • 13. Stakeholders perceptions
  • 14. Results from surveys show stakeholders generally think the actions are good, butnot yet good enoughIn general, most people feel SADP somewhat back onto the right track. 12 • Acknowledged noticeable 10 improvements in certain areas, including: 8 - Technical backstopping by FAO 6 (66% very/extremely well ); - Coordination/collaboration 4 between FAO’s TAT and MOA’s 2 NIT; - Working efficiency within the 0 SADP team; On right track? Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at all
  • 15. Current challenges and areas for future improvement EU-funding Lengthy Shared Vision FAO – technical advisory MEPD – representing Governmentadministrative PS—PSC processes FAOR Mozambique – MOA – implementing budget holding PS—PTC Operation TAT NIT Efficiency of Othe support CTA ASP r minis implementation Heads tries, of NGO Operatio Dept. s and n Officer stake Teamwork hold ers Motivation andTeambuilding Technical advisors Focal Points CommitmentQuality of local supplies Production Research & Service Marketing Capacity
  • 16. What did we learn?
  • 17. • Corrective actions are most efficient if they are part of a self-motivated learning process, not only as a response to an evaluation.• Simple organizational structure and concrete implementation pathways are better than over engineered design and complex organizational setups.• Correctional actions are short-term in nature , but they need to contribute to develop capacity for a Comprehensive Agricultural Development Program in Swaziland as set up in CAADP pillar IV.
  • 18. Lessons from the programme…• Allow enough time and funding for the design process to ensure common understanding• Include flexibility in implementation• When policy reform is planned then proven commitment by government prior to inception is essential• Strike the right balance between capacity development and delivery• Build a program with logical linkage across different components – avoid wish list of mini projects.• Simple institutional arrangement respecting existing hierarchy• Key position filled by people with institutional experience• Priorities...
  • 19. Thank you!