Executive Summary. Background: About SFOAP and its pilot phase ( ) The SFOAP main phase ( ): Building momentum

Transcription

1

2

3 Executive Summary The past two decades have witnessed an unprecedented development of farmers and rural producers organizations (FOs) throughout Africa. FOs enjoy growing recognition as the representatives of the farming community at the national, regional and international levels. The United Nations declared 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives and 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming. These events acknowledge the invaluable role that FOs play in shaping policies for agriculture and sustainable development, providing services to smallholders, generating employment and social integration, reducing poverty and enhancing food security. Today, there are tens of thousands of grass-roots FOs across Africa. Most play a dual role: as producers groups or cooperatives they provide services to their members and they represent their members interests with other stakeholders, including agricultural policymakers, business partners and development projects. Many grass-roots FOs set up local unions and federations that are joined to national umbrella organizations. These organizations have established five regional networks in Africa: Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF); Plateforme Sous-Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d Afrique Centrale (PROPAC); Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l Afrique de l Ouest (ROPPA); Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU); and Union Maghrébine des Agriculteurs (UMAGRI). Background: About SFOAP and its pilot phase ( ) The Support to Farmers Organizations in Africa Programme (SFOAP) was a pilot programme launched in 2009 to strengthen the capacity of FOs in African countries and their regional and pan-african networks. It was the first continental programme in Africa to be initiated by the four regional networks of FOs in sub-saharan Africa (EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA and SACAU) to work together with a single programme in support of the institutional development of their organizations at all levels. SFOAP implementers: The pilot phase supported 55 national organizations in 39 countries, their four regional networks in sub-saharan Africa and the establishment of the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO). Donors: European Union (EUR 5 million) and IFAD (US$1.5 million) Main results: Increased management capacity benefiting national farmers organizations. Staff secured for day-to-day management and financial accounting Accountability of FOs to their membership base, internal democracy and governance. The development of more than 31 among constitutional texts, manuals of procedure, strategic plans and institutional databases strengthened the corporate governance of FOs. Also, 43 governing body meetings and 106 consultations among FOs members were organized FOs as players in policy processes. FOs developed more than 44 policy positions and attended local, national and regional policy forums improving their recognition, reputation and credibility among governments, local authorities and partners African FOs launched the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO), the first continental organization of African farmers The SFOAP main phase ( ): Building momentum The SFOAP helps African FOs to evolve into more stable, performing and accountable organizations that effectively represent their members and advise them on farming enterprises. The main phase builds on the successes and lessons learned from the pilot phase and scales up programme activities and outreach. The design fully integrates the main recommendations from the independent evaluation of the pilot phase. The programme aims to further strengthen and consolidate the institutional capacities of FOs and give them a greater say in agricultural policies and programmes. In addition, the main phase supports the development of FOs economic services to facilitate the integration of smallholder farmers in value chains. The support focuses on a limited number of cases to assess their results and impact and systematize the successful experiences through knowledge generation and sharing. The inclusion of a fifth regional network, the UMAGRI has expanded the geographical area of the main phase to the North Africa region. The programme now supports 68 national farmers organizations (NFOs) in 49 countries, their five regional networks and the PAFO. Programme financing and partners IFAD supervises and co-finances the SFOAP main phase. The European Union (EU), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Agence Française de Développement (AFD) provide funding through IFAD. The total cost of the programme is EUR 19.9 i

4 million, which includes a contribution from the EU of EUR 15 million. The SFOAP is a major component of the EU, IFAD, SDC and AFD partnership for strengthening FOs worldwide through direct support to capacity-building. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) provide additional technical support. AgriCord, a key programme partner, is implementing a highly complementary programme, Farmers Fighting Poverty/AFRICA partly funded by the EU through IFAD. FFP/AFRICA and SFOAP are the two components of Farmers Africa: a wider programme supporting African FOs. The total cost of the programme is EUR 40 million, which includes a contribution from the EU of EUR 26.9 million. A toolbox for capacity-building SFOAP activities are organized around institutional and organizational strengthening, involvement in policy processes and providing economic services. The institutional strengthening component provides FOs with: Strategic tools such as constitutional texts and membership databases Staff, equipment and resources Training and expertise Consultation with members and communication Knowledge generation and sharing The component on policy processes helps FOs to: Conduct policy studies and analyses Promote meetings to forge common policy positions Carry out advocacy and lobbying activities Support the monitoring of policy implementation The component on provision of economic services supports FOs to: Provide advisory services for integration into value chains Generate, share and capitalize on knowledge and experiences A fourth component supports the operationalization of PAFO to enable it to actively participate in political dialogue at pan-african and international levels. Unifying principles throughout the programme Ownership: FOs define objectives and activities based on their respective strategic plans Flexibility: The programme is adaptable to emerging opportunities, the evolution of smallholder priorities and to the international agenda for the agriculture sector Subsidiarity: The principle of subsidiarity guides the programme and determines the attribution of responsibilities in the implementation of activities in order to maximize synergies and complementarities between the different levels of intervention Coordination with complementary projects: Coordination is ensured to develop synergies between different projects and interventions at national and regional levels and to learn from their experiences Peer learning and inclusiveness: Peer-to-peer support and knowledge-sharing from country-level activities are promoted, and the regional and continental networks play a key role to develop linkages and facilitate networking and exchanges at all levels Mainstream gender and youth: Focus on women and young people is at the core of the programme and special interventions are developed to promote their participation Implementation responsibilities Funds go to regional networks, which then channel them to NFOs. The regional networks are responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of activities within their region. NFOs are the co-implementers of the programme and are responsible for the execution of national activities. In North Africa, implementation arrangements follow a dual approach. Complementary to and in cooperation with the direct institutional support provided to UMAGRI, the Formation pour l Épanouissement et le Renouveau de la Terre (Fert) an agri-agency member of AgriCord develops and pilots test tools for NFOs to provide tailored services to poorer members, principally geared towards inclusion in value chains. ii

5 UMAGRI Tunis Ouagadougou Yaounde Nairobi Pretoria EAFF Confedération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le Développement (CAPAD), Burundi Djibouti Agro-Pastoralist Association, Djibouti Cooperative Centrale du Nord-Kivu (COOCENKI), DRC Fèdèration des organisations Producteurs du Congo au Nord-Kivu (FOPAC), DRC Ligue Des Organisations Des Fèmmes Paysannes Du Congo (LOFEPACO), DRC Syndicat De Defense Des Interests Paysans (SYDIP), DRC Oromia Coffee Farmers Co-operative Union (OCFCU), Ethiopia Oromia Pastoralists Association, Ethiopia National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW), Eritrea Syndicat Rwandais des Agriculteurs et Eleveurs (INGABO), Rwanda National Co-operative Confederation of Rwanda (NCCR), Rwanda South Sudan Agricultural Producers Union (SSAPU), South Sudan Uganda National Farmers Federation (UNFFE), Uganda Uganda Co-operative Alliance (UCA), Uganda National Union for Coffee Agribusinesses and Farm Enterprise (NUCAFE), Uganda Mtandao wa Vikundi Vya Wakulima wa Tanzania (MVIWATA), United Rep. of Tanzania Tanzania Federation of Co-operatives (TFC), United Rep. of Tanzania Agricultural Council of Tanzania (ACT), United Rep. of Tanzania Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP), Kenya Kenya Livestock Producers Association (KLPA), Kenya Co-operative Alliance of Kenya (CAK), Kenya Rwanda Farmers Federation (IMBARAGA), Rwanda National FOs in black are directly benefiting from the Programme. PROPAC ROPPA SACAU UMAGRI Confederaçoa das associacoes de camponesese cooperativas agropecuarias de Angola (UNACA), Angola Plate-forme Nationale des Organisations Paysannes et des producteurs Agricoles du Bénin (PNOPPA), Benin Botswana Agricultural Union (BAU), Botswana Union Nationale des Paysans Algériens (UNPA), Algeria Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Burundi (CNOP Burundi), Burundi Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Cameroun (CNOP-CAM), Cameroon Conseil National de Concertation des Producteurs Ruraux du Tchad (CNCPRT), Chad Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes de Centrafrique (CNOP CAF), Central African Republic Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Congo (CNOP Congo), Congo Federation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes de la Guinée Equatoriale (FENOCGE), Equatorial Guinea Confédération Paysanne du Congo (COPACO), DRC Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Gabon (CNOP Gabon), Gabon Fédération Nationale des Petits Producteurs de Sao Tome et Principe (FENAPA STP), Sao Tomé and Principe Confédération paysanne du Faso (CPF), Burkina Faso National Coordinating Organisation for Farmer Associations of The Gambia (NACOFAG), Gambia Farmers Organisations Network of Ghana (FONG), Ghana Conseil national des Organisations Paysannes de Guinée (CNOP-G), Guinea Quadro nacional de Concertacão das Organizaçoes Camponeses e productores agricolas da Guiné Bissau (QCOPGB), Guinea Bissau Association nationale des Organisations de Producteurs agricoles de Côte d Ivoire (ANOPACI), Ivory Coast Liberian farmers Union Network, Liberia Coordination nationale des Organisations paysannes du Mali (CNOP-M), Mali Plateforme paysanne du Niger (PFP-N), Niger Lesotho National Agricultural Union ENAFU), Lesotho Coalition of Farmers Organizations (CPM), Madagascar Confédération des Agriculteurs Malagasy (FEKRITAMA), Madagascar Farmers Union of Malawi, Malawi National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi, Malawi Uniao Nacional de Componesses, Mozambique Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU), Namibia Namibia Agricultural Union, Namibia Seychelles Farmers Association (SeyFA), Seychelles Agri-South Africa, South Africa Swaziland National Agricultural Union (SNAU), Swaziland Agricultural Council of Tanzania (ACT), United Rep. of Tanzania Conseil national de Concertation et de Coopération des ruraux (CNCR), Senegal Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU), Zambia National Farmers Association of Sierra Leone (NAFSL), Sierra Leone Commercial Farmers Union, Zimbabwe Coordination togolaise des Organisations paysannes et de Producteurs agricoles (CTOP), Togo Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU), Zimbabwe Central Agricultural Cooperative Union (CACU), Egypt Syndicat Général des Agriculteurs et Eleveurs Libyens, Libya Fédération Mauritanienne de l Agriculture, Mauritania Union Marocaine de l Agriculture (UMA), Morocco Sudanese Farmers and Pastoralists Union, Sudan Union Tunisienne de l Agriculture et de la Pêche (UTAP), Tunisia

6

7 Table of contents I. Main summary report Appendix 1 SFOAP s Logframe Appendix 2 Agreement at Completion Point on main findings from the Final Evaluation of the SFOAP pilot Phase Appendix 3 RFOs membership Appendix 4 Implementation arrangements in North Africa II. Regional programme documents.. 44 Programme document of the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO) Programme document of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF) Programme document of the Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d Afrique Centrale (PROPAC) Programme document of the Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l Afrique de l Ouest (ROPPA) Programme document of the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) Programme document for the North African region (the Union Maghrébine des Agriculteurs UMAGRI - and the Formation pour l épanouissement et le renouveau de la terre - Fert)

8

9 SUPPORT TO FARMERS ORGANIZATIONS IN AFRICA PROGRAMME (SFOAP) MAIN PHASE MAIN SUMMARY REPORT

10 2

11 Table of Contents RATIONALE Regional, sector context and problems analysis Problem and institutional analysis: SFOAP pilot phase results and lessons learnt DESCRIPTION Strategy and approach Targets and geographical coverage Objectives (global and specific) Outcomes, expected results and main activities Crosscutting Issues Communication and visibility Complementary actions and donor coordination IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES IFAD as the implementing partner Implementation responsibilities Reporting, planning and disbursement modalities Results based monitoring and evaluation BUDGET AND WORKPLAN Programme cost and financing Tentative workplan and timing PROJECT RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY Risks, assumptions and mitigation measures included Factors ensuring sustainability...31 Appendix 1 SFOAP s Logframe Appendix 2 Agreement at Completion Point on main findings from the Final Evaluation of the SFOAP pilot Phase Appendix 3 RFOs membership Appendix 4 Implementation arrangements in North Africa 3

12 List of Acronyms AAF AFD AGRA ASARECA AU AWPB CAADP CEMAC CFA CFS CILSS COMESA CTA EAFF EABC EAC EC ECCAS ECOWAP ECOWAS ENPI FAFO FANRPAN FAO FARA FFP FIRCA FOSCA FSTP FOs GAFSP HLTF KIT KM LOA MDTF NFOs MDG M&E NEPAD NFO PAFO PAU POW PTA PROPAC RFOs ROPPA SACAU SADC SAPs SCCROEA SDC TAF UEMOA UMAGRI WCA WECARD/CORAF African Agriculture Fund Agence Française de Développement Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa African Union Annual Work Plan and Budget Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Economic and Monetary Union of Central African States Comprehensive Framework for Action Committee on Food Security Comité permanent Inter Etats de Lutte Contre la Sécheresse au Sahel Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation East African Farmers Federation East Africa Business Council East Africa Community European Commission Economic Community of Central African States Regional Agricultural Policy for West Africa of the ECOWAS Economic Community Of West African States European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument Farmers Forum Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network Food and Agriculture Organization Forum for African Agriculture Research Farmers Fighting Poverty Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles Farm Organization Support Centre for Africa Food Security Thematic Programme Farmers Organizations Global Agriculture and Food Security Program United Nations System High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis Royal Tropical Institute Knowledge Management Lois d Orientation Agricole Multi-Donor Trust Fund National Farmers Organizations Millennium Development Goal Monitoring and Evaluation New Partnership for Africa s Development National Farmers Organisation Pan-African Farmer Organization Politique Agricole de l UEMOA Programme of Work Policy and Technical Advisory Division (IFAD) Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d Afrique Centrale Regional Farmers Organizations Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l Afrique de l Ouest Southern Africa Confederation of Agriculture Unions Southern African Development Community Structural Adjustment Programs Swedish Cooperative Centre Regional Office for East Africa Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Technical Assistance Facility Commission del Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine Union Maghrebine des Agriculteurs West and Central Africa Division (IFAD) West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development

13 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report RATIONALE 1.1. Regional, sector context and problems analysis Poverty in Africa is predominantly rural with more than 70% of the continent s poor people living in rural areas, of which more than 60% lives on less than US$1.25 a day, and almost 90% on less than US$2/day 1. Africa, with the highest incidence of rural poverty, is one of the regions worst affected by poverty and hunger and which has the highest prevalence of under-nourishment relative to its population (32%). Agriculture remains the backbone of African economies as it employs nearly 65% of the labour force 2. Nonetheless, low productivity, low levels of investment in agriculture, inappropriate policies, thin and uncompetitive markets, weak rural infrastructure, inadequate production and financial services, and a deteriorating natural resource base have strongly contributed to creating an environment in which it has frequently been unprofitable for smallholders to feed themselves, to participate in agricultural markets and earn an income from farming 3. Smallholder farmers, the vast majority of African agricultural producers, remain vulnerable to market volatility, unpredictable policies and to the effects of climate change as illustrated by the recent food security crisis and the slow progress towards Millennium Development Goal 1 (eradicate extreme hunger and poverty) in sub Saharan Africa. The recent international crisis has added an extra burden to African countries, and it is calculated that that in sub-saharan Africa, it would leave an additional 20 million people living in extreme poverty by In recent years, there has been renewed interest in agriculture as a key driver of development and poverty reduction. It is increasingly recognized that growth in the agriculture sector is twice as effective at reducing poverty as growth in other sectors and agriculture development has a crucial role in enhancing food security of both rural and urban population. Agriculture, if better suited to meeting new environmental and market risks and opportunities facing smallholders, can remain a primary engine of rural growth and poverty reduction 4. Since the creation of the United Nations System High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) and the updated (2010) Comprehensive Framework for Action (CFA) there has been a massive effort to encourage greater investment in food and nutrition security at the global level. The CFA prioritizes environmental sustainability and gender equity as the prerequisites for improved nutrition and to enable poor women and men to enjoy their right to food. The CFA acknowledges that, while States have the primary role in ensuring food and nutrition security for all, the organizations of smallholder farmers and agriculture workers have a major role to play in the elaboration and implementation of national plans for food and nutrition security. Similarly, the Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP) of the European Commission addresses structural causes of food insecurity at global, continental, regional and national levels, putting agriculture at the heart of international debate on development. In its Thematic Strategic Paper adopted in , one of the 3 strategic priorities is to "Strengthened governance approaches for food security". A common theme is the 'participation for governance', under which it is recognized that key stakeholders in food security governance, such as farmers' organisations, should play a more pro-active part in food security dialogue, policy formulation and implementation, and lesson learning and should be supported to achieve this. The financing of the European Commission to this Programme is a contribution to this strategic priority. In this context, the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) is contributing to address the underfunding of country and regional agriculture and food security strategic investment plans developed by countries in consultation with donors and stakeholders. Nonetheless, investments alone cannot present the quick fix to respond 1 IFAD, Rural Poverty Report World Bank, Fact Sheet: The World Bank and Agriculture in Africa 3 IFAD Rural Poverty Report IFAD Rural Poverty Report European Commission. Document C/2010/9263. Food Security Thematic Programme, Thematic Strategic Paper (Update) and Multiannual Indicative Programme

14 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report to the challenges confronted by agriculture. Policies need to define the terms and conditions for the articulation of investment programmes and the accompanying regulatory frameworks to tackle rural problematic. In Africa, some policy space is being created through the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) which supports African countries in articulating a path of economic growth through agriculture-led development to eliminate hunger, reduce poverty and food insecurity and to enable the expansion of exports. Within this context the last two decades has witnessed an unprecedented development of farmers organizations throughout Africa. The emerging role played by FOs in representing farmers voice in the policy arena has scaled up from the grassroots up to the most recent creation the Pan-African Farmers Organization supported by the pilot phase of the SFOAP. At the national level farmers are currently being represented by national platforms in almost all African counties and during the last decade FOs started to get organized at regional levels. Five Regional Farmer Organizations represent today the views of farmers across Africa: the East African Farmers Federation (EAFF), the Plateforme Sous-régionale des Organisations Paysannes d Afrique Centrale (PROPAC), the Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l Afrique de l Ouest (ROPPA), the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) and the Union Maghrebine des Agriculteurs (UMAGRI). The five regional FO networks have taken significant steps to build up their collaboration over the past years. On May 2008 they met in Addis Ababa to exchange information and find possible solutions to the food crisis. In this meeting the decision of creating a Pan-African Platform of Farmers Organizations and Agricultural Producers was accepted by the five networks in order to tackle the continent-wide crisis caused by high food prices and its implications to food security. The process culminated in 2010 with the creation of the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO), the first continental platform of African FOs. African FOs can play a crucial part in tackling the challenge of reducing rural poverty and enhancing food security. They articulate and represent the concerns, interests and solutions of producers that have gathered around them so that their voices could be heard by other economic actors and by the governments and development partners. They can effectively influence and even shape the decision making process of agricultural policies and strategies bearing an impact on small producers. They also take on the development of key economic and technical services for their members to support their profitable engagement into agricultural value chains. Membership-based organizations have a key role to play in helping rural people reduce risk, learn new techniques and skills, manage individual and collective assets, and market their produce. Nonetheless the level of FOs organizational and institutional development and government awareness on FOs role is a variable of the level of country economic and social development and depending on opportunities for the structuring a bottom-up organization representing smallholder farmers. It is therefore important to support FOs professionalism by adopting an holistic and coherent approach from the ground up, supporting FOs to strengthen their capacity to provide services to their members, to get into policy dialogue with evidence-based analysis, and to have farmers voice heard at the highest policy level and capable to influence and shape global policy dialogue processes Problem and institutional analysis: SFOAP pilot phase results and lessons learnt The pilot phase of SFOAP was initially a three-year programme 6 aiming (i) at strengthening the institutional capacities of the four RFOs of Sub-Saharan Africa (EAFF, SACAU, PROPAC and ROPPA), of their member organisations (national platforms), and of the PAFO, and (ii) at developing their abilities to represent the interests of smallholder farmers and to influence relevant policy processes. The programme was financed by the EC for a total of EUR 5 million over , and IFAD was engaged as an implementing partner. IFAD was also co-financing the programme with USD 1.5 million over The main innovative feature of the SFOAP was that the programme was completely demand-driven and led primarily by the RFOs. Regional programmes of activities were based on priority requirements of recipient organizations as identified by themselves to ensure that programmed activities contribute to the achievement of FOs constitutional 6 Duration extended to 45 months. 6

15 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report mandates and of strategic objectives as set forth by constitutional organs. This approach reflected donors and partners recognition of RFOs legitimacy and capacity to determine, together with their national affiliates, what their priorities are and how they want to address them. A wealth of lessons emerged both from the implementation of the programme and the independent final evaluation, and guided the design and formulation of the main phase. They were discussed with the RFOs during the detailed formulation, which took place in late 2011 and first semester 2012 and during a workshop held in Nairobi in September 2012 with all the RFOs and the donors of the new phase. Final independent evaluation of the SFOAP pilot phase (EC financing) An independent evaluation of the pilot phase of the SFOAP has been financed by the EC in The final evaluation assessed the SFOAP following the OECD evaluation criteria. Box 1 below shows the main findings of the evaluation while further details are provided in Appendix 2. OECD evaluation criteria Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability Main findings Relevance of SFOAP is high. Strengthening FOs at all levels is a logical and necessary means of contributing to improved livelihoods, food security and poverty reduction of smallholder farmers, but the expectations were unrealistic for such a short timeframe (initially 3 years). The SFOAP has major outcomes but there is a need for consolidation. SFOAP effectiveness has been satisfactory. SFOAP has contributed to FOs emerging as significant rural development actors and imposed themselves on sectorial institutions. Their governance, legitimacy, reputation, credibility and visibility have all been significantly improved. Similarly, their representativeness and capacity to interrelate with their members, to communicate and manage information has been strengthened. Combined with an increased networking capacity as well as their heightened reputation, this has enabled them to become almost unavoidable actors in agricultural policy identification processes. In terms of efficiency, the main problem had been the administrative, financial and reporting process which were (and perceived to be) complicated and time consuming. Nevertheless, as a continental project SFOAP has operated with relatively limited funds but achieved significant results though much still remains to be done. The programme has demonstrated good capacity to adapt to the variety of needs of an extremely diverse FO population operating in no less diverse conditions. The programme s having worked on the basis of FO strategic plans and AWPB is undoubtedly one of the reasons for this adaptability. Though it has not been possible to measure it concretely, impact on farming community poverty can be said to exist when FOs advocacy has influenced policy change: input subsidies, budget increases, trade policies. Impact is strongest with less mature FOs but significant in all cases. Sustainability is still a challenge and donor support is prominent in the budgets of all NFOs and RFOs. Financial sustainability needs to be promoted during the SFOAP main phase to increase accountability of FOs vis-à-vis their members and not to the donors. Box 2 below summarizes main recommendations from the evaluation and the measures taken to embed them into the new design process. Such recommendations were discussed and agreed with EC, IFAD and RFOs representatives, on the occasion of an end-of-evaluation workshop 8. Box 2 : Recommendations from the independent Evaluation Subject Observations and recommendations from the final evaluation Knowledge Management (KM) and communication among FOs There is need to promote exchange and better coordination between NFOs from same countries and, more generally, to promote exchange between FOs in order to identify issues of common concern and build on the successes or failures of various FOs. How observations and recommendations were taken into account in the design of main phase Peer learning, review and exchange between FOs at all levels will be a key asset of SFOAP main phase (particularly under subcomponent 1.2). As was the case during 2012 within the pilot phase, supervision missions will be an additional opportunity to further improve and 7 CRIS Reference: Contract N See Final evaluation report of the SFOAP pilot phase. 8 See the appendix "Agreement at completion point" of the final evaluation report of the SFOAP pilot phase. 7

16 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report strengthen linkages among RFOs through peer-to-peer support and learning through joint supervision missions with the involvement of peers (see section 3.4 for more details). Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Approach and use of funds Synergies with other programmes and visibility Gender and youth Financial sustainability Disbursement and reporting The M&E and reporting function of the programme should be improved. SFOAP M&E/Reporting procedures should be designed as a tool for FOs (for planning future actions, for KM and exchange between FOs and donors) and evolve from the FO M&E system. As there are many more NFOs than RFOs and NFOs represent the bases of RFOs strength, distribution and/or use of project resources should be tilted more toward NFOs. With few exceptions the final evaluation mission hardly identified concrete synergies with other programmes in the countries visited. In view of the observed absence of knowledge of the programme among the actors met, programme s and donors visibility was qualified of very poor. In future, more importance must be placed on the synergies and articulations that SFOAP develops with other programmes, particularly country-based programmes aimed at FO strengthening (EC and other financial partners). The promotion of women and youth participation and integration in the activities of FOs should be improved through the development of strategies, mechanisms and tools and the implementation of activities specifically targeting them. A gender/age sensitive M&E system should also be developed. Financial sustainability still represents a challenge. FOs should set for themselves clear progressive targets towards financial sustainability and diversify types and sources of funding. Also, FOs should diversify types and sources of funding and develop capacity to tap development funds. From the point of view of the efficiency of programme design, the main limitation has been the complicated administrative, financial and reporting processes and the necessity of waiting for completion by all 4 RFOs before any new disbursement could occur. This has led to repeated delays in funding and it has been a major obstacle to the timely implementation of project activities. This has been particularly crucial for small FOs that do not have access to other sources for pre-funding their activities. A consensus exists on the need to improve disbursement procedures and monitoring procedures and it is recommended during the next phase of SFOAP to develop more flexible rules for A result-oriented M&E system will be articulated at the start-up of the programme. IFAD will provide FOs support for the development of an M&E framework combining the support from a specialised consultant, the initial indications from the formulation missions and the support from the partnership established with AgriCord. The M&E framework for the SFOAP will be based on RFOs existing M&E systems, enabling RFOs to easily extract from their M&E systems the information needed to report and regularly monitor progress related to SFOAP implementation. During SFOAP pilot phase approximately 40% of resources were allocated for regional level activities while 60% for national level ones. Within SFOAP main phase 20 % of funds will be allocated for activities at the regional level while 80 % of funds for activities implemented at the national level and/or directly benefitting NFOs. The approach of SFOAP main phase particularly took into account this lesson learnt and will support the development of linkages with development partners and other agriculture stakeholders. Coordination will be ensured during SFOAP implementation also with a view to develop synergies between different projects, including IFAD and EC country programmes, and to learn from their various experiences. The visibility of the donors, EC included, will be improved, especially at national level. Gender and youth are considered as cross-cutting issues and specific activities and measures will be undertaken to fully promote the quantity and quality of their participation (see chapter 2.5 for further details). The main phase of SFOAP will focus on the issue of sustainability which is critical for FOs. FOs financial sustainability will be promoted through the new programme component - provision of economic services - aiming to improve quality of economic services to members for longterm prospects of sustainability. FOs will be also supported to establish concrete strategies to achieve financial sustainability and to implement these. In that regard, the systematic development of country-level partnerships might be an important entry point. The design of the programme took into account this lessons learnt and the proposed reporting procedures and disbursement modalities for SFOAP pilot phase reflect such preoccupation. During the main phase, requests of payment from IFAD to the EC will be based on IFAD reporting and planning (based on supervision missions reports) completed a few months later by the full annual technical reporting and planning, to be approved by the SFOAP Steering Committee (SC) (see chapter 3.3 for more details). 8

17 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report reporting and disbursement. Efficient and punctual disbursement procedures should be set up avoiding timeconsuming rescheduling. Disbursement modalities between IFAD and financial partners should not be linked to annual report approval by Steering Committee. Reception of funds in two currencies The reception of funds in two currencies (euros from EC contribution and US$ from IFAD contribution) has been a further complication leading to undue loss of funds due to repetitive currency changes under unfavourable terms. Given the role of IFAD in channelling funds to RFOs and on the basis of the lessons learnt from the pilot phase, all funding in support of the five networks will be pooled by IFAD. On this basis, IFAD will sign only one grant agreement with each of the RFOs. As a conclusion, the final evaluation confirmed the importance of continuing the programme in order to consolidate the first results, to build upon and to further develop the range of services (particularly economic) that FOs can offer to their members. This has been instrumental in the confirmation of donors support in the framework of a larger programme, in co-financing with IFAD, the EC, the SDC and the AFD 9. Thanks to this harmonization of collaboration and resources the SFOAP is becoming an important instrument of partnership with FOs in Africa. SFOAP pilot phase lessons learnt and problem analysis Main additional lessons learnt from the implementation are described below. Lessons learnt related to SFOAP expected outcomes, results and activities Institutional Development and support to FOs core functions. SFOAP pilot phase significantly contributed to improve the professionalization of FOs at both regional and national levels. The consolidation of FOs core functions such as professional financial and technical management, accountability towards their memberships, governance and transparency have all improved through financial support to FOs operational costs and technical backstopping by IFAD and RFOs to their members. Yet, most of the FOs supported are still unable to raise funding to effectively, efficiently, and autonomously covering the cost associated with their core functions. Nor, the FOs supported by SFOAP have developed a medium to long-term resource mobilization strategy based upon a blend of internal resources, para-fiscal support from the State (as in the case of Fonds Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles FIRCA; the national FO, ANOPACI in Ivory Cost), and long-term strategic partnerships matched by donor support. The support is then needed so as to consolidate the efforts of the pilot phase and should be complemented by an exit strategy in terms of support from the programme to FOs core functions - to be articulated since the second year of the main phase and implemented as of the third year. Such exit strategy would avoid a negative impact of FOs institutions once SFOAP support would phase out and would enable FOs to roll out a process for a sustainable approach to their funding requirements. FOs and their involvement in policy processes. Increased participation in policy processes, with the objective of actually influencing policy making, has been a central feature of the pilot phase and will remain critical for the SFOAP Main Phase. Through the program, a significant change has happened in terms of RFO and NFOs representation at policy making forums and RFOs are increasingly present in policy initiatives at regional and continental level, such as the CAADP processes. Some examples are provided below: o EAFF is increasingly being recognized as a strong and professional regional organization. Since the beginning of SFOAP, EAFF is now sitting in at least 14 new decision-making bodies of regional and continental organizations or policy fora and it has 6 new MOUs with key partners. EAFF was designated by COMESA as a signatory to the regional CAADP compact and the EAFF President sits on the Partnership Committee of the Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) for CAADP. o PROPAC developed partnerships with the regional integration bodies (i.e. CEEAC and CEMAC) and the administrative council of CORAF, PRASAC. Neither PROPAC, nor most of its members 9 AFD contribution to the programme is still under negotiation. 9

18 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report were in the position to engage in above-mentioned partnerships before they received SFOAP financing. Their recent profiling as policy and operational actors in the region can be seen for the most part as a significant result of the SFOAP programme. o Through the strengthened capacity of SACAU secretariat, the RFO is becoming a more and more important partner for consultation in the region, representing farmers at regional and continental forums organized by continental and regional bodies such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the CAADP, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union (AU) and the Forum for African Agriculture Research (FARA). SACAU is now represented in at least 11 key working groups or committees at regional and international levels. o ROPPA is increasingly recognised as smallholder representative in policy processes, and member of various Task Forces and consultative bodies on sector policies. The various trainings organised, and technical support delivered, supported NFOs engagement in the development of national and regional investment plans for agriculture (Benin), the design of investment projects under GAFSP and in the preparation of national orienting laws for agriculture in their various committees and technical groups (in Mali, Senegal). Nonetheless, engagement in important policy processes remains a challenge for a number of national FOs. Their influence has in most cases been limited due to still inadequate capacities to analyse policies, develop policy positions and negotiate for their positions. There is a need of substantial support to make policy process effective and policy activities at national level should be more streamlined with the regional policy work to avoid dispersion of funds and activities and to maximize the synergies at all levels for better impact, without imposing policy issues to the NFOs. The SFOAP main phase would concentrate on supporting NFOs in consolidating their positions through building their capacity in policy analysis and negotiation skills. NFOs will be encouraged to start with non-controversial and non-complex issues where they can easily engage in policy processes and learn by doing to gradually develop their capacity and confidence in addressing more complex issues. A Pan-African approach and the need of a comprehensive support. An innovative pan-african platform and network, the Pan-African Farmers Organization (PAFO), was established in October 2010 with SFOAP support. During the pilot phase, PAFO developed a clear mission statement, gained legal status and recognition as being the voice of Africa FOs. PAFO needs a new phase to become fully operational, roll out a policy programme and start activities at the pan-african level. In addition, the first phase contributed to improve the cooperation with the fifth African FOs network UMAGRI, the FOs network representing farmers at North Africa level. Hence the SFOAP main phase would be extended to the North Africa network a timely decision also in light of regional political and social changes and the potential space that genuine FOs representing of voice of smallholder farmers would contribute to shaping a policy process with an explicit support to family agriculture. Nonetheless, the approach for the North African component in terms of implementation arrangements will be different compared with the sub-saharan regions (further details are provided in chapter 3 Implementation issues). Other partnerships. Another lesson learnt from the SFOAP pilot phase is to use the SFOAP funding and support as catalytic ones to develop partnership and contracts with public (and donor) supported national programmes for agriculture and rural development. FOs are now more and more able to mobilize external support and engage in public investment projects thanks to their increased visibility and negotiating skills. An example of this result is the case of the national FO CAPAD in Burundi (EAFF), that was successfully involved in the formulation of two IFAD programs in Burundi (PAIVAB and PRODEFI), participates in their implementation and supports the structuring of cooperatives involved in the PAIVAB. Similarly, in June 2010 the national FO CNOP-CAM in Cameroon (PROPAC), signed a 6 years partnership within the Projet d Amélioration de la Compétitivité Agricole (PACA), financed by the World Bank and the Government of Cameroon. At the regional level, since 2009 EAFF has successfully lobbied for new programs worth over 1 million US dollars. These programs are the result of EAFF s lobbying activities that were supported by the project. IFAD Supervision missions were taken as an opportunity to organize meetings between IFAD-supported projects and NFOs in countries visited to develop linkages and seize opportunities and potential of collaboration. All the meetings revealed a strong interest on both sides and confirmed the potential of the collaboration. NFOs 10

19 SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report could participate as implementing partners in on-going projects and could play a more effective role in their policy and advocacy activities, by referring to on the ground experience. Annual supervision missions of a multidonor support programme as the SFOAP, will be instrumentally used to trigger these country-level partnerships and to develop annual calendars of collaboration between major donor-supported programmes and national FOs. 2. DESCRIPTION 2.1. Strategy and approach The identification of detailed activities to be carried out at the continental level and in each of the five regions is entrusted to PAFO, RFOs and their NFOs members, and it is based on different approaches in the five regions. However a number of common strategic orientations will guide programme implementation at all levels. Ensure ownership: as was the case for the pilot phase, all programmed activities, systems or strategies that will benefit from SFOAP resources will be based on PAFO and RFO/NFO strategic plans. However, the programming exercise also preserves flexibility in the course of implementation with a view to adapt detailed programming to results achieved in the course of the programme, but also to emerging opportunities, to the evolution of smallholder priorities or to the international agenda for the agriculture sector. There will be no parallel structures, mechanisms or activities specific to SFOAP implementation. Rather, programme activities and systems will be embedded in existing structures, which will contribute to enhanced ownership and stronger impact. A corollary of this orientation is that administrative and financial procedures used in implementing SFOAP resources will be harmonised as much as possible with general procedures applicable to all of the activities of recipient organisations (provided they respect commonly admitted standards). In parallel, the strengthening of RFOs capacities in terms of reporting and the development of an effective M&E system will be considered key to enable participating FOs to report on results achieved through the support of the Programme. Subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity will guide programme implementation and determine the attribution of responsibilities in the implementation of activities under programme components in order to maximise synergies and complementarities between the different levels of intervention. For this to be possible, subsidiary levels should be clear. Information on programme implementation at local, national, regional and continental levels will be shared and considered as mutually supportive. Coordination and consultation between national, regional and continental levels will be maintained through programme implementation to develop synergies, generate stronger impact and to ensure overall coherence. Build for the future: SFOAP resources target activities that contribute to structuring recipient organisations by setting up major building blocks required to support their institutional development: strategies, procedures, accounting and M&E systems. This will strengthen them as professional organisations, increase their effectiveness and sustainability, and also facilitate further mobilisation of resources with other development partners. Coordinate with complementary projects: Coordination will be ensured during SFOAP implementation also with a view to develop synergies between different projects and to learn from their various experiences. The main phase of SFOAP will particularly build synergies with the Farmers Fighting Poverty Food Security Initiatives of Farmers Organisations in a Regional Perspective (FFP/AFRICA) programme, implemented by AgriCord, through a Grant Agreement with IFAD. Peer learning and inclusiveness. The development of peer-to-peer support and knowledge sharing from countrylevel activities will be considered key for FOs institutional development and RFOs will play a key role to develop linkages and facilitate networking and exchanges at all levels (further details are provided in paragraph 3.4). Inclusiveness will be promoted, supported and encouraged. 11

20 2.2. Targets and geographical coverage SFOAP Main Phase Main Summary Report SFOAP target group consists of the membership of the PAFO and the five African RFOs and of their national members in countries which represents about over 52 million small farmers, of which more than 26 million are women (see table 1 below). They will all benefit from FOs increased capacities and professionalism to influence investments and policies in their favor. 47 NFOs in 39 countries would financially benefit from the SFOAP while all members of the five RFOs (68 NFOs) would benefit from regional and continental level activities. The NFOs that will directly benefit from the Programme may vary in the course of implementation on the basis of indications coming from RFOs, supervision mission and the Mid-term review. Table 1. RFOs membership (data compiled on the basis of information provided by the 5 RFOs) RFO # of national members # of second level organizations members (approx.) # of farmers represented (approx.) 11 EAFF PROPAC ROPPA SACAU 16 N.A UMAGRI TOTAL Regional Farmers Organizations. The five Regional Farmer Organizations EAFF, PROPAC, ROPPA, SACAU and UMAGRI represent the views of farmers across Africa and are recognized partners in the development of agricultural policies and programmes related to agriculture and rural development. To fulfill their objectives, RFOs mobilize a large range of stakeholders. They all have formal or informal partnerships with regional economic organizations, most of which are in the process of developing regional agriculture policies. They participate in policy networks such as the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network (FANRPAN), and are members of international research networks such as the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD). They participate in numerous policy conferences and other events addressing agriculture policy issues within their regions as well as at the continental and global levels. The five networks are undoubtedly playing an increasing role in regional and continental policy processes that are related to agricultural development and food security, and they enjoy growing recognition as the representatives of the farming community in their regions. Developing commonly agreed policy positions, conveying them to policy making forums and promoting their acceptance in such a complex and changing environment generates several challenges for the five RFOs, which have to cope with multiple and technically complex requirements while at the same time consolidating their structuring and supporting their NFO members. Eastern Africa Farmers Federation (EAFF) EAFF is a non-political, not-for-profit, democratic, regional umbrella network of small holder family farmers of Eastern Africa founded in Its membership is voluntary and it currently comprises 22 members between women organizations, commodity associations, cooperatives and advocacy based organizations that are apex in nature. It is present in nine (9) countries spread over East Africa Community (EAC) and the Horn of Africa (COMESA members) i.e. Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Kenya, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and DR Congo (Kivu region) and have a membership of over 20 million active farmers. 10 Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Congo, Cote d Ivoire, Djibouti, DRC Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome e Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, South Soudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe. 11 Information is extracted from RFOs formulation reports. Sources are different from one country to another (and from a region to another) and it is therefore difficult to aggregate and compare these numbers. 12