Trip Report Countries: Kenya and Malawi Program: Food for Progress Date: April/May 2013 Colin Miller Program Analyst FAD/OCBD/FAS/USDA Table of Contents List of Acronyms ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Land O’Lakes (Malawi) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 World Food Program (Malawi) …………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Planet Aid (Malawi) ………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. 11 TechnoServe (Kenya) ……………….………………………………………………………………………………. 16 World Food Program (Kenya) …………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Other Meetings …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23 Annex A: Itinerary …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26 1 List of Acronyms ASALs Arid and Semi-arid Lands (Kenya) CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CF Conservation Farming COP Chief of Party CSB Corn Soy Blend DAPP Development Assistance from People to People FAD Food Assistance Division FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FFPr Food for Progress FTC Feed the Children GFFEI Global Food for Education Initiative GOK Government of Kenya GOM Government of Malawi LOL Land O’Lakes International Development M4P Making Markets Work for the Poor M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MGD McGovern-Dole MT Metric Ton MIWD Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development (Malawi) NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement PPBG Poultry Producer Business Group TTC Teacher Training College USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USG United States Government WFP World Food Program VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association 2 Introduction Trip Purpose In April and May 2013 I traveled to Kenya and Malawi for a three week TDY with two objectives: • Monitor five active Food for Progress (FFPr) and McGovern-Dole (MGD) projects • Meet with various food aid stakeholders (USG officials, NGOs, etc.) Background Since 2000, USDA has provided approximately $203 million of food assistance to Kenya and $113 million of food assistance to Malawi through the 416(b), GFFEI, MGD, and FFPr programs. At the time of my TDY, the following food aid agreements were active in the region: Year Country Implementing Partner Program 2010 Kenya World Food Program McGovern-Dole 2011 2009 2009 2010 2011 Kenya Malawi Malawi Malawi Malawi TechnoServe Planet Aid FINCA International World Food Program Land O’Lakes Food for Progress Food for Progress Food for Progress McGovern-Dole Food for Progress Note that I did not make field visits to FINCA International’s FY2009 FFPr grant in Malawi because Susan Waage (of USDA’s Office of Capacity Building and Development) had recently visited this project. Food Assistance Division (FAD) management requested that my TDY focus on other projects that had not recently been monitored. Report Format This report discusses observations and findings for each grant agreement that I monitored, and each section focuses on one grant agreement and implementing partner. At the end of the report, I also discuss other meetings attended. 3 Planet Aid (Malawi) Agreement Background Under an FY 2006 FFPr agreement valued at approximately $20.7 million, Planet Aid monetized 30,000 MT of wheat to generate $10.8 million. Using these proceeds and a $600,000 cash grant, Planet Aid implemented a project with three distinct components: (1) organize and train “farmers clubs” to improve agricultural productivity and marketing; (2) carry out an HIV/AIDS awareness campaign (“Total Control of the Epidemic”) and provide complementary nutrition training, and (3) construct a teacher training college and train teachers. In FY 2009, USDA provided Planet Aid with a follow-on FFPr grant of 30,000 MT of wheat (monetized to generate $13.9 million) and approximately $1.9 million in cash. Planet Aid used this grant to continue all three activities with both new and existing beneficiaries. It should be noted that Planet Aid is a nonprofit pass-through entity based in the United States. Development Assistance from People to People (DAPP) Malawi implemented all activities under both FFPr grants. Both organizations – Planet Aid and DAPP – are members of an umbrella organization called Humana People to People (a.k.a. “the Federation”). Site Visits and Meetings • • • • • • Visited 3 “Farmers Clubs” in Southern and Central Regions Visited soy milk producer group Visited 2 DAPP Teacher Training Colleges in Southern and Central Regions Visited HIV/AIDS health campaign participants Met with HIV/AIDS nutrition and self-help group; observed cooking demonstration Met with Teacher Training College graduates, students, and parents Findings 1) Impressive Teacher Training Colleges After visiting two Teacher Training Colleges (TTCs) and meeting students, instructors, and administrators, I was impressed by the quality of education and overall mission. TTC students appeared well-prepared not just to be good teachers but also to be effective in Malawi’s resource-constrained education system. When visiting a school with teachers that had graduated from DAPP TTCs, the teachers seemed effective and energetic, especially when compared with the government-trained teachers that I met during WFP field visits. My assessment was confirmed by other stakeholders: throughout Malawi, government officials, World Food Program staff, and others spoke highly of DAPP’s TTCs. (One Ministry of Education official even admitted that DAPP’s TTCs are more effective than the GOM’s own TTCs.) 11 Despite these successes, I have minor concerns about the sustainability of DAPP’s TTCs. Currently, DAPP has no plan to handover its schools to the GOM, and per-student operating costs are too high to cover overhead through tuition alone. This means that the TTCs will be dependent on donor funding for the foreseeable future. However, DAPP defends its approach, and I agree: the GOM does not have the capacity to manage the colleges without reducing the quality of instruction. Exemption 6 #10 2) One-Size-Fits-All Development Approach During our field visits, DAPP’s Country Director, , explained that the Federation develops all project concepts (i.e. “Farmers’ Clubs,” “Total Control of the Epidemic,” etc.) at its headquarters in Zimbabwe. Local Federation affiliates (such as DAPP) then adjust the project to the local context. When asked for an example of how DAPP adjusted a project to the local context, explained that DAPP adjusted the Farmers Exemption 6 Club model to take into account Malawi’s small and crowded landholdings by using fewer #11 extension agents per household. However, DAPP maintained other unnecessarily inflexible aspects of the Federation’s project design. (For example, Farmers’ Clubs cannot have more than exactly 50 members.) In my view, the Federation and DAPP take a backward approach to project design: they develop a solution and then adapt it to a problem, rather than identifying a problem and then designing an appropriate solution. 3) Relationship with the Federation is Not Transparent Planet Aid is the prime recipient on both FFPr grants, while DAPP is the local implementing partner. Both organizations are members of the Federation. During my visits, DAPP management revealed that Planet Aid pays the Federation “approximately 6.5 percent” of the grant as a fee for project design, technical assistance, and support services. (This means Planet Aid paid the Federation approximately $1.8 million under the two FFPr grants.) When asked for examples of the Federation’s services, noted that the Federation provided Exemption 6 technical materials such as the TTCs’ curriculum and the Farmers Clubs’ training manuals. #12 The Federation also organizes frequent meetings in Zimbabwe for Federation members to “network and share lessons learned.” In my opinion, these services are difficult to value, and it is unclear whether they are worth $1.8 million. Furthermore, Planet Aid and the Federation do not have a subrecipient agreement; the Federation’s fee is paid with funds from the indirect cost line item. Planet Aid explained that its NICRA rate includes the Federation’s percentage-based membership fee, and therefore no subrecipient agreement is required. However, it is unclear why Planet Aid bills these costs indirectly: most of the Federation’s services are exclusively allocable to the FFPr project and should be billed directly, as stipulated by the 2 CFR 230 Cost Principles. 12 4) Monitoring System: Weak and Inaccurate During my field visits, I found DAPP and Planet Aid’s monitoring system to be deficient. Neither Planet Aid nor DAPP has any staff dedicated to M&E, which means that progress data is not independently collected or verified. Under agricultural production activities, for example, the Farmers Clubs collect data from members and report data to DAPP field agents (who also provide all agricultural training). These field agents review and remit all data to DAPP’s headquarters. The data is never independently checked for accuracy. I have several concerns about this approach. First, Farmers Club members are not trained to collect and analyze performance data, and many members have low-literacy and/or lownumeracy. As well, field agents may be incentivized to exaggerate monitoring data because the information reported (i.e. “percentage of farmers applying improved production techniques”) reflects on their job performance. These deficiencies may lead to inaccurate performance reporting. For example, I noted significant inconsistencies when I visited a Farmers Club in Dowa District. While touring a lead farmer’s maize plot that was cultivated using Conservation Farming (CF) techniques, I asked how many non-lead farmers also had adopted CF. DAPP staff noted that the CF adoption rate was approximately 95 percent. 3 (Planet Aid’s log/mon reports provided the same figure for the adoption of improved production techniques across the entire project.) However, as we walked past approximately 40 neighboring maize plots, I did not observe a single farmer utilizing CF. When asked, DAPP staff explained those 40 plots did not belong to Farmers’ Club members. I then asked to visit a non-lead farmers’ CF plot, and DAPP field staff noted that all examples were “too far away to visit.” I am reluctant to believe this information because we were accompanied by dozens of Farmers’ Club members who appeared to live and farm in the immediately surrounding community. As a result of these field visits, I cannot confirm the accuracy or integrity of Planet Aid’s performance data. 2F 5) Ineffective Agricultural Activities DAPP implements agricultural activities through a community-based approach, with an impressive extension agent to farmer ratio of 1:250. During my field visits, I met four lead farmers whose plots all looked excellent. One year after implementation had ended, all four farmers were still using the improved production techniques promoted by the project, and they expertly cited cost/benefit analysis to justify their planting decisions. (Nonetheless, these visits appeared highly staged, and I do not know if DAPP staff coached these lead farmers prior to my visit.) 3 Interestingly, the final evaluation of the FY2006 grant confirms my finding and contradicts Planet Aid’s reporting. It reads: “Adoption level of alternative technologies (conservation farming for example) is however still very low, both in terms of hectare and numbers of people willing to adopt apart from demonstration plots [sic].” 13 However, I did not observe any utilization of improved techniques and technologies by nonlead farmers. With regard to improved techniques: DAPP did not arrange any field visits with non-lead farmers even when I asked, so I cannot confirm that non-lead farmers learned and applied improved production techniques (as noted in Finding #4). With regard to improved technologies: the project promoted on-farm infrastructure (rope pumps and drip irrigation) that is cost-prohibitive for smallholder farmers. Although DAPP provided these technologies gratis to lead farmers, non-lead farmers were expected to purchase these items out-of-pocket. When asked, DAPP staff said that they did not know how many non-lead farmers had purchased these technologies, although they admitted that adoption had been minimal, most likely because of cost. (It is difficult to understand why DAPP promoted these technologies in the first place; many studies have documented that drip irrigation, for example, is not cost-effective for smallholder farmers. 4) 3F One bright spot in DAPP’s agricultural interventions was the livestock pass-on scheme. Farmers’ Club members spoke highly of the scheme, and it appeared to be functioning quite well during field visits. DAPP’s impact evaluation documented a significant expansion in livestock ownership over the life of the project, mostly due to the pass-on scheme. 6) Ineffective Value Addition Activities Through the Farmers’ Club activity, DAPP provided Vita Goat 5 machines to several clubs so that members can produce soymilk and generate additional income. When I asked DAPP if these enterprises were profitable at such a small scale, staff explained that the Vita Goats “increased incomes because they allow farmers to add value to their produce” and that “soymilk sells for more money than raw soybeans alone.” DAPP staff did not appear to understand business concepts such as overhead, revenue, and net profit. 4F While visiting a Vita Goat enterprise (cooperatively owned by several Farmers Clubs), we discussed the business’s earnings and calculated the following: the 150-member cooperative earns approximately 4,500 Malawian Kwatcha per week, or 234,000 Kwatcha per year. At 410 Kwatcha per dollar, each farmer-member earned approximately $3.80 per year. (This calculation is conservative: we did not account for overhead, although the cooperative incurred electricity costs, and farmers that provided raw soybeans took home a slightly higher share of earnings.) We also discussed the challenges of marketing soymilk, a product that most Malawians have never heard of or tasted. This visit confirmed that smallscale soymilk production is not profitable, parituclarly in a country with almost no demand for it. Overall, DAPP’s value addition activities completely missed the mark. 4 Belder P, Rohrbach D, Twomlow S and Senzanje A. 2007. Can drip irrigation improve the livelihoods of smallholders? Available: http://www.icrisat.org/journal/volume5/aes/aes3.pdf. Vita Goat machines are a jerry-rigged bicycle used to crush soybeans for soymilk production. (See: http://malnutrition.org/vitagoat.php.) 5 14 Recommendations 1) Collect and Review Subrecipient Agreements At the time of my TDY, Planet Aid had not submitted any signed subrecipient agreements, although submission is required by the grant agreement. Because a subrecipient implemented all project activities, I recommend that FAS collect and closely review these agreements. (Action taken: since returning from TDY, I have collected and filed all subrecipient agreements.) 2) Collect and Review Impact Evaluations DAPP/Malawi conducted several external impact evaluations under both the FY 2006 and FY 2009 grants (using USDA funds). I recommend that FAS collect and review these documents. 3) Research Federation Fees and NICRA I was unable to determine why Planet Aid paid the Federation a 6.5 percent membership fee using grant funds restricted to indirect costs. I recommend that FAS research Planet Aid’s NICRA and accounting system to determine whether or not these membership fees are an allowable indirect cost. (The NICRA itself does not specify.) If the Federation’s membership fee is not an allowable indirect cost, FAS should disallow the cost. 15